Browsers (Was: A very basic blog about D)

[Nick Sabalausky]

On Mon, 15 Jul 2013 16:23:39 +0200
"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think XP started the downhill trend, maybe 
> even 2000, with changing the explorer around. I really liked it 
> in Win95 - it just got the job done in a simple, straightforward 
> way.
> 

For me, XP was the peak of Windows and Vista started the consistent
decline. I do like how from 2k on you can take a non-dual pane explorer
window and make the treeview pane appear by just clicking one button.
The "tasks" pane is useless, but you can easily make the treeview pane
the default. OTOH, one of my biggest XP annoyances is that unlike Win7,
XP doesn't *always* respect your "default to treeview instead of tasks
pane" setting (ex: if you open a directory via an icon on the desktop).

> That said though, I don't have too much trouble with the newer 
> Windowses. I actually like Vista!
> 

Heh, I tend to be kinda mixed on "Vista vs Win7". Win7 is a little less
buggy (I'm actually trying to repair my mom's Vista machine even as I
type this), but Vista doesn't have that horrible MS Dock taskbar
replacement, or that infinitely obnoxious and never helpful "popup
window screenshots *every* freaking time your mouse goes near the
dock" (I went through soooo much trouble to finally get rid of those on
my Win7 machine - which I would have already converted to an XP box if
it wasn't a laptop.)

Neither Vista nor 7 let me have my XP-style "all programs" menu without
using the third party "Classic Shell" utility (which I *highly*
recommend for any post-XP user - it's an essential part of making Win7
tolerable IMO.)

I do actually like a lot of the ribbon stuff though. I don't see what
the big problem is, it's just a toolbar with better grouping and a
better more varied set of UI controls. Win7's MS Paint is the best
version by far. (not that that's saying a lot being MS paint, but it's
always come in handy now and then.)

> > Yup. So depressingly true. And what's really bizarre about it 
> > is that a LOT of that JS is specifically in the name of speeding
> > up the site ("Because you don't have to redownload *all* 1k of
> > HTML on every link!")
> 
> Oh yeah, I have to deal with this a lot too. The big thing is 
> even in ideal situations, an ajax request is likely about the 
> same speed as a full refresh, since on most sites, it is 
> dominated by request latency anyway! If it takes 50 ms for your 
> signal to cross the internet and 5ms to generate the ajax and 
> 10ms to generate the full page.... the whole ajax thing only 
> saved you maybe 10% of the already very fast speed.
> 

Exactly.

And on top of that, most ajaxy sites will actually perform ajax
requests *during initial page load*! That's so damn pointless. For
god's sake, if something's supposed to show by default, then *just bake
it into the page itself*! The only time JS *ever* needs to run upon
page load is to undo any non-JS fallbacks.

> (If your site takes longer than 50ms to load, I think you've 
> gotta spend some time in the profiler regardless.)
> 

I don't think anyone who uses Ajax ever does any profiling. (I'm not
even being sarcastic. I really doubt that any more than maybe 0.1% of
Ajax devs do even basic handheld-stopwatch profiling, especially on any
browser that isn't V8.)

> 
> Important to get this working though is to set the right cache 
> headers on everything. And I betcha that's where people make 
> mistakes. I like to cache those ajax answers too when I do have 
> to use them, because killing the server round trip latency is a 
> huge win.
> 

Yea, it is easy (and frankly, very tempting!) to overlook HTTP cache
settings.

> If you're using it from a CDN so the browser has cached bytecode 
> (or whatever they do), you can get it reasonably quickly, about 
> 10ms added if you reference it.
> 
> ....but that's actually pretty rare. I don't remember the number, 
> but there was a survey of web traffic that found a big percentage 
> of users aren't cached.

Interesting. I wonder why exactly that is.

> And if you are slow for first time users, 
> how much you want to bet they'll just hit back, try the next 
> guy's link, and never return?
> 

Yup. Hell, I know *I* do that. Why go playing some random web
developer's game of "set up your browser to be how I think it should
be" when there's twenty other search hits I can just use instead?

> [JQuery] has some nice things in it, but just isn't worth making my 
> site 5x slower than it would be without it.

That's a pretty good summary of it.

> > Just so I can do as much as I can without putting up
> > with a unified forward/back, browser skin, address bar with
> > unicorn-rainbow-vomit Fisher-Price-sized text, or all that UI
> > over-minimalism.
> 
> Let me show you what my firefox looks like:
> 
> http://arsdnet.net/firefox.png
> 
> I had to change a few settings to get it there, but I think this 
> isn't too bad at all, and as you can see, it is a fairly new 
> version. (I'm probably 10 versions behind again, it has been like 
> three months!!!!! but meh.)
> 

Hmm, yea, that's not too bad, although I have found Linux FF tends to
have a better default UI (that is, matches the system better) than
Windows FF anyway. The whole unified forward/back still annoys the hell
out of me though (actually, that doesn't appear to even *have* the
dropdown thing - another "modern FF" blunder), and so does the unified
"stop/reload" (not that browser "stop" buttons have *ever* actually
worked at all).

>(I'm probably 10 versions behind again, it has been like 
> three months!!!!! but meh.)

Heh, yea, that's the whole Chrome-envy thing again. Everyone wants to
be Chrome, even if their users use the browser because it *isn't*
Chrome. Kinda like how MS is obsessively trying to be Apple even though
90% of desktops are Windows *because* Windows isn't Mac.

