Firefox "Quantum" ported to 10.7 - 10.8

[CooperBox]

Non-shameful plug initiated:

On these older machines running 10.7 and the like, slowdowns with Web 3.0 can sometimes be a problem, especially on iMacs or MacBook Pros.

The following has been designed to not only work well as a solution for consistent and improved performance, but for both enhanced security and user privacy, too (which commonly comes in handy, especially when given these special use cases).

foxPEP and TenFourFoxPEP - For A Faster Firefox / TenFourFox

The Firefox Partitioned Engine Patch, officially abbreviated as foxPEP, is a finely tuned all-in-one preferences patch designed exclusively for Firefox-based browsers that automatically applies a number of advanced under-the-hood configurations to achieve a superior Web browsing experience on...

forums.macrumors.com

Hope this helps.

Yes, I've used this sucessfully on several other OS's and various laptops.
Now have a question relating to the InterWeb browser which I now have up and running well on a MacMini 2,1.
Can I add the FoxPEP 2.1 file without 'breaking' anything or rendering the browser less efficient?

 

[maverick28]

@parrotgeek1 Thank you so much for Firefox Legacy! Runs like a dream on my OSX 10.8.5 machine. Question, is there a way to get rid of the yellow update notification in the upper right hand corner menu icon? I'd like to disable all updates and notifications completely if possible.

In the unified search field type about:config then click on "Accept risk and continue" button. In the search field type update to filter out entries. You need to modify 2 settings: app.update.auto and app.update.badge (see the screenshot). You do it by clicking on each of them: the value should change to false. Relaunch Firefox after modifying these settings.

 

[z970]

@CooperBox

From the foxPEP main post:

Tips for Snow Leopard Users

- foxPEP does not support Arctic Fox (which is based on Pale Moon 27, equivalent to Firefox 38).

- InterWeb (based on a version of XUL equivalent to Firefox 60.9) is the official foxPEP-endorsed browser for Intel Macs on 10.6. Its use is strongly recommended over Firefox 45.9 or Arctic Fox.

It works fine with InterWeb.

 

[CooperBox]

@CooperBox

From the foxPEP main post:



It works fine with InterWeb.

I've just 'PEPt' up my InterWeb browser, and all working as well as I wished for.?

 

[CooperBox]

Both SpiderWeb and InterWeb have been updated. Same links as posted above or the link in my signature.

Cheers

Hi! As I mentioned elsewhere, although this FireFox Legacy is performing very well, I'm now using Interweb as my preferred browser with OS Lion, as it appears to be the most rapid. One related question please:
As I'm preparing this 2007 Mac Mini for someone else, I'd like to setup the Interweb toolbar in French. Thought this would be straightforward going into Preferences/Content/Languages-choose, adding 'French' to the list, moving it to the top and clicking ok. However on rebooting it still remains in English. Is it possible to change the toolbar headings to French? It was possible and an easy change in FireFox Legacy 67.04p1.

 

[wicknix]

You can give these a try: http://repository.binaryoutcast.com/dicts/ as they are the official lang packs for Basilisk which Interweb is based on. By default only en-US is included. Let me know if it works. Thanks.

 

[CooperBox]

You can give these a try: http://repository.binaryoutcast.com/dicts/ as they are the official lang packs for Basilisk which Interweb is based on. By default only en-US is included. Let me know if it works. Thanks.

Thanks for the rapid reply. I gave it a try downloading and installing the fr-FR.xpi file from the link you provided.


Unfortunately that didn't change the Interweb toolbar headings.
I note however that I do have a French dictionary loaded which is at least a step in the right direction.


As the OS is set up in French, I guess at this stage that should be sufficient for the new user.

Whilst still on Q&A time, one extension I've always like to add is Privacy Badger, and this installed ok on the FireFox Legacy browser. Looked for something similar in the Basilisk add-ons site. Noticed 'Proxy Privacy Ruler'. Would this be a suitable add-on for additional security? Although I wouldn't want to noticeably compromise/degrade the current excellent performance of Interweb.

 

[EugW]

Firefox Legacy 68.12 ESR is now out for 10.7 Lion. This is a big deal since it gets the most recent security updates.

71 is also now out for 10.8 Mountain Lion. Ironically though, 71 is in some ways a less up-to-date version than 68.12 ESR.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

?

I'm going to hazard a guess that the 68.12 ESR version for Lion will work fine on Mountain Lion too. And it's the route I'd personally recommend, given the importance of security in a web browser.

 

[EugW]

I'm going to hazard a guess that the 68.12 ESR version for Lion will work fine on Mountain Lion too.

Yes, I suspect so. It'd be nice if someone could confirm though.

And it's the route I'd recommend given the importance of security in a web browser.

