11 ms·

Firefox beta supports Apple silicon natively

331 points by Austin_Conlon 6y ago

kentiko 6y ago
You can download it here : https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-release https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-r...
- gpmcadam 6y ago
  Which is it, because the headline here says 'Beta' but I'm already on the Beta channel and see no update and my architecture is still 'Intel' in Activity Monitor. Should I choose "Nightly" in the dropdown to get the ARM64 universal binary?
  - uvesten 6y ago
    I had the same situation, seems the Beta auto-update doesn't switch to the new architecture. Just download the beta again and install it over you old install. The performance difference is _really_ noticeable :)
  - glandium 6y ago
    Are you on 84b1 or more? If so, try exiting and restarting it once manually. If you upgraded from a version running with Rosetta, the restart initiated by Firefox will keep it running with Rosetta. This is tracked in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1677036 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1677036
amanzi 6y ago
This is great news. Based on the early reviews coming in, native Apple apps perform amazingly well on the M1 chips. So it's going to be really important for third-party apps to support M1 natively to remain competitive.
- brundolf 6y ago
  From what I've read the performance is very competitive even for Rosetta apps. Native support will just make things even more astounding.
  - zrm 6y ago
    It looks like you lose about 30% performance to Rosetta. That's quite a lot, and makes it slower than current x86-64 processors, e.g. Ryzen 5000 series, or even the Ryzen 3000 series. But compared to x86-64 Macs it's not that much slower, because the x86-64 Macs are using old slower Intel CPUs.
    - jmgao 6y ago
      And that's for static code. Chrome runs like garbage under rosetta for me, with frequent stutters, presumably because of the cost of dynamically recompiling freshly emitted code.
      - nly 6y ago
        It's actually a marvel that it can even JIT translate the output of another JIT...
    - alwillis 6y ago
      But compared to x86-64 Macs it's not that much slower, because the x86-64 Macs are using old slower Intel CPUs. Depends on the app but some of them run faster in Rosetta than they do on comparable PC hardware. Everyone keeps comparing a SoC designed for low-end (in the Apple lineup/ecosystem) to the Ryzen. As the AnandTech review noted, the M1 bests even the Ryzen on some benchmarks and Ryzen beats it in others. The point everyone conveniently seems to miss is a new SoC for mobile devices running at 10-20 watts shouldn't be in the same universe when it comes to performance with any Ryzen desktop processor—but here we are. It's disingenuous to state the only reason M1 seems fast is because all Macs are using old, slow processors. The 16-inch MacBook Pro ($2,799.00) comes with a 2.3GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz and for an additional $200, you can get it with a 2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz. And yet the new 13-inch MacBook Pro with it's M1 processor blows them away when it comes to performance. Here's a direct quote from their extensive review of the M1-based Mac mini (https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...): The M1 undisputedly outperforms the core performance of everything Intel has to offer, and battles it with AMD’s new Zen3, winning some, losing some. And in the mobile space in particular, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in either ST or MT performance – at least within the same power budgets.
helloycombinat 6y ago
What does this mean? M1 isn't an ARM64? Is it saying there's extra opcodes and this takes advantage of them?
- wmf 6y ago
  It means they recompiled Firefox for macOS/ARM64.
  - alwillis 6y ago
    Correct. Just installed it on my Intel Mac running Big Sur (had to put it in my home directory; I already had non-beta Firefox in /Applications): file ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64:Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64] ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin (for architecture arm64): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64
- flatiron 6y ago
  I assume this means it’s compiling with Xcode targeting the M1. Firefox has never had to target aarch64 on macOS before.
  - ryukafalz 6y ago
    It's long since targeted aarch64 on Linux though, so it's not too surprising to me that they have it ready so quickly.
    - robotresearcher 6y ago
      Apple ARM dev kits have been available for a few months, also. https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/22/apple-arm-developer-kit/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/22/apple-arm-developer-kit/
- 6y ago
chris_wot 6y ago
The Mozilla bugzilla allows me to logon via Github, but when I logon it tells me that my account is disabled. But then it says to request it be reenabled from the login page... does anyone here know how to get around this issue?
- kbrosnan 6y ago
  Might be worth contacting the BMO team at https://chat.mozilla.org/#/room/#bmo:mozilla.org https://chat.mozilla.org/#/room/#bmo:mozilla.org
vsskanth 6y ago
Has any reviewer run JS benchmarks on the browser for Apple Silicon vs Intel ?
- megablast 6y ago
  Yes. Anandtech did in their review.
apetresc 6y ago
Wow, I had no idea Gian-Carlo Pascutto's day job was at Mozilla! I love him even more now :)
aussieguy1234 6y ago
If you are a dev be careful with these new macs. Docker won't start: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25073010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25073010
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- zapzupnz 6y ago
  Docker has already addressed that, and a link was posted about it yesterday in HN.
  - smohare 6y ago
    We wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of {mis, dis}information.
  - momokoko 6y ago
    Would you mind posting that here?
    - alwillis 6y ago
      https://www.docker.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-chips-and-docker/ https://www.docker.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-chips-and-docke... Here are the money paragraphs: St Paer-Gotch says that Apple's changes mean the company needs to move its "plumbing" to Apple's new hypervisor framework. And it also relies on software from other companies which are similarly still working to adapt to Apple Silicon. "We rely on things like Go for the backend of Docker Desktop and Electron for the Docker Dashboard to view your Desktop content," he continued. "We know these projects are hard at work getting ready for M1 chips, and we are watching them closely."
      - momokoko 6y ago
        Am I missing where it states Docker is currently working? That seems to indicate that they hope to having it working at some undetermined point in the future.
obilgic 6y ago
incase you are wondering how native chrome support going (which is released today): https://twitter.com/oguzbilgic/status/1328805861834117120 https://twitter.com/oguzbilgic/status/1328805861834117120
- terramex 6y ago
  FYI: this build was pulled and fixed one will go live tomorrow. In the meantime one can use Intel version through Rosetta or manually give Bluetooth permission to native Chrome ( https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/83557143 https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/83557143 ).
  - bleachedsleet 6y ago
    Or take this moment of reflection to switch to Firefox and stop supporting a monopolized web!
    - theferalrobot 6y ago
      You could say the same thing about Linux. Standardization is helpful - there are so many companies with an interest in chromium it’s not just a google project anymore it is a huge community project.
  - hamandcheese 6y ago
    Why does Chrome need Bluetooth? Gross...
    - sagz 6y ago
      For Google Cast most likely. Local discovery of Cast recipients. Casting to your TV etc is a popular feature
      - josteink 6y ago
        But that's most likely on your local network. No need to use Bluetooth for this, when you have simple local UDP multicast. Also: Using Bluetooth for discovery of your units suck. I live in an area with lots of houses close by each other, and I see at least 3 Apple TV's in my iPhone's AirPlay menu which are not on my network, and there's no way for me to get rid of them. Apple, Google and friends: Stop. Trying. So. Hard! We're all on the same network. It's OK. No need to look further.
glandium 6y ago
You can change the title to "Firefox beta supports Apple silicon natively" (edit: or "Firefox nightly and beta support Apple silicon natively", the current "Firefox nightly (beta)" is ambiguous). This is the changeset that enabled them: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/4153d7645a36 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/4153d7645a3... Download from: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/
- dang 6y ago
  Changed, thanks!
teilo 6y ago
I've been using it half the day. Just one crash so far.
chrismsimpson 6y ago
A third party browser? Cute
williamscales 6y ago
What's the difference between this version of Firefox and the version of Firefox that can be installed on an iPad? I have been running Firefox on Apple silicon for some time I thought.
- cpuguy83 6y ago
  Unless I'm mistaken, the rendering engine on iOS would only be WebKit, and whatever else safari provides. No alternative aloud. So it's ui/features on top of, essentially, Safari not real Firefox.
  - hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
    Allowed
  - williamscales 6y ago
    Gotcha, thanks. Just got the thing so I didn't realize that was the case. I suppose it's not overly surprising, knowing Apple. I doubt they would allow real Firefox on an iPad even though it technically can probably run on it now.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- glandium 6y ago
  The Firefox you can install on an iPad is a mobile Firefox, designed for iPhone and iPad. This is desktop Firefox, the one you get on a Mac/PC. Also, because of the App Store rules, the mobile version uses WebKit instead of Gecko.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ybbond 6y ago
Chromium: + support Handoff macOS -> iOS + text fragment support! [1] + nice plugins and (Brave Browser) nice built-in Ad Blocker + good performance, but - memory & cpu heavy (this counts as 2 minus) - pinned tab can still be closed with `⌘+W` Firefox: + feels smoother and more battery friendly than Chromium based browsers + built-in Picture in Picture - no macOS menu bar function for "Pin Tab", thus making a lot of stuff hard for me - doesn't support Handoff macOS -> iOS Safari: + The most battery friendly and lightweight + iCloud tabs & Handoff + built-in Picture in Picture, but - activating Picture in Picture is not as easy as Firefox - No good Vim keybindings emulation - cannot view rss raw text - automatically opens related macOS app if any link contains redirect to app [1]: https://web.dev/text-fragments/ https://web.dev/text-fragments/
- graftak 6y ago
  Chromium: - pinned tabs don't transfer to a new window The entire 'pinned' premise is out of the window with this
- tomduncalf 6y ago
  > - automatically opens related macOS app if any link contains redirect to app I hate this on iOS. Quite surprised there appears to be no way to disable it globally or per-app as it's such an annoying feature. The only way I know of is to press-and-hold a link to get the context menu, then open it from there... or more usually, uninstall the app in question!
  - Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
    Yes! I hate this feature on android. Sometimes I need to login to a Gmail account that I don't have on device, and it takes me to app instead of opening the website I need. Hope they'll make it optional.
- wodenokoto 6y ago
  I think it is a good list, and it really shows how close browsers are today, that decisions are made on minor inconveniences like "How does it pin tabs?" My biggest gripe with FF on MacOS is that they don't include "look up "x"" in the right-click menu. The PiP in Firefox is a lot better than in Safari. I do wish FF came with better tools for opening PiP for videos that on purpose or on accident hides the PiP-button. I also think that Safari's back-gesture is a huge plus.

331 points by Austin_Conlon 6y ago

You can download it here : https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-release https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all/#product-desktop-r...

gpmcadam 6y ago
Which is it, because the headline here says 'Beta' but I'm already on the Beta channel and see no update and my architecture is still 'Intel' in Activity Monitor. Should I choose "Nightly" in the dropdown to get the ARM64 universal binary?
- uvesten 6y ago
  I had the same situation, seems the Beta auto-update doesn't switch to the new architecture. Just download the beta again and install it over you old install. The performance difference is _really_ noticeable :)
- glandium 6y ago
  Are you on 84b1 or more? If so, try exiting and restarting it once manually. If you upgraded from a version running with Rosetta, the restart initiated by Firefox will keep it running with Rosetta. This is tracked in https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1677036 https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1677036

amanzi 6y ago

This is great news. Based on the early reviews coming in, native Apple apps perform amazingly well on the M1 chips. So it's going to be really important for third-party apps to support M1 natively to remain competitive.

brundolf 6y ago
From what I've read the performance is very competitive even for Rosetta apps. Native support will just make things even more astounding.
- zrm 6y ago
  It looks like you lose about 30% performance to Rosetta. That's quite a lot, and makes it slower than current x86-64 processors, e.g. Ryzen 5000 series, or even the Ryzen 3000 series. But compared to x86-64 Macs it's not that much slower, because the x86-64 Macs are using old slower Intel CPUs.
  - jmgao 6y ago
    And that's for static code. Chrome runs like garbage under rosetta for me, with frequent stutters, presumably because of the cost of dynamically recompiling freshly emitted code.
    - nly 6y ago
      It's actually a marvel that it can even JIT translate the output of another JIT...
  - alwillis 6y ago
    But compared to x86-64 Macs it's not that much slower, because the x86-64 Macs are using old slower Intel CPUs. Depends on the app but some of them run faster in Rosetta than they do on comparable PC hardware. Everyone keeps comparing a SoC designed for low-end (in the Apple lineup/ecosystem) to the Ryzen. As the AnandTech review noted, the M1 bests even the Ryzen on some benchmarks and Ryzen beats it in others. The point everyone conveniently seems to miss is a new SoC for mobile devices running at 10-20 watts shouldn't be in the same universe when it comes to performance with any Ryzen desktop processor—but here we are. It's disingenuous to state the only reason M1 seems fast is because all Macs are using old, slow processors. The 16-inch MacBook Pro ($2,799.00) comes with a 2.3GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 4.8GHz and for an additional $200, you can get it with a 2.4GHz 8‑core 9th‑generation Intel Core i9 processor, Turbo Boost up to 5.0GHz. And yet the new 13-inch MacBook Pro with it's M1 processor blows them away when it comes to performance. Here's a direct quote from their extensive review of the M1-based Mac mini (https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-tested https://www.anandtech.com/show/16252/mac-mini-apple-m1-teste...): The M1 undisputedly outperforms the core performance of everything Intel has to offer, and battles it with AMD’s new Zen3, winning some, losing some. And in the mobile space in particular, there doesn’t seem to be an equivalent in either ST or MT performance – at least within the same power budgets.

