Waterfox (64-bit version of Firefox)

By Yusuf M.
in Web Browser Discussion & Support

 Share

Recommended Posts

Grand Master

inactive

Posted
Posted

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.

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted

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.

Proficient

+Nexus18 MVC

Posted
  • MVC
Posted

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 ;)

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted

Sounds good in theory, but I want to know more about stability and reliability. Seems like another one of those no-name browsers coming out of nowhere at the moment.

It may not be as popular as Firefox and it has been around since the release of Firefox 4. I've been using it for a short while now as my main browser and it has worked well. It hasn't crashed yet and I doubt it will. The 64-bit version of Flash feels more stable on my system than the 32-bit version. That alone is a good enough reason for me to use this browser.

Grand Master

+Gary7 Subscriber²

Posted
  • Subscriber²
Posted

It's disappointing to me that the Firefox devs are still waffling over how to do it properly.

Like, we know what we need to do this, and we are making plans to do it, but we don't actually want to do it.

Heh.

The nightly build of the 64 bit Firefox runs great without issues.

  • 4 weeks later...
Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted

I seem to be getting lower CPU and memory usage with Waterfox 10 (compared to Firefox 10). If you're still on the fence, you should definitely give it a try. (Y)

Grand Master

Yusuf M. Veteran

Posted
  • Author
  • Veteran
Posted

It seems to me quite fast, but I hate the fact that even if I set the suggested URL for the updates, it still fails due to integrity check and I have to download the full installer...

The correct URL for "app.update.url" (string) should be:


http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml
[/CODE]

If that's correct, then try changing "app.update.cert.checkAttributes" (boolean) to false. That should disable the certification check.

Grand Master

cork1958

Posted
Posted

It seems to me quite fast, but I hate the fact that even if I set the suggested URL for the updates, it still fails due to integrity check and I have to download the full installer...

Personally,

I prefer downloading the full installer. The built in checker has only worked once for me and I've been using it for a while now.

Palemoons checker doesn't work for squat either.

  • 2 weeks later...
Apprentice

vron247

Posted
Posted

It may not be as popular as Firefox and it has been around since the release of Firefox 4. I've been using it for a short while now as my main browser and it has worked well. It hasn't crashed yet and I doubt it will. The 64-bit version of Flash feels more stable on my system than the 32-bit version. That alone is a good enough reason for me to use this browser.

Do you happen to use any addon at all?

Grand Master

inactive

Posted
Posted

I seem to be getting lower CPU and memory usage with Waterfox 10 (compared to Firefox 10). If you're still on the fence, you should definitely give it a try. (Y)

i have the exact opposite. Firefox 10 clearly stays lower in memory usage vs Waterfox 10 as Waterfox for me quickly climbs 500-600MB range where as Firefox is pretty stable between 300-400MB and this is after it's been running for quite some time.

so for those of us with 2GB of RAM or less Firefox 10 will be overall better than Waterfox because what little Waterfox might gain it probably loses due to increased RAM use.

p.s. Pale Moon x64 (version 9) don't seem to have memory issues like Waterfox and it uses it's own profile to although Pale Moon devs said they won't be releasing a v10 and are just going to include security fixes from Firefox 10 into Pale Moon 9 and once Firefox 11 is out then they will change Pale Moon to the Firefox 11 code.

  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
  • 4 months later...
Grand Master

hagjohn

Posted
Posted

Thanx. I couldn't access it earlier. Still am wondering why they haven't updated it yet.

I don't know. I know they just updated 15 a week ago with some fixes.

http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=49

Grand Master

Ice_Blue

Posted
Posted

So, what happened to Waterfox? No updates now in forever and the Sourceforge folders seem to be gone.

Well, you can try Palemoon.

I've been using it for ages no problem.

Seems functionally identical to Waterfox. Even in looks.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing