0

Exactly Which Mac Firefox Versions Are Supported?

The site says I can't install BrowserPlus because my browser isn't supported (I'm using Firefox v3.0.5 on Mac OS X v10.4.11). However, it says it's good on Mac Firefox versions 2 & 3. I assumed "3" meant all versions of 3 including 3.0.5 but apparently not. What gives? Is this a bug in the code Yahoo uses to check for valid browsers or is there really that significant a difference in Firefox v3.0.5 and Firefox v3.0?

Mike

by
3 Replies
  • QUOTE (mhall6520 @ Nov 15 2008, 03:03 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    The site says I can't install BrowserPlus because my browser isn't supported (I'm using Firefox v3.0.5 on Mac OS X v10.4.11). However, it says it's good on Mac Firefox versions 2 & 3. I assumed "3" meant all versions of 3 including 3.0.5 but apparently not. What gives? Is this a bug in the code Yahoo uses to check for valid browsers or is there really that significant a difference in Firefox v3.0.5 and Firefox v3.0?

    Mike


    Hi Mike,

    Very curious. First, are you on PPC? We don't at this time support ppc macs. If on intel, please confirm and we'll see what's goin on.

    best,
    lloyd
    0
  • QUOTE (Lloyd Hilaiel @ Nov 16 2008, 10:13 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Very curious. First, are you on PPC? We don't at this time support ppc macs. If on intel, please confirm and we'll see what's goin on.


    Well, Lloyd, I guess that would be the information I was looking for. Yes, I am, indeed, on a PPC and not Intel. Gee, I'm really bummed about this. Is there any plan to support PPC? I'm really getting annoyed at all of the new software releases coming out now that ignore PPC's for Intel only. I don't know the exact number of those of us out there but I would have to think we're still a fairly large group.

    But, seriously, besides my gripe about commercial apps not including PPC's in their revisions, I do have a problem with this as it pertains to overall compatibility on the web. It's hard for me to justify including a new technology like this in my future web apps if so many browsers, OS's or architectures will be left out. I mean, I thought that was the whole point we have all been trying to make with applications on the web. A place where we can write once and distribute to everyone regardless of the machine or OS they are using and to try and make the user experience as seamless as possible.

    Early on, Microsoft was constantly rebuked in the press and elsewhere for not simply sticking with basic standards (such as CSS, JavaScript, etc.) but, instead, trying to do "enhanced" versions of those technologies that would only work in Internet Explorer.

    As a developer, I have to try and pick a technology that will work as seamlessly as possible on the web for at least 90% to 95% of those on the web. That's been a burden sometimes as I would excitedly discover some new, cool library or utility that could add some great new features to my sites or web apps only to find out that it would only work in one or two browsers and, thus, reluctantly have to skip it.

    One thing I have really liked about your YUI work is that you have taken such a great effort to make sure everything works for as many people as possible. Now, I do understand there are differences in code generated on different architectures and you're relying on what the web browser developers give you. I just want to make sure we in the web app community don't start imitating the software developers in the desktop community who choose to drop certain platforms, etc., simply because they want to focus on the latest and greatest or as a method to "encourage" more and more users to "upgrade" to the new technology. I can understand if it's a serious financial difference, I just hope it's not simply for convenience on the part of the developers. That's all.

    Mike



    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael Hall
    Personal Portfolio Site: http://www.michaelwhall.info
    Includes photography, websites, digital art and music samples.
    "Downtown" CD now available for download & purchase. (http://www.michaelwhall.info/music/music.php)
    0
  • QUOTE (mhall6520 @ Nov 16 2008, 12:56 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>
    Well, Lloyd, I guess that would be the information I was looking for. Yes, I am, indeed, on a PPC and not Intel. Gee, I'm really bummed about this. Is there any plan to support PPC? I'm really getting annoyed at all of the new software releases coming out now that ignore PPC's for Intel only. I don't know the exact number of those of us out there but I would have to think we're still a fairly large group.

    But, seriously, besides my gripe about commercial apps not including PPC's in their revisions, I do have a problem with this as it pertains to overall compatibility on the web. It's hard for me to justify including a new technology like this in my future web apps if so many browsers, OS's or architectures will be left out. I mean, I thought that was the whole point we have all been trying to make with applications on the web. A place where we can write once and distribute to everyone regardless of the machine or OS they are using and to try and make the user experience as seamless as possible.

    Early on, Microsoft was constantly rebuked in the press and elsewhere for not simply sticking with basic standards (such as CSS, JavaScript, etc.) but, instead, trying to do "enhanced" versions of those technologies that would only work in Internet Explorer.

    As a developer, I have to try and pick a technology that will work as seamlessly as possible on the web for at least 90% to 95% of those on the web. That's been a burden sometimes as I would excitedly discover some new, cool library or utility that could add some great new features to my sites or web apps only to find out that it would only work in one or two browsers and, thus, reluctantly have to skip it.

    One thing I have really liked about your YUI work is that you have taken such a great effort to make sure everything works for as many people as possible. Now, I do understand there are differences in code generated on different architectures and you're relying on what the web browser developers give you. I just want to make sure we in the web app community don't start imitating the software developers in the desktop community who choose to drop certain platforms, etc., simply because they want to focus on the latest and greatest or as a method to "encourage" more and more users to "upgrade" to the new technology. I can understand if it's a serious financial difference, I just hope it's not simply for convenience on the part of the developers. That's all.

    Mike



    ---------------------------------------------------------------------
    Michael Hall
    Personal Portfolio Site: http://www.michaelwhall.info
    Includes photography, websites, digital art and music samples.
    "Downtown" CD now available for download & purchase. (http://www.michaelwhall.info/music/music.php)


    Hey Michael,

    Thanks for your feedback.

    Certainly a goal of ours is to provide a platform that's accessible to as many people on the planet as possible. Because we ultimately want to be a disruptive force on the fabric of the web, to get people moving from ideas to implementation in days instead of years, having wide client support is a key requirement.

    Add to this that I personally have been a lover of FreeBSD for quite a while now. While not making any judgments on the relative merit or importance of various client technologies, I just wanted to try to express that I have a personal understanding of how frustrating it can be to be considered "outside of the mainstream".

    That said, the platform support we currently offer is a pragmatic decision. We're trying to port to as many client platforms as possible, but the testing and porting costs factor into our decisions when we're prioritizing work.

    All this said, we're hopeful that by open sourcing the platform (news which we announced today), we'll enable passionate folks in the community to help us reach our goal of broad and deep platform support. We're extremely interested in osx ppc support, opera support, linux support, and full localization of the platform. There are different folks who care a lot about these different platforms, and I'm hopeful that as a community we'll figure out how to fill these holes while still aggressively pushing things forward...

    hope this is a somewhat satisfying response :|,
    lloyd
    0
This forum is locked.

Recent Posts

in Support & General Questions