Early Builds of Chromium Browser for the Mac Available

[Dokter_Mac]

Snow Leopard will be Intel only. PPC is dead and for the last 3 years, people have been switching to Intel. The fact that some people are hanging onto their PPC really won't have much of an impact, especially when SL is released.

Some of you people are so narrow minded. When someone asks a question about a PowerPC Mac the standard "chicken without a head answer" is always "PPC is dead" or "move on to the 21 century" ... This is so stupid!

-First of all: PPC is not dead because Apple decided a few years ago to switch processors.
-Apple will at least support PPC G5 based Macs (yes, those "old" Macs from 3 years old) untill 2012.
-Yes, you are right about SL. Enjoy it when Apple decide to release it. And nagg about the lag of technology support by third party developers . Oh yes, Apple will support all the new technologies in SL. Remember the G5 story and commercials? 64 bit is future, G5 is the fastest processor in the world you will find in a desktop computer, while a Power Mac G5 flies across a wall, etc. 5 years later there are very few 64 bit apps Even for your top of the art, 21 century ready Intel Mac .

Do you know the IBM Cell? It's inside your xBox, it's a processor optimized for "Yellow Dog Linux" (version 6.1), it's Power architecture!

Do any of you guys understand or realise where you find Power architecture today in top of the art industry? Do you need a list?
-Desktop Computers
-Servers
-Supercomputers
-Personal digital assistants
-Game consoles
-TV Set Top Boxes/Digital Recorder
-Printers/Graphics
-Network/USB Devices
-Automotive
-Medical Equipments
-Military
-Aerospace
-Do you need some more examples? Just ask me

Did I mention that OpenCl is also ported to the Power Architecture?

God, we are on a Apple forum! Untill now we all run Leopard or Tiger! Side by side, PPC and Intel.
All we ask is some information about the Chromium Browser for the Mac and if they plan to build or support PPC.
One decent answer in this thread (untill now) is all I get. The rest is all b*llSh*t.

Only a few years ago, when Apple was running PPC based Macs only, most of the people here where full of criticism about Intel, AMD or Microsoft. Now the same people are full of criticism about PPC. Even when its a PPC inside a Mac that is running the same OS... Tsss, talking about chickens without heads . They even like to run Windows on their Macs

Anyway, the 21 century is still a long period (91 years)! Power Architecture began its life at IBM in the late 1980s when the company wanted a high-performance RISC architecture. Apple switched processors in 2006 and I'm sure (and hoping), if Apple continues untill the end of the 21 century, they will switch processors again when it's necessary.

With regards.

PS: I have 2 PPC based Macs and 2 Intel based Macs. For me they are both Macs. They all run the same OS (Leopard). Non of them are running Windows .

 

[Mackan]

I think it's looking good. Simple and fast, that's what I want. Hopefully a sharp version comes this summer.

 

[The Flashing Fi]

Some of you people are so narrow minded.

And where am I being narrow minded again?

When someone asks a question about a PowerPC Mac the standard "chicken without a head answer" is always "PPC is dead" or "move on to the 21 century" ... This is so stupid!

Keep denying man. Apple is moving on and so are the developers. If you want to say I'm wrong, then perhaps it's you who's "narrow minded."

-First of all: PPC is not dead because Apple decided a few years ago to switch processors.

In my book, when it comes to Apple, that makes them dead. That doesn't mean you still can't use them. But now Apple has to support two completely different different platforms. You know as well as I do that it's a pain in the ass. You know as well as I do that Apple favors the Intel platform. Why do you think that Rosetta only provides emulation for PPC programs on Intel chips and not emulation of x86 programs on PPC chips?

Apple is trying to kill the PPC architecture for their Macs, but in the "kindest" way possible. They're trying to do it without burning those who have older PPC Macs.

-Apple will at least support PPC G5 based Macs (yes, those "old" Macs from 3 years old) untill 2012.

It's funny that you put "old" in quotes as a way to contradict what you mean by old (like, you say old, but you really mean that they're not old). I have news for you friend, 3 years is indeed old when it comes to computers. Not ancient, but definitely dated.

-Yes, you are right about SL. Enjoy it when Apple decide to release it. And nagg about the lag of technology support by third party developers .

I will. Enjoy Leopard as developers will leap over to Snow Leopard.

Oh yes, Apple will support all the new technologies in SL. Remember the G5 story and commercials? 64 bit is future, G5 is the fastest processor in the world you will find in a desktop computer, while a Power Mac G5 flies across a wall, etc. 5 years later there are very few 64 bit apps Even for your top of the art, 21 century ready Intel Mac .

You don't need 64-bit programs to take advantage of what 64-bit offers you. The fact that it offers the ability to address more than 4 gigs of memory is definitely a major benefit, one that doesn't actually need 64-bit programs to take advantage.

And I can't speak on the side of Apple, but for Windows, any program that will benefit from addressing more than 2 gigs of memory space has for the most part moved over to offering a 64-bit version, such as AutoCAD, Solidworks, Photoshop CS4 (Windows only), 3DSmax.

64-bit is not the future. It is now.

Do you know the IBM Cell?

Of course.

It's inside your xBox

But I can't run Mac OS X on it though (actually, the xBox has a gimped Pentium III processor in it, the XBox 360 has a Xenon processor from IBM that's similar to the Cell processor, but minus the 8 SPEs). The Cell is in the PS3.

it's a processor optimized for "Yellow Dog Linux" (version 6.1)

I'll stick with Ubuntu.

Do any of you guys understand or realise where you find Power architecture today in top of the art industry?

Yes.

Do you need a list?

No, but you're going to give one anyway, aren't you?

-Desktop Computers
...[snip]...
-Do you need some more examples? Just ask me

And how does that list relate to it being a dead platform for Apple's Mac line?

Did I mention that OpenCl is also ported to the Power Architecture?

Why wouldn't it be? Afterall, OpenCL is an open specification that can be ported to ANYTHING, much like OpenGL.

All we ask is some information about the Chromium Browser for the Mac and if they plan to build or support PPC.

Are you SURE that is ALL that was said? People were/are speculating that it will "die" and go the "same fate" as Snow Leopard (read HyperZboy's comment). Of course all YOU asked was if it could be compiled for Mac OS X. Other people, and myself, weren't addressing you or your question. I never even questioned the validity of your question.

One decent answer in this thread (untill now) is all I get. The rest is all b*llSh*t.

Perhaps for you. But then again, this forum doesn't revolve around you.

Only a few years ago, when Apple was running PPC based Macs only, most of the people here where full of criticism about Intel, AMD or Microsoft. Now the same people are full of criticism about PPC. Even when its a PPC inside a Mac that is running the same OS...

Well, to be technical, and I know how you love to be technical, it's not really the "same OS." Underneith it all in the nitty gritty are two similar, but at the same time, different systems. One for PPC and one for Intel, both incompatible with each other.

They even like to run Windows on their Macs

So?

 

[MikeTheC]

I have Chrome installed on my Windows partition, but I find Firefox does a better job rendering stuff. I understand the various technical improvements Chrome's design has over other web browsers, but generally I find that in the "where the rubber meets the road" reality of actual usage, Firefox is a better choice than either Chrome or Safari. I mean, just AdBlock Plus alone is worth it to me. I have gotten to where I hate surfing the web without it.

 

[Xibalba]

My god, it FLIES. Launches near instantaneously and makes both Safari 4 and Camino (my usual weapons of choice) look very sluggish indeed at loading and rendering pages.

google chromium once mature like chrome will easily be my browser of choice for many reasons but this is the primary one - SPEED. Of course, a beautiful and simple interface with easy tab creation (esp when compared to safari 4) is appealing as well. until then, firefox with xmarks is hard to beat.

 

[powers74]

good

It works damn good... runs like a screaming raped ape

I'll have to hit you up for some pointers when I'm ready to go for it. Thanks.

 

[MikeTheC]

it runs like a screaming raped ape

You know, it suddenly occurs to me I don't think I've ever encountered this particular idiom before. Now, one could — potentially — use this expression to refer either to speed or to belligerency. I'm assuming you meant the former.

 

[Ttownbeast]

You know, it suddenly occurs to me I don't think I've ever encountered this particular idiom before. Now, one could — potentially — use this expression to refer either to speed or to belligerency. I'm assuming you meant the former.

Yes, I refer to speed its a phrase from my kinfolk in Kentucky usually referring to the performance of any souped up vehicle they happened to be running moon shine in at the time with a degree of satisfaction LOL

 

[akac]

I fear the same fate awaits Snow Leopard, the Leopard that PowerPC users expected, ya know, the one that's optimized and fixed. HAha!

That makes no sense. SL is optimization for newer processors. PowerPC are old style processors. SL's optimizations wouldn't help Power PC. Things like Grand Central don't do much until you get to the architectures like Nehalem and the Unibody MacBooks.

 

[hiimamac]

The Chromium web browser project which serves as the basis for Google's Chrome has started releasing early builds of the Mac version. While not complete, the builds work well enough to get an impression of the browser. CNet took a quick look at a build:The latest builds are kept in this directory in sequential order. If you are interested in testing it out, you should download the most recent build that you find. Updated builds are being added all the time.

Article Link: Early Builds of Chromium Browser for the Mac Available

This is awesome, awesome, awesome - one of the few reasons I was using windows 7, really. LOL.

No more windows 7 for me.

Awww, shoot, I still have EWQLSO, USBanks, Giga, and a whole slew of PC only apps - but this is awesome news. WHOOT WHOOT.

EDIT: At first it seems not such a big deal but once you use it for a while, you realize how quick and light it is plus some of the features like typing in the URL is great. Once you get used to it, there is nothing that comes close. IMHO

 

[Dokter_Mac]

And where am I being narrow minded again?

By claiming that PPC is dead just because Apple is not building those Macs anymore.

Keep denying man. Apple is moving on and so are the developers. If you want to say I'm wrong, then perhaps it's you who's "narrow minded."

I'm not denying dude. I know why Apple has switched to Intel (yes, cool indeed)
I'm not "narrow minded" because I'm still buying PPC based apps. I'm still testing them for several companies. Etc.
Okay, we are almost mid 2009 and can you tell me (besides this very early browser from google) how much apps, in percentage, are Intel only? And don't tell me SL because it's not even stores . Including games my guess is max. 20%. What's your guess? 80% Intel Mac?
Get real and accept whe are still living in a Mac Universal time period. Untill further notice at least...

In my book, when it comes to Apple, that makes them dead. That doesn't mean you still can't use them. But now Apple has to support two completely different different platforms. You know as well as I do that it's a pain in the ass. You know as well as I do that Apple favors the Intel platform. Why do you think that Rosetta only provides emulation for PPC programs on Intel chips and not emulation of x86 programs on PPC chips?

Well in my current book and the one that will be released next year or so, when it comes to Apple and third party developers, PPC on Mac running Leopard (or Tiger, or Panther and in some cases even back to OS X 10.2) makes them alive and still kicking. For instance, one can not prove that a PPC Mac is dead with numbers, which are just showing how much PPC Macs are connected to the Internet for browsing. When "site x" is releasing statistics from all their visitors between "month y and z" and they show the differences between the Intel and the PPC part of OS X. When you notice that the Intel part that is running OS X is bigger then the PPC part, what does it mean? You can conclude almost anything with such numbers ... Not every Mac (PPC or Intel) or PC is connected to the net you know! I believe you would be shocked when you know those numbers "worldwide", including in enterprises!

Apple is trying to kill the PPC architecture for their Macs, but in the "kindest" way possible. They're trying to do it without burning those who have older PPC Macs.

