Slashdot Mirror
Firefox for Intel Macs Planned for March
daria42 writes "Although there are unofficial builds already available, Mozilla will release an official version of Firefox for Intel Mac OS X in March, developer Josh Aas says. There are only a couple of minor bugs to work through, such as Flash and Java support."
A file named "Please Spread Firefox.kext" has been located in the pre-release versions.
Is it so difficult to toggle them off already?
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Looks like the trolls have bitten even at the first post.
Aaaaanyways, what I was actually going to say was that it shouldn't really matter that much, speedwise, whether or not there is an OSX86-native binary of Firefox or not, what with all of the good speed tests I've read. Either way, that's a pretty darn good schedule for *any* piece of software - completely up to date with totally new hardware within 2 or so months.
Congrats to the Firefox team!
"We are targeting the official release of Firefox for Intel Mac OS X in late March with the Firefox 1.5.0.2 update," Mozilla software engineer Josh Aas told ZDNet Australia.
One thing I enjoy about Free Software organizations, but especially Mozilla, is that they give plenty of information about their release goals and we can trust them. After all, we can just download the nightly files and make our own, or check on the progress.
It would be interesting to see a comparision of target dates set by companies, and see how well the initial target date was met. Microsoft vs. Apple vs. Mozilla vs. Opera for instance.
--
Stop Sparky's brain from being probed by Bush
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Flash and Java support are NOT minor bugs.
That's cool, it's nice for people to know they can visit the site of the computer manufacturer ...does Safari currently render Dell.com properly? :)
Camino is seriously a lot nicer gecko for mac than firefox. It actually integrates with OS X and it uses Cocoa. From a usability standpoint is much further ahead.
----
Go canucks, habs, and sens!
Anyone know what sort of performance hit there is running the current Firefox release under Rosetta? I mean, do the Flash ads stutter or anything? I'm assuming it would be a better browsing experience than I currently get on my iBook (G3/600).
This guy's the limit!
I'm really disappointed in the PPC version of FireFox. It's slow and chews up RAM. I've gone back to Safari, however am underwhelmed by the lack of ad-blocking plugins. PithHelmet is OK, but something like the AdBlock plugin for Firefox would be much nicer.
I hope it's faster than the PPC version, because that's the main reason I'm still using Safari as my primary browser.
I have a feeling that the slowness has to do more with Aqua and Cocoa then with the processor.
...such as Flash and Java support.
These are minor?
...such as Flash and Java support, oh and... HTML too.
I use Camino more often than any browser; as far as I'm concerned the interface is more mac-like than anything else including safari (even though safari's an apple product). It is usually rock solid (I use vers, 1.0b1), but occasionally has its moments of meltdown, usually when I have fifteen or twenty tabs open. One problem is the lack of easy integration with extensions that work on firefox; maybe I'm just dense but I have no idea how to use such extensions on Camino. Another is I would prefer a little more control over some finer points in the interface (I'd like to specify how .txt files are displayed when navigating large directories full of them). But Safari is no better on either count. Either way I also use safari for the occasional IE-only site that camino chokes on -- safari does better on a couple of those, it seems. A lot of my preference is just look and feel, however - I like how bookmarks are handled, key commands for navigation, etc. in camino better than I do in safari -- it may just be because that's what I'm used to.
Why make a Mozilla for x86 Macintosh and a Mozilla for PowerPC Macintosh? Make a universal binary, that's what they are there for aren't they? I mean relying on rosetta for a few things like flash and java can't be that big of deal, it's not like the bottleneck in a browser is the browser itself, it's more commonly the pipe feeding the browser. Isn't the point of Rosetta that Mozilla Firefox as it stands now runs just fine on a MacBook or iMac regardless of the proc under the covers?
Also most of the user community doesn't care that at 10.4.4 there is a version that runs on an Intel processor and a PowerPC Processor, so when we download trying to decide between Mozilla Firefox for Macintosh OS X (PowerPC) and Macintosh OS X (Intel) isnt' something we should have to decide. The ability to make univseral binaries is there, why not take advantage of it? Why create yet another file the world has to mirror and worry about which is the right one?
Just a thought.
As a rock-in-roll Physicist once said, No matter where you go, there you are.
Why is the beta release this kind of "under the table" beta release from one of the developers? It seems like it'd be a better idea to make the build they have now more widely available in a more prominent spot, especially considering the scarcity of x86 Macs at the moment. Is the problem one of public perception of releasing (even a beta) of a product that's not feature complete? Will there be a more official beta before the march release?
AccountKiller
the guys who develop the GUI portion of FireFox don't have good taste, or at least not the same aesthetic sense as people who use and enjoy the Mac.
