I'm just looking to see if a plugin for opera has to specifically be tailored or customized for either 32 or 64 bit version of Opera, or are they neutral in that respect?
Extensions are written in JavaScript, which makes them universal (or neutral, as you say).
There is no need to worry about bitness or endianness of the browser (or the operating system).
Related
I am curious to know if an Adobe Air, when deployed a .air file is actually 32 bit or 64 bit.
I understand that any native version would be one or the other.
I think its neither because .air is just a package containing an swf?
The Adobe docs do not answer this.
You're right, it is not containing runtime, OS will be using either 32bit or 64bit runtime, depending on which is installed on system. Note that it is not applicable to bult apps in .exe, .apk, .ipa or if you use native extensions
We have 2 machines in which we run IE selenium Test scripts. In both the machine IE 32 bit is configured. In one machine it types faster and in another machine it types each word. So in that machine i changed the IEDriver bit version as 64 and it worked as expected.
My question is, how the IE driver bit is determined as 64 or 32. Is there any relation between OS bit version ?? like if OS is 64 IE should also be 64 ?
There are technical reasons why the “bitness” of the driver must match that of the browser, mostly stemming from the fact that the driver uses Windows hook procedures for processing keystrokes by default. Those technical reasons are outlined in a blog post written by the driver author (me) some years ago. The tricky bit is knowing whether the browser is actually 32-bit or 64-bit.
You see, IE uses multiple processes when browsing, notably a broker process (which handles the outer frame of the browser), and content processes (usually one per tab, which actually renders the content). Starting with IE10, though, the challenge is that those processes (the broker and the content processes) can have different bitnesses. In fact, on 64-bit Windows, this is the default, where the broker process is 64-bit, and the content processes are 32-bit. Element interactions like sending keystrokes happen in the content process, so that’s what the driver must match.
That means the most common case is that one should use the 32-bit IE driver, even on 64-bit Windows. It must be pointed out that there are some cases where one can get a 64-bit content process (usually based on Enhanced Protected Mode), but these are a vast minority of cases.
If you use IEDriverServer.exe 32-bit execution will be faster and if you use 64-bit execution will be slower irrespective of your OS. So, use 32-bit as its faster. I have tried with both 32 and 64-bit, trust me 64-bit is way too slow.
From https://github.com/SeleniumHQ/selenium/wiki/InternetExplorerDriver#internet-explorer-driver:
The driver supports running 32-bit and 64-bit versions of the browser.
The choice of how to determine which "bit-ness" to use in launching
the browser depends on which version of the IEDriverServer.exe is
launched. If the 32-bit version of IEDriverServer.exe is launched, the
32-bit version of IE will be launched. Similarly, if the 64-bit
version of IEDriverServer.exe is launched, the 64-bit version of IE
will be launched.
AFAIK, you can run either the 32 or 64-bit driver on 64-bit Windows; I'd expect that you can only run the 32-bit driver on 32-bit Windows.
Anecdotally, the 32-bit driver is considered "faster" than its 64-bit counterpart. But--given that perceived speed is influenced by the system-under-tests's CPU/RAM--that would need to be benchmarked to be certain. That being said, I have previously used the 32-bit version on 64-bit systems because it did appear faster (especially WRT to text entry).
Is there any browser for windows or linux that still using actual webkit engine version not blink engine?
This is a question that I also ask, periodically, so I can give an updated reply:
for Linux, there are several more-or-less platform-specific browsers that use webkit2-gtk (a more-or-less up-to-date WebKit2 implementation): notably Web/Epiphany and Midori. Both are rather simple/lightweight browsers.
for MS Windows, there is still the more full-fledged Maxthon 5 browser (or virus, according to some), but I have been unable to determine what WebKit version it really uses (based on its user agent string it might NOT be WebKit2). Some quick testing suggests it's a good alternative for slower hardware (many hybrid tablet PCs!) as WebKit is noticeably less resource-hungry than WebEngine (aka Chromium aka Blink). Note however that Maxthon 6 will become just another blink on the block (unless they decide to keep the dual-engine feature).
for Linux AND MS Windows (Qt-based, cross platform) there are Konqueror and Otter-Browser. The former is mostly focussed on its QtWebEngine backend, but the latter is indeed focussed on the "rebooted" QtWebKit (and aims to reimplement Opera 12; it provides installers for MS Windows).
The QtWebKit reboot is largely a 1-person effort at the moment that could probably stand a few more contributors, notably to merge a more recent WebKit version.
according to wikipedia, maxthon browser still uses webkit (You can switch engines in Maxthon though)
As of version 3, Maxthon supports two web browser engines: WebKit and
Trident
Wikipedia
Is it possible to do a combination of a check and a engine-switch on Windows for wx.html2 in wxPython 2.9.4.0 (development version)?
What I want to achieve is; to let the wx.html2 library use WebKit on Windows if Safari, Chrome or Opera (WebKit/Blink) is installed.
Does anyone have any experience with this and maybe how to achieve it? I also wonder where wx.html2 looks for the engine on each OS and how it asks to render it.
I tried using wx.webkit. But there are so many issues like; lack of documentation and the implementation of the object seems to break on different operating systems.
How does wxPython know to use Webkit? It doesn't, it's parent library, wxWidgets does a compile-time check. It assumes Webkit is installed if it's built on Mac or Linux, and assumes IE is installed if it's on Windows.
If you really want WebKit/Blink, then perhaps consider CEFPython, an embedded Chrome. There's an example at that link of a (very simple) wxPython application.
I have an app using a render engine which can switch between D3D and OpenGL (on Windows at least!) We also use XULRunner for embedded web-browser functionality. XULRunner also appears to use D3D and when our engine is in D3D mode, XUL stops working - it just renders black the whole time.
"Use OpenGL" isn't the answer I'm looking for, so what can I do? We are using D3D9.
edit: Apparently GL support is immature, on non-Windows platforms no hardware acceleration is used by default. We've tried to disable it but either there is another bug, or we're not using the right flags. I can't find a good reference for them.
edit: Current release versions of XULRunner as used in FF 3.x don't support hardware acceleration. And yet still, the moment a D3D9 device is created, the Gecko render engine starts painting solid black.
An old question, but both these threads have answers:
DirectX Firefox Plugin rendering artifacts
Writing a plugin using NPAPI + D3D. It works on Firefox, but the browser blacks out. Why?