Is Leopard Webkit Better Than TenFourFox on G4 Macs?

Appleuser201

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
239
95
I don't currently own any G4's but TenfourFox is slow on them from YouTube videos ive seen. Only recently has YouTube been possible on later G4 macs on that browser but their are noticeable frame drops. Webkit plays YouTube flawlessly at 360p, as seen in many demonstrations.

Is Webkit still usable in 2019 as a daily browser on all websites even though its based on an old version of Safari? TenFourFox is older too, but still renders websites fine but is much heavier.
Why is YouTube so good on Webkit anyways?
 

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,187
13,026
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
OK. So you seem to be defining 'better' to mean 'faster' and 'Youtube'.

Webkit will always be faster than TenFourFox. In that context, yes, it's 'better'.

I would argue with your assessment that TenFourFox is older though. Yes, it's been around for awhile now - just like Firefox. But it is an actively developed browser that sees regular security patches and updates. Webkit, you just never know when it will get an update.

Finally, and here is where I define 'better', TenFourFox can be customized. It has addons. Yes Safari/Webkit has addons, but they are nothing like the myriad of addons you can get for T4Fx simply because it's based on Mozilla code.

I have a series of tweaks and addons here: https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/my-tenfourfox-about-config-tweaks-and-my-addons.1838393/

These have allowed me to wring as much speed out of T4Fx as I can. You cannot do anything like that to Webkit. No, again, it won't make T4Fx as fast as Webkit, but lots of people have said that it's improved their use of T4Fx considerably.

So, for me 'better' is sacrificing a bit of speed for customization and a 'better' browsing experience.

PS. If you come to use PowerPC Macs, one of the things you've got to accept with these old machines is that you have to use the right tool for the job. You aren't viewing video and browsing video sites on TenFourFox, you use a different browser or app for that.

Now, some people here have made it work. @Dronecatcher can make video work very well on systems with low ram and low processors and by using a popout addon on T4Fx. But you have to be willing to go down his rabbit holes for all that. It takes a bit of work.

A lot of the tweak work I did in the thread above involved removing or disabling media, including video. So you aren't going to be using those elements if you go down my rabbit hole. I browse the web for news and various other sites, not to watch video. And that's a drag on resources.

I use Webkit for Youtube/video. ;)
 

sparty411

macrumors 6502
Nov 13, 2018
311
229
TFF is regularly updated. Leopard Webkit has not been updated since October 8, 2018.
Who knows if it ever will be updated again.
[doublepost=1561931063][/doublepost]
I don't currently own any G4's but TenfourFox is slow on them from YouTube videos ive seen. Only recently has YouTube been possible on later G4 macs on that browser but their are noticeable frame drops. Webkit plays YouTube flawlessly at 360p, as seen in many demonstrations.

Is Webkit still usable in 2019 as a daily browser on all websites even though its based on an old version of Safari? TenFourFox is older too, but still renders websites fine but is much heavier.
Why is YouTube so good on Webkit anyways?
Use @eyoungren 's tweaks, along with noscript to block all of the bloat and ad garbage. My installation of TenFourFox went from unusable molasses, to just a step behind webkit.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dextructor

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,187
13,026
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
I admittedly have no idea how to use umatrix.
It's kind of non-intuiative at first.

Basically, when you click on the icon it will show you a grid. The domain that you're at, say MacRumors.com, is always at the top and it will show as green for cookies, images, CSS, scripts etc. Almost everything else that would load is considered 'non-approved' until you approve it. Until you do, it's automatically blocked. Those show as a pale red.

Some sites are known and allowed though, so they show as a pale green. You click inside one of these boxes to either approve or unapprove an item to load, based on what you want to allow or block. A bright green or red will approve or unapprove the item. There's a button at the top that allows you to 'save' these approvals (or non-approvals, or a mix of both) so that uMatrix remembers in the future. You can then reload the page or just browse.