Wha? Firefox is the prettiest cross-platform app I've ever seen. Granted, I use a lot of Cocoa apps that are nicer-looking... but cross-platform applications have different standards to hold to.
no one is going to be stupid enough to blow a ton of cash on overpriced Apple x86 hardware.
One would blow a ton of cash on a so called overpriced hardware if they make a ton of money fixing cheaply made x86 boxes that come with a security hole ridden OS.
If you didn't want things like Flash, you wouldn't be buying a Mac anyway.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/t op-sellers/-/pc/all/pc/0/1/1/1/104-6461076-7991161
"There are only a couple of minor bugs to work through, such as Flash and Java support."
Oh, right. Really minor.
And when he's done with that, could someone who's used a Mac please do something about the most hideous set of themes extant. Pink kitties? Wood-grain? Patriotic Netscape?
I'm serious. What planet do these people live on? . . . Maybe we Mac users are some kind of snobby elite. Maybe we just have taste. Maybe Mozilla-Gnomey types need professional help. Whatever it is, it's a damn shame, particularly now.
A bigger growth market is, by far, offering a version for Java-based phones (e.g. Opera Mini) and for Pocket PCs.
I know Mac users are desiring an official release, but will Macs outnumber phones and PDAs?
It's not just a question of speed. If I'm interpretting the what-Rosetta-won't-support statements from Apple correctly, translated PPC apps running embedded Java applets will not run on OSX86. The archetypal example of that is a web browser using a Java runtime environment. That makes an Intel-native version of Firefox necessary to maintain compatibility with a bunch of web-based apps and a fair amount of website candy. You can grouse about how horrid Java applets are, but it's a "failed" item on the capatibility checklist, which is Not A Good Thing for everyone's favorite cross-platform browser. (And it's another nail in the coffin of IE:Mac, which will never be distributed in Intel-native or universal binary format.)
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
I hadn't thought of that, and it's a very valid point. May your karma be boosted.
"There are only a couple of minor bugs to work through, such as Flash and Java support."
I knew it that Flash and Java support were bugs all along.
http://boston.craigslist.org/rnr/125517916.html
how about some linux builds for 64-bit.
It has been statistically shown that helmets increase the risk of head injury.
I guess in these days of high speed connections, big hard disks and DVD installs universal binaries aren't such an issue. But I remember having a 2400 baud modem and a 68k Mac. It was a nuisance having multiple CPU support then. First one spent ages waiting for a .sit.hqx file to download, decode and decompress. Then strip out the PowerPC binary so it wouldn't fill up a 40MB hard disk.
If you're using darwinports it's not an issue because the application will be optimised for OS24Ever's machine. For intel machines Fink should be smart enough to download binaries in the following order:
(Unless of course you have an intranet package cache for multiple machines - in which case you might prefer to always download universal).
Which raises an interesting point about universal binaries. How many binaries will gcc/xcode target in a universal binary? There's the 2 major architectures (x86/powerpc) BUT G3 (no altivec), G4 (altivec), G5(64-bit), x86(32-bit) and x86-64(64bit in the not too distant future). So, already 5 CPU types for which a compiler can optimise. Not to mention optimisations for dual-core/dual CPU machines.
[Aside, for any Java apps you may run: Java gets a lot of flack for being slow but Sun's Hotspot is able to compile on the fly, at runtime, native code for a CPU from a single binary (bytecode). The optimisation is done in the Java Virtual Machine rather than the application binary]
You see if there's a universal binary, chances are it won't be optimised for your CPU architecture. Where a software provider gives you the source, in this case an open source project, darwinports (pkgsrc/portage etc) is your best bet. Not to mention it will, hopefully, compile shared libraries for gecko. So that if you happen to use another mozilla app like thunderbird - less to download, less memory consumption.
The question remains, much as we like to poke fun at them, whether your average Mac user can be bothered with such details when drag and drop installers exist. Perhaps integration with Software Update would help.
There are still plenty of older mac's out there suffering without a decent build for OS9.
yes those mac's are very useable and valuable to the schools and people that have them.
Yet the great OSS giant firefox has ignored them with a vengence.
Hell I can get a version of Firefox that runs on windows 95.
Quick, write an article about it and submit it in to slashdot!
There are fewer Camino "extensions" because Camino does not support XUL (used for most Firefox, Thunderbird and Mozilla extensions). However, it is possible to make some XUL extensions work with Camino by re-implementing the extension's UI...
I already feel marginalized enough running Firefox on a Mac, thanks.
You've got a Slashdot username. You have a preferences page. You have a checkbox labelled "Apple" just begging to be unchecked. Seriously, if you don't want Apple stories, just turn 'em off and stop complaining. There's a reason why there's a lot of Apple stories at the moment anyway - it's Macworld, so you'd expect maybe just a little more focus on them?