Yeah, it's like you visited Steve and you discussed this topic with him . BTW, how is Steve (LOL).
Common, get a grip. We all have an opinion but yours is not the one and only true one you know ... Neither is mine, but at least I'm taking the time to nuance some opinions instead of thinking in "black & white".

It's funny that you put "old" in quotes as a way to contradict what you mean by old (like, you say old, but you really mean that they're not old). I have news for you friend, 3 years is indeed old when it comes to computers. Not ancient, but definitely dated.

It's funny but in a sarcastic way. The first Intel Mac is also old, but hey it's an Intel Mac. So it's got to be modern one... At least more modern then the PPC Mac that was build a month earlier.

I have also news for you. the moment you step out an Apple store with your new Mac, he will be also dated! That's reality

I will. Enjoy Leopard as developers will leap over to Snow Leopard.

At least I'm looking in to history. You are looking in to the future (how are you doing this? like Nostradamus or so?). We will talk about this in a couple of years.

You don't need 64-bit programs to take advantage of what 64-bit offers you. The fact that it offers the ability to address more than 4 gigs of memory is definitely a major benefit, one that doesn't actually need 64-bit programs to take advantage.

Back then, with the G5 (the first 64 bit desktop), Apple was pushing developers in to writing 64 bit apps. Yes, they also said that their existing 32 bit apps would benefit from the memory and all the rest. Look what happened... We are all still running 32 bit apps (at least the major part of the programs, 99% or so...).

64-bit is not the future. It is now.

Yeah, just like all the technology in SL. Back then, the first G5's, 64 bit was the future for Apple . And that was a "long" time ago!

But I can't run Mac OS X on it though (actually, the xBox has a gimped Pentium III processor in it, the XBox 360 has a Xenon processor from IBM that's similar to the Cell processor, but minus the 8 SPEs). The Cell is in the PS3.

Right, you can't run OS X on it . BTW, I meant xBox360.
But it's proof that PPC is still alive and not a dead processor and not worth writing software for.
About the Cell in the PS3. What do you think which architecture it's using? Yeah right, 64-bit PowerPC chip .

About the XBox360. Before the launch of the Xbox 360, several alpha development kits were used. They were Apple's Power Mac G5 hardware.
The Xenon is based on IBM's PowerPC instruction set architecture!

I'll stick with Ubuntu.

Good for you. It's realy a good system. But when you realy need to count on stability and you realy want Linux, I would use Yellow Dog Linux .
But that's me.

It's stupid to say that PPC is dead just because it's out of Apple current product line. And it's even more stupid to say this in a thread about a browser from google. It's up to google to decide if they will build a PPC Mac build. If not, to bad for them. All the other good browsers are universal builds.

Yes, I just asked a question about a PPC build. But some reactions, when a fellow PPC MAC USER is asking a question about a google browser, are just plane stupid and not even relevant to the question asked.
Reactions like I wrote in my previous reply, going like this: "PPC is dead" or "move on to the 21 century" or Etc.

Perhaps for you. But then again, this forum doesn't revolve around you.

Neither around you or exclusive Intel Mac owners! Look who's posting...

Well, to be technical, and I know how you love to be technical, it's not really the "same OS." Underneith it all in the nitty gritty are two similar, but at the same time, different systems. One for PPC and one for Intel, both incompatible with each other.

You seem to know me well. You even call me "friend". And it seems you "also love to be technical"
It is the same OS you know! When I buy Leopard I can install it on PPC and Intel. Even the kernel is Universal! The system is identical!

The only difference is the "hardware".
But is this a reason for not building a Chromium browser for PPC hardware? It's just a browser you know. Not SL...
Or is this a reason, for you and others, to bash on forum members when they are asking a question about this browser and PPC compatibility?

"Only a few years ago, when Apple was running PPC based Macs only, most of the people here where full of criticism about Intel, AMD or Microsoft. Now the same people are full of criticism about PPC. Even when its a PPC inside a Mac that is running the same OS... Tsss, talking about chickens without heads They even like to run Windows on their Macs "

So?

