Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TenFourFox Intel

timidpimpin said:
Intel Tiger only? Snow Leopard should have been the one he focused on. I bet more people run BeOS than Intel Tiger.
Click to expand...

Clue is in the name ten FOUR fox.

By the way, I'm using it. So ner.
[doublepost=1559690318][/doublepost]
netsrot39 said:
I had Tiger for about a week on my 2006 and 2007 iMac and it wasn't a pleasant experience to be honest. It was missing many drivers Wi-Fi and Ethernet for example and didn't even recognize the SSD in my machine. I never had any of those problems on these 2 machines with other versions of OS X. I'd say yes to Tiger but only on the PowerPC platform ;-)
Click to expand...

What you need is the correct machine specific build of Tiger that shipped with the machine. I had a brand new Intel MacBook Pro 1,1 in early 2006, no such problems with it then. No such problems on a 2007 MacBook 3,1 now with the correct build.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 0248294, bunnspecial, 1042686 and 1 other person
You pointed out that the word four in TenFourFox should clue someone in to it being for 10.4, and I simply pointed out that it runs on other versions.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
timidpimpin said:
Intel Tiger only? Snow Leopard should have been the one he focused on. I bet more people run BeOS than Intel Tiger.
Click to expand...

Why would a browser intended for PowerPC Macs running Tiger and now recompiled for Tiger on Intel due to lack of other options be focused on Snow Leopard? I'll take a short TL;DR version or a 1500 word essay. Either is acceptable.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: 0248294
MagicBoy said:
Why would a browser intended for PowerPC Macs running Tiger and now recompiled for Tiger on Intel due to lack of other options be focused on Snow Leopard? I'll take a short TL;DR version or a 1500 word essay. Either is acceptable.
Click to expand...

It’s probably because Snow Leopard falls in this odd gap between Tiger/Leopard PPC support (and conceivable use of TFF G3 via Rosetta on Intel systems), and semi/supported Mozilla/Chromium browsers for Lion onward. Also, because Snow Leopard tends to maintain a higher legacy user base versus other legacy OS X versions — even years and years on, due to its versatility in running PPC stuff in Rosetta but on modern EFI 64-bit boxes going all the way forward to late 2011.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I understand why people want an up to date browser for SL, it's a very similar use case to Tiger (which had nothing until this port), so backporting Kaiser's changes and stripping out the altivec and big-endian optimisations is a good way to go for the 10.4 Intel users, like me.

SL should run Intel TFF just fine, but it's not optimised. Which circles me back to timidpimpin's post #2. If someone wants an SL optimised version of Firefox similar to the TFF concept then they need to get cracking on it. Complaining that a straight Intel recompilation of TFF should focus on SL instead is just ... non sensical.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • Like
Reactions: B S Magnet
MagicBoy said:
SL should run Intel TFF just fine, but it's not optimised. Which circles me back to timmytimtimtimtim's point. If someone wants an SL optimised version of Firefox similar to the TFF concept then they need to get cracking on it. Complaining that a straight Intel recompilation of TFF should focus on SL instead is just ... non sensical.
Click to expand...

I can confirm it does, and it runs quite smoothly so far. I run Snow Leopard exclusively on my early 2011 MBP (which is the same build from an antecedent 2009 MBP which died in the most ignominious of ways). It remains incredibly stable.
 
I keep the a 10.6 install on the Mac mini for "it's useful" reasons. Back in the day I used the restore discs from an Early 2011 to put 10.6 on my (still dearly missed) Late 2011, back when it was new. It shipped with Lion, which history will say it wasn't a good OS.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B S Magnet
MagicBoy said:
I keep the a 10.6 install on the Mac mini for "it's useful" reasons. Back in the day I used the restore discs from an Early 2011 to put 10.6 on my (still dearly missed) Late-2011, back when it was new. It shipped with Lion, which history will say it wasn't a good OS.
Click to expand...

