I thought that Google Chrome was going to be created for 10.4.11 and above. Don't have an Intel computer as I had just purchased this one and it is still state of the art and runs more than fast enough for what I need to do. Tried 10.5.did not work as well for me as 10.4.11 and 10.6 has a more stuff that I don't need. I would guess that if you did a survey you would find that there are many many 10.4.11 users and it may well be the majority of OSX users.maybe not.?? Is my question useful. Probably not. Just sniveling.!
We don't have any change log information yet for version 68.0.3440.106 of Google Chrome for Mac.Sometimes publishers take a little while to make this information available, so please check back in a few days to see if it has been updated. Google Chrome Bookmarks File Location (Mac) Right click on the “Bookmarks.bak” file and select Copy Open the USB jump drive, right click in space, and select Paste Remove the USB jump drive and place it in the computer on which you will be copying the file to Perform the same steps listed above to locate the “Bookmarks.bak” file on.
Akabiff 8/12/2009, 12:13 น. I just have to say that 10.4.11 really rocks and is pretty fast. I think it is the best Mac OS that I have used. May have to buy a MacBook Pro so I can work out of town and I am not looking forward to 10.6. Bet it takes me two days just to turn off or delete all that useless stuff that comes with it. I don't understand why they have that big window that takes up half of the screen with a large picture of the file or folder icon.what is up with that.I know you can turn it off but what is it good for.
I am a devloper and have so many things open some time i just don't need a lot of the features they brag about. Still not as bad as a Windows box however i do test all my stuff on Win and i just got Win 7 and it does work better but not like a Mac. KierEmJ 8/12/2009, 18:10 น.
I also use 10.4.11 iMac OS X PPC. I am very very disappointed that google has decided to exclude those of us that still use this system, many of us can not afford a new mac intel due to the current economic state, but google has neither thought of this nor do they seem to care.
I'm not putting much hope that google will actually listen to us due to my experience with youtube which is also owned by google, which summarily ignored the users when majority users expressed a dislike for the new profile layouts. Google PLEASE make chrome for mac OS X 10.4. Jonnny 8/12/2009, 20:06 น. The squeaky wheels get oiled. Google Chrome for windows is great even though I am not a windows fan.
For Google to get any kind of market share of the browser market they need to be a little more flexible. They have one for Win XP which is a hell of a lot older than OSX 10.4.11, in fact as old as OS9. Now that Bing is taking it's tole you would think that Google would be trying to please.
Bing is growing very rapidly and will soon overcome Yahoo and you will see Google loosing a share of its users very soon. I can't afford a new Intel not that I want one.the Mac tht I have with 10.4.11 works great. What is real cool is that I know it inside out. I wonder if 10.4.11 will run on an Intel box.? RascalC 8/12/2009, 20:32 น. Shame on you Google for giving us a free product.
Also we know you specifically said it's a beta but we want it to make coffee too. I mean really it's like hearing an 8-track player owner complain that it doesn't play CD's. Chrome is based on V8 Javascript which runs on 10.5 and up, Intel only. At some point, a developer has to make a decision whether to support an obsolete architecture or not. Firefox is an excellent alternative, and there's Opera and Safari, so it's not like people are left without options. Remember it's FREE.meaning NO obligations whatsoever to support any specific platform. Liam06, 8:42 น.
Though 2klo's post was a bit harsher than it needed to be, one point in it was fairly significant: 'Chrome is based on V8 Javascript which runs on 10.5 and up'. For Windows, Google was able to make one version and for the most part it works on all flavors of Windows, with only tweaking a few minor features to match the specific OS. For Mac, it sounds like that wasn't possible. Making a browser for 10.4.11 would have to be a completely separate effort. If they'd done that, then instead it would be all the people with 10.5 who would be complaining about why Google was excluding them. Well, let me try to explain the problems with your lack of intellect and knowledge about computers (and why you are barking up the wrong tree). The first problem is with Apple, not Google.
So before you make silly noises about boycotting Google, quit being a moron and ask yourself WHY Apple chooses not to support modern developer tools for OS X 10.4 Tiger. That's your first problem. So go cry to Apple, and ask them to get XCode 3.1.2 (or higher) to work on OS X 10.4. Once you can get Apple to do that, then come back here and I'll explain the remainder of the hurdles in trying to get a modern piece of software written for an old legacy piece of crap operating system like Tiger 10.4 that is no longer supported by Apple. Apparently you don't have the brains in your head to understand that the small little pennies you spend on a Mac, aren't worth the COSTS to developer's to write code.
