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 Web browsers for early Intel Macs
- Thread starter wicknix
- WikiPost WikiPost
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
- Status
I have a 2010 mac pro also. It should support up to 10.13 natively. I have mine running 10.15 with dosdudes catalina patcher. However I have the drive slots loaded so I have 10.6/10.7/10.11/10.13/10.15 and linux running on that machine.
I've just tried Vivaldi 1.16.1259.3 (Official Build) (64-bit) that I got from here:
vivaldi.com
Im using it with (unsupported) 10.9.5 on a 17inch late 2006 iMac 5,1.
Just tried it in Youtube watching a movie..and no advertising ..so far.
Ive an iMac running (unsupported) 10.13 and ran into a prob with Gmail not working with an older Mail as it had security risks.
Found the latest Vivaldi has built in mail (plus a note maker and a 1980s style horizontal scrolling game) and gmail works fine.
Unfortunately the 1.16.1259.3 doesn't have mail...or the game.
Regression and developer tools fixes | Vivaldi Browser
It’s the first day of August and we’ve got a new Snapshot, focusing on fixing as many regressions as we can, to give you a polished and stable release.
vivaldi.com
Im using it with (unsupported) 10.9.5 on a 17inch late 2006 iMac 5,1.
Just tried it in Youtube watching a movie..and no advertising ..so far.
Ive an iMac running (unsupported) 10.13 and ran into a prob with Gmail not working with an older Mail as it had security risks.
Found the latest Vivaldi has built in mail (plus a note maker and a 1980s style horizontal scrolling game) and gmail works fine.
Unfortunately the 1.16.1259.3 doesn't have mail...or the game.
Just saw Wicknix's browser test compliance score..and tried Vivaldi 1.16 in that. Scored 528 out of 555.
Gosh - did the test again, this time on my late 2009 iMac (unsupported 10.13) using Vivaldi 6.2.3105.47 (Stable channel) (x86_64), and the score was: 525 out of 555.
And it states: 'You are using Chrome 116 on macOS Catalina 10.15'
Just repeated the test twice and got a score of 474 both times??
Gosh - did the test again, this time on my late 2009 iMac (unsupported 10.13) using Vivaldi 6.2.3105.47 (Stable channel) (x86_64), and the score was: 525 out of 555.
And it states: 'You are using Chrome 116 on macOS Catalina 10.15'
Just repeated the test twice and got a score of 474 both times??
Last edited:
So it turns out those firefox browsers only work with a video acceleration in SL. After installing the GT-120 it started working.
Doesn't it royally p*ss you off when the list of older versions don't tell you which OS they run on
.
Oh yep!! I've played that game before..going thru trying different versions. Wots worse is when they state a version works on a particular OS, and it doesn'tDoesn't it royally p*ss you off when the list of older versions don't tell you which OS they run on
Oddly enough they do state version 1.16 is OS X 10.9, and that does work, but when I look at their older version list it jumps from 1.15 to 2.0. Did try unsuccessful a couple of version 2s, but wondered why I couldn't find any other 1.16s??
Presumably - just like all those browsers based on the same architecture - it won't run in a VM e.g. Parallels? When Arctic Fox stopped working properly in mine, that was it for browsers.
.
Santa Wicknix brings our gifts early this season – thank you very much!! SnowLion looks and works good so far!
As I feared... It looks ok at first but then you can't type anything in the address or search fields. 😢.😢Presumably - just like all those browsers based on the same architecture - it won't run in a VM e.g. Parallels? When Arctic Fox stopped working properly in mine, that was it for browsers.
It looks like Firefox based browsers need a proper video acceleration. They will not work in VM’s nor in systems without drivers for graphic cards.
Last edited:
Yet oddly, Arctic Fox (which from its name must be based on Firefox) worked fine until something in its certification made it stop working in my 10.6 VM.
It's possible AF worked because it's an even older code base. It's based on FF38. I'm sure a lot changed between then and FF52 and higher which the other browsers are based on.