I agree. Unless you're on a 10.12 Sierra or later Mac, I'd stick with the ESR versions. Firefox Legacy 68 ESR for 10.7 and 10.8, and Firefox 78 ESR for 10.9-10.11. (Firefox 78 ESR was also updated this week.)

 

[Wowfunhappy]

...another random thought for the morning.

I was looking through the Firefox Legacy source code, and it looks like most of the fixes are for Appkit and CoreFoundation.

Have any developers considered / looked at compiling a version of Firefox to use X11 (XQuartz) instead of native macOS libraries? It goes without saying that Firefox natively supports X since it's used on so many Linux systems, so in theory this could be a very low-maintenance way to keep the browser working and up-to-date. As a tradeoff, it would feel someone what less mac-native, but Firefox is already so poor in that department, I don't think it would be a big loss.

Edit: Firefox on Mac via X11 has been done before, possible starting point: https://github.com/cooljeanius/LocalPorts/blob/master/www/firefox-x11/Portfile

 

[EugW]

...another random thought for the morning.

I was looking through the Firefox Legacy source code, and it looks like most of the fixes are for Appkit and CoreFoundation.

Have any developers considered / looked at compiling a version of Firefox to use X11 (XQuartz) instead of native macOS libraries? It goes without saying that Firefox natively supports X since it's used on so many Linux systems, so in theory this could be a very low-maintenance way to keep the browser working and up-to-date. As a tradeoff, it would feel someone what less mac-native, but Firefox is already so poor in that department, I don't think it would be a big loss.

If it had to rely on X11, I would no longer recommend it to average users. In fact, I'd probably stop using it myself too.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

If it had to rely on X11, I would no longer recommend it to average users. In fact, I'd probably stop using it myself too.

...is there a reason? I'm just talking about a normal app that happens to use XQuartz for rendering, like Wineskin does, not some complicated setup.

 

[CooperBox]

Firefox Legacy 68.12 ESR is now out for 10.7 Lion. This is a big deal since it gets the most recent security updates.

71 is also now out for 10.8 Mountain Lion. Ironically though, 71 is in some ways a less up-to-date version than 68.12 ESR.

Interesting, thanks for the heads-up. I'll install it.
Couldn't help wondering though when clicking on my 67.04p1 version (installed just this week) why there was no indication of a later version....

 

[EugW]

...is there a reason? I'm just talking about a normal app that happens to use XQuartz for rendering, like Wineskin does, not some complicated setup.

Because it would become even more un-Mac-like.

Plus, I must admit I'm biased as I'm perfectly prepared to retire 10.7 machines completely once it gets to that point, since I already own much more recent machines.

And that's for me. For the average user, it'd be even worse.

In that context, I'm not convinced there would be many developers willing to put in the effort, but you never know.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

Because it's becoming more and more un-Mac-like.

In most cases I'd agree, but for Firefox?

Firefox doesn't support Applescript, doesn't use Apple's spellchecker or text-replacement, and doesn't respect custom keyboard shortcuts. The UI is all html without any aqua elements. I just don't think you'd loose much.

I need Slack for work, and I've started using it inside of Wine. It's honestly kind of amazing how little difference it makes versus using the official Mac version of Slack, because, well, Slack is an already an Electron app.

The bigger question of course is how much work would it be to compile a copy of Firefox that targets Mac, but uses X for rendering. I'm not a C developer and don't know the answer—but I think it's notable that browsers like Epiphany almost work out of the box from Macports, even though they appear to have had almost no Mac development work.

(By "almost work", I mean they aren't usable for actual web browsing, but they do open and display some web pages. If you can get that far with no changes to the code base, imagine what a handful of fixes might do...)

 

[EugW]

In most cases I'd agree, but for Firefox?

Firefox doesn't support Applescript, doesn't use Apple's spellchecker or text-replacement, and doesn't respect custom keyboard shortcuts. The UI is all html without any aqua elements. I just don't think you'd loose much.

I need Slack for work, and I've started using it inside of Wine. It's honestly kind of amazing how little difference it makes versus using the official Mac version of Slack, because, well, Slack is an already an Electron app.

The bigger question of course is how much work would it be to compile a copy of Firefox that targets Mac, but uses X for rendering. I'm not a C developer and don't know the answer—but I think it's notable that browsers like Epiphany almost work out of the box from Macports, even though they appear to have had almost no Mac development work.

(By "almost work", I mean they aren't usable for actual web browsing, but they do open and display some web pages. If you can get that far with no changes to the code base, imagine what a handful of fixes might do...)

It’s not just about the interface but also about the integration.

Just about nobody I know runs X11 or XQuartz or Wine, and I’m not interested in becoming their telephone support either for these, esp. since I don’t use them either.

 

[retta283]

Is there any solution at present to the problem of camera/microphone crashing the browser? Tried accepting a video call and I instantly crashed...