Have you ever tried writing code before? There is a reason why hardware is EOL (end of life). It's old legacy garbage hardware, that is extremely old (and extremely slow). The next major problem is that the old processors are a completely different architecture. This is why you can't even upgrade those old hunk of junk computers to Snow Leopard, and Apple has discontinued support for that old legacy hardware, and even the Snow Leopard upgrade is Intel-only (and Apple is removing all PPC support). Even the latest versions of Linux can run on Intel hardware that I have from the 1991 era. (That's almost 20 year old hardware).
Try finding a version of OS X that will run on 20 year old hardware. If Apple stops supporting your hardware, then you're stuck tossing it in the garbage. That's what happens when your Operating System, and Hardware both come from ONE company. Apple makes all the decisions, and Apple is in the business of selling new (and overpriced) hardware to suckers that are willing to buy it. Just divide up the development costs, among those 'friends' of yours, and ask each of them to donate a few hundred thousand dollars each, and we can fund the developers to write the software specifically for whatever old legacy outdated junk hardware that you want. Just make sure you have the money to pay for the developer's, and quit acting like an idiot when it comes to open source software that is designed for the most common hardware.
Software will be written for the 99% of hardware platforms, not the.005% (PPC users). You say you understand the rest of what Mark Malewsky said, so I guess you saw that he suggests going with the first of those two options and buying yourself a cheap PC. A cheap new Mac (the Mac Mini) sells for $649 CDN (or $599 USD). It's not in the thousands, but it isn't really cheap either. Apple doesn't cater to the low-end market, so if $649 is too much, then you might not be able to find a new Mac that's cheap enough for you. If your financial situation doesn't match the price range of Macs, then it's probably time to move away from Macs and onto something that's more in line with your price range.
You can get a PC significantly cheaper than that. The only problem here is that you're not satisfied with either solution. You don't like what you have, but you don't want to replace it, so you're asking someone else to magically transform what you have into what you wish it could be. How exactly do you think it should be Google's job to transform your PPC into something that isn't a PPC? I could understand at least the desire to ask that of Apple, even knowing you wouldn't like their answer, but why would you ask that of anyone else and act offended that it doesn't happen? Google could have made Chrome available to Intel mac users still on OS X 10.4.11. They chose not to for corporate, not technical reasons.
Agree there are issues with Apple too, trying to oblige customers to constantly update their OS at considerable expense. But OS X 10.4.11 is a lot more recent and stable than the old versions of Windows that are supported.
Planned Obsolescence is a revolting, corporate concept which we peasants have to fight where possible. So I'll keep using my older browsers and not upgrading an OS that doesn't need upgrading.
My computer's still under warranty and it's considered obsolete! Toni (Googler) 11/2/2010, 3:34 น. Unfortunately, as mentioned by Bluke, Niwashi, and mark.malewski, there are technical limitations in 10.4.11 and PowerPC that prevent us from being able to support it. We depend on the APIs in 10.5 for integral Google Chrome functionality (e.g.
The sandbox to name one, which is one of our security features. More info about the sandbox in the below reference if you're curious). Our JavaScript engine, V8, also is not compatible with PowerPC processors. As a result, we're only able to support Google Chrome on an Intel-based processor and Mac OS X 10.5.6 or later. @Toni: so, this is just googles way of saying, tuff shit. You won't make PPC based chrome, based off PPC supported Java, which I know is possible. Oh well, at least firefox has improved the performance, of their browsers, for all ppc/10.4 users I strongly suggest firefox, way better he this chrome thing.At least FireFox is not restricted to the privileged few who can offord to upgrade to mac Intels.
Most of us can't due to ever rising food, gas and utility and tax rates. RascalC 12/2/2010, 15:20 น.
Hi all, first, I would like to mention iCab, which is a very good browser, done by an alone developper, who maintain versions for every Mac Os available, INCLUDING OS 9 or before!!!! It work great on 10.4.11 PPC OR Intel, and is faster than safari 3.2 or Firefox. So, when someone want to do really something, he can do it! @ Tony Thanks for your answer, I have read the sandbox page and also the V8 (which is build on 10.5, not 10.5.6;-) ) But this didn't help a lot, because when Google announce a Mac browser, I expect a Mac browser, as all here.
Ok, may be it was difficult to made it available for PPC, but all of us who have Intel and os X don't often want to go to 10.5 or 10.6 because it is a waste of time, a bunch of new buggs and a fullhand of softwares to upgrade, sometime to buy again. Remember the Vista fiasco: Why so many people have turned back to XP??? Why is XP still 59, 4% of the web user's Os?
2010 Win7 Vista Win2003 WinXP W2000 Linux Mac January 11.3% 15.4% 1.4% 59.4% 0.6% 4.6% 6.8% source: So, if Google was a poor alone small company, I will understand that very well, but not for The Google I like and defend and promote every day. I have bought a second hand macbook pro 1500 $ (1999 was the retail price) for being able to use a few softs, and the first one was Google earth! I will not buy or even install for free 10.6 (10.5 is buggy and slow down my computer) because I don't want to buy a new computer, just to have useless effects and to spent half a year to sort what work or not. 10.4.11 is a really stable system, not perfect, but, as it have been said here, it is the XP for mac if we look at the Pc side. (and, btw, it is PPC compatible as a universal binary Google mac team have made a choice at the beginning, with V8, but I really believe that it was mistake. As you're lucky enough to be a part of Google team, may be you can answer to these questions more accurately than me: Mac os is 6.8% in january 2010 so can you give us the% of mac users who use 10.5.6 and above, in this 6.6%???
That could close the discussion or reopen it;-) That's all, I know Google will probably not change his mind and decide to build a specific version for 10.4.11 in Universal Binary. Looking at the trends, Safari, Firefox grows up.
So you take part in the windows market, and may be a small one in the Mac market. But not as big as it could have been, if you have decided a really specific version (or 2) @Marc Malewsky you see, I can make long post too. I try to never insult the others, call them moron, even when I think they are. For the evolution you preach for, see above the XP example. For the cost of developping, see the above iCab example. For the go 'buy a dell', let us decide to choose our os. Oh, 10.4.11 is LESS than 3 years old, dear.
Released on the14 november 2007 So you are wrong. Others questions??? Regards to all, writen on iCab 4.7.0, (developper Alexander Clauss, ), on Mac Os 10.4.11, intel 1.83 ghz dacomputernerd 28/2/2010, 11:07 น. 10.4.11 user here aswell.
I'm on a the first generation of Core2Duo Macbook Pro 2.33Ghz, 2GB ram, 160GB HDD. I've tried 10.6, and it's slower then my trusty 10.4. Not to mention it has a bulkier UI in my opinion. (I should mention that I run XP Pro on all of my Windows Boxes as well) My ram and hdd might be a little small by today's standards, but I still use this computer as my daily, and I have for the past 3 years.
When I first heard of Google chrome, I checked it out only to see that there was no apple support, but that a beta was on it's way. Now everyone I know who wants a fast browser uses chrome, (Mac and PC), but I am stuck behind because of my choice of OS. Jonnny 28/2/2010, 11:40 น. 10.4.11 is where it is at. Google supported XP, which by the way was written in about 2001 where 10.4.11 is only about three to fours years old. 10.4.11 is much slimmer and faster than the new OS's (10.5, 10.6) but they get away with it because they have big hard-drives and faster processors (which IS cool).
I have to get a MacBookPro for work and I am seriously thinking about doing some research to see if it will run 10.4.11 instead of the 10.6 that is comes with.I have my doubts.I would guess that statement in itself will stir it up.Hah.! So maybe what Apple should do is, for a change, follow what microsofty did and combine the best features of the last three operating systems and come up with something like the Win7 scenario. So in the end there would be an OS for the new Intel processors but lean and mean. This would be great for those that just use Macs for recording, video editing, graphics applications. I prefer Macs but I do have a new Lenovo and I hated vista but I recently did a 'clean' install of Win7 and I do like Win7 much better. That is more than likely because Win OS's graphic interfaces are getting more like a Mac always have been. A Win7 'clean install' is the key word.
You do an upgrade to Win7 and 'there will be issues'. Just check it out on the net. Any rate I do understand the whole Java engine and the new Intel processors limiting Googles Chrome development but I do not like it.
Shawn46 7/3/2010, 20:27 น. I'm a Tiger 10.4.11 user, a 'Power Google' user, and was eagerly awaiting the arrival of Google Chrome, and was disappointed when it was made only for 10.5+ OS systems. I can also see the good and bad in many of the afore-mentioned comments. Look, people: Google Chrome was made for a newer operating system than the OS's we have. Thats the simple truth. Google was nice enough to put out a product free of charge (they could have sold it and made millions, based on trends of search interests), and it was made, as Ford put it, 'for the years ahead'.
In order for someone to use your product, you must think down the road and realize that you have to make the product viable for the now and the future. Mac OS 10.4 (our 'Windows XP') is behind us.
Instead of spending $300-500 on a new computer, why not try getting Mac OS 10.6 (Snow Leopard), which is cheaper than a new Mac OR a Dell (cursed things though they are). In the meanwhile, I'll stick with Safari. And Marc, stop being a moron. And be smart: Get a Mac. There's a reason why Apple has the most devoted customer base, the best customer service of any computer company, and only 10 viruses in it's OS.
RascalC 9/4/2010, 16:16 น. I have also been waiting for google chrome for 10.4.11 for about half a year. I have a iMac PPC 10.4.11 (the ones with the neck screen) / / / / My iMac PPC 10.4.11 So Google can you please release a beta or a 10.4.11 version of Google Chrome.even though im using Safari right now i still want to try out Google Chrome.
@Stafford, I had Firefox for about 3 months until I changed back to Safari and I was not satisfied with Firefox.it sucked because even though it was the safest browser. It was slow jumaber 22/4/2010, 13:02 น. @RascalC right, icab is not a freeware, but it is given without any limitations, except that you have to click on the reminder every 2 hours.
It is faster than Safari, you can test it there: So, give it a try. And if you want to buy it, it's only 20 € for life I'm not endorsed or related with it, I just use it since 1999. And as I said, it is a One developper only browser. I'm not registered with it, yes, that's bad, but that's my problem, it's also why I talk about it. Just to say, Steve Wozniac have said that iCab was the best browser ever made on mac. Btw, this didn't change the fact that Google Chrome have made an error, with the non compatibility with 4.11 For the first time in my Google fan's history, I disagree with them on that. I'm also sorry to say that some security leaks are only in Lepoard, and Snow leopard, So a secure version for tiger will be easy to do, at least if you agree to have 4 developpers on it.
We, Tiger user's, dont care to have the same Chrome version as the others have. We just want one needchromefor10.4 28/4/2010, 17:37 น. As a long time Mac user, I appreciate wanting to have Google Chrome for OS X Tiger (10.4). Unfortunately one of the key features of Google Chrome, namely its sandboxed security model, relies on the security sandbox that Apple has provided in OS X Leopard (10.5) and later. You can see the sandbox security features (amongst the other 300+ enhancements that Apple made in Leopard over Tiger) here: Without sandbox provided by the core OS, it wouldn't be possible for us to implement the sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome. For more on how this works in Google Chrome for Mac, see here: Best wishes Mike SomeBuddy 19/5/2010, 13:47 น. XP does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome - XP is a 10 year old OS.
OSX is much younger than that. Vista does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome Windows 7 does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome Debian does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome Ubuntu does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome Fedora does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome openSUSE does use sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome Which means your sandboxed browser model for Chrome for the OS X Tiger doesn't say anything except 'blah blah blah. We don't want to program for the OS X PPC or Tiger' OSX is a series of Unix-based operating systems, which means if you can build it for other systems you can build it for OS X pre-Snow The whole concept that Intel is the solution for a browser is defunct by all those users using AMD processors, Hachitosh Machines and those running Linux OS on old processors. Don't assume I, or others like me, appreciate the blanket response with: 'As a long time Mac user, I appreciate wanting to have Google Chrome for OS X Tiger (10.4).
Unfortunately one of the key features of Google Chrome, namely its sandboxed security model, relies on the security sandbox that Apple has provided in OS X Leopard (10.5) and later. You can see the sandbox security features (amongst the other 300+ enhancements that Apple made in Leopard over Tiger) here: Without sandbox provided by the core OS, it wouldn't be possible for us to implement the sandboxed browser model in Google Chrome. For more on how this works in Google Chrome for Mac, see here: ' The sandboxed model works on other Unix based systems.
Educated technical people do not like how this response assumes all users will accept the fact that OSX can't run OSX pre-Snow but can run on other Unix and Linux systems. Why not be honst, just honest.
Respond; 'We don't want to because don't want to'. Sandboxing is just a term used to describe how measures have been taken to make Chrome much more secure under the hood. It's just a way of describing more secure software, to put it simply. Which means it is something that can be turned off or on. There is no reason it can’t be ported to PPC Macs at the very least to Tiger; but if you go by years (nearly 10 years since Windows XP was released), it should actually work on earlier PPC Macs than Tiger. I hate when tech people lie. Robbycoats 17/8/2010, 23:14 น.
It's just another way for companies to squeeze that little extra money out of people. I too was anticipating Google's Chrome app when it did work with OS 10.4.11.
Now in order to use it you have to purchase the upgrade for 10.5 or higher. During these times I just can't throw money out for upgrades and that really blows. You would think with all the money Apple and Google have been making they would at least throw you a bone with the way the economy is.
I guess the big guys have to eat too. =) That's just sad so I guess that means I have to eat what ever crumbs others leave behind. Fortunately for me OS 10.4.11 has been stable enough to keep me happy. I'm still an Apple fan and will never cross over to the dark side but I have to say that I am a little disappointed that they've forgotten about the little people who continued to support them from back in the cool lunch box '512k' Mac days. I just hope Apple doesn't decide to force us to use Safari 5 since that doesn't work with OS 10.4.11.
My biggest question is why was I able to use Chrome before this final version but now I can't. Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
I know it wasn't perfect at the time but it did make me consider leaving Safari alone for a minute anyway. Why won't Google at least give us the version that did work with our OS? Saggitarius, 5:37 น. Hi everyone, I'm also very disappointed. I have had investigated why can't so many Apple users using Google Chrome. The main problem is the supported processors (Intel and ARM only!), so they up there thought you have to throw out your 'old' Mac and buy a new one with Intel based.
I'm not really like this turned into Intel Mac generation, because in this case the Mac not really a big different from a Windows based PC. In summarized: G3, G4 and G5 Mac users no bother what OSX version you have because this Google Chrome tied to Intel and ARM processors. Awrc, 9:01 น. The 10.4.11 embedded base has spoken.
I am also a user of OS 10.4.11 on 3 Macs and am thoroughly disappointed. I do not know what this SANDBOX functionality Google speaks of above but, Google there is a cooperative method called TEAMWORK you should explore, where if Apple does not have a feature you are requesting, why don't you try working with them to incorporate this feature into 10.4.11. As you can tell there are a lot of 10.4.11 Users out there requesting Chrome for their Macs. We paid good money for out Macs and Apple has rewarded us with a stable and reliable computer that works exceptionally well. Goggle makes Chrome available for Windows XP, 7 and Vista which is probably equivalent to Mac OS X 10.3, 10.4, 10.5 feature-wise, so why make Chrome for only 10.5? Think about it Google rewindrew 15/5/2011, 19:11 น. The javascript engine that chrome uses (V8) does not yet support the PowerPC processor.
If someone decided to contribute a version of V8 for PowerPC then it would be technically possible to create a 'bastardized' version (with some/many core security and safety features missing) in order to maybe make it work on OSX 10.4.x. Folks should support those individuals who have announced they have been writing a PowerPC version: By support, I mean a bounty for completion, or other ongoing financial encouragment.
The chromium team is definitely interested in expanding support for other processor types, they just need others to do it, such as this example of commercial sponsorship of MIPS: @rewindrew, CrossOver Chromium is still only a possibility for those with Intel-processor Macs - which doesn't help most people here. Jdillard343434, 21:24 น. I'm using SYS 10.4.11 too, and I'm disgusted.
I have several gmail accounts. When I log in, I'm informed Google no longer supports my browsers, Safari 3.1. & Firefox 3.0.19, and may not perform as expected - it totally spazzes out on occasion. (Goog thing I get my email downloaded first with Thunderbird). When I've tried to upgrade either of these browsers, I'm told a newer version won't work on SYS 10.4.11. Someone mentioned Cameo.
Guess I'll try to find and use that! Darn it Google! Look what happened to Netflix. You need to take care of your people or they will take care of you! Taahir86 8/1/2012, 9:58 น. Can't believe why even Moz has abandoned 10.4.11. This is a case of big companies deciding to overlook what users want.
Ok, so it may be old. With versioning higher numbers becoming the fad (reminds me of IE). And all sandbox model may have been updated for the latest and the bleeding edge, but developers cannot just ignore what's very much in use among both ordinary users and other developers. The policy decision is a happy nexus between company execs and developers to make their own lives easier, never mind if they have to dictate when and to what version users should upgrade to. 451far 17/2/2012, 23:44 น. Mac OS 10.4.11 is the most common Mac operating system, as most people feel that the improvements made in more recent systems are not worth the money, which is a lot, because it is impossible to install 10.6, 10.7, et cetera on a computer running 10.4, you have to buy 10.5 first, then 10.6, and so on.
The only people using more recent systems are those who bought their Mac more recently. Everyone else just sticks with 10.4, as it is more than good enough.
For browsing, I generally use Safari, but I thought Chrome looked quite good and I'd give it a go. I was more then a little annoyed to find 'For Mac OS X 10.5 or later', and I'm sure many other people share my annoyance. If Google could release a version for older operating systems, I would get it.