Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 53: 24 April [Firefox 64-Bit]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 53: 24 April [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 492

post #4911 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by RealityRipple View Post

Usually I'd say newer versions only EXIST to improve, fix, or otherwise better software. In this case, looking at the Intel 2013 changes from 2011... I'm not really sure why it's being used. I guess they updated the math kernel library, but that just seems like it resulted in a removal of older systems like all the other changes... Hell if I know...

My point is that it would be pointless to bother with a branch because it won't make a difference. It's the same source code. Or it's supposed to be. Any changes are probably superficial to prevent unnecessary inflation from doubling of integer scales and that sort of thing. If there are major differences between an Intel 2011 and Intel 2013 compile of the Firefox source, someone somewhere is doing something terribly wrong.

Frankly, I don't think 2013 compiler has a bug. It just expects different code. For a start, I doubt mozilla will bother changing the FF code to be compatible with IC2013. But at least they can help and provide info as to what IC2013 expects. Alex can use IC2011 from HEAD (and as I said, Waterfox is certainly not vanilla) and use the branch to apply fixes, if any for IC2013. In that way, you can have a 'safe' IC2011 WF release, and a WIP experimental IC2013 release. The former will keep the waterfox fanbase happy, the later is an asset to open source community and Mozilla since the path to IC2013 FF will be set (and keep the waterfox fanbase happier when all compile errors are sorted).
post #4912 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by verticalgr View Post

Frankly, I don't think 2013 compiler has a bug. It just expects different code.

Doesn't Intel still market their compilers as a drop-in replacement for msvc, or has this changed since the last time I looked?
Edited by Marsu24 - 3/9/13 at 6:43am
post #4913 of 7308
Just a note to let everyone know there's an article on pcmech.com that says recent rapid flash updates have caused a lot of problems with chrome and ff browsers. They recommend a complete removal and reinstall of flash. Link here to see how to do a complete uninstall: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4041846#4041846
post #4914 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by safari801 View Post

Just a note to let everyone know there's an article on pcmech.com that says recent rapid flash updates have caused a lot of problems with chrome and ff browsers. They recommend a complete removal and reinstall of flash. Link here to see how to do a complete uninstall: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4041846#4041846

Thanks. Not sure if it helped yet, but it couldn't harm it.

Here is the link to Flash x64/x32 (latest)
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe

Here is Java x64 v7u17 (latest)
http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=75261

Here is Silverlight x64 (latest)
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=149156

Download them all, then close browser and install. Re-open browser.
Edited by kennyparker1337 - 3/6/13 at 8:15pm
post #4915 of 7308
Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?
4690K System
(12 items)
 
HTPC
(9 items)
 
HP dv6 laptop
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4690K ASRock Z97 Extreme4 XFX Radeon 7950 32 GB DDR3-2133 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO SSD Samsung DVD/CD-writer Corsair Hydro H60 Windows 7 
MonitorMonitorPowerCase
ASUS PA248Q Dell U2412M XFX 850W Black Edition XXX Fractal Design Arc Midi 2 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium Dual Core E6700 MSI G41M-P33 Combo ATI HD4350 Kingston ValueRAM DDR3-1333 
RAMHard DriveOSMonitor
Kingston ValueRAM DDR3-1333 WD Caviar Blue Windows 7 64-bit Sony 32" TV set 
Case
Apex TX-381 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5 430M GT230M (1 Gb dedicated) 8 GB DDR3-1066 640 GB 
OSMonitor
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) 15.6" 
  hide details  
Reply
4690K System
(12 items)
 
HTPC
(9 items)
 
HP dv6 laptop
(13 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i5 4690K ASRock Z97 Extreme4 XFX Radeon 7950 32 GB DDR3-2133 
Hard DriveOptical DriveCoolingOS
Samsung 850 EVO SSD Samsung DVD/CD-writer Corsair Hydro H60 Windows 7 
MonitorMonitorPowerCase
ASUS PA248Q Dell U2412M XFX 850W Black Edition XXX Fractal Design Arc Midi 2 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Pentium Dual Core E6700 MSI G41M-P33 Combo ATI HD4350 Kingston ValueRAM DDR3-1333 
RAMHard DriveOSMonitor
Kingston ValueRAM DDR3-1333 WD Caviar Blue Windows 7 64-bit Sony 32" TV set 
Case
Apex TX-381 
CPUGraphicsRAMHard Drive
Core i5 430M GT230M (1 Gb dedicated) 8 GB DDR3-1066 640 GB 
OSMonitor
Windows 7 Home Premium (64-bit) 15.6" 
  hide details  
Reply
post #4916 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post

Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?

Netflix uses it. Only one I know so far.

Hulu uses flash as well as Youtube.

League of Legends uses Adobe AIR for its client (but this is not related to Waterfox).
Latest AIR: http://airdownload.adobe.com/air/win/download/3.6/AdobeAIRInstaller.exe
post #4917 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by kennyparker1337 View Post

Thanks. Not sure if it helped yet, but it couldn't harm it.

Here is the link to Flash x64/x32 (latest)
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe

Here is Java x64 v7u17 (latest)
http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=75261

Here is Silverlight x64 (latest)
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=149156

Download them all, then close browser and install. Re-open browser.

Here are the Offline installers for Adobe Flash player: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html
post #4918 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post

Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?

Silverlight is dead, Microsoft abandoned it after the move to the new Win8 mobile framework. If you don't use any sites that require sl, you don't need it - it has been mostly used for internal/corporate rapid development anyway since it was obvious for quite some time that sl cannot reach the installed userbase of Flash in the "open" Internet.
post #4919 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by safari801 View Post

Just a note to let everyone know there's an article on pcmech.com that says recent rapid flash updates have caused a lot of problems with chrome and ff browsers. They recommend a complete removal and reinstall of flash. Link here to see how to do a complete uninstall: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4041846#4041846
As mentioned before, disabling all plugins did not resolve the microstutter issue in Waterfox 18.0.1. Uninstalling and reinstalling from scratch did at least give me an excuse to hunt down a plugin that was annoying me and bother to uninstall Silverlight, though, so it wasn't all for nought! thumb.gif
post #4920 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomakeWan View Post

As mentioned before, disabling all plugins did not resolve the microstutter issue in Waterfox 18.0.1. Uninstalling and reinstalling from scratch did at least give me an excuse to hunt down a plugin that was annoying me and bother to uninstall Silverlight, though, so it wasn't all for nought! thumb.gif

I tried that though and it didn't solve my problem. Using less tabs did solve microstutter issues.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 53: 24 April [Firefox 64-Bit]