 

[parrotgeek1]

Is there any solution at present to the problem of camera/microphone crashing the browser? Tried accepting a video call and I instantly crashed...

There is not, unfortunately. However, this problem does not occur with 10.8, so if you can use my NexPostFacto to unofficially run 10.8 that is a viable workaround.

 

[parrotgeek1]

In the newest version for OS X 10.7 Lion, 68.12.0p3, Firefox Legacy now enables support for numerous newer web standards, including Push, Service Workers, Feature Policy, ResizeObserver, Promise Rejection Events, more of the Animations API, and several CSS features. This should improve compatibility with many websites. For security and privacy reasons, support for TLS 1.0 and 1.1, HPKP, and the Battery API is now disabled.

However, there is one *big* issue: Starting in version 85, Firefox now requires SSE4.1, because it is compiled with the 10.12 SDK which uses it by default. The use of SSE4.1 is pervasive enough that I don't see a way to patch it out. In order to support Firefox Legacy 10.11 on 2006-2007 Macs, I would need to re-compile it. I don't think I have the time to do this and keep up with the security updates for the upcoming ESR 91.

My tentative plan is to release version 84 for computers without SSE4.1, and make future updates only for computers which have it. However, if someone else is up to the task of compiling Firefox regularly to help this project, I could release builds which support 10.11 in a much cleaner way, and support computers without SSE4.1. Any takers?

EDIT: As of 2021-10-24, Firefox Legacy is no longer supported. An update for 10.11 will not happen.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

An update regarding 10.11:

I have gotten Firefox 84 and 85 both quite functional on 10.11; there are just a few small issues left to iron out.

However, there is one *big* issue: Starting in version 85, Firefox now requires SSE4.1, because it is compiled with the 10.12 SDK which uses it by default. The use of SSE4.1 is pervasive enough that I don't see a way to patch it out. In order to support Firefox Legacy 10.11 on 2006-2007 Macs, I would need to re-compile it. I don't think I have the time to do this and keep up with the security updates for the upcoming ESR 91.

My tentative plan is to release version 84 for computers without SSE4.1, and make future updates only for computers which have it. However, if someone else is up to the task of compiling Firefox regularly to help this project, I could release builds which support 10.11 in a much cleaner way, and support computers without SSE4.1. Any takers?

Super neat! Will this be 10.11 only? (I'm selfishly wondering about 10.9 in particular, since that also just got dropped.)

If there aren't any other takers, I'd be willing to do a compile every couple months or so, but I'm hesitant to commit to doing it more regularly than that. You can probably find someone else who will be better.

 

[LeHachoir]

In the newest version for OS X 10.7 Lion, 68.12.0p3, Firefox Legacy now features support for numerous newer web standards, including Push, Service Workers, Feature Policy, ResizeObserver, Promise Rejection Events, more of the Animations API, and several CSS features. This should improve compatibility with many websites. For security and privacy reasons, support for TLS 1.0 and 1.1, HPKP, and the Battery API is now disabled.

An update regarding 10.11:

I have gotten Firefox 84 and 85 both quite functional on 10.11; there are just a few small issues left to iron out.

However, there is one *big* issue: Starting in version 85, Firefox now requires SSE4.1, because it is compiled with the 10.12 SDK which uses it by default. The use of SSE4.1 is pervasive enough that I don't see a way to patch it out. In order to support Firefox Legacy 10.11 on 2006-2007 Macs, I would need to re-compile it. I don't think I have the time to do this and keep up with the security updates for the upcoming ESR 91.

My tentative plan is to release version 84 for computers without SSE4.1, and make future updates only for computers which have it. However, if someone else is up to the task of compiling Firefox regularly to help this project, I could release builds which support 10.11 in a much cleaner way, and support computers without SSE4.1. Any takers?

Hi! Is it possible to use 68.12. 0p3 for 10.8? Is it better?MB4,1

 

[parrotgeek1]

It will be 10.11 only; too much UI code related to 10.9 was removed for me to be able to add it without re-compiling. 10.10 has somewhat of the same problem, and I also think there is no real reason to support it when every computer that can run 10.10, whether officially or unofficially, can also run 10.11.

EDIT: As of 2021-10-24, Firefox Legacy is no longer supported. An update for 10.11 will not happen.

 

[parrotgeek1]

Hi! Is it possible to use 68.12. 0p3 for 10.8? Is it better?MB4,1

Yes it also works fine on 10.8. There might be some websites that work on 71 that don't work on it, but for general security 68.12 is much better.

 

[Wowfunhappy]

It will be 10.11 only; too much UI code related to 10.9 was removed for me to be able to add it without re-compiling.

Got it! Just as a note, if the ability to recompile Firefox is what's blocking Mavericks support, that's something I'd absolutely be able/willing to help with, as often as you need for updates! Mavericks is special to me.