Moderators hazelnut Posted November 20, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 20, 2011 Anyone here tried or is using this? http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/ Support contact https://support.ccleaner.com/s/contact-form?language=en_US&form=general or support@ccleaner.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr3bg0D Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corona Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr3bg0D Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodles Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Or backup your Firefox profile(s) with MozBackup before trying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corona Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I have MozBackup. I could regroup, but I'm thinking is it worth the hassle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators hazelnut Posted November 21, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2011 @Tr3bg0D I haven't tried Palemoon (although I have tried quite a lot of browsers ) 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. Support contact https://support.ccleaner.com/s/contact-form?language=en_US&form=general or support@ccleaner.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winapp2.ini Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 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. winapp2.ini additions thread winapp2.ini github Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Fast Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Haven't tried it. Current firefox is fast enough for me. Loads in a fraction of a second. Course, my computer might just be fast, I don't know... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodles Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Also haven't tried, or heard of it, but I might try it out though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Andavari Posted November 21, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 21, 2011 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr3bg0D Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 After running FF 7 & 8, if you guys wanna feel pain, run FF4 again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodles Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 After running FF 7 & 8, if you guys wanna feel pain, run FF4 again. In school most of the PC's still have <=4.0 FireFox. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Fast Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Super Fast Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 @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 comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corona Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators hazelnut Posted November 22, 2011 Author Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2011 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 Support contact https://support.ccleaner.com/s/contact-form?language=en_US&form=general or support@ccleaner.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodles Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Andavari Posted November 22, 2011 Moderators Share Posted November 22, 2011 Opera is good, but I use (and like) Firefox the most (maybe mainly because of the add-ons). For me that would describe one add-on which I refuse to live without: Adblock Plus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Corona Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 I can't believe all these years there are people who've used FF for that long and have never heard of Adblock Plus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tr3bg0D Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nodles Posted November 23, 2011 Share Posted November 23, 2011 (edited) 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 November 23, 2011 by nodles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winapp2.ini Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 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* winapp2.ini additions thread winapp2.ini github Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan_B Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 How do you get a precision of 0.1 mSec ? Using CMD.EXE I can only achieve that from the average of 100 samples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Winapp2.ini Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider/sunspider.html Browser benchmarking! winapp2.ini additions thread winapp2.ini github Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now