NoScript tends to be a shotgun approach. You either cut scripts off from a domain or you don't - and it's just scripts. uMatrix is a bit more fine grained. You can allow images and cookies say, but not scripts or CSS from the same domain. Since uMatrix reports EVERYTHING trying to load, the controls allow you to go down to subdomains.

For instance, if you load a Google news page it will often draw content from gstatic.google.com and youtube.com. gstatic is the subdomain of Google that all the 'static' images come from, like their logo, the images for your account, buttons, etc. I often block youtube.com because I don't want anything from there slowing me down.

So, where NoScript tends to be a shotgun approach and applies mainly to scripts, uMatrix is more of a scalpel and allows you to block or allow multiple types of things - even from the same domain.

Example (you can see what I have blocked and allowed and what is assumed to be blocked and allowed just here in this thread on MacRumors).

TenFourFox.png
 
Last edited:

sparty411

macrumors 6502
Nov 13, 2018
311
229
It's kind of non-intuiative at first.

Basically, when you click on the icon it will show you a grid. The domain that you're at, say MacRumors.com, is always at the top and it will show as green for cookies, images, CSS, scripts etc. Almost everything else that would load is considered 'non-approved' until you approve it. Until you do, it's automatically blocked. Those show as a pale red.

Some sites are known and allowed though, so they show as a pale green. You click inside one of these boxes to either approve or unapprove an item to load, based on what you want to allow or block. A bright green or red will approve or unapprove the item. There's a button at the top that allows you to 'save' these approvals (or non-approvals, or a mix of both) so that uMatrix remembers in the future. You can then reload the page or just browse.

NoScript tends to be a shotgun approach. You either cut scripts off from a domain or you don't - and it's just scripts. uMatrix is a bit more fine grained. You can allow images and cookies say, but not scripts or CSS from the same domain. Since uMatrix reports EVERYTHING trying to load, the controls allow you to go down to subdomains.

For instance, if you load a Google news page it will often draw content from gstatic.google.com and youtube.com. gstatic is the subdomain of Google that all the 'static' images come from, like their logo, the images for your account, buttons, etc. I often block youtube.com because I don't want anything from there slowing me down.

So, where NoScript tends to be a shotgun approach and applies mainly to scripts, uMatrix is more of a scalpel and allows you to block or allow multiple types of things - even from the same domain.

Example (you can see what I have blocked and allowed and what is assumed to be blocked and allowed just here in this thread on MacRumors).

View attachment 845862
Okay, I installed Umatrix, but this is all that I can see. I downloaded it from the firefox site, since I couldn't find it on the Ten Four Fox Source Forge page.
 

Attachments

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,187
13,026
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
Okay, I installed Umatrix, but this is all that I can see. I downloaded it from the firefox site, since I couldn't find it on the Ten Four Fox Source Forge page.
Install this one: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/releases?after=1.1.6

You'll either have to download it and manually install it or T4Fx may prompt you to install.

Because T4Fx is a PowerPC fork of Firefox and Firefox has headed in a different direction concerning addons, the ones found at the Firefox addon site no longer work with T4Fx. We have to use legacy addons now. There is a site for that in the first post of my tweak thread.

PS. Make sure you uninstall NoScript, otherwise you will have two addons trying to do the same thing and a conflict can cause higher CPU usage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp

sparty411

macrumors 6502
Nov 13, 2018
311
229
Install this one: https://github.com/gorhill/uMatrix/releases?after=1.1.6

You'll either have to download it and manually install it or T4Fx may prompt you to install.

Because T4Fx is a PowerPC fork of Firefox and Firefox has headed in a different direction concerning addons, the ones found at the Firefox addon site no longer work with T4Fx. We have to use legacy addons now. There is a site for that in the first post of my tweak thread.

PS. Make sure you uninstall NoScript, otherwise you will have two addons trying to do the same thing and a conflict can cause higher CPU usage.
Thanks! I actually found that link on your TFF thread before you replied :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren

RhianB

macrumors 6502a
Sep 3, 2016
859
963
505 USA
For YouTube browsing on powerpcs, I’ve grown accustomed to roccat browser with a iOS mobile user agent. Easy setup, decently fast & with good playback.