I've just tested stuff in my 10.6 VM - Arctic Fox launched and gave me the Google home page, but if I clicked to go to any other site I got a "Secure connection failed"; similar with Safari which was happy with the Apple website but other sites were "failed connection".
So as a last resort I tried Firefox 48 - the last version for 10.6. I managed to get to the Microsoft account login page and logged in both to Outlook and One Drive!
For now then, it looks as if Firefox is the (only) way to go in a VM. FF38 obviously fails and so does FF52 in a technical way, but FF48 still works, at least for Microsoft login.
Ive been quite please using LibreWolf on MX linux. Its a cut down version of Firefox without all the bells and whistles that I dont usually need..and lots of the default settings suit me fine - like Duckduckgo as the default search engine. Its a little bit slower on my older iMac (5,1) but still very useable..and fairly up to date.
I’m currently downloading Opera versions 91-95 to see which is the latest version that supports 10.11. These versions are based on the early 100s of chromium which should be able to run pretty much any modern website.
Using the way back machine and Wikipedia I’m confident that version 96 requires 10.13. The version from September 2022 is compatible with 10.11 which should be 93 or 94 I think maybe 95.
I’ll update the main wiki page with a link to the latest version of opera that supports 10.11, hopefully it’s version 95 from early 2023.
Using the way back machine and Wikipedia I’m confident that version 96 requires 10.13. The version from September 2022 is compatible with 10.11 which should be 93 or 94 I think maybe 95.
I’ll update the main wiki page with a link to the latest version of opera that supports 10.11, hopefully it’s version 95 from early 2023.
My bad. In the Wikipedia article is stated that version 89 is the last one to support 10.11. The opera website in September 22 showed 10.11 as supported which would have been version 91. They probably just didn’t update their site until 2023.
Edit: so I installed opera 89 on 10.11 which is based on chromium 103 and ALL modern sites work as expected. Should be good for people with macs from the late 2000s for the next couple of years. I added a link to the OP (I put it below Firefox 78 since I consider them similar (both old versions of a popular brand) matter of fact I think these two should be next to the chromium link: chromium, Firefox and opera (yes my OCD is kicking)).
Edit: so I installed opera 89 on 10.11 which is based on chromium 103 and ALL modern sites work as expected. Should be good for people with macs from the late 2000s for the next couple of years. I added a link to the OP (I put it below Firefox 78 since I consider them similar (both old versions of a popular brand) matter of fact I think these two should be next to the chromium link: chromium, Firefox and opera (yes my OCD is kicking)).
Last edited:
Browsers that are still actively or recently updated for 10.6 - 10.13+ get the top spots. It’s less confusing that way, and nobody should be recommending anybody use any of the outdated browsers. They do however have their special use cases now and then, and that's why they haven’t been removed yet.
Cheers
When I did a thorough formatting of several wikiposts during pandemic, I set up lists for software, such as this wikipost, in alphabetical order of the software’s name. Of course, the last real go-through I did was back in 2021, so make it that what you will.
FWIW, I just did a bit of tidying and adding dates on when the browser was last maintained. I added “maintenance ended” dates to browsers I know from my local archives. And sorry, @wicknix , but late 2022 may be past sell-by date for both Interweb and SpiderWeb, but they’re still edible enough to get bumped back up a little bit. Fite me.
And really, it should go without saying, but perhaps I might add a disclaimer up top the list to observe the caveats of using a browser whose security isn’t patched to current standards.
EDIT: I have reverted to my edit from a few minutes ago and added a disclaimer in a contrasting highlight. @rafark : this means your contribution was re-added, but the newly added disclaimer covers bases raised by @wicknix . Please work from that revision if making future changes, as that revision has when maintenance ended on select browsers. Thanks.
Last edited:
I wasn’t paying close attention when you posted this in November. Thank you for doing this and doing service to a very venerable Snow Leopard.
Earlier today, I gave it a trial test. My impressions were, generally, mixed.