So that's Mac humor . Did you ever see the "Mac ads"? With the Mac & PC guy? Oh boy...

With regards.

 

[iMaggot]

Sounds good, but i really like FF so i'm good .

 

[kdum8]

I will give Chrome a go and see what google have come up with naturally. But Opera is the browser of choice for me. It is by far the most user configurable browser I have ever come across and the only one I know which enables navigation around the webpage using the keyboard. That only is very useful. I am surprised more people don't use Opera. Firefox is second and Safari third.

 

[MacManiac76]

I might give this a try when it's a little more polished, and has more plugin support. For now I'm using Safari 4 and loving it. Used Firefox for the longest time before, but decided to give Safari a try as it feels more "Mac-like" to me. Tabs on top don't bother me at all anymore, kinda like them now actually. Seems we are always resistant to change at first without even giving it an honest try. Think Different!

 

[Raineer]

When it's finished, few people will even bother to check Chromium out, many won't even be able to run it, at least 25% of the Mac population.

And Firefox 3.5 does NOT take forever to launch.
Download the latest beta and you'll see what I mean.
Google is wasting their time with this project, but obviously have ulterior and high suspicious motives, TO WATCH YOU ONLINE.

I for one don't like that at all.

Thank you Big Brother Google..... NOT!

Actually, FF does take a very long time to launch. I have been a fan of firefox for a long time but even with the barest necessity of plugins (noscript / adblock), it takes much longer to launch on Windows and Mac alike.

Many of the recent Webkit builds have been too buggy as of late for me so I've been using Opera more on my Mac, it is clearly faster than FF and it's not close. The recent Safari 4 Beta build seems decently stable and hasn't crashed on me all night.

On Win32 I use Chrome almost exclusively. It needs plugin support but even when loading scripts and crap that NoScript can block it feels much faster than FF.

 

[knightlie]

My late model PowerMac G5 is far more powerful than the original Mac Mini X86 and probably still more powerful than the original MacBook.

Who's computer is more dead?

Yours, because it's built on out-of-date, unsupported tech. You might not like that, but that's the way it is.

Chromium, just like Snow Leopard is destined to FLOP!

I assume that statement is a joke.

Who will pay $129 for BUG FIXES ?!? LMAO

No-one. We'll all pay it for an updated OS, however, while you feverishly clutch your out-of-date G5 to your chest and refuse to move forward with the rest of us. If you think any OS is going to be bug-free then you're a fool.

It's not a coincidence that mostly PEECEE switchers here are raving over Chromium. Well guess what, PEECEE switchers DO NOT make up the vast majority of Mac users. Sorry to inform you of that.

You'll have to provide a little proof of your assertions. Mostly PC switchers are raving over Chromium? Proof?


Back on topic, I tried Chrome on Windows and disliked it intensely. The minimalist UI just didn't work for me, but then I'm not obsessed with having every inch of screen space full of web page.

 

[MacAndy74]

Funny since Safari 4 basically copied Chrome. So much for innovation.

I think you have it back to front. Chrome is based on Webkit, which is originally an Apple technology not Google's technology.

As for the look of Safari 4, it has tabs on top - just like Chrome, but otherwise far .. far more fully featured.

 

[HyperZboy]

You are aware that the newest PPC Mac is now over 3 years old and using Adium as a benchmark (since they actually put out their stats) is as of today at THIRTEEN (13) per cent. Source: http://adium.im/sparkle/

Only one problem with that stat..... NOBODY USES ADIUM! LOL

Seriously, that's a ridiculous source for Mac PowerPC statistics.

I'd say the percentage of PPC users is at least 20% of ALL MAC USERS if not more.
If somebody has a more accurate number, I'd be happy to see it, but Adium stats are just plain a joke. As someone else stated, many PowerPC Macs might not even be connected to the internet. My parents never go online, to them its a fancy typewriter! LOL

And PowerPC is not dead, just the companies that manufacture it are! LOL
Freescale ?
Motorola ?

