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 731

post #7301 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post

Can someon explain why Chrome is a faster browser than Waterfox? If it weren't for the stupid tab size management in Chrome, I wouldn't have to resort using Firefox/Waterfox as these two are horrible in speed when having a 100+ tabs in the background.

Probably due to the way it architecturally separates tab processes in memory. Since each instance of chrome.exe isn't trying to deal with all the other instances as well (Firefox and derivatives don't enforce as strict a segmentation, as I understand, which has been regarded as a security issue as well*), a sluggish website probably doesn't affect performance as much.

* See here for a discussion: https://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html or here: https://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chromium/chromium-security-architecture.pdf
Edited by Quantum Reality - 4/29/17 at 10:43am
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 #7302 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post


Probably due to the way it architecturally separates tab processes in memory. Since each instance of chrome.exe isn't trying to deal with all the other instances as well (Firefox and derivatives don't enforce as strict a segmentation, as I understand, which has been regarded as a security issue as well*), a sluggish website probably doesn't affect performance as much.

* See here for a discussion: https://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html or here: https://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chromium/chromium-security-architecture.pdf

 

I understand and it is exactly what I thought. But I thought Electrolysis was supposed to be implemented in Firefox/Waterfox since late last year?

post #7303 of 7308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post


Probably due to the way it architecturally separates tab processes in memory. Since each instance of chrome.exe isn't trying to deal with all the other instances as well (Firefox and derivatives don't enforce as strict a segmentation, as I understand, which has been regarded as a security issue as well*), a sluggish website probably doesn't affect performance as much.

* See here for a discussion: https://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html or here: https://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chromium/chromium-security-architecture.pdf

 

I understand and it is exactly what I thought. But I thought Electrolysis was supposed to be implemented in Firefox/Waterfox since late last year?

 

It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:

 

    
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 #7304 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post
 

 

It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:

 

 

Ok. I get exactly that. How do I know which add-on is the one forcing my browser not to use electrolysis? Or can I force it to enable?

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it working and I immediately noticed the increase in speed! It's day and night for me, unbelievable! Is there any disadvantage with using E10s?


Edited by kevindd992002 - 5/5/17 at 9:50am
post #7305 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:



hey Alex, do you know how soon will waterfox come out with 55.0.1?
reason i ask is, starting with Nightly 55.0a.1 they put session restore back into parent process and it is EXTREMELY fast, MUCH faster than even 45.0a.1. I power user with like 4000+ tabs really need this. however 55.0a.1 doesn't come with NPAPI support and disables java thats why I need to use waterfox instead, or wait for firefox ESR but who knows how long that will take. i've been testing waterfox over last month or so and ready to make the switch, when it is version 55 or higher.
post #7306 of 7308
extensions.e10sBlockedByAddons = false
Edited by Prime2515102 - 5/18/17 at 5:59pm
post #7307 of 7308
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by kevindd992002 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post
 

 

It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:

 

 

Ok. I get exactly that. How do I know which add-on is the one forcing my browser not to use electrolysis? Or can I force it to enable?

 

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it working and I immediately noticed the increase in speed! It's day and night for me, unbelievable! Is there any disadvantage with using E10s?

 

Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by unityole View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:


hey Alex, do you know how soon will waterfox come out with 55.0.1?
reason i ask is, starting with Nightly 55.0a.1 they put session restore back into parent process and it is EXTREMELY fast, MUCH faster than even 45.0a.1. I power user with like 4000+ tabs really need this. however 55.0a.1 doesn't come with NPAPI support and disables java thats why I need to use waterfox instead, or wait for firefox ESR but who knows how long that will take. i've been testing waterfox over last month or so and ready to make the switch, when it is version 55 or higher.

 

Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.

    
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 #7308 of 7308
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.


Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.

thats excellent. any chance to base it off of nightly 55? I am currently using it and seems stable, other than a few add-on needs update and thats it. afaik or i have heard, 52 and 54 has the most issue, 53 was alright but looks like 53.0.1 version is already available for download.
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]