Discussion on:

Review: Firefox's unofficial 64-bit variant Waterfox

Have you tried Waterfox? What was your experience? Do you recommend it?

Matt,
Could you post the results? I am interested to see a more granular breakdown of what Vanilla Firefox beat Waterfox in.

Hi John,

Here are the results as PNG snapshots.

Firefox Results: http://i39.tinypic.com/k0n89e.png
Waterfox Results: http://i43.tinypic.com/e7f4i9.png

Important Notice: Because of a difference in graphics card drivers installed on another machine I retested these browsers in with similar specs, the WebGL portion of the test actually worked this time around and altered the overall score (possibly due to the fact that the machine I used to originally test both browsers had video card drivers that didn't properly support that feature)... not to mention I was also running Windows 8 64-bit this time, though that seemed to have a decidedly negligible effect on the tests. However, despite this revelation, the gap remains fairly wide overall at nearly 200 points. Though once you look at the breakdown of the results, you will notice that the 32-bit Firefox build only pulls ahead by a few points in each category. Interestingly enough, 32-bit Firefox really shines in the DOM operations department.

Therefore, even with the anomaly with WebGL testing from earlier, my original findings still stand on the lacking performance of Waterfox, which was assumed to perform better since the binary is 64-bit.

Since the release of Waterfox 9, which saw a change in compiler and a marked swing away from it being 'just a 64-bit version of Firefox', my testing has shown that Pale Moon x64 is consistently faster and less erratic. PM 11x64 tests as being very close in overall performance compared to Firefox 11, they both beat Waterfox by a similar margin.

Pale Moon 11 (x86) beats Firefox 11 by a significant margin too.

re: It could be that the quality of the code is lacking or simply not mature enough

the author says that it's just recompiled in this thread:
http://www.over clock.net/t/975626/waterfox-11-0-13-mar-2012-firefox-64-bit

"Thanks. I hardly did much, just recompiled the program"

Whilst what the author said in that thread may have been applicable to earlier versions (>7 or 8), it's most definitely not been the case since v.9. Check and compare the 'Configure arguments' details in about:buildconfig to see what's been disabled (excluded) in Waterfox and Pale Moon compared to Firefox.

Run Peacekeeper and Dromaeo too, post your own results, if you like.

I couldn't imagine Pale Moon and Waterfox having simply recompiled the Firefox code to 64-bit and slapped a new logo on it. It wouldn't have made much sense anyway.

Go read the thread
it's the entire history
from the first version (recompiled Fx 4.0) to the current version
currently @ 213 pages

User "MrAlex" the creator of WaterFox gets the source code from the Firefox servers and compiles with a 64-bit compiler to get a 64-bit Firefox dubbed WaterFox

Quote page 9, thread post 89

Quote:
...
You and the guy who does Pale Moon should get together to make the best browser ever.

Ever.

We're essentially doing the same thing .
__

re problems with the icons;

Quote page 17, thread post 163

Hmm this is strange. I've just noticed too. The actual icon files are the correct size and resolution (as you can see in the attached images) but they don't seem to come out like that
__

Quote page 20, post 193

This is just as secure as FF4 right? I mean its basically the same code.
Yes, exactly the same code, just compiled differently.

Right guys, Mozilla *still* hasn't released the source code for 4.0.1 yet.
You can check for yourselves here:
ftp://ftp. mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
Hopefully it'll be released soon. I'll check when I get back home (it'll be late morning/early afternoon US time?). The auto-update function should be working in this next release as well.
__

Quote page 26, post 252

Mozilla releases the source code (it is not 32-bit or 64-bit specific) and Windows is the only version which hasn't received a 64-Bit variant directly from Mozilla. It is 64-Bit because I used a 64-Bit compiler. The way you compile is important.

And you could possibly notice an improvement. Try it and see if it does or doesn't
__

Quote page 27, post 263

I used Visual Studio 2010 compiler . And I didn't make the build Intel or AMD specific, because that would take around 9 hours to compile 3 builds, time which I don't really have
__

Quote page 48, post 478

wait so is this official mozilla release thats been renamed waterfox and is for 64 bit? or did u just mod it yourself? im confused... and im running beta 7 right now, =P

It's the official Mozilla release, but it has been compiled with optimisations. Since Mozilla want Firefox to work on as many systems as possible they can hardly perform any if at all optimisations.
__

Quote page 52, post 514

Okay, what about a .NET framework check in the installer itself - if .NET isn't installed, then it prompts the user to download and install it?

That would require modifying the Firefox source code, and I cannot program Python or C++, only VB.NET/C# and HTML/CSS
__

need more !!

edit: better yet here's more

Quote page 195, post 1946

Uh-oh, seems I was testing Beta builds and left the channel to beta. Hopefully Mozilla release a Firefox 11.0.1 so I can fix the issue

Guys I'll reply to everyone soon. My final exam tomorrow but I'll be all ears after that.
__

looks like he's still just doing optimized re-compiles

At last report, a Mozilla-developed 64-bit Firefox client is scheduled for release with Firefox 12 -- i.e., the next full version upgrade.

Do you know anything about that?

I never heard of the 64bit browsers before. My problem with trying out new browsers is they are fine in the beginning, then all hell brakes loose. I sometimes always have at least one browser acting up. Or the browser gets an update that plays havoc with my add ons, or plugins. Before anyone tells me to stop installing addon after addon in Firefox... I only have five and they are web developer, addblock plus, accessibility checker, and google bar lite, and WOT. These are all I need to be happy.

So the big question I have is...

I have 64bit so because these new 64bit browsers are not well known that I know of, should I give them a try, or wait?

BTW in case it is brought up or so some tend to bring it up and that is the issue of space. I don't have an issue on the amount of space left on my pc.

OK. I am very confused. I have used Aurora, the 64 bit version of Firefox since I found it about 2 years ago. I ran it under WinXP 64 bit nad now I run it under Win 7 64 bit. I have a nice, high end machine and have had no problems with the browser. I followed the hacks to bypass version checks for the add ons and am completely happy. Suddenly I am reading about Waterfox and Palemoon, with no reference to Aurora. What is the relationship between all of these allegedly 64 bit versions of Firefox? I am currently posting with Aurora version 13.0a2

I'm using Firefox 11 on Lucid and it's superfast on my Athlon64.

Hi Guys!! WATERFOX 12.0 releases!!! Solved a lot of problems to me, including internet banking Banco do Brasil BB : http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/

This has to be the slowest browser I have ever used. I installed it because I run a 64 bit system and Firefox has been crashing like crazy. It may work good with only one tab open, I don't know. I normally have 30+ open in FF and WF took 15_ minutes to load 50 tabs. Then scrolling down my Facebook news feed was ridiculous. One turn of the wheel and wait 30+ seconds and then advance a half inch. I have since uninstalled Waterfox. 10 minutes ago FF updated and I am going to wait and see what happens. If it starts crashing again I'll try Palemoon next. But as for Waterfox, I think it's junk! IMO