Arctic Fox web browser for 10.6 (32 & 64-bit)

[RobJos]

At risk of repeating myself, I really like Mavericks (10.9).

To each their own, apparently: I've been fuddling with Mac OSs since 7.5.5, but 10.9 has been the only one that has messed up completely and utterly the machine I had installed it on (an Intel Core i2). To the point that I ended up reformatting the whole thing and re-installing Snow Leopard. That must have been 3 or 4 years ago, never looked back.

[Added:] I forgot to say that the TimeMachine backup didn't work, and that it all happened after installing the firts Maverick Security update.
[automerge]1594893286[/automerge]

Thanks again for the browsers

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned recently, but there is a thread here on MacRumors that is specifically dedicated to SpiderWeb

 

[RobJos]

Is there any intermediate OS between 10.6 and 10.11 that's worth considering, or is it "either move all the way up to El Capitan, or don't bother -- just stick with Snow Leopard"?

From what I've been hearing in my immediate surroundings, from people who have been forced to jump into the future designed by Apple, High Sierra is the most congenial later OS, but it takes a lot of fiddling to have it resemble the felxibility of Snow Leopard. Wicknix's NewMoon browser does run on High Sierra, so I believe that's also the case of ArcticFox.

 

[johnebravo]

At risk of repeating myself, I really like Mavericks (10.9). I did a lot of side-by-side testing of Snow Leopard, Mountain Lion, and Mavericks late last winter, and I concluded that Mavericks was the best of the three. It's very fast and stable, and it has pretty good app compatibility across different eras. And it still has that Leopard-era design I really like, refined a bit compared to Snow Leopard.

I'll look into that further. I guess, for a completely uninformed mere-user such as myself, it really raises the basic question as to why update to a later version of system software at all? Either you need to for security/virus/malware prevention reasons, or there are some programs you want to be able to use that simply won't run on what you currently have. But if everything you want to use works with what you already use, then it seems like a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Since I now have a browser that works very well, maybe 10.6.8 gives me all I really need for the moment.

It doesn't seem to have been mentioned recently, but there is a thread here on MacRumors that is specifically dedicated to SpiderWeb

I hadn't seen that; thanks.

From what I've been hearing in my immediate surroundings, from people who have been forced to jump into the future designed by Apple, High Sierra is the most congenial later OS, but it takes a lot of fiddling to have it resemble the felxibility of Snow Leopard. Wicknix's NewMoon browser does run on High Sierra, so I believe that's also the case of ArcticFox.

My wife uses "The Good Computer" which has High Sierra 10.13.6, and it seems to work fine (or at least I rarely hear about any problems), but that machine also has 16 GB of ram. But maybe I'll put Arctic Fox on there just for the hell of it and see how it works.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

But if everything you want to use works with what you already use, then it seems like a "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" situation. Since I now have a browser that works very well, maybe 10.6.8 gives me all I really need for the moment.

Totally agree, especially since Snow Leopard is a wonderful OS. Just sharing my experience—you asked if there were any in-between versions to consider.

The primary reason I personally prefer Mavericks over Snow Leopard is app compatibility. In Mavericks, I can use mainline Firefox, Zoom, Affinity Photo, Day One, etc etc, none of which would be possible in Snow Leopard. I also would really miss the lack of Autosave, but I know that feature is a bit controversial!

 

[Amethyst1]

why update to a later version of system software at all? Either you need to for security/virus/malware prevention reasons, or there are some programs you want to be able to use that simply won't run on what you currently have.

You named the two primary reasons right there, and I'd add a third reason of needing/wanting a feature introduced in a later version of OS X. I'm a sucker for high-resolution displays so HiDPI modes are a godsend, and Snow Leopard unfortunately doesn't have them.
[automerge]1594923157[/automerge]

I can use mainline Firefox, Zoom, Affinity Photo, Day One, etc etc, none of which would have worked in Snow Leopard.

Mountain Lion is also a really good version but at least Firefox no longer runs on it.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Mountain Lion is also a really good version but at least Firefox no longer runs on it.