The late 2011 15"/17" series was what I longed for so that I might continue running SL for years to come using the fastest hardware permissible from the MBP series. And then, when the cascade of failed GPUs without a revision rendered them all as far less useful (save for the permanent bypass hack to only use Intel onboard graphics… but, I don’t know, why though?), I realized that I’d be better off merely upgrading my early 2011 Core i5 2.3 logic board someday to the late 2011 Core i7 2.8 and just calling it a day, since everything else on it works fine.

Snow Leopard is what I use for my film scanning hardware and for my DJing setup.

Lion was a nightmare, and I’d conjecture Mountain Lion was only marginally better.
 
B S Magnet said:
Snow Leopard is what I use for my film scanning hardware and for my DJing setup.
Click to expand...

For whatever reason, I can't get Nikon Scan to play nicely on my MP 5,1 in SL. It works on all my other computers in SL, and in fact @LightBulbFun has been able to get it running fine on HIS 5,1(although he doesn't have a scanner to test it with).

It's a shame, too-for a long time I did well with the Coolscan V on a dual 2.7 G5, but my Coolscan 8000 has really made me appreciate the extra power of even a C2D base Intel Mac.

For the time being I'm doing Vuescan, especially since I'm not patient enough to scan a 6x7 at 4000 dpi on a G5(although admittedly I'm mostly doing 6x6s, but still). I don't like the IR dust reduction feature of Vuescan as well as I do "real" Digital ICE in Nikon Scan. I have never tried Silverfast-I bought the V700 used and didn't get the copy that's supposed to come with it. In any case, it's WAY too expensive for me, especially considering that I would need licenses for 3 scanners.

Fortunately at least Epson Scan for my V700 continues to work fine, so I can scan my 4x5 transparencies with real ICE...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: LightBulbFun and B S Magnet
bunnspecial said:
For whatever reason, I can't get Nikon Scan to play nicely on my MP 5,1 in SL. It works on all my other computers in SL, and in fact @LightBulbFun has been able to get it running fine on HIS 5,1(although he doesn't have a scanner to test it with).

It's a shame, too-for a long time I did well with the Coolscan V on a dual 2.7 G5, but my Coolscan 8000 has really made me appreciate the extra power of even a C2D base Intel Mac.

For the time being I'm doing Vuescan, especially since I'm not patient enough to scan a 6x7 at 4000 dpi on a G5(although admittedly I'm mostly doing 6x6s, but still). I don't like the IR dust reduction feature of Vuescan as well as I do "real" Digital ICE in Nikon Scan. I don't want to pay the $$$

Fortunately at least Epson Scan for my V700 continues to work fine, so I can scan my 4x5 transparencies with real ICE...
Click to expand...

Ah yes, I’m team-VueScan* all the way, despite my Plustek OpticFilm 35mm scanner coming bundled with Silverfast (whose UI I’ve never cared for). Because most of what I scan and archive is from K-14 emulsion, Digital ICE/IR dust removal channel isn’t useful in those scanning situations. It’s slow, but manual dust removal works better with respect to my long-term digital archival and conservation practices.

* When I bought a scanner, Nikon had already exited the scanning market, and the CoolScan series was generally leagues beyond my budget, even when found locally in the used market (although, given all the unscanned 645 rolls I have, a CoolScan 9000 is certainly not beyond my usage needs).
 
B S Magnet said:
Ah yes, I’m team-VueScan* all the way, despite my Plustek OpticFilm 35mm scanner coming bundled with Silverfast (whose UI I’ve never cared for). Because most of what I scan and archive is from K-14 emulsion, Digital ICE/IR dust removal channel isn’t useful in those scanning situations. It’s slow, but manual dust removal works better with respect to my long-term digital archival and conservation practices.

* When I bought a scanner, Nikon had already exited the scanning market, and the CoolScan series was generally leagues beyond my budget, even when found locally in the used market (although, given all the unscanned 645 rolls I have, a CoolScan 9000 is certainly not beyond my usage needs).
Click to expand...

Most of what I scan is a mix of E-6 and B&W. Of course, B&W is worse than useless with ICE(since it gives strange artifacts) but E-6 works with it nicely. Some modern emulsions-including the Kodak E100 series(the old E100G/GX and current E100) even claim to be designed for scanning. I SHOULD bit the bullet and switch to Ektar, esp. since I now have a local lab that will do 4x5 C-41, but I both enjoy shooting E6 too much and also already have a lot.

The Coolscan 9000 CLAIMS to be able to use ICE with Kodachrome. As best as I can tell, the 8000 and 9000 hardware is the same, with the only difference being in the firmware. If it weren't for the fact that even my used 8000 was $1K and a 9000 is $2K, I'd experiment.

Nikon Scan has a terrible UI also(Nikon can't seem to write good software-especially for Macs-to save their lives) but I find I get better results than with Vuescan. At the same time, though, I've used Nikon, Epson, Canon, and Polaroid scanners, and having a unified interface between them is a big benefit.

BTW, before anyone mentions it-virtualization isn't option for the Coolscan 8000/9000 as Firewire pass-through doesn't work.
 
  • Like
Reactions: B S Magnet
bunnspecial said:
Most of what I scan is a mix of E-6 and B&W. Of course, B&W is worse than useless with ICE(since it gives strange artifacts) but E-6 works with it nicely. Some modern emulsions-including the Kodak E100 series(the old E100G/GX and current E100) even claim to be designed for scanning. I SHOULD bit the bullet and switch to Ektar, esp. since I now have a local lab that will do 4x5 C-41, but I both enjoy shooting E6 too much and also already have a lot.

The Coolscan 9000 CLAIMS to be able to use ICE with Kodachrome. As best as I can tell, the 8000 and 9000 hardware is the same, with the only difference being in the firmware. If it weren't for the fact that even my used 8000 was $1K and a 9000 is $2K, I'd experiment.

Nikon Scan has a terrible UI also(Nikon can't seem to write good software-especially for Macs-to save their lives) but I find I get better results than with Vuescan. At the same time, though, I've used Nikon, Epson, Canon, and Polaroid scanners, and having a unified interface between them is a big benefit.

BTW, before anyone mentions it-virtualization isn't option for the Coolscan 8000/9000 as Firewire pass-through doesn't work.
Click to expand...

I’m working through some rolls of the new E100 right now, but I’ve yet to scan them. I imagine they’ll respond similar to the final E100G and Elite Chrome rolls I shot in 2012. Even when I’ve used ICE/dust removal on E-6, I’m still not thrilled with how it masks dust specks and scratches. I end up getting slower, but more thorough results with the Photoshop heal tool.

That said, I’m staying with E-6 for as long as I can. If I wanted to shoot Ektar or other C-41 (which isn't the frozen Ferrania stash I have), then I might as well buy a DSLR. 😛

But yes, Nikon Scan, the last I used it (on a 2008 iMac in late 2008, connected to a 9000ED), was like a throwback to OS 9-like quirks within an Aqua skin. It… worked (and the results were fine, but it wasn’t well thought through, and I wasn’t ecstatic about the workflow). I’ve used VueScan with PlusTek, Epson, and Canon scanners, and over time I’ve tended to stick with v9.0.23. Although there are later versions, I’ve found this revision the most stable with my 2011 MBP.
 
B S Magnet said:
I’m working through some rolls of the new E100 right now, but I’ve yet to scan them. I imagine they’ll respond similar to the final E100G and Elite Chrome rolls I shot in 2012. Even when I’ve used ICE/dust removal on E-6, I’m still not thrilled with how it masks dust specks and scratches. I end up getting slower, but more thorough results with the Photoshop heal tool.
Click to expand...

I still have a decent amount of Elite Chrome(maybe 40-50 rolls, still in bricks) in the freezer. I haven't shot any in a long time, but maybe should. In fact, I think the last I shot was at Disney World in 2008(I was just scanning those a few months ago)...I'm going again in October so perhaps will shoot some more, although of course need to test it before then. It honestly was one of my favorite all around slide films-not outstanding at anything, but not bad at much either. Based on the 1997-expired always frozen Velvia sheets I've been shooting recently, it SHOULD be fine without much perceptible color shift, but I won't know unless I try. With that said, I'm also flying, so I don't know if I want to even haul any film with me(I'm going with my girlfriend, and I also don't know if I want her to have to put up with me fumbling around with film 🙂 )

These days I'm mostly a Velvia shooter, but of course it's off limits for people photos. I've welcomed the return of E100-I've shot probably a half dozen rolls since October-as it's such a nice "clean" film and gives good skin tones. My only real quibble with it is that I always preferred E100GX, but an 81A or even a skylight filter "fixes" that quickly. The only E100GX I have left is some 220, which of course is extra valuable to me-220 Hasselblad backs are virtual give-away items(while a nice 120 back can run $200 or better) and my lab processes it for $13.99 vs. $10.99 for 135-36 or 120. I actually even have some in-date Velvia in 220, but that's also in short supply and I tend to use it for special occasions.

In any case, I generally avoid IR cleaning in Vuescan, but ICE in Nikon Scan is a different story. I've found that it actually does a really nice job of cleaning things up without obscuring much if any detail.
 
bunnspecial said:
I still have a decent amount of Elite Chrome(maybe 40-50 rolls, still in bricks) in the freezer. I haven't shot any in a long time, but maybe should. In fact, I think the last I shot was at Disney World in 2008(I was just scanning those a few months ago)...I'm going again in October so perhaps will shoot some more, although of course need to test it before then. It honestly was one of my favorite all around slide films-not outstanding at anything, but not bad at much either. Based on the 1997-expired always frozen Velvia sheets I've been shooting recently, it SHOULD be fine without much perceptible color shift, but I won't know unless I try. With that said, I'm also flying, so I don't know if I want to even haul any film with me(I'm going with my girlfriend, and I also don't know if I want her to have to put up with me fumbling around with film 🙂 )

These days I'm mostly a Velvia shooter, but of course it's off limits for people photos. I've welcomed the return of E100-I've shot probably a half dozen rolls since October-as it's such a nice "clean" film and gives good skin tones. My only real quibble with it is that I always preferred E100GX, but an 81A or even a skylight filter "fixes" that quickly. The only E100GX I have left is some 220, which of course is extra valuable to me-220 Hasselblad backs are virtual give-away items(while a nice 120 back can run $200 or better) and my lab processes it for $13.99 vs. $10.99 for 135-36 or 120. I actually even have some in-date Velvia in 220, but that's also in short supply and I tend to use it for special occasions.

In any case, I generally avoid IR cleaning in Vuescan, but ICE in Nikon Scan is a different story. I've found that it actually does a really nice job of cleaning things up without obscuring much if any detail.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I’m an ardent user of any Fujichrome which isn’t Velvia. If I want Velvia (Velveeta!), I can set a digital camera to the “Fujichrome Color” setting for basically the same light response curves.

I turned to Astia after Kodachrome, and when Astia was discontinued, which followed Kodak’s implosion and departure from E-6, it left me adrift. I tried Rollei Digibase CR200 for a bit, which sort of worked along some of the things I loved about Astia (skin tone rendition being one of them).

What I liked about Elite Chrome is it was consistent, flexible, and under natural lighting, was forgiving — not unlike Provia. Unlike Provia, it reproduced colours, especially under artificial lighting (tungsten, fluorescent, neon, etc.) in a way which no Fujichrome E-6 has ever been able to. Arguably, I found Provia 400X could get close, but often with a large grain trade-off (which sometimes was nice, but other times, not so much) or lousy reciprocity failure.

Anyway, E100 is back, and I’m still excited. As for colour reproduction, your frozen Elite Chrome should still be fine, if ever slightly fogged from a dozen or more years of cosmic rays passing through your freezer. The fogging, however, shouldn’t be terribly noticeable until you’re examining it at 4000 or higher dpi scan resolution.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back