Waterfox 64-bit Firefox
 

Waterfox is a 64-bit version of Firefox. Some people might be interested in it.

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/

It is optimized for use on 64-bit Windows, and so will perform faster than 32-bit Firefox.

FAQ here :

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/faq

Thanks Anupam. I'll have a look.

I've been using Waterfox for a while. It's as fast as it claims but has no support for many media plugins.

I have divx web player installed and Pale Moon could use that fine, but after installing Waterfox, it's plugin directory was empty.

That incompatibility is what stands out as Waterfox's main downside.

Anyone here have the WMP plugin for Firefox? I don't have it installed and I want to know if Waterfox can detect that.

Linuxix, I'm a bit confused (nothing unusual at the moment). Can you clarify what you've said.
Are you talking about 64-bit versions of Waterfox, Firefox and Pale Moon?

I've got DivX plug-in running on 64-bit Waterfox. It seems to run the same as on 64-bit Pale Moon, at least, I haven't noticed any difference. Is there any that you've noticed?

Are you saying that when Waterfox installed it didn't use the DivX plug-in while Pale Moon did?
When I installed 64-bit Waterfox I thought it picked up the 64-bit Firefox nightly plug-ins. I don't know if it tries to use the 64-bit Pale Moon plug-ins.


I got WMP for Firefox from Microsoft's Interoperability Bridges and Labs Center

I'm curious. Which do you like better, Waterfox or Pale Moon? I'm considering using one of them.

What Linuxis is trying to say is that he already has DivX Web Player installed, and Waterfox should have picked up its plugin, but it didn't, whereas Pale Moon picked the plugin up.

This may be a problem with Waterfox. Its addressed in the FAQ, for the question "Is my experience limited if I use a 64-Bit version of Firefox?" ... to which the answer is :
"Unless you use other plugins than Flash, Java and Silverlight your experience will not be limited."

Maybe this will be addressed in the future, as Waterfox keeps developing.

There are other questions in FAQ, which might be of interest.

That's what I thought he was saying - just wanted to make sure I got it right.

You were thinking correct then :).

I've looked at two sets of benchmarks results which confirm my own view that Waterfox appears faster than Pale Moon:
http://www.xxxxxxxxxxx/blog/archives...ared-to-32bit/ for Firefox 8.0 32-bit, Waterfox 8.0 64-bit, Firefox Nightly 11.0a1 32-bit and 64-bit, and Pale Moon 8.0 32-bit and 64-bit
http://www.neowin.net/news/waterfox-80 for the same except Firefox Nightly 11.0a1 64-bit

I would happily use any of them but would probably go with Nightly:

• 64-bit Nightly - nearly as fast and I don't lose any features
• Pale Moon - more thought seems to have gone into than for Waterfox, it doesn't affect Firefox, and it is configured slightly differently. For example, I'm sure that the default is to open new tabs on the far right (I can't tell right now because many of my settings have synced with Waterfox).
• Waterfox - fastest but not so good for plug-ins. Also shares the same profile with Firefox which I don't like but would help someone transitioning from Firefox.

P.S. The first URL was changed from the text I originally copied in. So I guess that is some security feature that xxxx's out the name. The missing text was raymond[dot]cc. It was OK when I checked with virustotal.com.

There is no 32 bit version of Waterfox. Waterfox only has one version and it doesn't support divx web player. Though I'm using Waterfox 7, maybe Waterfox 8 fixed that problem, I don't know.