Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 48.0.2: 06 September [Firefox 64-Bit]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 48.0.2: 06 September [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 212

post #2111 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by demoneye View Post

djkilla good finding !!!! that explain everything mad.gif
further more , I dump firefox for some weeks coz of that and move to the "perfect" google chrome , recently I back to using firefox which i used for ages smile.gif

No problem! I like to make sure everyone has ALL the info they need in fixing, tweaking or comparing browsers. It takes me a little time to get all the info together but I hope to help everyone who needs it! thumb.gif
post #2112 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post

Which means what we are experiencing is probably normal? The thing is that for me I don't experience the same problem with FF11 (32-bit)? It's working flawlessly with that browser.

Different people have different settings and setups. That's why some people are having issues with all Firefox based browsers and others aren't. Waterfox 12 could resolve these issues depending on what Mozilla has changed in their code. If Google didn't decide to change YouTube videos to the new HTML 5 we may not be having these issues but Google wants to kill off Adobe Flash for playing videos. HTML 5 is fairly new so all browsers have to adapt to the new code.
post #2113 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

Different people have different settings and setups. That's why some people are having issues with all Firefox based browsers and others aren't. Waterfox 12 could resolve these issues depending on what Mozilla has changed in their code. If Google didn't decide to change YouTube videos to the new HTML 5 we may not be having these issues but Google wants to kill off Adobe Flash for playing videos. HTML 5 is fairly new so all browsers have to adapt to the new code.

Ok, thanks for the info.

By the way, is there a compilation of all your posts that contains guides/tweaks/and what not for WF?
post #2114 of 7225
I've registered mainly to thank Alex for the work on Firefox and to be able to provide feedback.

However, I have to point a few things out relating to the "tweaking" guide. I have a few problems with it, so here goes:

"network.http.max-connections" - 256 is so by default, it's the standard value for Waterfox
"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" - 8 is, again, by default
"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" - 8 is, same, default value
"network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" does not do anything, because that is no longer implemented in Firefox since a few years ago. All documentation on this is obsolete and dates to 2004
"nglayout.initialpaint.delay" should not be set to 0, if anyone is wondering, as it will not provide with the best outcome. Recommendations are provided by Mozilla, can be under the default value of 250
"network.prefetch-next" should be kept the way it is, but setting it to true will not harm the computer. It's a gimmick saying you will get viruses from having it enabled, as if there is malware the browser, security software, etc will block it before it will affect the computer. If you want it enabled, keep it so.

The rest of the tweaks are OK, you may apply them, especially the pipelining ones. Those are the ones to use.

Also, use this one, it's new and Chrome already uses it:

"network.http.spdy.enabled" - TRUE


Also, consider that every time you modify a default Firefox value the result may vary, depending on the connection speed as well as lag. If you will hammer a server with many simultaneous connections and the internet speed is not so high (think high ping and low speed, such as 10 Mbps or 20 Mbps; ping can give you a hint on how fast a server responds) you will have mixed results or worse all the time.
Consider the fact that Mozilla already has people more competent than a lot of the "tweakers" which post online guides on how to make Firefox faster. I am not undermining the research one has done to find ways to improve upon the product, but I am saying that the viewer should take it with a big grain of salt. The best products are the ones that find a good balance between functionality and speed. Firefox is very well balanced already.
Mozilla developers do have Internet and they do read the guides. If those solutions one provides are better, they are implemented. However, they test everything and under every possible scenario in order to provide the best experience and messing with that balance and optimization doesn't always make it better.
Edited by FTBBTF - 4/23/12 at 10:14am
post #2115 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by FTBBTF View Post

I've registered mainly to thank Alex for the work on Firefox and to be able to provide feedback.
However, I have to point a few things out relating to the "tweaking" guide. I have a few problems with it, so here goes:
"network.http.max-connections" - 256 is so by default, it's the standard value for Waterfox
"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" - 8 is, again, by default
"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" - 8 is, same, default value
"network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" does not do anything, because that is no longer implemented in Firefox since a few years ago. All documentation on this is obsolete and dates to 2004
"nglayout.initialpaint.delay" should not be set to 0, if anyone is wondering, as it will not provide with the best outcome. Recommendations are provided by Mozilla, can be under the default value of 250
"network.prefetch-next" should be kept the way it is, but setting it to true will not harm the computer. It's a gimmick saying you will get viruses from having it enabled, as if there is malware the browser, security software, etc will block it before it will affect the computer. If you want it enabled, keep it so.
The rest of the tweaks are OK, you may apply them, especially the pipelining ones. Those are the ones to use.
Also, use this one, it's new and Chrome already uses it:

"network.http.spdy.enabled" - TRUE

network.http.max-connections - 256 (This was recently changed to 256 from Mozilla within the last two versions. I read there was a reason why so I posted it for anyone who may have earlier versions of Firefox)

network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy - 8 (This is the default. Some people have been using a higher setting of 16 but the default is fine the way it is so I posted it to bring the setting to it's default value)

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)

network.http.pipelining.firstrequest (This was an earlier setting but may no longer be needed in recent versions of Firefox but no harm is done by including it)

nglayout.initialpaint.delay (Default is 250 but my setting of 25 is perfect for a high speed broadband connection. Otherwise 125-200 is fine)

network.prefetch-next (I probably should have detailed this better. This tweak (default is true) speeds up the browser by prefetching data from links on the page your viewing. So when you click a link, the data is presented immediately. Google Chrome has the same setting for speeding up their browser. I have this set to false because if the prefetched page includes malware, it will be downloaded so setting this to false will stop prefetching. User can decide what's best for them.)

network.http.spdy.enabled - TRUE (This is a new setting in Firefox 11 and will be on (true) by default starting with Firefox 13 or 14. It speeds up the loading of web sites if they code their web site to use this feature. It was originally created by Google and is quickly being adopted by all web browsers and the internet. Google is working to make this standardized with all browsers and the internet. The default is false but I have it set to true. Not all web sites include this but a handful like Google, Twitter, Facebook and a few others include this.)

The settings within Firefox by default is to be used with ALL types of OS's and CPU's. My settings are best with newer hardware (last few years) and a speedy broadband connection. If you have older hardware or slower internet connection, then you can experience lag because your hardware and browser won't be able to handle the amount of data being received. So the browser will bottleneck the data. It's best to use the default settings if using a slower internet or older hardware (mainly CPU).

Thanks to FTBBTF for bringing up these settings. I'll make some changes to better inform the user.

UPDATE: I've updated the 'Speed Tweaks' info in my original post #2057.
Edited by djkilla - 4/23/12 at 11:25am
post #2116 of 7225
I ran both FF 32-bit and WF 64-bit through the paces with the Peacekeeper benchmark at futuremark.com, using the Test profile for each browser. There was a moderate, but significant, difference in the scores. FF 32-bit scored at 2370 while WF 64-bit managed a 2020. HTML Capabilities was 5/7 for both browsers. I will test again after some modest speed tweaking.
post #2117 of 7225
IMO all of this kind of tests are kinda useless or maybe can be used by vendors to promote their software , i think its better to test ANY browsers using user experience in his system , trying any browser he likes and make the individual compare
post #2118 of 7225
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 #2119 of 7225
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 #2120 of 7225
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?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 48.0.2: 06 September [Firefox 64-Bit]