Initially, delving into the default setup reminded me a lot of what I’d get when building SpiderWeb accidentally, when compiling the builds of Interweb you made available when that project was still one you worked on. SnowLion carries that SpiderWeb front-end look, feel, and experience (which is also not unlike Arctic Fox).
The positive includes a gratitude for your producing a browser whose security is reasonably current and up to date. That alone is sufficient for having a raison d’être in 2024. SnowLion most definitely works on 10.6.8 in a basic, no-nonsense manner.
That said, the issue of security/web hygiene was where some challenges hamstrung me.
Most of these relate to compatibility, if any, with classes of add-ons. The usual legacy add-ons I keep archived locally (my big three: uBlock, uMatrix (or etaMatrix), and some kind of dark theme) were all incompatible with SnowLion 2.2.6 (as memory serves, is version number seems derived from the SpiderWeb version numbering). Even for versions of uBlock and uMatrix which I managed to add on successfully (i.e., the browser didn’t prevent it or post a modal about incompatibility with SnowLion 2.2.6), they are non-functional.
That is to say: opening add-on preferences, after being added, produced either blank or missing rendering.
As well, uBlock Origin may appear as loaded add-on, but options in the right-click menu, within a loaded page, don’t show uBlock being available:
Side by side (SnowLion at left, Interweb 60.9.9 at right), a sample of rendering the front page for The New York Times presents similar rendering, apropos of the cap for parsing and rendering XHR/JS-related page code. For previously discussed reasons, that’s to be expected.
That said, the issue of security/web hygiene was where some challenges hamstrung me.
Most of these relate to compatibility, if any, with classes of add-ons. The usual legacy add-ons I keep archived locally (my big three: uBlock, uMatrix (or etaMatrix), and some kind of dark theme) were all incompatible with SnowLion 2.2.6 (as memory serves, is version number seems derived from the SpiderWeb version numbering). Even for versions of uBlock and uMatrix which I managed to add on successfully (i.e., the browser didn’t prevent it or post a modal about incompatibility with SnowLion 2.2.6), they are non-functional.
That is to say: opening add-on preferences, after being added, produced either blank or missing rendering.
As well, uBlock Origin may appear as loaded add-on, but options in the right-click menu, within a loaded page, don’t show uBlock being available:
Side by side (SnowLion at left, Interweb 60.9.9 at right), a sample of rendering the front page for The New York Times presents similar rendering, apropos of the cap for parsing and rendering XHR/JS-related page code. For previously discussed reasons, that’s to be expected.
The aforementioned three add-ons/themes I mentioned within the spoiler tend to, always, be my start place with any browser, on any platform, I use — the first two, for web hygiene, and the third, for soothing my crappy, tired cow eyes. (It’s why, as you might recall me asking not too long ago, wicknix, about finding compatible add-ons for the SeaLion build I set up in a Linux VM, which in the end, at least with the hygiene portion, ws able to do successfully).
In the end, at least when I’m in SL (Snow Leopard) space and working on something, my instinct will continue to be to reach for opening Interweb, as its perceptible functionality is on par with SnowLion, but with the added user experience benefit of being to access a wider variety of add-ons, as needed, and working more closely alongside how I use browsers on later Mozilla-based browsers on later versions of macOS.
Unlike a former MR forum troll who’d kvetch and moan and gripe (in between doing the stuff which got them perma-banned) about not being able to do 2020s banking on a Titanium PowerBook G4 (? !!!? uh), I’m under no illusions that accessing secure sites — wherein confidential, personally identifiable data is involved — is not where one should be in 2024, when running Snow Leopard. Although it’s unfortunate, it comes with knowing how this entire net is a total kludge, a real bodge, a leaky dinghy — one in need of constant (and comically excessive) patching even as consortiums and corporations continue to stack even more cargo into it (e.g., XHR, HTML5, etc.) for which it was never, ever designed.
