Browser Choice

[tigger4046]

Did install on my IE browser, but will we have the option for additional browser selections such as FireFox or Helix?;)

[YtseJam]

So you put up a browser like AOL Helix, but you forget about the real 3rd alternative brower Opera? Living in a bubble are we... sigh...

[flocksoft]

this poll is useful only for statistical purpose :) because from Official Wishlist (http://forums.winamp.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64975#library):
Option to use Mozilla (or other default browser) for Now Playing
Not going to happen according to the devs.

Saffari? too bugs so far
AOL Helix? it's Internet Explorer-based (at least, I think so...)

@YtseJam
I agree :(

[Sawg]

And until throws browsers come built into Windows, I really wouldn't expect it. IE has built in controls allowing any Windows program to use it, the other browsers do not.

[CraigF]

What your asking for is for Winamp to come bundled with one of, or all of Gecko, WebCore, Presto or maybe KHTML.

You'd think there would be a lot of overhead in doing that. And guess what? There is.

Not. Going. To. Happen.

The only other option is if those runtimes start installing themselves on a system level, with availability for use inside other applications in the same way as IE's Trident.
Last I checked, Gecko was the only one thinking of doing this, and that plan was long since scrapped.

[Omega X]

I thought that I answered this already...somewhere.

@ CraigF

IT wasn't exactly scrapped. It was kind of pushed back into the Mozilla2 framework plans.

[CraigF]

Please offer links to back that up, because from what I have gathered, XULRunner is the current focus.

[hannes]

I agree with YtseJam. Where's Opera??

[pjn123]

Yes! Where is OPERA!!!

[retchless]

Why though? Sure you get fewer CSS bugs with firefox, but that's a non-issue for any competant web developer... Winamp uses its own browser controls, so that's not any reason to use firefox... Sure you can play the security card, but honestly, Firefox has security vulnerabilities too.. Such is the nature of the web. I love Firefox. It's absolutely the best browser available.. and I realize that people want choice, but is choice really worth the overhead? Maybe... but I don't care.. and neither does the average joe i'm afraid.

[iron2000]

To me browser choices shouldn't be priority as Winamp is a media player. I don't surf using Winamp.

[CraigF]

Pointless discussion anyway, because its not happening for technical reasons that are a long way from being rectified, if ever.

[Brian P]

I like how the question asked is "Should Winamp Support other Browsers?" but the option "No" is suspiciously missing.

I, for one, would like the devs to concentrate on fixing bugs and adding USEFUL features to Winamp, rather than bothing to integrate various browsers into a program that, frankly, has no business being used as a web browser anyway.

PS: Opera 4life.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by CraigF
Please offer links to back that up, because from what I have gathered, XULRunner is the current focus.

http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_2

[soulstace]

@hannes
@YtseJam

How are you going to embed a third party browser that is not open source into Winamp?

Winamp would actually have to launch an instance of Opera.exe

It doesn't have to do this with Internet Explorer because IE has controls available (as Sawg already mentioned).

[hannes]

@soulstace

I also think that its pointless supporting or including another browser in winamp, IE is fine for that.

But if you're just mentioning browsers to support, the best one around should be mentioned along with them! :D

[CraigF]

Originally posted by Omega X
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Mozilla_2

Nothing in that brief makes mention to systemwide-installation of the Mozilla runtimes. Unless I am missing something, I'm still led to believe that Mozilla are not moving to a systemwide distribution akin to Java/.NET, meaning that Winamp would still have to distribute its own copy of the runtime vastly increasing bloat.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by CraigF
Nothing in that brief makes mention to systemwide-installation of the Mozilla runtimes. Unless I am missing something, I'm still led to believe that Mozilla are not moving to a systemwide distribution akin to Java/.NET, meaning that Winamp would still have to distribute its own copy of the runtime vastly increasing bloat.

No, they said that they did not want to do that. But they did say that they wanted XULRunner apps to share runtime instead of opening up separate versions unless it was specifically necessary do to so. However I do not know if that is still in the plans. There are also plans on that page for embedding a la IE(which is why I linked it).

[mikm]

Why doesn't anybody care about lynx? I refuse to use Winamp until the developers stop all their work to make lynx an option for the browser.

[CraigF]

Originally posted by Omega X
No, they said that they did not want to do that. But they did say that they wanted XULRunner apps to share runtime instead of opening up separate versions unless it was specifically necessary do to so. However I do not know if that is still in the plans. There are also plans on that page for embedding a la IE(which is why I linked it).

Perhaps, but this isn't an embedding issue. Winamp COULD embed gecko right now if it wanted to, the issue is that it would have to distribute it too (which is where the bloat comes in).

The issue is distribution, it WOULD be plausible if Mozilla were distributing, and installing system-wide. Then Winamp could just detect it were installed and offer an option to the user at that time, without worrying about distribution/packaging.

[Omega X]

Originally posted by CraigF
Perhaps, but this isn't an embedding issue. Winamp COULD embed gecko right now if it wanted to, the issue is that it would have to distribute it too (which is where the bloat comes in).

The issue is distribution, it WOULD be plausible if Mozilla were distributing, and installing system-wide. Then Winamp could just detect it were installed and offer an option to the user at that time, without worrying about distribution/packaging.

I know what you are saying. I said it last time in a different thread that adding Gecko as the browser in Winamp would add bloat.

But the embedding in Mozilla2 is the system wide thing that you are talking about(in the wiki page). But the problem would still be distribution since Microsoft won't install Firefox in their OS by default. And since Mozilla won't do separate Gecko framework distribution. It would take the person to download a future version of Firefox or similar Gecko based installs to get that embedded Mozilla2 functionality.