Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums

Anyone using Waterfox?


hazelnut

Recommended Posts

Go to PortableApps.com and download Firefox Portable and install it. Copy your current plugins and profile in the appropriate folder. Extract the CORE folder from Waterfox and copy the contents into the FirefoxPortable\App\Firefox folder. BTW, the Plugins and Profile folder go into the DATA folder.

 

@Hazel....have you tried Palemoon? It's another variant of Firefox with x864 versions. PortableAppZ has an x864 of Palemoon

 

I just played with Watermark and noticed no difference then my x86 of 801 except my plugins have to be updated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

@Tr3bg0D I haven't tried Palemoon (although I have tried quite a lot of browsers :lol: ) It's no secret that I am an Opera girl mainly, I've tried FF a few times but there's something about it that just doesn't agree with me.

 

I mentioned Waterfox because I know there are a lot of FF users here plus it's all about info and interest isn't it, and the chance to run a 64bit version of Firefox. There is active support on a forum for it which can be reached by following the support link.on the Waterfox main page.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Screenshots on the Softpedia page here.

 

For any Firefox user interested:

Waterfox is a Firefox-based browser especially designed for 64-bit operating systems. Waterfox uses the same profile that Firefox does. If you uninstall Waterfox make sure you don't have the remove personal data box ticked!

 

Requirements:

* Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x64)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does 4 stack up to the lastest 3 series of firefox that keeps getting updated incrementally? Sigh... 8 is great, so I haven't used the older in a while... Just wondering! LOL!

 

Would be weird if 3 beats 4!

 

Cause they keep updating the 3 series!

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Hazel, I know u use Opera. I have the opposite problem.

 

I tried Opera, & it just didn't feel right to me. It has cool features, but they are laid out so... Well, you gotta search for half of em!

+, when I tried my usual tabbed browsing, I got upset when the tabs got needle thin slices that you have to CTRL + W to close, instead of click close.

 

Wonder why u don't like Firefox? It seems simple & easy to me... No biggie, just wondering. Would love to hear the reasons you don't like it! I may suggest changes to the developer team, if you can give me an idea of "what doesn't feel right".

 

I will retry Opera after a few more versions. I'm trying to hope they polish it a bit more, so I don't have the feeling I am opening a junk sock drawer that got ransacked by a hurricane, lol!

 

Like Opera concept, just wish the menu's were more manageable! Oh, and that the tabs don't disappear when you open over 100 tabs. I normally have 500 to 800 tabs open or more...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I use FF, but Opera has more configurable features than FF in its appearance and functionality than FF will ever have.

Opera is VERY good, if you know how to manipulate it. If you don't, don't bother. You're not worth it. :lol:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

SuperFast there is no need to go into my likes and dislikes of Firefox too deeply.

 

Some people prefer a certain make of car and others don't for example.

 

Firefox devs do not waste time catering for personal preferences.

 

I accept without thinking about it that others can prefer a different browser to me, may be best if you do the same :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

How does 4 stack up to the lastest 3 series of firefox that keeps getting updated incrementally? Sigh... 8 is great, so I haven't used the older in a while... Just wondering! LOL!

 

Would be weird if 3 beats 4!

 

Cause they keep updating the 3 series!

 

IMHO, v3 is faster then 4 but 7 and 8 beat every previous version. The true test is to run FF8 on an older system that can run FF3

 

For me that would describe one add-on which I refuse to live without: Adblock Plus

I think Hazel started a topic about FF and Add-Ons....can't recall the results.

 

:wacko:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Adblock Plus & NoScript, the best!

Using these lists in ABP:

- EasyList

- Wiltteri

- fanboy-adblock

- fanboy-tracking

- fanboy-annoyances

 

And additional addons for ABP:

Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon

Elemet Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus

 

They really should update those Firefoxes at our school.. :s

Some things don't work / work right with those older versions (usually also with older Flash and Java, too).

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

To bring this topic back up, here is the comparison of my Nightly 12.0 x64 to Waterfox 9.0 x64 via sunspider

 

Nightly x64 is on the right, under the "TO" column.

