Jump to content



Photo

Waterfox (64-bit version of Firefox)

firefox

  • Please log in to reply
56 replies to this topic

#16 SirEvan

SirEvan

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 17-April 03
  • Location: Santa Clara, CA
  • OS: Windows 8
  • Phone: HTC One (AT&T)

Posted 10 January 2012 - 18:47

on waterfox for a wihle now, it does seem slightly faster than the 32bit variety, but maybe it's just placebo or something. Either way, besides my 2.5+GB usual memory usage, it works great.


#17 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 12 January 2012 - 06:18

It already is.

Well, you say that, but it doesn't explain the devs discussing it as if it isn't used much over here http://groups.google....=64-bit&lnk=ol

#18 The_Decryptor

The_Decryptor

    STEAL THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 28-September 02
  • Location: Sol System
  • OS: iSymbian 9.2 SP24.8 Mars Bar

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:30

Well, you say that, but it doesn't explain the devs discussing it as if it isn't used much over here http://groups.google....=64-bit&lnk=ol


The only discussion I can see is about having less code paths (Firefox includes SSE optimised code paths and normal paths, a native 64bit build doesn't need the normal code paths since it can guarantee the CPU can do SSE). And as a side effect it also means the compiler can include SSE functions anywhere, not just in optimised areas (As is done currently due to how compilers work)

Edit: So the question is "Can we use SSE everywhere?" not "Can we use SSE?"

#19 Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • Tech Issues Solved: 64
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:38

Hmm will give this a try!

#20 cork1958

cork1958

    Neowinian

  • Tech Issues Solved: 2
  • Joined: 04-October 02

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:38

Been using Waterfox for a while now. Even if it's built by Mozilla, it's NOT Firefox, so it has to be better!! Have NEVER liked Firefox.

Can't say as I've never noticed it being any faster than any other browser. All browsers runs blazingly fast on my sytems and the day that some one says about how slow a browser is on their systems, is the day I should go over and fix their computer!

Palemoon, http://www.palemoon.org/ also has a 64bit version, but I use the 32bit version of that on my 32bit machines.

As far as Chrome, if I were to ever use that again, which isn't happening, it would be SRWare Iron, NOT Google Chrome crap!!

#21 Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • Tech Issues Solved: 64
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 12 January 2012 - 11:46

What about the Windows Media Player plug-in?

#22 OP Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:13

What about the Windows Media Player plug-in?

Unfortunately, 32-bit plugins won't work with Waterfox. It's up to Microsoft to release a 64-bit version of the WMP plugin. So far though, the major plugins work: Flash, Java, and Silverlight.

#23 Steven P.

Steven P.

    aka Neobond

  • Tech Issues Solved: 64
  • Joined: 09-July 01
  • Location: Neowin HQ

Posted 12 January 2012 - 12:16

Unfortunately, 32-bit plugins won't work with Waterfox. It's up to Microsoft to release a 64-bit version of the WMP plugin. So far though, the major plugins work: Flash, Java, and Silverlight.


And even the 32-bit plugin hasn't been updated for years, what's up with that!?

#24 TheExperiment

TheExperiment

    Reality Bomb

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 11-October 03
  • Location: Everywhere
  • OS: 8.1 x64

Posted 12 January 2012 - 13:20

The only discussion I can see is about having less code paths (Firefox includes SSE optimised code paths and normal paths, a native 64bit build doesn't need the normal code paths since it can guarantee the CPU can do SSE). And as a side effect it also means the compiler can include SSE functions anywhere, not just in optimised areas (As is done currently due to how compilers work)

Edit: So the question is "Can we use SSE everywhere?" not "Can we use SSE?"

In 32bit code, since we have to explicitly think and do work about every place where we want to do SSE2, and since it's a performance/size compromise, we end up not doing it in many places.

So yes, I know they use it to some degree, but from what I can tell not much.

#25 OP Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 12 January 2012 - 23:16

Been using Waterfox for a while now. Even if it's built by Mozilla, it's NOT Firefox, so it has to be better!! Have NEVER liked Firefox.

Can't say as I've never noticed it being any faster than any other browser. All browsers runs blazingly fast on my sytems and the day that some one says about how slow a browser is on their systems, is the day I should go over and fix their computer!

Palemoon, http://www.palemoon.org/ also has a 64bit version, but I use the 32bit version of that on my 32bit machines.

As far as Chrome, if I were to ever use that again, which isn't happening, it would be SRWare Iron, NOT Google Chrome crap!!

It's based on the Firefox source code so aside from being 64-bit, it's virtually identical to the official 32-bit version.

And even the 32-bit plugin hasn't been updated for years, what's up with that!?

That's one of the issues of using a 64-bit browser. If you use Firefox with a lot of plugins, then Waterfox may not be good. Fortunately, I only use a handful of plugins and most of them have 64-bit versions.

#26 ThaCrip

ThaCrip

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 28-November 04
  • Location: USA

Posted 12 January 2012 - 23:44

been using Waterfox for a while now and it's generally good for me. (i got a older AMD Athlon 3600+ Dual Core (2.0ghz, overclocked to 2.4ghz) on 2GB of ram)

memory use, like Firefox, usually never exceeds 400-500MB after it peaks out in my general use of it and i usually leave it running for days and i use my PC a lot in general.

right now according to the 'about:config' i am floating around 385MB and Windows task manager is saying a little over 400MB and i got roughly 14tabs open.

and like i was already said... since Flash has 64bit now there is not really much reason to use a 32bit Firefox if you got a 64bit OS.

p.s. all my plugins and extensions that i used in regular Firefox work fine in Waterfox to.

#27 max22

max22

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 19-September 10

Posted 12 January 2012 - 23:59

So how is everyone's battlelog working in Waterfox for Battlefield 3 ? hehe

#28 OP Yusuf M.

Yusuf M.

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 25-May 04
  • Location: Toronto, ON
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro
  • Phone: OnePlus One 64GB

Posted 13 January 2012 - 00:09

So how is everyone's battlelog working in Waterfox for Battlefield 3 ? hehe

Battlelog doesn't work with it too. :( I really hope EA releases a 64-bit version of the Battlelog plugin(s). I just launch the 32-bit version of Firefox whenever I want to play Battlefield 3.

#29 +Nexus18

Nexus18

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 02-January 09
  • Location: UK

Posted 13 January 2012 - 00:48

Yup, all my addons work perfectly fine with waterfox as well! :)

So how is everyone's battlelog working in Waterfox for Battlefield 3 ? hehe


Hopefully support for 64 bit browsers will come soon.

But for now, I just simply use chrome for joining servers ;)

#30 ObiWanToby

ObiWanToby

    Neowinian Senior

  • Joined: 27-April 04
  • Location: Columbus, OH

Posted 13 January 2012 - 00:52

BF3 was a disappointment for me too :( Oh well. We'll see how waterfox works out. No WMP plugin is kinda sad.