Firebird's got a new download manager! Help testing!

Discussion of general topics about Mozilla Firefox
Locked
Zeron
Posts: 1067
Joined: March 6th, 2003, 3:33 pm
Contact:

Post by Zeron »

Pardon me, but the "bloat" is the new DLM. Going from simple to something more complicated at least implies getting a little bigger.

Opera is bloated, no doubt about that. No debate here.

But as for what I said, somehow you managed to completely fall off the edge of what I'm saying. I'm talking about Firebird being slim, with only features being implemented as needed. Slim means not bloated. Slim means keeping basics in, and expanding as needed with extensions on a per-user basis.

Where is our miscommunication? I think we're on the same line here, AFAICT...
johnleemk
Posts: 1464
Joined: October 29th, 2003, 6:19 am
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Post by johnleemk »

[quote]

But as for what I said, somehow you managed to completely fall off the edge of what I'm saying. I'm talking about Firebird being slim, with only features being implemented as needed. Slim means not bloated. Slim means keeping basics in, and expanding as needed with extensions on a per-user basis.
/quote]
Then we fundamentally disagree on the download manager. Personally, I don't consider it bloat because it's a feature IE doesn't have, and yet it's not nearly as complicated as Opera's download manager. It's just right for me. Maybe you and I disagree.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050205 Firefox/1.0+
Zeron
Posts: 1067
Joined: March 6th, 2003, 3:33 pm
Contact:

Post by Zeron »

johnleemk wrote:
But as for what I said, somehow you managed to completely fall off the edge of what I'm saying. I'm talking about Firebird being slim, with only features being implemented as needed. Slim means not bloated. Slim means keeping basics in, and expanding as needed with extensions on a per-user basis.

Then we fundamentally disagree on the download manager. Personally, I don't consider it bloat because it's a feature IE doesn't have, and yet it's not nearly as complicated as Opera's download manager. It's just right for me. Maybe you and I disagree.


I wouldn't hate it being included or even enabled by default (though I would prefer it didn't, but that's another story). Nor do I even care if it adds significant size to the file, within reason, of course. But should not there be an option to set it back to the old, simple way? Not everyone likes it, for various reasons:

- Dislike/prefer different design
- Lack of/too much functionality
- Would rather use their own DLM software (if/when it becomes possible to seamlessly intergrate it...)

I guess I would say my main problem is what I would like to expect from Firebird--how should I describe this? Well, kind of like Linux. While I don't run it as my primary OS, I like the idea of how there's a base system that you have, and you can expand on it practically infinitely however you want. That's my idea of an "ideal browser": A base program with an engine that can be extended however the user wants. Even basic functions like browser rendering would all be extensible, with different modules for different renderers, etc. I think Jabber might be similar in idea to what I'm thinking of also, but I'm not sure.

...

Anyway, I've ranted too much now. It's far too late in development in Firebird to impose my selfish vision on it, anyway. =P As long as in the future 3rd party download managers can interface <i>properly</i>, I don't care that much.

Heck, and the ironic thing is, I'm doing all this defending and I've never even tried a build with the new DLM in it yet. Well, one can still debate over what one sees and hears...

P.S. Any good programmers here want to attempt my vision of the perfect browser? =P
User avatar
scratch
Posts: 4942
Joined: November 6th, 2002, 1:27 am
Location: Massachusetts

Post by scratch »

Zeron wrote:Pardon me, but the "bloat" is the new DLM. Going from simple to something more complicated at least implies getting a little bigger.

but there already was a download manager in the form of a sidebar, and there also was the option for progress dialogs. now there is only the download manager. so I think that there's a reasonable possibility that FB is now smaller than it was.

aside from that, even if you do consider the replacement of the progress dialogs with the download manager to be bloat, wouldn't you agree that having both methods would be even more bloat?
Zeron
Posts: 1067
Joined: March 6th, 2003, 3:33 pm
Contact:

Post by Zeron »

scratch wrote:aside from that, even if you do consider the replacement of the progress dialogs with the download manager to be bloat, wouldn't you agree that having both methods would be even more bloat?


Well, how about using the old simple method built-in, and users wanting the new DLM can download an official extension provided by Mozilla to use it? Shaves a few kilobytes off the filesize, and lets people pick whatever they prefer to use.
johnleemk
Posts: 1464
Joined: October 29th, 2003, 6:19 am
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Post by johnleemk »

Well, how about using the old simple method built-in, and users wanting the new DLM can download an official extension provided by Mozilla to use it? Shaves a few kilobytes off the filesize, and lets people pick whatever they prefer to use.

The old method is not bloat. There's little reason to take it out except for people who don't get used to it. Instead, the opposite of what you stated is planned.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050205 Firefox/1.0+
TychoQuad
Posts: 1263
Joined: December 11th, 2002, 12:30 am
Location: Australia

Post by TychoQuad »

Zeron wrote:Well, how about using the old simple method built-in, and users wanting the new DLM can download an official extension provided by Mozilla to use it? Shaves a few kilobytes off the filesize, and lets people pick whatever they prefer to use.


Or even better: how about using the new simple manager built-in, and users wanting the old single windows can download an extension to use it? Shaves a few kilobytes off the filesize, and lets people pick whatever they prefer to use.
Zeron
Posts: 1067
Joined: March 6th, 2003, 3:33 pm
Contact:

Post by Zeron »

TychoQuad wrote:Or even better: how about using the new simple manager built-in, and users wanting the old single windows can download an extension to use it? Shaves a few kilobytes off the filesize, and lets people pick whatever they prefer to use.


You mean to tell me the new images, windows, options, and code in general takes LESS kilobytes than the old one? I'd be quite surprised...

johnleemk wrote:The old method is not bloat. There's little reason to take it out except for people who don't get used to it. Instead, the opposite of what you stated is planned.


It makes more sense if the smaller one was implemented, and the larger one could be installed anytime someone wants.

Edit: Misquoted.
Last edited by Zeron on December 16th, 2003, 1:50 am, edited 2 times in total.
TychoQuad
Posts: 1263
Joined: December 11th, 2002, 12:30 am
Location: Australia

Post by TychoQuad »

Firstly Zeron, that second quote was johnleemk's, not mine,

As for size, you'll have to ask ben what the difference is, however, I very much doubt it would take more than a couple of kilobytes of difference, and once all bugs are fixed, no performance difference whatsoever. Actually, the new download manager could actually be smaller than the old one, they did also remove the download sidebar in the process, as for the images well, as far as I can tell, they were all in firebird already, ben just linked to them.

And what do you mean windowS? there's only one with the new manager, while the old one was at least 2. (a single download window and the download sidebar, which is as much as a window as anything else in firebird, we are talking about XML anyway.)
Zeron
Posts: 1067
Joined: March 6th, 2003, 3:33 pm
Contact:

Post by Zeron »

TychoQuad wrote:Firstly Zeron, that second quote was johnleemk's, not mine,


My apologies, I wasn't paying much attention. Fixed.

TychoQuad wrote:As for size, you'll have to ask ben what the difference is, however, I very much doubt it would take more than a couple of kilobytes of difference, and once all bugs are fixed, no performance difference whatsoever. Actually, the new download manager could actually be smaller than the old one, they did also remove the download sidebar in the process, as for the images well, as far as I can tell, they were all in firebird already, ben just linked to them.


True... I suppose we'll see how that pans out by the next milestone.

TychoQuad wrote:And what do you mean windowS? there's only one with the new manager, while the old one was at least 2. (a single download window and the download sidebar, which is as much as a window as anything else in firebird, we are talking about XML anyway.)


I must've not been thinking clearly, again. My mistake.

Anyhoo, I'll refrain from any more comments on this until I see it in 0.8. I'm not even going to try it until then, too many things will change or break.
Kevin Ar18
Posts: 165
Joined: October 25th, 2003, 4:41 pm

Post by Kevin Ar18 »

I would like to report some "problems" or pitfalls that I have found to using the the download manager. Whether, they have been posted before, I am not sure. However, I didn't really want to read through all 16 pages of this thread to make sure.

Performance Issues:

1) It brought my system to a crawl. When I first downloaded the build with the download manager, my computer would slow down to a crawl (almost a lockup) everytime I downloaded a file. Then it would take a long time for the download manager to appear. Since that time, I have erased the contents of the download manager, and this problem has completely gone away. Whether this issue will come back, I don't know.

2) The download manager window is not very responsive. My cursor moves slowly across it (not at the just the edges). Scrolling the download manager is very jerky. Selecting (highlighting) items in the download manager once again causes a delay and is jerkly. It's like playing a 3D game on a video card that can only do a few FPS.


Useability Issues:

3) Whether this has been resolved or not, I don't know, but upon first using the download manager, it never asked where I wanted to save the files. They just went to my desktop, and for a while I could not figure out what happened to my files.

4) The current method to indicate that the file is done downloading is inadequate. (First, let me note that download manager does not pop-up when I download a file, although I have it set to do that. So, once that's fixed, I think that this issue will be resolved.) Anyways, the only way that I know that a file is done downloading is via the pop-up in the lower right-hand corner. However, if the user misses this pop-up, he does not know whether the file is done downloading or not.

Lack of useful information:
In addition to the other issues, the download manager lacks a lot of useful information that was available in the old download system.

5) As mentioned in #4, the download manager does not appear when downloading files. As such, the only notice is the pop-up in the lower right-hand corner. However, the problem with this, is that I do not know which file is done downloading. (Once the issue is resolved about the download manager appearing, then this issue will probably be irrelevant. I'm not sure if I configured something wrong, or if it's a bug.)

6) There is no "speed" indicator that tells how fast you are downloading. I found this feature useful in some cases to see how my connection was doing and how fast it was going. I could also tell if a website was sending me the file at a rate much slower than I could handle. In the past, with IE (which was a long time ago), I would switch to a download splitter if the download speed was not fast enough. Without a speed indicator, it will not be possible for people to do this.

7) The download manager does not indicate the URL it is downloading from.
This inforamtion was useful back in the days when I used download managers (which was a long time ago). I could copy and past the URL to the download manager if the server was not sending the file fast enough. Thus, I suspect other people may find this information useful as well.

8) The download manager does not indicate the directory it is saving to. I don't recall a specific example of why this information was helpful, however I do recall needing it while using the new download manager system. The alternative was to go through a more tedious process of doing what I wanted to do. It's also helpful to know simply what is going on and to remember what you were doing.


Notes about the performance issues.
I have a guess as to why the performance issues are present. There is a feature called "per pixel alpha blending" that was introduced by Geforce and higher video cards. Any cards before the Geforce era will not have this feature and thus will have slowdowns when alpha blending is done. The way the cheap computers are configured today, they try to save as much money as they can. Thus, for the basic systems, they may not waste money on a good 3D card, and instead opt for a pre-Geforce era type card (an Nvidia Vanta being one example).

Note about the useability issues:
I believe that these issues are resolveable without getting rid of the download manager. However, compared to the old system, I have to do much more work to both find the files and open the files I downloaded.

Note about the lack of information:
For power users, information is very helpful. Even for regular users, it is helpful as well. The current system lacks a number of pieces of information that helped me keep organized (and remember things) during the download process. Without the information I also have to do much more work for certain tasks.
mdriftmeyer
Posts: 33
Joined: October 25th, 2003, 10:58 pm
Contact:

Post by mdriftmeyer »

I haven't played with a nightly on Debian Sid but from the looks of it I'll not fret over the "bloat" of the new download manager.

But can we actually get CSS 2.1 full compliance? Is this such a monumentally difficult task or is it less "sexy" and therefore lower on the wow list of what a browser can do?

Afterall, nothing like having to wait 4 years for any browser to finally meet a specifications requirements, fully(referring to CSS 1 & 2 here).
User avatar
NooBee
Posts: 190
Joined: December 4th, 2003, 9:20 pm
Location: Alberta
Contact:

Post by NooBee »

Is there a way to have another download manager like Star or Flashget intercept large downloads? This seemed to work automatically until I installed one of the builds with the new download manager. With only a dial-up connection, I desire acceleration on my downloads, and I don't think thats available on FB's dlm. Or is it?