Waterfox is on the left, under FROM

TEST                   COMPARISON            FROM                 TO             DETAILS

=============================================================================

** TOTAL **:           *1.040x as slow*  239.8ms +/- 2.4%   249.4ms +/- 3.9%     significant

=============================================================================

 3d:                  *1.195x as slow*   39.4ms +/- 1.8%    47.1ms +/- 12.3%     significant
   cube:              *1.105x as slow*   16.2ms +/- 1.9%    17.9ms +/- 14.3%     significant
   morph:             ??                  8.0ms +/- 4.2%     8.1ms +/- 2.8%     not conclusive: might be *1.012x as slow*
   raytrace:          *1.39x as slow*    15.2ms +/- 3.0%    21.1ms +/- 28.8%     significant

 access:              ??                 22.6ms +/- 6.5%    24.2ms +/- 16.6%     not conclusive: might be *1.071x as slow*
   binary-trees:      -                   3.6ms +/- 13.9%     3.1ms +/- 7.3% 
   fannkuch:          *1.23x as slow*     9.1ms +/- 2.5%    11.2ms +/- 37.9%     significant
   nbody:             -                   4.9ms +/- 31.8%     4.4ms +/- 8.4% 
   nsieve:            *1.100x as slow*    5.0ms +/- 0.0%     5.5ms +/- 6.8%     significant

 bitops:              -                  16.2ms +/- 18.1%    14.9ms +/- 14.6% 
   3bit-bits-in-byte: -                   1.4ms +/- 49.3%     1.2ms +/- 25.1% 
   bits-in-byte:      -                   6.3ms +/- 43.8%     4.3ms +/- 11.2% 
   bitwise-and:       *1.025x as slow*    4.0ms +/- 0.0%     4.1ms +/- 5.5%     significant
   nsieve-bits:       ??                  4.5ms +/- 8.4%     5.3ms +/- 41.7%     not conclusive: might be *1.178x as slow*

 controlflow:         ??                  2.9ms +/- 7.8%     3.0ms +/- 0.0%     not conclusive: might be *1.034x as slow*
   recursive:         ??                  2.9ms +/- 7.8%     3.0ms +/- 0.0%     not conclusive: might be *1.034x as slow*

 crypto:              -                  24.3ms +/- 19.6%    23.3ms +/- 14.0% 
   aes:               ??                 13.0ms +/- 31.1%    13.2ms +/- 22.7%     not conclusive: might be *1.015x as slow*
   md5:               -                   7.1ms +/- 35.0%     6.2ms +/- 4.9% 
   sha1:              -                   4.2ms +/- 7.2%     3.9ms +/- 10.4% 

 date:                1.037x as fast     39.4ms +/- 2.1%    38.0ms +/- 2.3%     significant
   format-tofte:      -                  20.8ms +/- 3.2%    20.0ms +/- 3.4% 
   format-xparb:      1.033x as fast     18.6ms +/- 2.0%    18.0ms +/- 1.9%     significant

 math:                *1.195x as slow*   16.9ms +/- 3.1%    20.2ms +/- 19.0%     significant
   cordic:            ??                  3.8ms +/- 11.9%     4.0ms +/- 8.4%     not conclusive: might be *1.053x as slow*
   partial-sums:      *1.25x as slow*     9.2ms +/- 3.3%    11.5ms +/- 31.7%     significant
   spectral-norm:     *1.21x as slow*     3.9ms +/- 5.8%     4.7ms +/- 33.7%     significant

 regexp:              -                  13.3ms +/- 2.6%    13.2ms +/- 3.4% 
   dna:               -                  13.3ms +/- 2.6%    13.2ms +/- 3.4% 

 string:              ??                 64.8ms +/- 1.9%    65.5ms +/- 1.5%     not conclusive: might be *1.011x as slow*
   base64:            1.094x as fast      5.8ms +/- 5.2%     5.3ms +/- 9.1%     significant
   fasta:             ??                  8.1ms +/- 5.0%     8.2ms +/- 8.0%     not conclusive: might be *1.012x as slow*
   tagcloud:          -                  19.7ms +/- 2.4%    19.4ms +/- 2.6% 
   unpack-code:       *1.042x as slow*   23.9ms +/- 3.0%    24.9ms +/- 2.1%     significant
   validate-input:    ??                  7.3ms +/- 8.1%     7.7ms +/- 4.5%     not conclusive: might be *1.055x as slow*

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...