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 214

post #2131 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

The point is - clarity. The info will help anyone who's willing to check it for themselves.
You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to yourself, that's fine - just try not to put your spin on it when someone asks a question.

I was using what you did as an example. I also explained that there's different factors when testing and invited everyone to test the various browsers themselves on their own computers. I probably should have noted your results are different from mine because of different hardware but I stand by the info I gave in that post. I also posted that each version is different and to test with each version. If anything, I wasn't trying to put a spin on it but simply made a mistake by not noting more clearly that your results are on your hardware only. My apology! Between fixing customers computers and making quick posts, sometimes I may miss to note something. Anyway, I DO want to see the results (or prove it to myself like you said) by testing each browser fairly. I just have to find the time. As always, if asked a question, I try to answer as honestly and help others as others have helped me at times.
Edited by djkilla - 4/24/12 at 6:08pm
post #2132 of 7225
Dromaeo - Recommended tests

Palemoon x64 - stock - no addons
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169623
Waterfox x64 - stock - no addons
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169628
Firefox 12.0 x86 - stock - with adblock plus, sorry
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169565

Comparison
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169623,169628,169565

On a side note, Palemoon did not automatically integrate my bookmarks.

Surprisingly standard Firefox 12.0 x86 destroyed both (considering it is only x86).
Edited by Xenthos - 4/25/12 at 12:27am
post #2133 of 7225
Hi MrAlex,

first, thanks for your excellent work on Waterfox. Just registered to post this and the below.

Now, in reaction to your post that you're trying to switch Waterfox to the Lockless memory allocator, I was just curious to check what that is and found that it is licensed under GPLv3. Just wanted to ask you what it means to Waterfox license, I haven't seen (ok I didn't look very far) a mention of LGPLv3, that means that the whole binary being linked with Lockless memory allocator would be put at risk to be made GPLv3, which is incompatible with FF/WF license? IANAL nor do I have any stakes in either product, but just curious, and looking to point it as it may be relevant.

Also, just a suggestion, I perfectly agree that you don't owe your users anything; indeed, we users owe you thanks, praise and whatnot, for making Waterfox. Let me nevertheless kindly and respectfully suggest that maybe you don't delay WF releases (vs the official FF counterpart) for implementing something (like the above example about Lockless malloc). The reason is that with each new FF release there may be security fixes, and with the product being OpenSource releasing a fix means also exposing the flaw (in the diff) and therefore makes especially easy to write exploits that would work on those machines that haven't been patched already to the latest version. Therefore, the strength of OpenSource is in this case, also some drawback; you're better off updating very quickly. So delaying WF after FF puts that risk slightly higher for WF users.

Again, you don't owe us anything and I repeat my thanks for your work on WF and your helpful presence on the forum. This is just a friendly post with questions/suggestions from a thankful newly registered user.

Thanks!
post #2134 of 7225
Thread Starter 

EDIT: Could anyone test this Waterfox I've attached. Lockless wasn't working, so I'm using tcmalloc (Google Performance Tools). There should be better performance at the cost of increased memory usage. I'd like to see what other people make of it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ykuzshd8s3637fc

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

The point is - clarity. The info will help anyone who's willing to check it for themselves.

You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to yourself, that's fine - just try not to put your spin on it when someone asks a question.

 

 

Waterfox was released back when the 64-Bit version gave quite a performance lead. I never intended for Waterfox to get so big, I just imagined it where me and a few core users would find the benefits (such as media heavy websites). With every new release of Firefox, the performance gap has been pretty much closed. There are only a few things that will give Waterfox better performance as a program, such as a better malloc and a better compiler.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cyclistefou View Post

Hi MrAlex,

first, thanks for your excellent work on Waterfox. Just registered to post this and the below.

Now, in reaction to your post that you're trying to switch Waterfox to the Lockless memory allocator, I was just curious to check what that is and found that it is licensed under GPLv3. Just wanted to ask you what it means to Waterfox license, I haven't seen (ok I didn't look very far) a mention of LGPLv3, that means that the whole binary being linked with Lockless memory allocator would be put at risk to be made GPLv3, which is incompatible with FF/WF license? IANAL nor do I have any stakes in either product, but just curious, and looking to point it as it may be relevant.

