Jump to content
CCleaner Community Forums
hazelnut

Anyone using Waterfox?

Recommended Posts

interesting....1st I've heard of it and apprarently been around a while. I wonder if it could be made portable???? Will have to play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I install it, will it install over my current FF8.0? It sounds like it has to because it says all extensions will work...I think? :blink:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have ran Palemoon x64. Currently run Nightly x64 on both my desktop and laptop, though my desktop also has Aurora, Beta and Stable versions of Firefox installed.

 

Never heard of Waterfox.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

After running FF 7 & 8, if you guys wanna feel pain, run FF4 again. :o

In school most of the PC's still have <=4.0 FireFox. :D

Share this post


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!

Share this post


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...

Share this post


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:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Opera is good, but I use (and like) Firefox the most (maybe mainly because of the add-ons).

Or maybe haven't had time to configure Opera more. :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe all these years there are people who've used FF for that long and have never heard of Adblock Plus.

Share this post


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:

Share this post


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).

Edited by nodles

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How do you get a precision of 0.1 mSec ?

Using CMD.EXE I can only achieve that from the average of 100 samples.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...