For most everything else, I leave an instance of TFF+blue hell firewall running.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Raging Dufus

MagicBoy

macrumors 68040
May 28, 2006
3,845
842
Manchester, UK
I think a certain amount of it is down to TFF/Firefox. I've been using the TFF Intel port on a MBP3,1 running Tiger and that's dropping frames above 360p with the ffmpeg enabler.

They're doing good work with TFF, keeping the older OS and machines viable and secure. eyoungren's tweaks help banish the wasteful javascript crud that a modern Intel machine shugs off. If you want to watch web video, stop being a masochist and find a more suitable device.
 

Raging Dufus

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2018
302
442
Kansas USA
For YouTube browsing on powerpcs, I’ve grown accustomed to roccat browser with a iOS mobile user agent. Easy setup, decently fast & with good playback.
Roccat is the champ for viewing YouTube in-browser on Leopard. I previously used the iOS mobile UA, but since the latest update (8.?- not near a PPC machine at the moment) I've found Roccat's standard UA is just as good. I can enjoy the desktop YouTube site with smooth video on my PBG4 1.67 DLSD.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sawpits and RhianB

Appleuser201

macrumors regular
Original poster
Oct 12, 2018
239
95
Roccat is the champ for viewing YouTube in-browser on Leopard. I previously used the iOS mobile UA, but since the latest update (8.?- not near a PPC machine at the moment) I've found Roccat's standard UA is just as good. I can enjoy the desktop YouTube site with smooth video on my PBG4 1.67 DLSD.
What video resolution does it play at?
 

Raging Dufus

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2018
302
442
Kansas USA
What video resolution does it play at?
Sorry, I never thought to check. Unfortunately I'm away from home for a while and don't have my PowerBook. All I can tell you is that whatever YouTube serves up as the default resolution works just fine when I'm using Roccat.

My guess is, it's 360p. All I can say for sure is that it's standard definition, not HD.
 

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,187
13,026
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
Roccat is the champ for viewing YouTube in-browser on Leopard. I previously used the iOS mobile UA, but since the latest update (8.?- not near a PPC machine at the moment) I've found Roccat's standard UA is just as good. I can enjoy the desktop YouTube site with smooth video on my PBG4 1.67 DLSD.
I have a LWK optimized version of Demeter that works great for Youtube.

I've just never adapted to Roccat's interface. I know it's updated and that's good, just never been a fan of it.

That said, Demeter is ancient and somewhat unstable. While to me, it remains the fastest browser on the planet it doesn't mean much when it can't really be used beyond what I use it for.
 

z970mp

macrumors 68000
Jun 2, 2017
1,993
1,581
Digital Ocean
It's kind of non-intuiative at first.

Basically, when you click on the icon it will show you a grid. The domain that you're at, say MacRumors.com, is always at the top and it will show as green for cookies, images, CSS, scripts etc. Almost everything else that would load is considered 'non-approved' until you approve it. Until you do, it's automatically blocked. Those show as a pale red.

Some sites are known and allowed though, so they show as a pale green. You click inside one of these boxes to either approve or unapprove an item to load, based on what you want to allow or block. A bright green or red will approve or unapprove the item. There's a button at the top that allows you to 'save' these approvals (or non-approvals, or a mix of both) so that uMatrix remembers in the future. You can then reload the page or just browse.

NoScript tends to be a shotgun approach. You either cut scripts off from a domain or you don't - and it's just scripts. uMatrix is a bit more fine grained. You can allow images and cookies say, but not scripts or CSS from the same domain. Since uMatrix reports EVERYTHING trying to load, the controls allow you to go down to subdomains.

For instance, if you load a Google news page it will often draw content from gstatic.google.com and youtube.com. gstatic is the subdomain of Google that all the 'static' images come from, like their logo, the images for your account, buttons, etc. I often block youtube.com because I don't want anything from there slowing me down.