The # of PowerPC users still out there are why Chromium and Snow Leopard will both FAIL especially if SL is $129. There just won't be enough people to use either and pissing off 20-25% or your fan base is hardly good PR during a bad economy.
Apple (and even Google to some extent) would earn lots more money offering PowerPC support since less and less people are buying new computers during this current economic crisis.

Finally, I have Firefox 3.5 beta so if it does not take long to launch on my supposedly aged "unsupported" Powermac G5, then how come people with supposedly far superior INTEL Macs say it takes so long to load??? I didn't even know Opera for Mac was still around so I downloaded it. Guess what? Loads just as fast as Firefox 3.5 and Safari, no difference, so I have no clue where this "slow loading" thing comes from unless you're using Firefox 2.0 or the original 3.0

PS: Just checked Opera out, not bad, and available for PowerPC, pretty fast, lots of options.
Yet nobody uses it or barely even knows it's out there. I'd forgotten about it myself and I've used it before! LOL
How will Chromium do better?
I rest my case.

 

[spetznatz]

Erm... Am I being thick, or is there no way to import bookmarks from other browsers yet?

 

[xUKHCx]

I don't think it is a coincidence that there has been a drastic change in safari's UI right after Chrome broke through with it's innovative design. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple is working on each tab being a seperate process either, albeit it was MS who started that first with IE8 beta.

Chrome Innovative UI design?

What are you refering to, again you make a broad statement without any specifics.

Tabs on Top - Opera
Most Visited - Opera / Firefox plugins
Search bar/ Addressbar combo - Opera

When I look at Chrome I see little/no innovation in terms of the UI. Chrome has brought other things to the table yes but like I said previously good ideas/features generally will propagate through the competing products in the market place.

Only one problem with that stat..... NOBODY USES ADIUM! LOL

Seriously, that's a ridiculous source for Mac PowerPC statistics.



I'd say the percentage of PPC users is at least 20% of ALL MAC USERS if not more.
If somebody has a more accurate number

So you ignore actual collected data, yes the numbers might be off but as a representative it is a good one.

It is a more accurate number than the one you just made up.

PS: Just checked Opera out, not bad, and available for PowerPC, pretty fast, lots of options.
Yet nobody uses it or barely even knows it's out there. I'd forgotten about it myself and I've used it before! LOL
How will Chromium do better?
I rest my case.

Last time I checked Opera is right up there in terms of mobile handsets.

Opera on the desktop has 40million+ users and is a major player in the developing markets around the world and in some reported statitics is above Safari



In terms of this thread when people refer to PPC as dead they obviously mean in terms of the apple computer market and are referring to future development.

 

[clevin]

I don't know why MR pins this discussion as a legit news on the new board.

This version is not beta, probably is not even alpha, to encourage normal users to try this out, will only damage the impression they have towards the products. IMHO.

I see of no reason for discussing a early stage products like this.

Its being developed by the same guy who develops Camino, so as the project matures you should expect a similar level of polish and features.

You sure? Are you talking about Josh Aas? Or who?

Its also untrue to state that any browser can be developed by a single or two person.

Its also untrue to think same person would encourages different products to have similar features. Dave Hyatt has been involved in both Phoenix and Webkit, and he is probably chief developer with webkit, how many similarity of safari and firefox are there feature-wise?

 

[HyperZboy]

So you ignore actual collected data, yes the numbers might be off but as a representative it is a good one.

It is a more accurate number than the one you just made up.

Last time I checked Opera is right up there in terms of mobile handsets.

In terms of this thread when people refer to PPC as dead they obviously mean in terms of the apple computer market and are referring to future development.

Ok, so you referred to PowerPC as in only the Mac market, yet Opera in other terms & other markets and say it's a success, that's quite odd and contradictory.

Nobody using Macs uses Opera or Adium, although I like both programs personally. Adium needs a LOT of work though, but the concept is awesome. Opera is finally starting to look good, but nobody cares about EITHER of these programs so quoting PPC usage numbers from either is beyond FOOLISH!

