Not actually splitting hairs. The post says "latest" which doesn't mean there won't be any more. Therefore it didn't make sense. But now I know it's the "last", it does make sense.
As you said, a sad day.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Other Chromium Legacy: Google Chrome for OS X 10.7 – 10.9
- Thread starter Wowfunhappy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- web browsers
- Sort by reaction score
As you said, a sad day.
I have faith in the vintage Mac community to step up, much as this same community has managed to keep critical security components current for PowerPC and pre-Mavericks Intel Macs. The need for those solutions continues even as Mozilla are leaving it.
Yes. We have Chromium Legacy, which is fantastic. Do you think Firefox Legacy will be adapted to allow Mavericks users to use it as a later version than 78 ESR ?
I would love to give Chromium Legacy a trial run in a 64-bit Snow Leopard environment, but the maintainer of that project is happy with only supporting as far back as Lion since this is the OS they prefer to use.
I gather there’s reasonable likelihood that community developers will produce Mozilla browser builds (under other names) which contain the latest security updates, keeping parity with the current version of Firefox. I think it’s possible that some features could be back-ported to the 78 ESR code base, giving the resulting browser some of the more desired features (i.e., a feature parity) introduced after Firefox 78.15.0 ESR.
I gather the latter path is less certain to occur (or for as long) than the former.
Intermittently, yes, but I generally use Interweb on my (64-bit) Snow Leopard Macs. Prior to, I was using TenFourFox for Intel. Although the Interweb binary for download is a 32-bit build (intended for maximum compatibility cross all Snow Leopard-capable Intel Macs and also support for legacy 32-bit plug-ins like QuickTime), I’ve compiled 64-bit versions for my own use. It’s what I’m using to type this.
Not by parrotgeek I don’t, because he said he doesn’t have time.
Anyway, Chromium Legacy works super well. I’m all for browser diversity but beggars can’t be choosers on these old systems, and I’d almost rather efforts were concentrated on one project. Still need to figure out why Chromium Legacy can’t print on Mavericks...
On one hand, you’re completely correct: end users should be grateful there are actually options for vintage systems. Overall, we very much are.
If, on the other, all efforts were concentrated to solely one project such as Chromium Legacy, then it would positively need to accommodate Snow Leopard. If holding the code base to 64-bit systems, then this would cover many of the early Intel Macs, a fair number of which are still in use. If, however, someone was intrepid enough to also build for 32-bit (or if it was even possible, much less feasible), then this also would cover every early Intel Mac model and many of the first four generations of iX-series Macs.
Sorry, I meant per-OS! InterWeb is an important project for Snow Leopard, as TenFourFox was for Tiger.
I'm just not mourning the loss of Firefox ESR on 10.9. There's a really great browser that works on 10.9, use that one!
InterWeb and SpiderWeb don't work for me (can't type or get a cursor in the address or search fields) but ArcticF and TFF Intel (and Chrome 49) seem to work fine in my SL VM.
I should add that I only run 10.6.8 as a VM, I don't use it as a main OS anymore now I'm on Mavericks.
Last edited:
I tried to update to a latest version beginning 9457**. Clicking it from the Downloader in System Preferences, nothing happened. Nothing at all. So I tried with a version marked not with a number but "stable". That worked fine, giving me Chrome 96.0.4664.55.
Does this mean anything after "stable" no longer works in Mavericks?
Does this mean anything after "stable" no longer works in Mavericks?
It would be an issue with my downloader if anything. However, Github is having some issues with downloads today, I would wait for that to get sorted out before doing anything futher.
Also, I recommend that "stable" build—it's based on the stable branch of Chromium instead of "Canary", which is a new thing Bluebox is experimenting with.
I'm quite happy to use the "stable" version of Chromium for the foreseeable. Thanks.
Another very serious problem. Now I'm using the "stable" version there is no widevine component and no way to download it. ITV, Channel 4, and Netflix won't play (in the older version they did) and that was the ENTIRE reason behind my using Chrome Legacy.
Why isn't widevine in this version? Should I revert to an older version?.
Why isn't widevine in this version? Should I revert to an older version?.
@MacBiter Is widevine listed in chrome://components?
Fair warning—it’s going to stop working someday, and there will be nothing anyone can do because widevine is closed source. Hopefully that isn’t today, though!
Edit: but also yes try a different build, that’s why the menu is there!
Fair warning—it’s going to stop working someday, and there will be nothing anyone can do because widevine is closed source. Hopefully that isn’t today, though!
Edit: but also yes try a different build, that’s why the menu is there!
Last edited:
Actually, it's more complicated than I thought. Compare the Firefox (78 ESR) widevine with the Chromium version, both in Application Support:
As you can see, both use widevine 4.10.2391.0. HOWEVER, the Firefox dates are a day later than Chromium's. Firefox has obviously updated itself to a newer version (I don't touch Firefox) while it seems Chromium hasn't.
