Jump to content



Photo

Waterfox vs Firefox; noticeable (speed) differences

firefox

  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

#1 kiddingguy

kiddingguy

    ^ Nikki, my dreambabe!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-September 03
  • Location: .nl
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro (twice)

Posted 22 March 2013 - 19:17

I have installed Waterfox 18.0.1 (64bit's Firefox).
I was wondering, since FF is already at version 19/20ish... is there a real (speed) difference between Waterfox and FF on 64-bit machines? And if so, what can be noticed in daily usage of that browser?


#2 Marshall

Marshall

    ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-June 03
  • Location: USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:26

I had Waterfox for a while and saw no performance increases. If anything, it was slower.

The developer of Waterfox doesn't change any of the code, he just recompiles it for the latest stable release in x64 bit mode. The last update to Waterfox was a little over 2 months ago. Makes me wonder if the developer is abandoning the project.

#3 OP kiddingguy

kiddingguy

    ^ Nikki, my dreambabe!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-September 03
  • Location: .nl
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro (twice)

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:27

So I can use FF with the same performance? And being all the time up-to-date with the latest versions?

#4 Marshall

Marshall

    ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-June 03
  • Location: USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:31

Absolutely.

Or if you want to go to a snappier version of FF, try out the Nightly builds. They're beta/test versions but seem speedier and I haven't had any hiccups with them.

#5 OP kiddingguy

kiddingguy

    ^ Nikki, my dreambabe!

  • Tech Issues Solved: 1
  • Joined: 09-September 03
  • Location: .nl
  • OS: Windows 8.1 Pro (twice)

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:46

Thx for the tip, but the stable ones will do... the nightlys will soon become stable builds :)

#6 Andre S.

Andre S.

    Asik

  • Tech Issues Solved: 10
  • Joined: 26-October 05

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:48

If you're using Windows, try PaleMoon. It's not 64-bit, but it's built to be as optimal as possible on Windows.

#7 f0rk_b0mb

f0rk_b0mb

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Location: 'Murica
  • OS: Windows, Linux, OS X
  • Phone: Motorola Moto G

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:52

I saw a pretty good increase while useing waterfox.

#8 Marshall

Marshall

    ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-June 03
  • Location: USA

Posted 22 March 2013 - 20:56

I saw a pretty good increase while useing waterfox.


You "saw," as in pretense. Can I ask why you strayed away from it, if in fact you did?

#9 1941

1941

    Banned

  • Joined: 17-July 06

Posted 22 March 2013 - 21:18

If you're using Windows, try PaleMoon. It's not 64-bit, but it's built to be as optimal as possible on Windows.


Palemoon does have a 64 Bit Version.

http://www.palemoon....emoon-x64.shtml

I saw a pretty good increase while useing waterfox.


The trouble with waterfox is that it uses your Firefox Profile where Palemoon does not.

#10 Semtex

Semtex

    Neowinian

  • Joined: 20-February 11
  • Location: Europa/Poland

Posted 22 March 2013 - 21:27

Firefox can be so fast as forks, just google "how to speedup Firefox", there are few nice and easy tweaks for about:config, adding one or two new values,. enabling pipelining, add http://kb.mozillazin...tialpaint.delay , move Your browser cache to RAM if 2GB+ and Firefox get "new life" ;)

#11 f0rk_b0mb

f0rk_b0mb

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 3
  • Joined: 02-June 12
  • Location: 'Murica
  • OS: Windows, Linux, OS X
  • Phone: Motorola Moto G

Posted 23 March 2013 - 19:36

You "saw," as in pretense. Can I ask why you strayed away from it, if in fact you did?


I have no proof for this, but this is just what I notice. I will try out the nightlies, tho and post my verdict here.

#12 +Boo Berry

Boo Berry

    Neowinian Ghost

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 26-March 05
  • Location: United States

Posted 23 March 2013 - 20:04

There's also Cyberfox, which is a x64 compile of Firefox and it updated within a day or so of Firefox updates.

#13 Elliot B.

Elliot B.

    Over 12 years on Neowin

  • Tech Issues Solved: 4
  • Joined: 16-August 01
  • Location: West Midlands, UK
  • OS: Windows 8.1
  • Phone: Samsung Galaxy S5

Posted 23 March 2013 - 20:09

I saw a pretty good increase while useing waterfox.

How can you be sure it wasn't a placebo?

#14 Max Norris

Max Norris

    Neowinian Senior

  • Tech Issues Solved: 14
  • Joined: 20-February 11
  • OS: Windows, BSD Unix, Occasionally OSX or Linux
  • Phone: HTC One (Home) Lumia 1020 (Work)

Posted 23 March 2013 - 20:12

Never had much luck with x64 builds of Firefox either. They work without issue, just have yet to see one that's actually faster than the official x86 builds. At least on my system they typically come up a bit slower under the various benchmarks, both Windows and Linux.. just hasn't been optimized to take advantage of x64 I guess.

Or if you want to go to a snappier version of FF, try out the Nightly builds. They're beta/test versions but seem speedier and I haven't had any hiccups with them.

Ditto this, version 21 and 22 got quite snappy.. definitely worth a look if you're wanting to pick up the performance a bit. Just out of curiosity though, are jumplists working for you if you're using Windows? Since mid-February they've been completely non-functional for me on both 7 and 8.. not positive but might have been when they included the Metro support with it. Rolled back to 20 (beta) for the time being as I use the jumplists rather frequently.

#15 Marshall

Marshall

    ▇ ▂ ▃ ▁ ▁ ▅

  • Tech Issues Solved: 6
  • Joined: 22-June 03
  • Location: USA

Posted 23 March 2013 - 22:33

Never had much luck with x64 builds of Firefox either. They work without issue, just have yet to see one that's actually faster than the official x86 builds. At least on my system they typically come up a bit slower under the various benchmarks, both Windows and Linux.. just hasn't been optimized to take advantage of x64 I guess.


Ditto this, version 21 and 22 got quite snappy.. definitely worth a look if you're wanting to pick up the performance a bit. Just out of curiosity though, are jumplists working for you if you're using Windows? Since mid-February they've been completely non-functional for me on both 7 and 8.. not positive but might have been when they included the Metro support with it. Rolled back to 20 (beta) for the time being as I use the jumplists rather frequently.


No, jump lists aren't working since updating to v. 22. I even tried the change in configuration files suggested via google search to no avail. Win 7 x64 btw.



Click here to login or here to register to remove this ad, it's free!