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.
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!
From the Mozilla wiki:
The Intel Mac work for Firefox, Thunderbird, and Camino is largely done. All fixes are checked in, and you can build for Intel Macs right out of CVS. We have 2 more tasks:
make a universal binary packaging system
set up an Intel Mac tinderbox
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/new-for-you/t op-sellers/-/pc/all/pc/0/1/1/1/104-6461076-7991161
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/
"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.
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.
Flash and Java support are NOT minor bugs.
When a developer calls a bug minor, it doesn't necessarily mean the end user impact is minor, it often means the bug itself is minor, i.e. relatively simple to fix.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;