Gizmo's Freeware Forum

Gizmo's Freeware Forum (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/)
-   Internet, Web Apps and Networking (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/internet-web-apps-and-networking/)
-   -   Waterfox 64-bit Firefox (https://www.techsupportalert.com/freeware-forum/internet-web-apps-and-networking/8497-waterfox-64-bit-firefox.html)

Anupam 19. Nov 2011 04:04 PM

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

Remah 20. Nov 2011 05:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 63381)
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.

Linuxis 21. Nov 2011 03:09 AM

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.

Remah 21. Nov 2011 05:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linuxis (Post 63465)
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

kendall.a 21. Nov 2011 06:59 AM

Quote:

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

Anupam 21. Nov 2011 07:03 AM

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.

Remah 21. Nov 2011 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anupam (Post 63479)
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.

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

Anupam 21. Nov 2011 07:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remah (Post 63483)
That's what I thought he was saying - just wanted to make sure I got it right.

You were thinking correct then :).

Remah 21. Nov 2011 07:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by kendall (Post 63478)
I'm curious. Which do you like better, Waterfox or Pale Moon? I'm considering using one of them.

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.

Linuxis 21. Nov 2011 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Remah (Post 63468)
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

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.

Remah 21. Nov 2011 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Linuxis (Post 63533)
Though I'm using Waterfox 7, maybe Waterfox 8 fixed that problem, I don't know.

That's why I couldn't understand the problem you have. I'm using DivX on Waterfox 8 without any problems so far.

HawkPunk 01. Dec 2011 04:20 AM

Bring The Jubilee
 
I consider Waterfox to be a prime rebuke to those who say that there is no advantage to 64 bit computing. I gladly accept the fact that some Firefox addons do not work with Waterfox. A bloated browser is of no use to me. Some of the Mozilla addons border on the ridiculous. I welcome a leaner and faster Future. ~Punk

Remah 01. Dec 2011 11:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HawkPunk (Post 64393)
I consider Waterfox to be a prime rebuke to those who say that there is no advantage to 64 bit computing. I gladly accept the fact that some Firefox addons do not work with Waterfox. A bloated browser is of no use to me. Some of the Mozilla addons border on the ridiculous. I welcome a leaner and faster Future. ~Punk

Yes, if you've got a 64-bit CPU it is worth getting 64-bit software. Now I go back to my equivalent XP system and have sufficient time to ponder how much faster 64-bit is proving to be.

I'm running with Firefox 64-bit Nightly and that is much the same speed as Waterfox on my system.

Anupam 22. Dec 2011 08:47 AM

Waterfox updated to version 9.0

rikishi19 13. Jan 2012 07:03 PM

I see it was mentioned here that Waterfox shares the same profile as Firefox. Will this cause any conflict issues if you have both installed on the same machine? Especially if the need to uninstall either one, is there the potential it will corrupt the other in the uninstall process?

Also, when I first read into 64-bit browsers, I was sure I read somewhere that many pages may not load correctly as they are not built/optimised for 64-bit browser technology yet? Or am I getting confused with java/flash here? This is why I have not used the 64-bit version of IE that comes with Windows as default up to now.

Remah 13. Jan 2012 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rikishi19 (Post 67276)
I see it was mentioned here that Waterfox shares the same profile as Firefox. Will this cause any conflict issues if you have both installed on the same machine? Especially if the need to uninstall either one, is there the potential it will corrupt the other in the uninstall process?

Also, when I first read into 64-bit browsers, I was sure I read somewhere that many pages may not load correctly as they are not built/optimised for 64-bit browser technology yet? Or am I getting confused with java/flash here? This is why I have not used the 64-bit version of IE that comes with Windows as default up to now.

I had no problem with running Waterfox with either Firefox Nightly 64-bit or Firefox 32-bit. The code is 100% Firefox. The only differences are that they are compiled with optimizations set for 64-bit and some features are removed.

For me, it was annoying having the shared profile because I couldn't change one without affecting the other. But it is also a useful feature if you work between the two and want consistency.

Re pages not loading correctly. There was a problem with not having stable releases of 64-bit Java and Flash but that is not the case now.

On my 64-bit system, I get the best performance from 64-bit Waterfox and Pale Moon.

rikishi19 14. Jan 2012 02:48 AM

Excellent stuff, cheers. I will look into Waterfox a bit more now and see if I can see any improvements over Firefox.

shnureaga 22. Jan 2012 07:26 PM

Hi guys, i registered because i search for an answer - is there a way to get working WMP plugin in 64-bit versions of browsers? I tried Waterfox 9.0 64-bit and i use Nightly 64-bit for a long time, but today i tried to watch TV online and it didn't work. :(

Anupam 30. Apr 2012 07:08 PM

Waterfox updated to version 12.0

Taurus 21. May 2012 04:46 PM

I have an Acer Timeline laptop with a Sandy Bridge i-core 3, 6 GB of DDR3 Ram, 500 GB WD hardrive, 64-bit Windows 7 Home Edition .

I tried Waterfox this weekend and was a bit disappointed. I uninstalled Firefox 12.0 and the 32-bit version of Adobe Flash, then cleaned up after them.

I installed Waterfox and the 64-bit version of Adobe Flash. I tested Waterfox over the next two days, both Sandboxed and out of the Sandbox. I had several browser crashes mostly caused by the 64-bit version of Adobe Flash. There was no browsing speed advantage, no browser start up adavantage with Waterfox on my machine.

I went back to 32-bit version of Firefox 12.0 and Adobe Flash, had greater bowser stability and no issues with youtube or other flash videos.

I used browser add-ons Adblock Plus, WOT, Ghostery, and HTTPS Everywhere with both browsers.

Anupam 30. Aug 2012 07:24 PM

Waterfox updated to 15.0. Must say, they are quite quick with the updates.

Anupam 20. Jan 2013 09:31 AM

Waterfox updated to 18.0.1

kendall.a 04. Jul 2013 06:36 PM

Is anyone else running both Waterfox and FF at the same time?

I just installed Waterfox to try it out. However, I notice that if I switch between Waterfox and FF, every time I open the one after using the other, they both act as if they are new installations and go through the "updating add-ons" process. It's annoying. It doesn't happen unless I switch between them.

Is this related to the fact that they apparently share the same profile?

bo.elam 04. Jul 2013 07:06 PM

Hi Kendall, the only time that I had installed Firefox and something else of the same family at the same time, it created weird issues. So, as a rule, I don't install browsers that use the same engine at the same time. I am not surprised about what you are seeing. Good luck in your quest. In my case, I already figured out that Firefox is not causing my problems.

Bo

rikishi19 04. Jul 2013 10:12 PM

Hi Kendall, yes this is the normal behavior when running the two after another. I use both, mainly Waterfox though. But as they use the same profile, when you open FF after Waterfox or vice versa, it will do the checks as you explain, as at launch when it checks the last version opened, it will be a different version number to the one you are trying to run at that time. It also takes you to the FF or Waterfox update/new version page on first open.

It doesn't really bother me as I only run a couple of add ons and I primarily run Waterfox now, so it doesn't happen often to me, or take much time when it does.

Anupam 22. Feb 2014 09:17 AM

Waterfox updated to 27.0.1


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:31 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.