Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
White Star 31.1.0
#1
Download SHA256: ba60976ed4c44c19aa0fbfc0a3da3b49b121fd89892ca344774ef895dd60760d
Download Experimental Build SHA256: ccaa2e141075dcc73414c21984d76455546359f4d41626a2c2ecf40a98d1f1a0
Download ARM64 Build SHA256: 4c2b1b7011cc0999bea54995339dcb182dc58eb6491b69b2d1283afdf8a9ed05
Source Code GitHub: White-Star UXP (Experimental UXP) (ARM64 UXP)
Release Notes

This is a major development update, focusing on media support, browser stability, performance and web compatibility.

Mac specific features are support for newer SDKs, detection of MacOS Monterey (12) and later.

The experimental build is built for Intel using the 11.3 SDK, which is what will be used for the Apple Silicon builds in the future.

Edit: Added ARM64 (Apple Silicon) build for people to try out, it is slightly post 31.1.0 using the AppleARMPart4 branch linked.
Reply
#2
Works with no issues (so far).
Reply
#3
Works fine with no issues on my daily drivers Big Sur and Monterey. No joy with Ventura, unfortunately, as it still shows a transparent window as before. Will report back about El Cap and Catalina when I've had a chance to test. Also working fine under Rosetta on my M1 kit Big Grin

I wonder in the problem with Ventura is down to the changes in Metal?

Edit: Forgot to mention that I'm using the experimental build on my M1 Macs and the legacy build on my Intel kit.
Reply
#4
(06-08-2022, 10:08 AM)SkyPilot Wrote: Works fine with no issues on my daily drivers Big Sur and Monterey. No joy with Ventura, unfortunately, as it still shows a transparent window as before. Will report back about El Cap and Catalina when I've had a chance to test. Also working fine under Rosetta on my M1 kit Big Grin

I wonder in the problem with Ventura is down to the changes in Metal?

Edit: Forgot to mention that I'm using the experimental build on my M1 Macs and the legacy build on my Intel kit.

Well if you don't mind trying a few things ... run it from the Terminal.app ... like this: /Applications/White\ Star.app/Contents/MacOS/whitestar

Copy any text it spews out to a text file and send it to me.  (or post it here if it is relatively short).

Can also try running /Applications/Utilities/Console.app and see if anything shows up in the application or system logs
Reply
#5
(06-08-2022, 11:44 AM)dbsoft Wrote:
(06-08-2022, 10:08 AM)SkyPilot Wrote: Works fine with no issues on my daily drivers Big Sur and Monterey. No joy with Ventura, unfortunately, as it still shows a transparent window as before. Will report back about El Cap and Catalina when I've had a chance to test. Also working fine under Rosetta on my M1 kit Big Grin

I wonder in the problem with Ventura is down to the changes in Metal?

Edit: Forgot to mention that I'm using the experimental build on my M1 Macs and the legacy build on my Intel kit.

Well if you don't mind trying a few things ... run it from the Terminal.app ... like this: /Applications/White\ Star.app/Contents/MacOS/whitestar

Copy any text it spews out to a text file and send it to me.  (or post it here if it is relatively short).

Can also try running /Applications/Utilities/Console.app and see if anything shows up in the application or system logs

Nothing in the Console after trying the Terminal.

This is what popped out when run from the Terminal: 

1654697670240 addons.manager WARN Exception calling callback: TypeError: addon is null (chrome://nosquint/content/prefs.js:857:13) JS Stack trace: callback@prefs.js:857:13 < safeCall@AddonManager.jsm:159:5 < noMoreObjects@AddonManager.jsm:2013:9 < callNext@AddonManager.jsm:321:7 < getAddonByID_safeCall@AddonManager.jsm:2008:13 < PL_getAddon@PluginProvider.jsm:135:7 < callProviderAsync@AddonManager.jsm:220:12 < nextObject@AddonManager.jsm:2003:9 < callNext@AddonManager.jsm:327:7 < getAddonByID_safeCall@AddonManager.jsm:2008:13 < getAddonByID@GMPProvider.jsm:524:7 < callProviderAsync@AddonManager.jsm:220:12 < nextObject@AddonManager.jsm:2003:9 < callNext@AddonManager.jsm:327:7 < getAddonByID_safeCall@AddonManager.jsm:2008:13 < getAddonByID@LightweightThemeManager.jsm:357:7 < callProviderAsync@AddonManager.jsm:220:12 < nextObject@AddonManager.jsm:2003:9 < callNext@AddonManager.jsm:327:7 < getAddonByID_safeCall@AddonManager.jsm:2008:13 < getAddonByID_getVisibleAddonForID@XPIProvider.jsm:3756:7 < makeSafe/<@XPIProviderUtils.js:149:17 < getRepositoryAddon@XPIProviderUtils.js:130:5 < getAddon/<@XPIProviderUtils.js:1038:9 < process@Promise-backend.js:931:23 < walkerLoop@Promise-backend.js:812:7 < scheduleWalkerLoop/<@Promise-backend.js:746:11
Reply
#6
I hope that the newer builds will be usable with Intel as well as ARM CPUs. I have a relatively new iMac with an I7 (Intel) CPU.
Reply
#7
(06-09-2022, 11:01 PM)Goodydino Wrote: I hope that the newer builds will be usable with Intel as well as ARM CPUs.  I have a relatively new iMac with an I7 (Intel) CPU.

I will do 2 builds one for each type of Mac... and good news! First functional ARM build just completed! Smile

[Image: Screen_Shot_2022-06-09_at_10.32.51_PM.png]
Reply
#8
I posted ARM64 (Apple Silicon) builds for testing... of you have M1 or M2 Macs please give the build a try and let me know if there are any problems... been investing a lot of time this month to this, and would like the next version to officially support Apple Silicon.
Reply
#9
Does anyone know why unarchiving palemoon.res (using the Mac terminal) would now have to be done from an admin account and not a standard account with MacOS Monterey? Up until and including Sierra, I could unarchive omni.ja for SeaMonkey and Thunderbird from my standard account, but no more.
Reply
#10
(06-15-2022, 08:47 PM)Goodydino Wrote: Does anyone know why unarchiving palemoon.res (using the Mac terminal) would now have to be done from an admin account and not a standard account with MacOS Monterey?  Up until and including Sierra, I could unarchive omni.ja for SeaMonkey and Thunderbird from my standard account, but no more.

Perhaps there are new restrictions based on the file location? Is it located in /Applications?  If you have it in ~/Applications (User Applications as opposed to System) is it also a problem?
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)