...okay, so, I will go to bat for there being basically no reason to use Mountain Lion. ?

Mavericks opens up a lot of compatibility with newer apps, and it dropped compatibility with basically nothing. Mavericks also added support for memory compression, which makes it drastically faster than Mountain Lion in memory-constrained situations. When there is enough memory available, they perform identically.

Mavericks's visual design is identical to Mountain Lion's, except for some of the included apps, which dropped faux-leather for a more neutral look. Ironically, this means that in terms of visuals, Mavericks resembles Snow Leopard more closely than Mountain Lion does.

I know RobJos mentioned stability issues, which I can't comment on other than to say I've never run into that. I've never actually used the earlier releases of Mavericks though, so perhaps it got cleaned up later on.

By contrast, between Mavericks and Snow Leopard the choice is less obvious. Snow Leopard may or may not be faster on some hardware, and it supports Rosetta, which opens up compatibility with lots of older apps even as it lacks support for newer ones. The visual design is also substantially different, and which you prefer will come down to personal preference—I consider Snow Leopard's visuals to be better in some ways and worse in others. And then there's features like fullscreen and autosave support, which I generally love, but I know a lot of people hate them.

---

P.S. Wicknix, we're totally clogging up your thread, I'm sorry! I guess that's how conversations go sometimes...

...and tbqh, I can't miss the chance to discuss Mac OS version difference minutia, which I have very strong feelings about if you can't tell!

 

[Amethyst1]

Mavericks's visual design is identical to Mountain Lion's,

It has a much nicer 2D Dock than 10.5~10.8.
[automerge]1594935898[/automerge]

Snow Leopard may or may not be faster on some hardware

On the machines I've used both on, Snowy was noticeably faster than Mavericks - or any version that came after it for that matter.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

On the machines I've used both on, Snowy was noticeably faster than Mavericks - or any version that came after it for that matter.

Yeah—I'm going to hazard a guess these were machines with HDD's rather than SSD's, right? Lion and above really seem to be tuned for SSD's. If I had to guess why, I'd blame autosave.

 

[Amethyst1]

Yeah—I'm going to hazard a guess these were machines with HDD's rather than SSD's, right? Lion and above really seem to be tuned for SSD's. If I had to guess why, I'd blame autosave.

SSDs, AutoSave off.

 

[xeno74]

I tried to compile the new alpha version of Arctic Fox 27.10.2 on Ubuntu 10.04.4 PowerPC today but without any success. Any ideas? The version 27.10.1 compiles without any problems on Ubuntu 10.04.4 PowerPC.

 

[xeno74]

I solved the issue. I copied the src directory to my AmigaOne X1000. After that I was able to link the Arctic Fox 27.10.2a binary. I am very happy. The problem was my virtual PowerMac. It doesn't have enough power to link the new Arctic Fox binary.

 

[z970]

@xeno74 This isn't directly related to Arctic Fox, but what's it like using an AmigaOne machine?

 

[xeno74]

@xeno74 This isn't directly related to Arctic Fox, but what's it like using an AmigaOne machine?

Using an AmigaOne machine with Linux and MorphOS is very interesting. New modern PowerPC hardware with a great firmware.

@All
Here is the Alpha of Arctic Fox 27.10.2 (32-bit) for testing.

Download: arcticfox-27.10.2a-ubuntu10.04-powerpc.tar.bz2

Arctic Fox 27.10.2a PowerPC on a Ubuntu 10.04 Live DVD:



Please test it.

Thanks,
Christian

 

[Amethyst1]

Using an AmigaOne machine with Linux and MorphOS is very interesting. New modern PowerPC hardware with a great firmware.

I'm very curious - why do you use Ubuntu 10.04? The reason I wonder is that given wicknix' excellent 12.04R is quite fast and lightweight, a hypothetical 10.04R would presumably be even faster?

 

[xeno74]

I'm very curious - why do you use Ubuntu 10.04? The reason I wonder is that given wicknix' excellent 12.04R is quite fast and lightweight, a hypothetical 10.04R would presumably be even faster?