NOBODY USES THEM, DUH! (Disclaimer: except us geeks here.)

So my PowerPC pie in the sky 20-25% number is actually more valid! HAha!
Seriously, if 13% of Adium users are PowerPC Mac users, do the extended math!
It's clearly obvious I'm right.

My number is looking more & more realistic compared to the stupid comments of "collected data" from sources no Mac user even uses! HAha!

Go figure.

PS: Safari 4 Beta crashed while posting this. Firefox 3.5 never crashes on me. Go figure.
I am going to reconsider Opera now until Apple fixes the bugs on PowerPC with Safari 4.

I'll repeat for the hearing impaired... CHROMIUM WILL BE DOA IN THE MAC MARKET!

 

[cg0def]

Funny since Safari 4 basically copied Chrome. So much for innovation.

Really? You need to actually READ the google page if you believe that. Chromium is almost entirely based on webkit which is the development branch of Safari. The only thing that Safari copied in some of the UI. There is also the matter of 2 different java script engines but the rendering core of the 2 browsers is quite the same. And at the end of the day it is the rendering engine that makes or breaks a browser.

Oh and if you wander why Google didn't use the Apple JS engine ... it wasn't available at the time that Google started working on Chrome.

 

[*LTD*]

Are we still revisiting this old, tired "Is the PowerPC dead?" issue?

Apple switched to Intel architecture around late 2005/January 2006. We're almost in the second half of 2009 now. There are a lot of apps being released as Intel-only.

If there is only an Intel version of an app available, don't be surprised.

If there is a PowerPC version available as well, consider yourself lucky.

If your G5 or earlier Mac does all you need, then there's no reason to get rid of it. Just don't wring your hands and gnash your teeth when a) there is no PowerPC version available of an app you want, or b) PowerPC support was dropped from your favourite app.

With respect to continued development (or remaining development) for the PowerPC architecture, it'll only get worse as time goes on.

 

[xUKHCx]

I don't know why MR pins this discussion as a legit news on the new board.

This version is not beta, probably is not even alpha, to encourage normal users to try this out, will only damage the impression they have towards the products. IMHO.

I see of no reason for discussing a early stage products like this.

Chrome on windows was big news, at that time the lack of Chrome on Mac was also big news. Chrome has gained a lot of blogsphere mindspace in the mean time and a lot of people are looking forward to its release. This is an insight into ow the development is going.

Ok, so you referred to PPC as in only the Mac market, yet Opera in other terms & other markets and say it's a success, that's quite odd and contradictory.

It is not odd. Firstly you have to look at the context of this forum.

This is a mac forum were the talk is predominately about Macintosh computers and OS X. OS X in itself is an operating system that runs on the hardware that apple allows us to, i.e currently Intel and PPC. Therefore we talk about the Macintosh market when issues that affect this come up, i.e. in this case PPC.

However in OS X there are applications which can be cross platform ala Safari, Firefox, Chrome, Opera, Photoshop etc. etc. Therefore talking about applications that are cross platform in such a context is not a contradiction.

Nobody using Macs uses Opera or Adium, although I like both programs personally. Adium needs a LOT of work though, but the concept is awesome. Opera is finally starting to look good, but nobody cares about EITHER of these programs so quoting PPC usage numbers from either is beyond FOOLISH!

Any actual facts to back these statements up? Considering you just found out about (modern) Opera less than 2 hours ago you seem to make quite a lot of statements about it. Again without any facts to back them up and in the face of facts that I have provided.

NOBODY USES THEM, DUH! (Disclaimer: except the geeks here.)

I have given links to data that refutes these facts. To repeat this statement when the actual facts have been given to you is wrong.

Here is a poll from a forum thread where 4.73% (as of today) have said they use Opera.

So my PPC pie in the sky 20-25% number is actually more valid! HAha!

So a statement that you made up is backed up by a further statement you made up.


On a serious note: Further repetition of statements as fact without data/sources to back them up in the face of sources/data otherwise will be considered trolling.