Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 55.0.2: 22 August [Firefox 64-Bit]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Waterfox 55.0.2: 22 August [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 565

post #5641 of 7348
RE: Yahoo Mail and other sites that request that you update your Browser.

Nearly all of the websites that ask you to update your browser are being paid for each user they redirect to switch to Internet Explorer or Firefox. In the case of Firefox, some websites are partners and contribute to the development of Firefox so they want to protect their investment.

Sure, they will imply that it is a security concern. The reality is that they look for only one or two browser signatures. If you do not log in from one of the partner web browsers, you will get the notice to upgrade.

This is not a problem with Waterfox, it is pure and simple marketing by the other browsers.

Chas
post #5642 of 7348
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post

This is what it looks like for Pale Moon:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140208 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.3.2

The Intenet IS ready, MrAlex just needs to make WF adhere to common conventions is all. I'm sure there's a simple patch for the useragent thing without needing a new installer.

And yes, there's a way:

http://www.howtogeek.com/113439/how-to-change-your-browsers-user-agent-without-installing-any-extensions/

I use the UAControl addon to set the User Agent.

The internet SHOULD be ready but it isn't because of the fact that most smartphones have 32-bit processors.
There are plenty of middle managers who are content to live in the past backed up by the trolls in accounting who don't want to spend any money compiling 64-bit builds.
According to this forum, even Mozilla are abandoning 64-bit Nightly builds and Opera gave up on 64-bit a while back and is now just a clone of Chrome.

One bright spot on the horizon is that 64-bit chips are gradually going to make their way into smartphones this year.
So, in a couple of years there will no longer be any financial incentive to persist with 32-bit browsers. Yay!

The other bright spot is of course, Waterfox. thumbsupsmiley.png
post #5643 of 7348
Guys, seriously... calm down.
There's no hidden conspiracy, nor greedy "managers", nor anything else behind 32- vs 64-bit browsers. In reality, as far as website rendering is concerned (in other words, server-side), there is absolutely ZERO difference between a 32-bit and a 64-bit build of a browser.
Firefox (32-bit) and Waterfox (64-bit) will do the exact same job visually and functionally, with absolutely ZERO provisions or customisation from the website.
The differences between Fire- and Water-fox are on the end-user side. Waterfox is not limited to just 2GB of address space and also benefits from modern x86 CPU SIMD instruction sets, because it is built to take advantage of them, while Firefox is built to "compatibility level" so that it can be run even on a Pentium 4 (and maybe even older). Moreover, Waterfox is built using the Intel compiler extensively, which is known to generate more efficient and optimised binaries, compared to Microsoft's Visual Studio, which Mozilla is using for Firefox.
Once again, while Waterfox will run faster and smoother than Firefox, there is no difference in how the two browsers (or should I say, the one browser) handle web content.
For the record, Internet Explorer has been fully 64-bit since I-don't-know-when and nobody noticed (meaning, from those few that still use that abomination). That goes to answer the argument that "the internet is not ready for 64-bit browsers"; the full answer being "the internet is (as it should be) platform-agnostic".

Rather than conspiracy theories, I believe that the "error" pages and notifications witnessed by many of us were not signs of some conspiracy, profiteering or incompatibility, but rather the combination of sloppy programming utilising the User Agent string breakdown and over-zealous web developers trying to cover their collective arses, notifying users that their (unidentified due to programming error) browser is outdated.

In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.
Edited by skagon - 3/1/14 at 6:59pm
post #5644 of 7348
Quote:
Originally Posted by skagon View Post

In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.
This is it. Then Waterfox don't win to put waterfox/27 in user-agent.
post #5645 of 7348
Quote:
Originally Posted by skagon View Post

In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.
Indeed. These are clueless Web programmers. In this day and age, relying on the User Agent string for anything on the server side is simply brain-dead.
The UA string is trivially changed. I can set it to IE if I wanted to, e.g., with the PrefBar extension...
post #5646 of 7348
With Australis scheduled to land sometime between Firefox ver 29 and 30, how will this affect Waterfox?

I know some users are heavily against it, with Pale Moon's developer even stating that Australis changes will not land in Pale Moon, so I'm just enquiring as to how this will affect Waterfox,?

FWIW: So far seen no problems in 27.0.1. Will update to 27.0.2 soon
post #5647 of 7348
Thread Starter 

Sorry I haven't replied to everyone, but I've been really busy and some great changes are coming to Waterfox in the near future! The 27.0.2 automatic update should be rolling out, so hopefully users will be migrating over!