Also, just a suggestion, I perfectly agree that you don't owe your users anything; indeed, we users owe you thanks, praise and whatnot, for making Waterfox. Let me nevertheless kindly and respectfully suggest that maybe you don't delay WF releases (vs the official FF counterpart) for implementing something (like the above example about Lockless malloc). The reason is that with each new FF release there may be security fixes, and with the product being OpenSource releasing a fix means also exposing the flaw (in the diff) and therefore makes especially easy to write exploits that would work on those machines that haven't been patched already to the latest version. Therefore, the strength of OpenSource is in this case, also some drawback; you're better off updating very quickly. So delaying WF after FF puts that risk slightly higher for WF users.

Again, you don't owe us anything and I repeat my thanks for your work on WF and your helpful presence on the forum. This is just a friendly post with questions/suggestions from a thankful newly registered user.

Thanks!

 

Well Waterfox is a free program, and I'm not selling it neither am I redistributing the malloc or modifying it. And I only ever delay a maximum of 1 or 2 days. Otherwise, I release it immediately.


Edited by MrAlex - 4/25/12 at 5:44am
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2135 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post


Well Waterfox is a free program, and I'm not selling it neither am I redistributing the malloc or modifying it. And I only ever delay a maximum of 1 or 2 days. Otherwise, I release it immediately.

Ok, good to know. Thanks for the answer.

Best regards,
Sébastien
post #2136 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

The point is - clarity. The info will help anyone who's willing to check it for themselves.
You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to yourself, that's fine - just try not to put your spin on it when someone asks a question.


By The Way Thanks for all the work you do MrAlex!!!
Edited by SlimDan22 - 4/25/12 at 6:52am
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 860 2.8 Ghz EVGA Nvidia GTX 470 8 Gb DDR3 
OS
Windows 7 x64 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
I7 860 2.8 Ghz EVGA Nvidia GTX 470 8 Gb DDR3 
OS
Windows 7 x64 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2137 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Waterfox was released back when the 64-Bit version gave quite a performance lead. I never intended for Waterfox to get so big, I just imagined it where me and a few core users would find the benefits (such as media heavy websites). With every new release of Firefox, the performance gap has been pretty much closed. There are only a few things that will give Waterfox better performance as a program, such as a better malloc and a better compiler.

Whilst your comments appear to be accurate, they're pretty vague wink.gif Would it be too much to ask for a clear response to the specific issues mentioned in my 3rd post?
post #2138 of 7225
Thread Starter 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cymroly View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Waterfox was released back when the 64-Bit version gave quite a performance lead. I never intended for Waterfox to get so big, I just imagined it where me and a few core users would find the benefits (such as media heavy websites). With every new release of Firefox, the performance gap has been pretty much closed. There are only a few things that will give Waterfox better performance as a program, such as a better malloc and a better compiler.

Whilst your comments appear to be accurate, they're pretty vague wink.gif Would it be too much to ask for a clear response to the specific issues mentioned in my 3rd post?

 

about:buildconfig lists everything I have disabled and enabled. I mostly disabled things which have no use to a 3rd party build - such as debugging tests and the crash reporter. That's about it. Otherwise everything else remains the same.

    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Intel Core i7-4650U Intel HD Graphics 5000 Samsung 8GB DDR3 Samsung 512GB SSD 
OS
Macintosh OS X "Yosemite" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #2139 of 7225
i find a way to kill this youtube lagging issue . its work for me maybe it will work for you.

i download "greasemonkey" add on , install " Yousable youtube fix" script from http://userscripts.org , in the software i check "related video selection" and youtube is playing SMOOTH AGAIN LIKE GOOGLE CHROME..

you may try it and report if this help you ppl thumb.gif
post #2140 of 7225
Quote:
Originally Posted by djkilla View Post

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by demoneye View Post

i find a way to kill this youtube lagging issue . its work for me maybe it will work for you.
i download "greasemonkey" add on , install " Yousable youtube fix" script from http://userscripts.org , in the software i check "related video selection" and youtube is playing SMOOTH AGAIN LIKE GOOGLE CHROME..
you may try it and report if this help you ppl thumb.gif

Will try that, thanks for the heads up! smile.gif

What does greasemonkey do though?
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]