And no, I tried seeing if widevine was in Chromium:components but it wasn't in the list. Yet it's there (apparently) in my Library. So I'm more confused than ever. (It also seems odd that one or two of the Chromium files have Firefox icons..).
ETA: From one discussion thread it seems the problem might stem from Chromium being "managed by your organisation" (which Settings says it is).
Last edited:
Can confirm that widevine doesn't seem to work in any build newer than 945528, including "stable", even though that should be based on an older codebase. I mentioned this on the Github project.
Hopefully it can be fixed, widevine is strange and mysterious. For now, stick with build 945528 if you need widevine.
Edit: Bluebox confirmed this was his mistake and it will be fixed shortly.
Hopefully it can be fixed, widevine is strange and mysterious. For now, stick with build 945528 if you need widevine.
Edit: Bluebox confirmed this was his mistake and it will be fixed shortly.
Last edited:
I should think the majority of C.Legacy users need widevine, as it and Firefox 78 ESR are the only two browsers left for Mavericks that will stream video services that use wv; and Firefox will stop working anytime widevine is upgraded as FF 78 ESR has had its final update.Can confirm that widevine doesn't seem to work in any build newer than 945528, including "stable", even though that should be based on an older codebase. I mentioned this on the Github project.
Hopefully it can be fixed, widevine is strange and mysterious. For now, stick with build 945528 if you need widevine.
Edit: Bluebox confirmed this was his mistake and it will be fixed shortly.
Will you post here when it's been fixed? And will the fixed version still be called "stable"? Thanks.
The latest build (946289) already has fixed Widevine. I don't know when stable will be updated. I also need to update my updater to work with the stable builds in a more logical way.
There's now one even later than 946289 which I've downloaded and it once again plays streaming video so I'm happy 😊
It's quite funny really - the 'What's New' screen tells me "This computer will no longer receive Google Chrome updates because Mac OS X 10.6 - 10.10 are no longer supported". Haha, if only they knew! 😂.😂😂
It is, and I build my own as a 64-bit binary intended for SL each time @wicknix posts an update. In fact, I’m using Interweb 60.9.7 in 64-bit on SL for making this very post.
That said, there are times when sites expect a chromium-based browser (owing to its dominance in browser share overall) and kvetch when a mozilla browser is doing the work. It would be welcome should the chromium-legacy project at least make it reasonably feasible for anyone to compile their own binary to run in a 64-bit SL setting — even as pre-compiled binaries generated for download are intended for 10.7–10.9 users (i.e., a “roll your own” proposition). Earlier in this discussion, I made passing mention of 32-bit support before remembering how Google ditched 32-bit-everything a very long time ago.
As to trying a “roll my own” tack, I had a look at the chromium-legacy source code, its readme docs, and its wiki, and I realized how trying to compile for SL would be prohibitively difficult given the instructions provided (including an instruction of grabbing a Lion patch with git from blueboxd — implying that no such patch for Snow Leopard exists). The prospect of building for 64-bit SL seems tantalizingly close, yet just beyond reach.
Indeed. With 10.9, the browser alternatives out there remain, relatively speaking, fairly plentiful.
If you don't watch ITV, Channel 4, Netflix, Prime, etc - then indeed so. Unfortunately all those need the latest widevine installed which limits the choice to Firefox 78 ESR (whose days are numbered) and Chromium Legacy.
I mean, if it was supported in the source code, it wouldn't be any extra work to change the deployment target in the binaries that are built automatically.
Chromium Legacy is different from e.g. TenFourFox in that it isn't intended to be compiled on the same OS that it runs on. You actually need a Mac (or a VM) running 10.15 (Catalina) or newer in order to produce a binary. It's just that this binary is able to run all the way back on 10.7.
I know it's frustrating that there's no Snow Leopard support, but we'd just need someone with the requisite time and experience who was willing to do the work.
If you have the time and inclination, you might try it yourself. First, get Chromium Legacy to build for 10.7, so you know you have that process down. Then, try changing the deployment target to 10.6, and see where the build fails. Then, go through and fix the errors one by one, using the code from older versions of Chromium as a reference. You don’t necessarily have to understand what all the code does, just enough that you can do some pattern matching.
It will absolutely be difficult and frustrating, but you may learn a lot along the way! This was my experience updating Perian to support VP9 and HEVC, it was out of my league when I began but I just kept plugging away at it until it started to make some kind of sense.
The biggest initial hurdle may be that you do need access to a modern Mac—and a fast one at that, because Chromium builds take hours to complete! Getting Chromium to actually build on an old OS would be a major project in itself, and it isn't necessary.
Last edited:
Wow. I shall stop taking Chromium Legacy for granted now I know how much work is involved! I'm very grateful.