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by skagon View Post

Alex, just installed (well, copied) the new build and Yahoo Mail gives me no "update your browser" page anymore.
Good job, αγορίνα...wink.gif

 

Thanks, great to hear :D

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcHo29388 View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by PsYcHo29388 View Post

Browser recognition is exactly why I switched back to firefox.


Battlelog, netflix, and yahoo all had problems for me, and it happened very suddenly too.


I may or may not switch back when this gets fixed, but I thought I should atleast say something about it.

Well I'm attempting to fix it, unfortunately I'm only one person so I can't test every possible outcome. Have you tried the build above? It should resolve the issues..

Edit: Also could I please have examples of the incompatibilities you're getting, I can't seem to reproduce them
Reinstalled to test out the latest build. Not sure which one I was using when I had compatibility problems.

Netflix - seems to be working fine now, anytime I tried to watch something previously it would bring me to a system requirements page. It didn't do this with my other family members and at this point I was frustrated enough as is so I uninstalled (this was late last year).

Battlelog - simply doesn't work with 64-bit browsers so it's not your fault at all really.

Yahoo - brought me to this crap...



I'll keep Waterfox installed for now, but I'm starting to think the internet just isn't ready for 64 bit browsers.

Yeah I sound stupid for saying that but that's how I feel.

EDIT* I realize I come off as an inconsiderate forum peasant so I'd just like to add in that I am really greatful for all the hard work you've put into this. I was using Waterfox all throughout 2013 and some of 2012 and for that time alone it worked great and I really appreciate your dedication to this.

 

It's not that, instead of searching for just parts of the UA to check for compatibility, they check the whole user string! That in itself is not a good way to detect browsers.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by thechas View Post

RE: Yahoo Mail and other sites that request that you update your Browser.

Nearly all of the websites that ask you to update your browser are being paid for each user they redirect to switch to Internet Explorer or Firefox. In the case of Firefox, some websites are partners and contribute to the development of Firefox so they want to protect their investment.

Sure, they will imply that it is a security concern. The reality is that they look for only one or two browser signatures. If you do not log in from one of the partner web browsers, you will get the notice to upgrade.

This is not a problem with Waterfox, it is pure and simple marketing by the other browsers.

Chas

 

Well put Chas, thanks!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grumpigeek View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quantum Reality View Post

This is what it looks like for Pale Moon:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140208 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.3.2

The Intenet IS ready, MrAlex just needs to make WF adhere to common conventions is all. I'm sure there's a simple patch for the useragent thing without needing a new installer.

And yes, there's a way:

http://www.howtogeek.com/113439/how-to-change-your-browsers-user-agent-without-installing-any-extensions/

I use the UAControl addon to set the User Agent.

The internet SHOULD be ready but it isn't because of the fact that most smartphones have 32-bit processors.
There are plenty of middle managers who are content to live in the past backed up by the trolls in accounting who don't want to spend any money compiling 64-bit builds.
According to this forum, even Mozilla are abandoning 64-bit Nightly builds and Opera gave up on 64-bit a while back and is now just a clone of Chrome.

One bright spot on the horizon is that 64-bit chips are gradually going to make their way into smartphones this year.
So, in a couple of years there will no longer be any financial incentive to persist with 32-bit browsers. Yay!

The other bright spot is of course, Waterfox. thumbsupsmiley.png

 

Thanks! I'm hoping that eventually Waterfox will be able to become it's own beast and become a proper competitor! But for now, I'll be sticking to the small modifications ;)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by skagon View Post

Guys, seriously... calm down.
There's no hidden conspiracy, nor greedy "managers", nor anything else behind 32- vs 64-bit browsers. In reality, as far as website rendering is concerned (in other words, server-side), there is absolutely ZERO difference between a 32-bit and a 64-bit build of a browser.
Firefox (32-bit) and Waterfox (64-bit) will do the exact same job visually and functionally, with absolutely ZERO provisions or customisation from the website.
The differences between Fire- and Water-fox are on the end-user side. Waterfox is not limited to just 2GB of address space and also benefits from modern x86 CPU SIMD instruction sets, because it is built to take advantage of them, while Firefox is built to "compatibility level" so that it can be run even on a Pentium 4 (and maybe even older). Moreover, Waterfox is built using the Intel compiler extensively, which is known to generate more efficient and optimised binaries, compared to Microsoft's Visual Studio, which Mozilla is using for Firefox.
Once again, while Waterfox will run faster and smoother than Firefox, there is no difference in how the two browsers (or should I say, the one browser) handle web content.
For the record, Internet Explorer has been fully 64-bit since I-don't-know-when and nobody noticed (meaning, from those few that still use that abomination). That goes to answer the argument that "the internet is not ready for 64-bit browsers"; the full answer being "the internet is (as it should be) platform-agnostic".

