oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA | Yay...let the whoring begin...
When do the download counts start? My day isn't complete until we see a DSLR article touting FF downloads!
I'll stick with Safari thanks... |
|
FLECOM
Bay Networks Freak
Premium
join:2003-03-03
Miami, FL
| betrayed
does anyone feel betrayed by apple going to x86? and intel of all things? for years we heard g5 was soooooo much better than P4, now its... well, we lied, its not, so we are switching...
oh well, at least firefox will be ready for the switch 
does this mean that developers had x86 copies of macos x for testing? or is it just a compiled release they hope will work? hrmm
--
BellSouth sucks |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to oliphant
Re: Yay...let the whoring begin...
I used Safari to post the article, actually. I don't use Firefox, but I found it interesting as a Mac user. Does it still count as whoring? |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
 ·Comcast
|  Should have been a very easy port
Porting Firefox to an Intel processor platform should have been pretty easy, even if it is a MAC. At least when the hardware is available next year from Apple, the Firefox crowd will be happy.
--
My Web Page
Join Red Room Forum |
|
djrobx
join:2000-05-31
Valencia, CA
 ·PHONE POWER
 ·AT&T U-Verse
·AT&T CallVantage
·Time Warner VOIP
·RoadRunner Cable
1 edit | It should be easy ... shouldn't it?
Firefox is written to be portable. All they should need to do is get an updated compiler, set some flags, and recompile it for the new target environment. The complexity of the app is irrelevant since it is already portable.
The tougher things to port are non-portable programs with a lot of performance-tuned assembly code mixed in, or code that has never been cross platform before that does a lot of number manipulation at the bit level (endian issues). With computers as fast as they are these days and the pushes towards platform independence, you don't see assembly code very often anyway.
--
\\ROB - a part of the SCB local network |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| reply to Karl Bode
Re: Yay...let the whoring begin...
Nope...that's why I'm waiting with great anticipation for it to start.
I long for the day when we get to start seeing FF MacX86 articles about how that fadware is the end all be all browser of the universe for Mac X86 and how 50 zillion people have downloaded it (despite the fact that downloads don't equal current users and often 'patches' to which there is no shortage force complete reinstalls of their product).
Or perhaps we can be blessed with even more FF...the broswer you can trust sometimes banners. |
|
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | reply to FLECOM
Re: betrayed
Not those of us looking for a G5 powerbook. And if they use a dual core Pentium-M (eg Yonah) and later which is based on the PIII it certainly would be a powerful box. |
|
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | reply to oliphant
Re: Yay...let the whoring begin...
I sense much anger in you. Are you getting proper vitamins? |
|
neuronbob
Health Care Reform Now
join:2000-03-30
Bedford, OH | That was fast.
The fact that FireFox has already been ported so quickly after the WWDC Stevenote is a good omen for Mac on Intel.
--
neuronbob's web page |
|
Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| reply to FLECOM
Re: betrayed
said by FLECOM  :does anyone feel betrayed by apple going to x86? and intel of all things? No. Apple is making the best decision it can to stay competitive, and I see that as reaffirming rather than negative.
said by FLECOM :for years we heard g5 was soooooo much better than P4, now its... well, we lied, its not, so we are switching... I think many would agree that the PPC architecture is technically superior to x86. (That debate is beyond the scope of this post.) However, when your chip supplier can't make enough chips and doesn't assign priority to developing new chips for you, technological superiority means very little. Nobody lied (that's a pretty inappropriate accusation), it turned out after a few years that Apple wasn't getting the treatment they wanted from IBM and Intel offered a product that will better meet Apple's future needs. It's nothing as sinister as a "lie". It's supply and roadmap.
said by FLECOM :does this mean that developers had x86 copies of macos x for testing? or is it just a compiled release they hope will work? hrmm A prototype Intel-based Mac and the accompanying x86 OS X is available to ADC select and premium members for $999. It's likely the Firefox folks have one. |
|
rexbinary
Mod King
Premium
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to FLECOM
Not at all. The PowerPC is not slow all of sudden because of the announcement. Intel will simply have better processors in the FUTURE. That's why FUTURE Macs will be Intel based.
I would have felt betrayed if Apple had been hard-headed and continued to use PowerPC processors to just keep 'Intel Outside'. |
|
obeythelaw
Premium
join:2003-04-16
Bayonne, NJ
 ·DIRECTV
| FF over Safari?