And tomorrow the stock exchange will be the human race
Try using Privoxy.
It is a *great* ad blocker. It works as a transparent proxy, so it will work with any browser. It is available for OS X, Windows (which I use) and various Linux distributions.
Its funny how for years people have been petitioning Macromedia and now Adobe for and amd64 version of their flash player and have only weeks ago been told in a developers blog that amd64 is unofficaly planned after the flash 8.5 release for Linux x86. I am curious about Java though, I thought apple provided that in their OS.
BlackJapan is a good one. A couple other ones aren't on the Mozilla site and need to be Googled for: Sky Pilot Classic is a nice theme I keep coming back to. VistaFirefox has two skins... I like the "1.5.2" one better. Doesn't work with the 1.5.0.1 RC1 though, unless you force it to work with Nightly Tester Tools.
There are only a couple of minor bugs to work through, such as Flash and Java support.
Maybe they meant that there were minor bugs like flash stuttering or java not loading correctly. Not something like the stuff not being supported at all. I hope it's released soon and better than the PPC version.
Proudly posting without RTFA.
Outside of a tiny number of hardcore Mac fanatics, no one is going to be stupid enough to blow a ton of cash on overpriced Apple x86 hardware.
Well, this hardcore linux/Windows user has his arriving on Wednesday. And, as soon as Tivo releases their Tivo To Go for the Mac, the Windows box will be completely decomissioned. The linux box will go sooner.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
for those of us who are indifferent towards macs.
Really? That's too bad, because Apple has a new product that'd be just perfect for you...it's called the iSTFU.
Two new Mac models are announced and Firefox with plugins is a priority. Meanwhile, AMD64/EM64T platform users can't run a native Firefox with plugins under any OS, with no ETA at all for that ability.
I was pretty psyched about the MacBooks, but roadmaps show that Intel will have 64-bit mobile processors this fall. Common sense suggests that there will be Intel 64-bit Apple laptops shortly after. It just doesn't seem to make sense to buy into a platform that is already planned for obsolescence in barely half a year. Any thoughts? I don't mind obsolescence, it happens very quickly. But less than a year? Bah.
MORTAR COMBAT!
Your comment is COMPLETELY OFF TOPIC!
The point is, Macs don't have a lot of market share. Who cares if firefox is available for it? Mac users will probably just stick with Safari anyway.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
What's "trolltalk"? Why should I care about "trolltalk"?
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Firefox and Thunderbird are important for OS X.
I'm wondering, though, does anybody know what the progress is on Xen for OS X/Intel? What about a port of Debian or Ubuntu to the MacBook hardware?
Yeah, there's 1.0.7 for AMD64, but not 1.5. Least not for debian. Least not that I can find. Or build myself (it keeps telling me to use fPIC even though it is using fPIC).
In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is kinky.
I can Feel it ..... this is the year of the apple
- - - - - .
they could get the flash and java bugs worked out in Firefox for PPC.
So IE:Mac needs another nail?
There's plenty enough nails in that coffin already, surely.
The marketshare is irrelevant.
The important thing, and the focus of the story, is that it's coming for OS X on x86.
I'd have though that someone calling another's post off-topic would at least try to stay more on-topic!
huh? where do you see them? i can only see the POWER PC-macs there...G4 and G5...same old, buddy, same old.
Do you mean to say that you are happy it will be running on RiscOS tooFirefox going Beta for RiscOS?
Somehow I'm skeptical.
Almost nobody cares that at some point in the future, firefox will run on an OS that few use. Whether it be OSX or RiscOS.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Well, this hardcore linux/Windows user has his arriving on Wednesday. And, as soon as Tivo releases their Tivo To Go for the Mac, the Windows box will be completely decomissioned. The linux box will go sooner.
... why?)
You don't sound "hardcore" at all. Apple releases a new product, and you immediately buy it and replace everything else with Apple's stuff, just because it uses Intel? Do you mean that you are a hardcore Intel or hardcore x86 user? (If so
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
And can I just say thanks for the link.
I sincerely hope that someday you're violently attacked by a rampaging mob of infected chimpanzees, or contract a special and interestingly painful form of cancer and die in agony without ever again uttering another word.
Well this is all well and good but if they're doing any work relating to plugins such as Flash then I wish they'd devote some time to fixing the plugin manager.
I'm one of those users who have no use for Flash. Absolutely no use whatsoever. I tried it, got really sick of nauseous animated advertising and removed it. It's not coming back on my box ever.