For anyone else keeping tabs — look, a mom joke — on this thread (or who comes upon it whilst tinkering with quote-unquote “retrocomputing”), it’s sort of important to add here how despite this, SnowLion is going to have the more current web security updates rolled out by Mozilla to the open source community, even if SnowLion is never again updated or patched. If that’s your key worry, then stick with using SnowLion (until — or if — another project in the future takes a new go at a security-updated browser which actually launches in 10.6.8).
In this sense, I do lament being unable to grab a source .tar.gz source archive to, locally and manually, build another iteration of Interweb with no change (or expectation of change) in core features — save for the security updates used with SnowLion. (I’m quite sure there is a way, one probably straightforward, but it’s above my, uh, pay grade.)
Nevertheless, I’m grateful @wicknix volunteered to run one last valedictory lap for a Snow Leopard-executable browser. As I’ve probably said to him before, he is a mensch, right up there with dosdude1.
SnowLion comes with modified and working versions of ublock and ematrix in the download archive and they work as intended. Not sure what you installed, but use what's included and you'll be golden.
Just drag and drop to install.
See attached
Cheers
Attachments
SnowLion comes with modified and working versions of ublock and ematrix in the download archive and they work as intended. Not sure what you installed, but use what's included and you'll be golden.
Just drag and drop to install.
See attached
Cheers
Thanks for that update. I’ll have a look through those.
My own usual routine for adding a browser is, more or less, the same: grab and move the application to /Applications, followed by digging into my local archives for add-ons and themes, based on version “caps” (i.e., the code base on which that browser is derived) for which those themes are known to run. I have a whole subset dedicated to pre-Quantum code browsers, which more or less includes many of the Mozilla-based browsers germane to older Early Intel (and even PowerPC) Macs.
With most Mozilla browsers reliant on FF52 or lower (TFF, incl. the Intel build, being one case), I have a copy of uBlock origin 1.16.4.5 handy. I also keep around both the original uMatrix 1.0.0 and also 1.1.4 around, depending on the browser’s limits. I think these are also what I used for Interweb and Interweb-PPC.
Although I know how Mozilla, from FF Quantum (57, I think) onward, structured .xpi packages in a fundamentally different manner (incl. a code signing requirement), creating a kind of before v. after paradigm for handling two, fundamentally different classes of add-ons, what’s less clear to me is what qualifies the add-ons you’ve bundled (or why any add-ons outside those bundles tend to run into problems with compatibility).
For example: the uBlock origin bundled in your add-ons reveals its last update, based on the files within the .xpi archive, from the same 2019 window when my archived 1.16.4.5, the one I use for the above browsers, was released. In fact, the version bundled in your directory is 1.16.4.8-libre. These are basically almost-identical major-minor versions, with only very minor, sub-subversion-level differences between the two. Yet, 1.16.4.5 does not play nice with SnowLion (or, in my experience, SeaLion on Linux).
To ask a technical question: why?
I feel I’m overlooking something probably obvious from a back-end vantage, but somewhat ambiguous/opaque from the end-user’s vantage. It also leaves one to conclude that no add-on outside the bundled/supplied in the addons-themes directory will work (i.e., no dark/black theme released for pre-Quantum browsers… unless some minor tweak is made within the .xpi archive to play nice on homebrew builds like SnowLion and SeaLion).
Should I draft some kind of one-paragraph note to contribute to a future readme.txt for either/both of SeaLion/SnowLion (OS X or Linux) describing how/why only the included add-ons work, but others probably won’t? Cheers.
The issue is that SeaMonkey never had as big of a following as Firefox, and thus didn’t have as many extension developers. On top of that most FF extensions never included the required navigator overlay needed to display/work properly on SeaMonkey. Basically the user interface is much different than that of FF's and needs extensions written for it. Since spiderweb/sealion/snowlion are all using the seamonkey UI most FF extensions wont work properly, if at all without some tweaks. That’s why i tend to include or link to popular extensions that have been modified to work.
Cheers
Cheers