Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 28.0: 4 April [Firefox 64-Bit]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 28.0: 4 April [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 213

post #2121 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

Well, a challenge! I read the article and laughed at the results. Why you ask? There are different scenarios as to how Firefox 32bit and Waterfox 64bit will run on a machine. Hardware being one, settings being another, the amount of addons and extensions, etc.. Lets take a look at his scores using Peacekeeper. My score is 2078. I clearly have a very fast Waterfox browser but how? Well, let's take a look at what I've got. I'm using Waterfox on a SSD drive. I'm also using the speed tweaks in my post #2057. I also only have one plugin, Adobe Flash. I only have ten addons/extensions.
There's more to consider but with what I've got and how it's setup, I'm getting great scores. Using Dromaeo to speed test, I even did better than all the browsers tested by a member who uses Pale Moon 64bit. I scored 472.77. Here are their results:
Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit)
http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542
Take a look at the Total Score at top of each browser. Like I said, my score is 472.77. So a lot of factors are involved when it comes to how well Waterfox 64bit performs. My suggestion, if you're comparing browsers, don't have any addons/extensions or plugins in both browsers. Then run the tests yourself. You can use the speed tests located in my post #2074 and see my results at the bottom of that post.
Maybe you'd do better to do what I do and rule as many of the variables as you can: test each browser from a new profile, no extensions or plugins, no browser tweaks, no active background tasks, on the same hardware.

Here are my results from a little over a month ago: Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit): http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542

Comparing results from one computer to another is futile, any difference in hardware will make a difference.

Let's see your results, djkilla?
post #2122 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

Maybe you'd do better to do what I do and rule as many of the variables as you can: test each browser from a new profile, no extensions or plugins, no browser tweaks, no active background tasks, on the same hardware.

I agree. this is the proper way to do it and what I suggested for others to do when testing. Sooner or later I'll do a proper test and post my results but at the moment I'm swamped with computers that need to be fixed and I've got to get everything done and back to their customers.
Quote:
Here are my results from a little over a month ago: Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit): http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542

Ahhhh, so you're the one that did the test. I'm hoping to do the same if the time allows. I know Waterfox is constantly being improved and would like to see a good test to see how it compares to other similar browsers.
Quote:
Comparing results from one computer to another is futile, any difference in hardware will make a difference.
Let's see your results, djkilla?

You're correct. Comparing results from one computer to another is not accurate because of the different setups of each one. Based on the results I've seen, ALL the browsers are very close in performance. The slowest to the fastest is only a couple of seconds difference. It's like comparing the top of the line CPU to the last top of the line CPU. The difference is so minor but if you want bragging rights even if encoding a video is only 10 seconds faster, then you get the latest CPU. Personally, the browser that makes you happy is what you should stick with.
post #2123 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

You're correct. Comparing results from one computer to another is not accurate because of the different setups of each one. Based on the results I've seen, ALL the browsers are very close in performance. The slowest to the fastest is only a couple of seconds difference. It's like comparing the top of the line CPU to the last top of the line CPU. The difference is so minor but if you want bragging rights even if encoding a video is only 10 seconds faster, then you get the latest CPU. Personally, the browser that makes you happy is what you should stick with.

So you mean WF is not much faster than FF?
post #2124 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post

So you mean WF is not much faster than FF?

Every version of the different browsers could be slower or faster based on the code and how the browser was built. For example, Firefox is being built using VC2005. Soon that will switch to VC2010. I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox. Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things. Speed wise, sometimes Waterfox is the fastest and sometimes it's not. Each version and build changes. I've seen each of the browsers at some point be the fastest and by the next version it's not. But keep in mind that overall the speed difference is by seconds between browsers. You probably won't even see it. I prefer Waterfox because it's a 64bit browser that's identical to Firefox and can handle memory better so you can have lots of tabs open, etc., compared to regular Firefox. That doesn't make it faster but more efficient in memory use. You may use it for a different reason. If you want the fastest, then you need to speed test all the browsers when a new version comes out. Firefox may be faster with version 11, Waterfox may be faster with version 12, maybe another browser will be faster with the next version. It's up to you to find out which is the fastest of them all when each version is released. For me, the best of everything is Waterfox. It's a fantastic build and it runs perfectly and suits my needs nicely.
post #2125 of 5741
just my logic opinion on the YouTube laggy playing ....

as we all Know , google chrome uses flash player BUILD IN in order to play any youtube clips ( or any clips).
firefox uses same player BUT it isnt a build in version , its just installed over windows.

now , i just do a quick test , using COMDO DRAGON and SrWare Iron , both chromium based browsers which uses flash player in the way FireFox does , the one installed in windows ( NOT a build in like google chrome).

i just run any youtube clips and results were perfect like in google chrome.