Also, just wondering.. wouldn't it have been better to make the new download manager available as an extention instead?

Aside from that, I think it looks great ! :)
johnleemk
Posts: 1464
Joined: October 29th, 2003, 6:19 am
Location: Malaysia
Contact:

Post by johnleemk »

1) It brought my system to a crawl. When I first downloaded the build with the download manager, my computer would slow down to a crawl (almost a lockup) everytime I downloaded a file. Then it would take a long time for the download manager to appear. Since that time, I have erased the contents of the download manager, and this problem has completely gone away. Whether this issue will come back, I don't know.

Known problem. Workaround: Delete your download history.

2) The download manager window is not very responsive. My cursor moves slowly across it (not at the just the edges). Scrolling the download manager is very jerky. Selecting (highlighting) items in the download manager once again causes a delay and is jerkly. It's like playing a 3D game on a video card that can only do a few FPS.

I do not experience this problem.

3) Whether this has been resolved or not, I don't know, but upon first using the download manager, it never asked where I wanted to save the files. They just went to my desktop, and for a while I could not figure out what happened to my files.

I can't remember, but this bug existed some time ago. It's a quick fix in the preferences.

4) The current method to indicate that the file is done downloading is inadequate. (First, let me note that download manager does not pop-up when I download a file, although I have it set to do that. So, once that's fixed, I think that this issue will be resolved.) Anyways, the only way that I know that a file is done downloading is via the pop-up in the lower right-hand corner. However, if the user misses this pop-up, he does not know whether the file is done downloading or not.

I set the DM to close when finished downloading all files, but it's not much of a workaround.

5) As mentioned in #4, the download manager does not appear when downloading files. As such, the only notice is the pop-up in the lower right-hand corner. However, the problem with this, is that I do not know which file is done downloading. (Once the issue is resolved about the download manager appearing, then this issue will probably be irrelevant. I'm not sure if I configured something wrong, or if it's a bug.)

Preferences? Be sure you're setting the right one.

6) There is no "speed" indicator that tells how fast you are downloading. I found this feature useful in some cases to see how my connection was doing and how fast it was going. I could also tell if a website was sending me the file at a rate much slower than I could handle. In the past, with IE (which was a long time ago), I would switch to a download splitter if the download speed was not fast enough. Without a speed indicator, it will not be possible for people to do this.

This is only the second time I've heard of this. The rest of us seem to have the speedometer working just fine.

7) The download manager does not indicate the URL it is downloading from.
This inforamtion was useful back in the days when I used download managers (which was a long time ago). I could copy and past the URL to the download manager if the server was not sending the file fast enough. Thus, I suspect other people may find this information useful as well.

Admittedly a useful feature. May be more appropriate as an extension, though.

8) The download manager does not indicate the directory it is saving to. I don't recall a specific example of why this information was helpful, however I do recall needing it while using the new download manager system. The alternative was to go through a more tedious process of doing what I wanted to do. It's also helpful to know simply what is going on and to remember what you were doing.


Is this the same issue as #3? If not, refer to my answer to #7.
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.8b) Gecko/20050205 Firefox/1.0+
User avatar
Pike
Posts: 2293
Joined: August 10th, 2003, 12:12 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Post by Pike »

Kevin Ar18 wrote:7) The download manager does not indicate the URL it is downloading from.
This inforamtion was useful back in the days when I used download managers (which was a long time ago). I could copy and past the URL to the download manager if the server was not sending the file fast enough. Thus, I suspect other people may find this information useful as well.

8) The download manager does not indicate the directory it is saving to. I don't recall a specific example of why this information was helpful, however I do recall needing it while using the new download manager system. The alternative was to go through a more tedious process of doing what I wanted to do. It's also helpful to know simply what is going on and to remember what you were doing.

Right-click, properties.
Locked