I don't use Ubuntu 10.04 very often. I use more Fienix and ubuntu MATE 16.04.6. I created this package for users with slow old Power Macs who use old Linux distributions.

 

[CooperBox]

Just a few extra comments on my use of Arctic Fox v.27.10.1 especially for gratitude and praise to Wicknix.
I have three 2.4 GHz Intel Core Duo white MacBooks (MacBook7,1) which was the last of the white polycarbonate MacBooks and imho a great, relatively unknown model. One is a 'spares' machine, the 2nd running Mojave (using the DosDude1 patch) with an SSD and 8Gb memory, and the 3rd - being used now - with a feeble 3Gb memory running OS 10.6.8 Snow Leopard and Arctic Fox 27.10.1.
The Mojave MacBook runs great, but my 'early-morning check everything' machine with Snow Leopard and Arctic Fox 27.10.1 is by far my favourite MacBook. It's simply lightning fast at all the tasks I wish it to perform, including web browsing with a few additional tune-up tweeks via the configuration editor.
Again thumbs-up for Wicknix for providing this browser!

 

[Amethyst1]

my 'early-morning check everything' machine with Snow Leopard and Arctic Fox 27.10.1 is by far my favourite MacBook. It's simply lightning fast at all the tasks I wish it to perform, including web browsing with a few additional tune-up tweeks via the configuration editor.

This is why I run Snow Leopard on my 2011 MacBook Pro. It's lightning fast.

 

[philgxxd]

Lighting fast Leopard here on my 17" 2008 MBP! You should see how fast it connects to a remote access session to my G5, also on Leopard.

It has patched Mojave though on another partition for daily tasks.

 

[timidpimpin]

This is why I run Snow Leopard on my 2011 MacBook Pro. It's lightning fast.

Yep. I love SL. I dual boot it and High Sierra on my 09 mini, and I'm likely in SL more.

 

[Amethyst1]

Lighting fast Leopard here on my 17" 2008 MBP!

Vanilla Leopard on Intel? That's almost a curiosity.

 

[CooperBox]

I should have mentioned in my post #916 above, that I'd initially planned to install Mojave with the DosDude1 patch also on the 3rd MacBook, together with a plan to increase RAM and add a Crucial SSD. In fact I had the SSD ready to install, but thought before any hardware changes, I'd install Arctic Fox - especially as the spinning HD (a WD dated 2012) seemed a rapid enough performer with no beachballing having been encountered.
The results certainly exceeded my expectations in terms of rapidity, so I had no need to install the SSD. My comments that it's simply lightning fast at all the tasks I wish it to perform, including web browsing with a few additional tune-up tweeks via the configuration editor, is with a basic HD. Amazing!
I'm sure that wouldn't have been the case even if I'd installed more RAM, with the same original HD due to the higher demands of OS Mojave. Imho there's a lot to be said for, "Keep it simple, with a low demanding OS (Snow Leopard) and web browser (Arctic Fox)".

 

[Amethyst1]

The results certainly exceeded my expectations in terms of rapidity, so I had no need to install the SSD

Snow Leopard is fine with a spinner, but an SSD really kicks it into high gear.

 

[Amethyst1]

I'm sure that wouldn't have been the case even if I'd installed more RAM, with the same original HD due to the higher demands of OS Mojave.

I dread to think what Mojave would be like on a spinner. I've used Yosemite on a spinner and it was dreadful - the 2 gigs of RAM didn't help it either.

 

[wicknix]

@CooperBox you should give SpiderWeb a try. Based on newer FF52.9/UXP code. Works good for sites that might give AF the finger. Make sure to grab the addons.zip as well for some extra goodies.
https://randommacstuff.blogspot.com/p/spiderweb-browser.html

Cheers

 

[CooperBox]

@CooperBox you should give SpiderWeb a try. Based on newer FF52.9/UXP code. Works good for sites that might give AF the finger. Make sure to grab the addons.zip as well for some extra goodies.
https://randommacstuff.blogspot.com/p/spiderweb-browser.html

Cheers

Will do. Cheers!