helloycombinat 6y ago

What does this mean? M1 isn't an ARM64? Is it saying there's extra opcodes and this takes advantage of them?

wmf 6y ago
It means they recompiled Firefox for macOS/ARM64.
- alwillis 6y ago
  Correct. Just installed it on my Intel Mac running Big Sur (had to put it in my home directory; I already had non-beta Firefox in /Applications): file ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin: Mach-O universal binary with 2 architectures: [x86_64:Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64] [arm64:Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64] ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin (for architecture x86_64): Mach-O 64-bit executable x86_64 ~/Applications/Firefox.app/Contents/MacOS/firefox-bin (for architecture arm64): Mach-O 64-bit executable arm64
flatiron 6y ago
I assume this means it’s compiling with Xcode targeting the M1. Firefox has never had to target aarch64 on macOS before.
- ryukafalz 6y ago
  It's long since targeted aarch64 on Linux though, so it's not too surprising to me that they have it ready so quickly.
  - robotresearcher 6y ago
    Apple ARM dev kits have been available for a few months, also. https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/22/apple-arm-developer-kit/ https://9to5mac.com/2020/06/22/apple-arm-developer-kit/
6y ago

chris_wot 6y ago

The Mozilla bugzilla allows me to logon via Github, but when I logon it tells me that my account is disabled. But then it says to request it be reenabled from the login page... does anyone here know how to get around this issue?

kbrosnan 6y ago
Might be worth contacting the BMO team at https://chat.mozilla.org/#/room/#bmo:mozilla.org https://chat.mozilla.org/#/room/#bmo:mozilla.org

vsskanth 6y ago

Has any reviewer run JS benchmarks on the browser for Apple Silicon vs Intel ?

megablast 6y ago
Yes. Anandtech did in their review.

apetresc 6y ago

Wow, I had no idea Gian-Carlo Pascutto's day job was at Mozilla! I love him even more now :)

aussieguy1234 6y ago

If you are a dev be careful with these new macs. Docker won't start: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25073010 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25073010

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
zapzupnz 6y ago
Docker has already addressed that, and a link was posted about it yesterday in HN.
- smohare 6y ago
  We wouldn’t want facts to get in the way of {mis, dis}information.
- momokoko 6y ago
  Would you mind posting that here?
  - alwillis 6y ago
    https://www.docker.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-chips-and-docker/ https://www.docker.com/blog/apple-silicon-m1-chips-and-docke... Here are the money paragraphs: St Paer-Gotch says that Apple's changes mean the company needs to move its "plumbing" to Apple's new hypervisor framework. And it also relies on software from other companies which are similarly still working to adapt to Apple Silicon. "We rely on things like Go for the backend of Docker Desktop and Electron for the Docker Dashboard to view your Desktop content," he continued. "We know these projects are hard at work getting ready for M1 chips, and we are watching them closely."
    - momokoko 6y ago
      Am I missing where it states Docker is currently working? That seems to indicate that they hope to having it working at some undetermined point in the future.

obilgic 6y ago

incase you are wondering how native chrome support going (which is released today): https://twitter.com/oguzbilgic/status/1328805861834117120 https://twitter.com/oguzbilgic/status/1328805861834117120

terramex 6y ago
FYI: this build was pulled and fixed one will go live tomorrow. In the meantime one can use Intel version through Rosetta or manually give Bluetooth permission to native Chrome ( https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/83557143 https://support.google.com/chrome/thread/83557143 ).
- bleachedsleet 6y ago
  Or take this moment of reflection to switch to Firefox and stop supporting a monopolized web!
  - theferalrobot 6y ago
    You could say the same thing about Linux. Standardization is helpful - there are so many companies with an interest in chromium it’s not just a google project anymore it is a huge community project.
- hamandcheese 6y ago
  Why does Chrome need Bluetooth? Gross...
  - sagz 6y ago
    For Google Cast most likely. Local discovery of Cast recipients. Casting to your TV etc is a popular feature
    - josteink 6y ago
      But that's most likely on your local network. No need to use Bluetooth for this, when you have simple local UDP multicast. Also: Using Bluetooth for discovery of your units suck. I live in an area with lots of houses close by each other, and I see at least 3 Apple TV's in my iPhone's AirPlay menu which are not on my network, and there's no way for me to get rid of them. Apple, Google and friends: Stop. Trying. So. Hard! We're all on the same network. It's OK. No need to look further.

glandium 6y ago

You can change the title to "Firefox beta supports Apple silicon natively" (edit: or "Firefox nightly and beta support Apple silicon natively", the current "Firefox nightly (beta)" is ambiguous). This is the changeset that enabled them: https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/4153d7645a36 https://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-beta/rev/4153d7645a3... Download from: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/ https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/channel/desktop/

dang 6y ago
Changed, thanks!

teilo 6y ago

I've been using it half the day. Just one crash so far.

chrismsimpson 6y ago

A third party browser? Cute

williamscales 6y ago

What's the difference between this version of Firefox and the version of Firefox that can be installed on an iPad? I have been running Firefox on Apple silicon for some time I thought.

cpuguy83 6y ago
Unless I'm mistaken, the rendering engine on iOS would only be WebKit, and whatever else safari provides. No alternative aloud. So it's ui/features on top of, essentially, Safari not real Firefox.
- hobby-coder-guy 6y ago
  Allowed
- williamscales 6y ago
  Gotcha, thanks. Just got the thing so I didn't realize that was the case. I suppose it's not overly surprising, knowing Apple. I doubt they would allow real Firefox on an iPad even though it technically can probably run on it now.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
glandium 6y ago
The Firefox you can install on an iPad is a mobile Firefox, designed for iPhone and iPad. This is desktop Firefox, the one you get on a Mac/PC. Also, because of the App Store rules, the mobile version uses WebKit instead of Gecko.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ybbond 6y ago

Chromium: + support Handoff macOS -> iOS + text fragment support! [1] + nice plugins and (Brave Browser) nice built-in Ad Blocker + good performance, but - memory & cpu heavy (this counts as 2 minus) - pinned tab can still be closed with `⌘+W` Firefox: + feels smoother and more battery friendly than Chromium based browsers + built-in Picture in Picture - no macOS menu bar function for "Pin Tab", thus making a lot of stuff hard for me - doesn't support Handoff macOS -> iOS Safari: + The most battery friendly and lightweight + iCloud tabs & Handoff + built-in Picture in Picture, but - activating Picture in Picture is not as easy as Firefox - No good Vim keybindings emulation - cannot view rss raw text - automatically opens related macOS app if any link contains redirect to app [1]: https://web.dev/text-fragments/ https://web.dev/text-fragments/

graftak 6y ago
Chromium: - pinned tabs don't transfer to a new window The entire 'pinned' premise is out of the window with this
tomduncalf 6y ago
> - automatically opens related macOS app if any link contains redirect to app I hate this on iOS. Quite surprised there appears to be no way to disable it globally or per-app as it's such an annoying feature. The only way I know of is to press-and-hold a link to get the context menu, then open it from there... or more usually, uninstall the app in question!
- Andrew_nenakhov 6y ago
  Yes! I hate this feature on android. Sometimes I need to login to a Gmail account that I don't have on device, and it takes me to app instead of opening the website I need. Hope they'll make it optional.
wodenokoto 6y ago
I think it is a good list, and it really shows how close browsers are today, that decisions are made on minor inconveniences like "How does it pin tabs?" My biggest gripe with FF on MacOS is that they don't include "look up "x"" in the right-click menu. The PiP in Firefox is a lot better than in Safari. I do wish FF came with better tools for opening PiP for videos that on purpose or on accident hides the PiP-button. I also think that Safari's back-gesture is a huge plus.