I still don't see the compelling reason to use FF over Safari on Tiger. I used FF when i was a Windows user and liked it a bit better than IE. However, since joning the Mac addicts, I enjoy Safari a whole lot more. I find Safari to be faster than the FF on the Mac. Aside from the FF plugins, I don't see a compelling reason to use FF. |
|
bebops
@rr.com | I have both
The are some sites will work with FF and not Safari. |
|
rodoke
join:2003-10-28
Carbondale, IL | Sometimes the web needs a "second opinion"
I agree completely, it's a good idea to at least have two browsers. On my computer, I've never found a site that failed with both Firefox and Konqueror. |
|
rexbinary
Mod King
Premium
join:2005-01-26
Plano, TX
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to obeythelaw
Re: FF over Safari?
I agree with you, I don't see any reason to use Firefox over Safari either. I have not found any web sites that I have visited that don't work with Safari.
The Mac platform is not the one with the problem browser that needs a replacement.  |
|
WiZZLa
Insert Meaningless Text Here -Run 4a Mod
join:2003-11-09
Canada | Amazing
Amazing. It really is. 
Now every Mac x86 sold == a FireFox user. |
|
Tech-2005
@pacbell.n
| reply to Aaron
Re: betrayed
PPC is not technically superior to x86 . Both architectures have different functions. The fact is that AMD's x86-64 based Opteron runs circles around IBMs PPC chips in application tests using Mac OSX vs. Windows XP. The current run of x86 chips are designed for backwards compatibility. Sure they could gut the slow parts of the x86 chips and improve the performance quite a bit but the fact that you can run 25 year old x86 operating systems (DOS) and any x86 based operating system since then (Windows 3.1, IBM OS2,
Win95, Win98, Win2K, XP, Linux, BSD Unix, SCO Unix, etc. etc.) on the latest x86-64 chips is really amazing. To engineer a CPU with compatibility in mind is much more difficult than designing a brand new CPU from the ground up for performance only. The fact that these latest x86 chips are ALSO competitive with the newer PPC chips is beyond incredible. I would also include backwards compatibility a form of technical superiority that the x86 has over PPC. I think it is outrageous that Mac enthusiasts put up with having to pay big money to upgrade all their software applications ever few years when Apple decides to change their hardware or OS. |
|
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
1 edit | reply to obeythelaw
Re: FF over Safari?
said by obeythelaw :I still don't see the compelling reason to use FF over Safari on Tiger. You will once the FireFox zombies bite you, then you too can run around saying things in a spooky voice such as:
"It was fixed very faaaaaast. It was fixed very faaaaaast!"
and my all time favorite
"....good thing I use fiiiiiiirefooooooox" -in response to any article about any exploit wether or not it has anything to do with web browsers or even computers; for example:
me: damnit someone popped the lock and stole my car
zombie: good thing I use firefox!
me: whaaa??!?
--
Beagles really should come in convienent 10 packs. |
|
Aaron
join:2001-12-04
Dayton, OH
| reply to Tech-2005
Re: betrayed
said by Tech-2005:
PPC is not technically superior to x86 . Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. There are a number of people who would disagree with you. I don't know enough to argue one way or another and, as I originally stated, it's beyond the scope of my post. I stated that opinion to help illustrate the point that chip architecture issues are not the reason for Apple's transition. Future development and supply are the issues.
said by Tech-2005:
I think it is outrageous that Mac enthusiasts put up with having to pay big money to upgrade all their software applications ever few years when Apple decides to change their hardware or OS.
That's inaccurate. Apple has only had a single OS changeover in its history. Mac OS 9 ran (runs? I haven't used it.) inside OS X to provide an environment for older applications to run, no upgrades required. No owner or purchaser of a current Mac will have to pay to upgrade any software. Their current PPC-based software will always work, and no developer in his right mind will compile Intel-only code for 7-10 years. Current PPC software will work on Intel-based Macs via Rosetta. Future Mac applications will be universal binaries, a more politically correct name for the fat binaries that assisted Apple's previous transition from old Moto CPUs to PPC. Nobody is paying to upgrade anything. |
|
IronChefMoto
Premium
join:2001-02-08
Alpharetta, GA
| reply to FLECOM
said by FLECOM :does anyone feel betrayed by apple going to x86? and intel of all things? No. Not unless you're one of the Mac fanatics that don't understand that the exquisite example of Apple art and engineering sitting on your IKEA 2005 model urban desk in your spartan yet avant garde 700 sq. ft. NYC apartment is still just a real damn purty compooter. 
IronChefMorimoto
--
Shuttle SN85G4V3 (Gaming/Development): AMD Athlon64 3400+ | ATI 9800 Pro 256MB
Dell Latitude C810 (Work/E-Mail): Intel PIII-M | Onboard Video
Shuttle SK41G (Wife): Athlon XP 1800+ | Onboard Video |
|