Conclusion

the problem is IN firefox engine / coding or integration with adobe flsah .
post #2126 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

... I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox. Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things.

No, Waterfox is not 1:1 with Firefox code and hasn't been since sometime last year. Input about:buildconfig into the URL bar and checkout the differences (and similarities) between the Configure arguments sections of the different browsers.
post #2127 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

No, Waterfox is not 1:1 with Firefox code and hasn't been since sometime last year. Input about:buildconfig into the URL bar and checkout the differences (and similarities) between the Configure arguments sections of the different browsers.

Ok. Waterfox and Firefox are the same 1:1 code except Waterfox is compiled into 64bit with optimizations. When you look at about:buildconfig they will be different. Firefox is made to run on basicly everything with any type of hardware. Waterfox has SSE2 and other optimizations for newer hardware. They will be slightly different but the same 1:1 code. For example, lets say I add some tweaks to the settings in Waterfox but not in Waterfox on another computer, or change the settings in Firefox but not in Firefox on another computer, or change the settings in Waterfox but not in Firefox. Does that make them different? No. Because you only changed the settings and not the code. So the code is 1:1.

Read the last sentence in the second paragraph:
http://betanews.com/2012/02/07/waterfox-10-64-bit-browsing-for-your-windows-pc/

Read the description for Waterfox:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Waterfox.shtml

Like I said before, I'm happy there's other browsers to choose from. Each one has its pros and cons. I respect all the creators who put the time and effort to bring us an alternative browser and hope others have the same respect. It's not a competition to see who's better but what works best for you.
Edited by djkilla - 4/24/12 at 10:43am
post #2128 of 5741
"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server - 8 (The default is actually 6. Bumped this up because there's a speed increase by changing it to 8)"

I have looked into it and you're right. 6 is default, yet I already had it at 8.

"network.prefetch-next" should be left alone and I rationalize it like this: prefetching links doesn't feed you malware, as by common sense if you visit a website with malware the malware will get to you everywhere and by not prefetching a link you are still unsafe.

Mozilla quotes this:
"Link prefetching is when a webpage hints to the browser that certain pages are likely to be visited, so the browser downloads them immediately so they can be displayed immediately when the user requests it. This preference controls whether link prefetching is enabled. "

Also, prefetching the next link will speed up the browsing speed, especially if you are on high speed Internet. Otherwise you might want to disable it, but disabling it with a very fast Internet connection is sort of pointless as today's anti-malware fighters are mostly redundant: Windows Defender, Anti-Virus, Website blocker in the browser. The amount of security layers these days are incredible, so it's best to not go "IP Tables" style.
post #2129 of 5741
Thread Starter 

Hey guys sorry I haven't been replying much, djkilla seems to be doing a good job of that tongue.gif (highly appreciated). I've been working hard trying to implement lockless malloc, and have been hitting some bumps on the road. Hopefully tomorrow or Thursday WF12 will be available.

    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Mavericks" 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Mavericks" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2130 of 5741
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

Ok. Waterfox and Firefox are the same 1:1 code except Waterfox is compiled into 64bit with optimizations. When you look at about:buildconfig they will be different. Firefox is made to run on basicly everything with any type of hardware. Waterfox has SSE2 and other optimizations for newer hardware. They will be slightly different but the same 1:1 code. For example, lets say I add some tweaks to the settings in Waterfox but not in Waterfox on another computer, or change the settings in Firefox but not in Firefox on another computer, or change the settings in Waterfox but not in Firefox. Does that make them different? No. Because you only changed the settings and not the code. So the code is 1:1.
Read the last sentence in the second paragraph:
http://betanews.com/2012/02/07/waterfox-10-64-bit-browsing-for-your-windows-pc/
Read the description for Waterfox:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Waterfox.shtml

Please don't point me to links that are incorrect and missing important information - like how much of Firefox code is disabled during the compilation of Waterfox. "Waterfox is basically a 64-Bit version of Firefox" < misleading statement.

I'll repeat with some extra emphasis addeed:
Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

... I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox. Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things.

No, Waterfox is not 1:1 with Firefox code and hasn't been since sometime last year. Input about:buildconfig into the URL bar and checkout the differences (and similarities) between the Configure arguments sections of the different browsers.
Look for the parts of Firefox code that are disabled during compilation. Compare for yourself please.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 28.0: 4 April [Firefox 64-Bit]