Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

View Poll Results: Should Winamp Support other Browsers?
Internet Explorer 5 11.63%
FireFox 29 67.44%
AoL Helix 1 2.33%
Saffari 0 0%
Other 8 18.60%
Voters: 43. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 28th September 2007, 08:24   #1
tigger4046
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Lakeland, FL
Posts: 1
Send a message via AIM to tigger4046
Browser Choice

Did install on my IE browser, but will we have the option for additional browser selections such as FireFox or Helix?
tigger4046 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2007, 09:03   #2
YtseJam
Forum King
 
YtseJam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Israel
Posts: 2,399
Send a message via ICQ to YtseJam Send a message via AIM to 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...

YtseJam is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2007, 11:18   #3
flocksoft
Major Dude
 
flocksoft's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Italy
Posts: 695
this poll is useful only for statistical purpose because from Official Wishlist:
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
flocksoft is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2007, 15:24   #4
Sawg
Forum King
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Phoenix, AZ
Posts: 7,456
Send a message via ICQ to Sawg Send a message via AIM to Sawg Send a message via Yahoo to 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.

| Brought to you by ^V ^C | The one... the original... no seriously!
Sawg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2007, 16:06   #5
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
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.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 28th September 2007, 22:15   #6
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to 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.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2007, 15:01   #7
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Please offer links to back that up, because from what I have gathered, XULRunner is the current focus.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2007, 20:43   #8
hannes
Member
 
hannes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 71
I agree with YtseJam. Where's Opera??
hannes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 1st October 2007, 23:15   #9
pjn123
Major Dude
 
pjn123's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: /\/¯¯¯¯¯\/\ , South-Africa
Posts: 1,030
Yes! Where is OPERA!!!

ClassicPro© v2.01 : This plugin allows you to use cPro skins in Winamp. ClassicPro skins are all SUI skins and loads very quickly. ClassicPro skins is even easier to skin than Winamp Classic skins. A new layout have been added since version 2.
Download ClassicPro© ==== cPro Skins ==== ClassicPro© Homepage ==== SC Forums
pjn123 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 2nd October 2007, 00:31   #10
retchless
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 97
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.
retchless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2007, 04:56   #11
iron2000
Senior Member
 
iron2000's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Singapore
Posts: 391
To me browser choices shouldn't be priority as Winamp is a media player. I don't surf using Winamp.

Thanx
iron2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2007, 17:19   #12
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Pointless discussion anyway, because its not happening for technical reasons that are a long way from being rectified, if ever.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2007, 20:52   #13
Brian P
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 10
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.
Brian P is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 3rd October 2007, 23:44   #14
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
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
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2007, 00:16   #15
soulstace
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 116
@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).
soulstace is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2007, 03:10   #16
hannes
Member
 
hannes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 71
@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!
hannes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2007, 16:45   #17
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
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.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2007, 20:46   #18
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
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).
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 4th October 2007, 22:37   #19
mikm
Major Dude
 
mikm's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: somewhere else
Posts: 1,255
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.

powered by C₂H₅OH
mikm is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2007, 11:18   #20
CraigF
Passionately Apathetic
Administrator
 
CraigF's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Hell
Posts: 5,435
Quote:
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.

CraigF is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th October 2007, 19:28   #21
Omega X
Forum King
 
Omega X's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: A Parallel Dimension
Posts: 2,252
Send a message via AIM to Omega X Send a message via Yahoo to Omega X
Quote:
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.
Omega X is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Winamp > Winamp Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump