56 replies to this topic 1 votes

[SirEvan]

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.

[Deranged]

The_Decryptor, on 10 January 2012 - 06:07, said:

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

[The_Decryptor]

randomevent, on 12 January 2012 - 06:18, said:

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?"

[Neobond]

Hmm will give this a try!

[cork1958]

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!!

[Neobond]

What about the Windows Media Player plug-in?

[Anaron]

Neobond, on 12 January 2012 - 11:46, said:

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.

[Neobond]

Anaron, on 12 January 2012 - 12:13, said:

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!?

[Deranged]

The_Decryptor, on 12 January 2012 - 11:30, said:

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?"

Quote

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.

[Anaron]

cork1958, on 12 January 2012 - 11:38, said:

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.

Neobond, on 12 January 2012 - 12:16, said:

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.

[ThaCrip]

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.

[max22]

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

[Anaron]

max22, on 12 January 2012 - 23:59, said:

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.

[Nexus18]

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

max22, on 12 January 2012 - 23:59, said:

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

[ObiWanToby]

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