So, where NoScript tends to be a shotgun approach and applies mainly to scripts, uMatrix is more of a scalpel and allows you to block or allow multiple types of things - even from the same domain.

Example (you can see what I have blocked and allowed and what is assumed to be blocked and allowed just here in this thread on MacRumors).

View attachment 845862
I just realized you're highlighting all the individual squares.

You can white/blacklist each of the domains on the left side to get the same effect.

Screenshot from 2019-07-04 13-56-08.png
 

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,187
13,026
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
I just realized you're highlighting all the individual squares.

You can white/blacklist each of the domains on the left side to get the same effect.

View attachment 846667
LOL! I knew you could approve/unapprove by clicking on the top column of the domain/subdomain for each type (and all remaining squares would fill in) but I did not realize you could do what you are saying.

Been using it for a few years now, SMH. Thanks!
 
  • Like
Reactions: z970mp

Raging Dufus

macrumors 6502
Aug 2, 2018
302
442
Kansas USA
I have a LWK optimized version of Demeter that works great for Youtube.

I've just never adapted to Roccat's interface. I know it's updated and that's good, just never been a fan of it.

That said, Demeter is ancient and somewhat unstable. While to me, it remains the fastest browser on the planet it doesn't mean much when it can't really be used beyond what I use it for.
I never think of Demeter. I've meant to try it for a long time, but it hardly ever gets mentioned and I forget about it. Being away from all my PPC machines for a while, I'll probably forget about it again :oops:
 
  • Like
Reactions: eyoungren

sparty411

macrumors 6502
Nov 13, 2018
311
229
I never think of Demeter. I've meant to try it for a long time, but it hardly ever gets mentioned and I forget about it. Being away from all my PPC machines for a while, I'll probably forget about it again :oops:
I gave it a spin today, and it absolutely flies, despite having trouble rendering JS heavy pages correctly. I wonder if the source code was released before the project was abandoned?
 

eyoungren

macrumors Core
Aug 31, 2011
21,187
13,026
ten-zero-eleven-zero-zero by zero-two
I wonder if the source code was released before the project was abandoned?
No idea, but the code was based off of Shira. I've heard it's open source but I don't know for sure.

The kicker here is that as many years as it's been since it was released I have never found a faster browser.

That's saying a lot for a browser that last saw an update a decade or more ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sparty411

bunnspecial

macrumors 604
May 3, 2014
6,722
3,274
Kentucky
The bottom line for me-both browsers have their place on PPC Macs. All of mine running OS X have both browsers installed. I tend to use Webkit more just because of the speed.

With that said, when we get a Webkit update, it's always more of a pleasant surprise. By contrast, we have a lot of insight into what's going on "behind the scenes" with TFF.

I'm in agreement with my friend @MagicBoy on watching Youtube. I've had a lot of luck in the past with programs that no longer work to watch videos. I know there are good work-arounds now that make Youtube useable, and I appreciate the work that goes in to them, but it's easier for me to just pick up my MBP if I want to watch a video.
 

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Jun 17, 2014
3,066
2,510
Lincolnshire, UK
it's easier for me to just pick up my MBP if I want to watch a video
Whilst I wholeheartedly agree with that (why wouldn't I - my daily drivers are now Intels?) why is it that on this forum, Youtube playback is the one PPC endeavour that is derided with the "what's the point" rejoinder?
Replacing HDDs with SSDs, elaborate GPU flashing, CPU replacements, forcing incompatible OSes into old hardware - none of these efforts are ever met with a "what's the point when you can just use an Intel Mac?"
 

Dronecatcher

macrumors 68040
Jun 17, 2014
3,066
2,510
Lincolnshire, UK
That said, Demeter is ancient and somewhat unstable. While to me, it remains the fastest browser on the planet it doesn't mean much when it can't really be used beyond what I use it for.
Do you have a "special recipe" for Demeter? I've tried it with and without the Webkit update and, for Youtube at least, it has the same performance as Safari/Stainless/Roccat?