Rather than conspiracy theories, I believe that the "error" pages and notifications witnessed by many of us were not signs of some conspiracy, profiteering or incompatibility, but rather the combination of sloppy programming utilising the User Agent string breakdown and over-zealous web developers trying to cover their collective arses, notifying users that their (unidentified due to programming error) browser is outdated.

In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.

 

Well put, glad to see I'm not alone in this! Essentially, they should be checking for say, "Firefox", "Gecko" or the likes and if they see that, don't give out any flags. If only!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeF View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by skagon View Post

In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.
Indeed. These are clueless Web programmers. In this day and age, relying on the User Agent string for anything on the server side is simply brain-dead.
The UA string is trivially changed. I can set it to IE if I wanted to, e.g., with the PrefBar extension...

 

That is true, it's good for checking simple things as long as it's implemented correctly!

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by DazzaRPD View Post

With Australis scheduled to land sometime between Firefox ver 29 and 30, how will this affect Waterfox?

I know some users are heavily against it, with Pale Moon's developer even stating that Australis changes will not land in Pale Moon, so I'm just enquiring as to how this will affect Waterfox,?

FWIW: So far seen no problems in 27.0.1. Will update to 27.0.2 soon

 

I'm not sure about this yet...I like to keep the UI untouched, but if it really is not popular than I'll revert back. I might offer two themes to make things simpler, but can't make any promises or I'll be overloading myself! Still haven't managed to get language packs out properly!

    
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 #5648 of 7348
Just want to say thank you for your dedication and all this trouble to make waterfox!! Now been using your test build a few pages back and solves my browser detection problems. Again thank you so much!! smile.gif
Zangief
(16 items)
 
Zangief V2
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8350 BE Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 Gigabyte GTX970 G1 Gaming Corsair Vengeance Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital Black Western Digital Blue Samsung Evo 850 Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus 23" vx239H Corsair Vengeance K70 (Cherry Red) Corsair HX750i 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Carbide Series 400R Logitech Proteus Core G502 Steel Series QCK+ Logitech G633 Artemis Spectrum RGB 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD R7 1700x Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming K7 Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming G.Skill Trident Z 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung EVO 850 Western Digital Black Western Digital Blue Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus VX239H Corsair Vengeance K70 Cherry MX Red Corsair HX750i 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Carbide 400R Logitech G502 Proteus Core Steel Series QCK+ Logitech G633 7.1 Artemis Spectrum 
  hide details  
Reply
Zangief
(16 items)
 
Zangief V2
(16 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8350 BE Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 Gigabyte GTX970 G1 Gaming Corsair Vengeance Pro 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Western Digital Black Western Digital Blue Samsung Evo 850 Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus 23" vx239H Corsair Vengeance K70 (Cherry Red) Corsair HX750i 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Carbide Series 400R Logitech Proteus Core G502 Steel Series QCK+ Logitech G633 Artemis Spectrum RGB 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD R7 1700x Gigabyte GA-AX370-Gaming K7 Gigabyte GTX 970 G1 Gaming G.Skill Trident Z 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveCooling
Samsung EVO 850 Western Digital Black Western Digital Blue Noctua NH-D15 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Pro x64 Asus VX239H Corsair Vengeance K70 Cherry MX Red Corsair HX750i 
CaseMouseMouse PadAudio
Corsair Carbide 400R Logitech G502 Proteus Core Steel Series QCK+ Logitech G633 7.1 Artemis Spectrum 
  hide details  
Reply
post #5649 of 7348
Yes, thanks for all the hard work. 27.0.2 works flawlessly.
post #5650 of 7348
Just upgraded from wf26 to latest 27 and my download location got reset and locked? to the windows default download location at c:\user\username\downloads.
waterfox's options menu tells me that download location is as before but doesn't match with current behavior.
Checked with about:config with a filter for 'download' and all the cvars has the proper path.
Also tried with a new profile, nada.



Um...so it seems like waterfox 27 doesn't like downloading files to a root of a drive aside from the disk where it was installed to. Made a directory and downloads are fine...

Working fine:
C:\
C:\alsdflkjdf\asdfas\df\as\df\....
D:\elajfs\

Not working: <- downloads files to windows default download location
D:\
J:\
E:\
...
Edited by jjpjimmy - 3/8/14 at 1:16am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Other Software
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Other Software › Waterfox 55.0.2: 22 August [Firefox 64-Bit]