So now every time I go to a page with Flash on it Firefox lets me know this by putting a prominent yellow bar at the top of the page telling me I "NEED" to install a plugin. No thankyou, I do not "NEED" to install the plugin, I do not want the plugin.
So I have some questions for any Firefox devs who may care to read this post.
1 Why is this done in such an obnoxious manner ? There should be a small icon in the status bar to inform me of missing plugins, not a dirty great piece of page vandalism.
2 Why can't I switch this behaviour off ? I've tried the about:config "plugin.default_plugin_disabled" setting and it makes no difference.
3 Why doesn't the plugin manager behave like the popup blocker ? The popup blocker is a lovely feature which, after the first time it blocks a popup, just sits in the status bar quietly notifying me it's just blocked a popup. It's one of the main reasons I started using Firefox because it didn't get in the way.
Sadly after thinking I'd raise a bug about this it would appear that there are already several old entries in bugzilla asking for this to be fixed and the devs just don't seem to care.
Ho hum...
Just seems to prove the old management theory that if you leave coders to their own devices they'll just go off and work on new and interesting things rather than do the boring work of fixing bugs that the users want fixing.
Firefox: Fantastic.
Firefox's Plugin Manager: Bag O'Shite.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
They won't, but Opera has universal binary ready anyway.
Why do you hope that?
Your response seems illogical.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
I've asked this before, but does anyone know when NeoOffice will be ported? If I get an intel mac I don't want to have to buy MS Office, and AbiWord is broken under OS X.
"Yields falsehood when preceded by its own quotation" yields falsehood when preceded by its own quotation.
1. Remove the kid(s)
2. Flash issues solved
3. ????
4. Profit!
I'm still amazed people have kids. It's so last century.
Just imagine a beowulf cluster of those! *shudder*
Defining Statistics and Social Research
Install flashblock, at least then you wont get reminded, and can just play the ones you want if you want to.
Not to be a troll or anything, but I've been a Firefox advocate for over a year and just recently switched to Opera. I use my browser extensively, ie. 3 open windows with 10+ tabs each, and Opera just handles power-use much more gracefully. That being said, this is a damn good turnaround time for an entirely new platform.
Unstable has 1.5.dfsg-4 for amd64. See here. Give it a little while and it ought to filter down into testing. If you're using stable, then who knows. But testing is as stable as any other distro's release.
OK, let me lay it out for you. I have 3 computers. A 1.7 Ghz P4 running Windows, a dual P3-600 running CentOS, and an ancient B&W Mac G3. The G3 is long past its "Use-By" date but still sereves its purpose OK as an iMovie creator. Both the Windows box and the linux box are getting long in the tooth and both have 1Gb memory limits. After careful study, I believe that I can consolidate all three into a single iMac and get all of the functionality I need, thereby consildating the three computers into one. I cannot achieve the same objective if I try to consolidate onto Windows or linux.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I was replying to somebody who said the computers would sell poorly, you just didn't notice because my parent went to -1.
One thing I enjoy about Free Software organizations, but especially Mozilla, is that they give plenty of information about their release goals and we can trust them. After all, we can just download the nightly files and make our own, or check on the progress.
I'm a Debian user, and Debian's release goal seems to be "We'll have a release. At *least* one per pope."
They're way ahead of schedule for the next release, unless Benedict kicks it ahead of schedule.
After careful study, I believe that I can consolidate all three into a single iMac and get all of the functionality I need, thereby consildating the three computers into one. I cannot achieve the same objective if I try to consolidate onto Windows or linux.
Okay, I see what you're saying. However, the original poster said "Outside of a tiny number of hardcore Mac fanatics, no one is going to be stupid enough to blow a ton of cash on overpriced Apple x86 hardware." Your reply implied that there was a reason for using the x86 Mac instead of PPC. Did you buy the x86 machine because PPC doesn't meet your current needs?
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
Yes. I bought the x86 version because Apple has a track record of agressively dropping support for legacy architectures and OS's.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
I guess the bugs were as minor as he claimed...
/ 01/unofficial_intel_mac_firefox_b.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/josh/archives/2006
Move along, no sig to see here.
I bought the x86 version because Apple has a track record of agressively dropping support for legacy architectures and OS's.
:-) The reason I replied was that you called yourself a "hardcore" Linux and Windows user. To me, "hardcore" means that you really love the Linux and Windows platforms and see them as superior, not just that you use them. It looks like you just made a pragmatic choice (which is a good thing), not a religious conversion, so to speak.
Makes sense.
I have discovered a truly remarkable proof of this theorem that this sig is too small to contain.
No, they aren't. Only an aesthetically oblivious freak would claim these twin cesspools of aborted UI accidents to be anything of the sort.