> > Heh, I can't stand tiny TVs (I don't even like using portable 
> > game systems).
> 
> Maybe I'm weird, but I don't like *big* tvs. Too much light, 
> weird movement just looks wrong to my eyes, and watching them for 
> a while hurts my brain, literally, I get headaches.
> 
> Might not all be size itself, could be the high def, frame 
> interpolation, lcd tech, whatever, but I just really prefer my 
> old tvs.

TVs are another thing I could go on and on about. My XBox1 and Wii look
great on my 30ish-inch SD CRT (especially XBox Doom3 - that looks like
a freaking PS3 game), but using the exact same connectors they look
like total shit on my sister's fancy new Samsung 1080p LCD. Blurry as
hell no matter what the settings, and ghosts like crazy in any dark
scenes. Remember the old Sega GameGear's crappy LCD? That's what the
normally-great-looking Doom3 looks like on that "modern" HD LCD.

The PS3, of course, looks much better on the HD LCD than an SD CRT (at
least when HDMI is used). Although for most games it's not nearly as
much of a difference as you'd think. Call of Duty Modern Warfare on PS3
looks pretty much equally fantastic either way.

Screen size makes much more of a difference on PS3 than resolution.
Probably at least 95% of PS3 games I've tried include text that's so
damn *small* that's it's barely readable on even a 29" set *regardless*
of resolution, and 29" *is* a perfectly respectable size. Gamedevs
don't seem to realize that higher resolution doesn't make miniature
text any bigger. They seem to think that everyone's playing on a
fucking 45+" screen or sitting two feet away like they do during
development. Or (like CliffyB) just don't give a shit about anyone who
isn't just as much of a graphics whore and tech geek as they are.

> I have a 19" that I watch when I'm on the other side of 
> the house (the room it is in is a long one, spanning the house's 
> entire 30-some foot width) and a 13" one that is about 7 feet 
> away from my computer desk that I watch a lot when sitting here.
> 
> Both televisions are from the 80's, but they still work quite 
> well so like Rick Astley, I'm never gonna give them up.
> 

I would actually like to have a huge fancy HD set (provided I didn't
have to pay much for it). *But* only in *addition* to my SD CRT (if I
could find a way to actually fit them both in the living room). There's
so much SD content out there that will never magically become HD (at
least without requiring me to re-purchase the same damn stuff), and
such things just look like absolute total shit on these supposedly
great HD sets.

It's no wonder so many people think HD is such an *enormous*
improvement over SD - they've been brainwashed by their HD sets into
thinking that SD is far far worse than what it *really* was. Really HD
is only a moderate improvement if you compare it to a *real* SD set
instead of "SD on an HD set".

> 
> Interestingly too, I had a PS3 briefly. I say briefly because the 
> piece of shit died on my before I even owned it for two full 
> months.

Ouch. Usually it's the MS hardware that dies. And I don't just mean 360
red-rings. The Zune1 practically had an always-on self-destruct
sequence. And I've had to do far more repairs to my XBox1 than my PS2
or GameCube (One bent controller port pin on my PS2, and no problems
ever on the GC, but lots of issues on the XBox1 even though it's my
favorite from that generation.)

> Maybe that's what I get for getting a cheap one on ebay, 
> but the new prices are just unacceptably high.

Yea, it's nearly EOL and the new price is *still* what a launch-day
system should cost. There's a good chain of used-game/video stores out
my way call The Exchange <http://theexchange.com/> which tend to be
very good. Used PS3s there are only around $120-$150 depending on model
and stock. I assume GameStop is probably similar, though I haven't
looked. That's still high for a, what, 7-year-old system, but
ultimately a decent buy all things considered.  That's where mine is
from and it's been working fine.

The problem with buying hardware on ebay is that there's no middle
party trying to prevent the buyer from ending up with a dud. (There's
ebay itself, but they can't do as much as a brick-and-mortar trade shop
can.) With ebay, unless there's a failure out-of-the-box then you're
pretty much screwed. I've been bitten by that before, too.

> Regardless, my 
> playstation (one) was used too, and it still works. So was my 
> super nintendo, etc. They all still work. I think they just don't 
> make 'em like they used to.

Yup. 'Course, cartridge contacts wear out, and so do lasers, but still
hardware is designed to be constantly replaced now and stuff just
doesn't last. Especially smartphones - reliability on those is by far
the worst. They're probably about on par with the older XBox 360 models.

> 
> Anyway, playing the ps3 on my friend's 32 inch high def tv hurts 
> me horribly. My eyes get tired after about an hour. I thought it 
> was maybe just because I'm getting too old for this shit, but 
> then I played the very same game at my house on my little tv and 
> was able to go 5 hours before feeling tired. It still fucked me 
> up - lost sleep

That's strange. I wonder if maybe you're one of those people that's
sensitive to the subtle flicker in backlights. Or maybe there's
something about the lighting in the room that just doesn't mix well
with the LCD, I've heard of that sort of issue before.

> > And it really gets me how touchscreen devices are promoted with 
> > the idealized concept of "touch" even though they *eliminate* 
> > tactile sensation.
> 
> Yup. And it is too easy to accidentally hit "buttons" and not 
> know it. I was watching the tour de france on the ipad yesterday 
> when the puppy had to go outside. I carried it with me figuring I 
> can still watch it... but apparently my shirt brushed up against 
> the screen and it interpreted that as a swipe motion that turned 
> off the live stream!
> 

Yea, they need a "hold" switch like my portable music player has.

> Ugh! And there's other crap about the ipad too: changing the 
> brightness means turning off the stream, slowly finding your way 
> to settings, hitting that thing, sliding the bar up, then getting 
> back to the video.
> 

I could go on forever about iOS goofiness.