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 639

post #6381 of 7359
@ MrAlex
Is waterfox 34 going to include a malloc memory manager? In a previous post I read that you were testing it, and it had some performance improvements.thumb.gif

I haven't read anything new on that and was wondering if the tests are going well. Please excuse me if I overlooked your reply.

I recently (1-2 weeks ago) contacted cyberfox through their website asking them what the differences are between cyberfox and waterfox, but haven't had a reply from them.
+ The fact that nobody knows who they are makes me avoid them (at least for now).

Direct contact with an open minded and understanding developer is definitely a rolleyes.gifthumb.gif Wish more developers were like that smile.gif

Btw: does a faster browser also mean it consumes less battery on a laptop?
I wonder if AVX and such don't increase the power usage of the CPU (haswell)
Edited by gijs007 - 12/9/14 at 5:13am
X299
(9 items)
 
Z77
(19 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-7820X Asus ROG Strix X299-E Gaming EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 G.SKILL F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Intel 750 SSD NZXT Kraken X62 Windows 10 pro 64bit Corsair AX860i 
Case
Corsair Crystal 570X RGB 
  hide details  
Reply
X299
(9 items)
 
Z77
(19 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i7-7820X Asus ROG Strix X299-E Gaming EVGA GeForce GTX 1080 8GB SC GAMING ACX 3.0 G.SKILL F4-3600C16Q-32GTZR 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Intel 750 SSD NZXT Kraken X62 Windows 10 pro 64bit Corsair AX860i 
Case
Corsair Crystal 570X RGB 
  hide details  
Reply
post #6382 of 7359
Mr Alex.

It has been a long time since I posted here as in the past giving programing and technical advice. I feel it nessessary to respond to yourself and many of these other posts I have read over the last while to clear up so much hateful misinformation.

Lets start with your reply here Low and behold one day, spam starts making its way in anything that Waterfox was on, disqus, sourceforge etc. And what was this spam? Why of course it was bots showcasing Cyberfox! My sourceforge rating took a tumble as it got hammered by negative votes (by bots). And unsurprisingly cyberfox's positive vote count is maxed out at 2 Billion...yeah..right.
I have worked with the Cyberfox developer from the start in fact Cyberfox came about because I used to be a Waterfox user and you were having many issues with waterfox then no more builds were coming out. You said you could not ballance school and waterfox then, but you did not even take time to infform your own user base of this. You were on this site daily yet ignoring everyone and any post having to do with your browser.

So I have a friend that was a programming wizzard and I had been making my own x64 browsers for my personal use for a few years when I asked if he had time could he look into doing one since you were not doing waterfox anymore at the time and ppl needed a good x64 varient of firefox that was stable so Cyberfox was born.

Not once during the time Cyberfox has been out has the developer been involved in any spamming with any other browser out there on the market he only started this as a favor to me, in fact if you knew the developer of Cyberfox personally you would laugh at the accusation the guy works like a dog on so many projects he has 0 time to play such childhood games.
Lets get this straight the reason for the backlash agaisnt waterfox was your own doing by ignoring your own user base by not responding to them at all the Cyberfox developer had nothing to do with any of it. In fact the Cyberfox developer spends a lot of time on his site with your userbase as they pm him with bugs in your browser asking him how to fix them.

One of my main reasons for asking my friend to start Cyberfox in the first place was not even for the Intel compiled builds I was looking for one tailored to AMD users like myself as almost everyone compiles for Intel users but none for AMD users Intel compliers can have adverse effects on AMD machines. The Cyberfox developer works exteremly hard at both and is working on them with every beta or nightly build that comes out from Firefox to work out any bugs before hand so he is primed and ready when the final build is released to be able to get the builds to his userbase quickly and he is only one man.

The most important thing though that sould be mentioned is simple as for misleading a userbase that's under your wing you talk of working with the Intel people to have your bugs fixed. Yet the truth is they stopped helping you as everytime it came down to a bug your reported it ended up being the compiler flags you were using that resulted in the issue and they were getting tired of sorting through all the code to find out it was not a compiler issue. In the links you posted to show how the Intel were helping you they said this right in there posts. So what you did to get around bugs was just to disable the compile completly on certain parts like the jemalloc. You completly disabled that as a bug fix leaving a gaping hole in the browser and there is others, not informing your userbase this is what you have done and saying you have fixed the bugs you are deciving your user base.

I have seen enough spam said about the Cyberfox developer that is baseless and untrue if you want to look at where all these issues are coming from or being started from look at your own userbase first.
post #6383 of 7359
Thread Starter 

Before anything gets heated, I'd just like to mention this is a discussion, I don't want this to become a flame war.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderStruck-1 View Post

*snip*

 

The information is not hateful, it's just how I see things. And I state that (try and see from my position). That's fair enough that you wanted an alternative to Waterfox when builds weren't coming out. That doesn't exactly justify all the spam that was appearing on the website, with pretty much all the posts being about cyberfox. I assume that it's him, why would anyone else have the need to do so (as with the vote fuzzing on sourceforge)?

 

I was posting every so often the issues I'd have with the build (here on OCN). I chose not to release a botched product just for the sake of releasing an update. Being at uni takes up a lot of my time and it affects how often I can post. I worked on WF as much as I could but at the time ICC just wasn't working well with Firefox.

 

It's fair enough he works hard, but he's not the only person working hard... As for the Intel issues, Intel got caught back before Waterfox was made about their crippling AMD performance. You have to purposefully enable flags to put AMD users at a disadvantage, of which I do not do (have a look at about:buildconfig).

 

I posted on the Intel support forums about the issues I was getting. If Clang, MSVC, GCC can all compile the code, then it's just a fair assumption something is not working as intended with ICC. In fact xunxun made a nice report here where issues were addressed. There have always been issues with jemalloc+WebGL and ICC. I've only disabled jemalloc on the current build. Mozalloc was used for a very long time by Mozilla, so I'd assume that using it for one build would be alright, given that Waterfox isn't big enough to be a target of malicious attacks (we've mentioned it before in this thread).

 

I've got nothing to hide from anyone here and I always try to reply to any questions. I don't gain anything by alienating anyone. It doesn't make sense that users of Waterfox would spam a product they do not use.

 

I don't want this to become a duel and create a Waterfox v Cyberfox mentality. It's not good, it doesn't accomplish anything. We're both working for the community and that should be good for everyone.

    
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 #6384 of 7359
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post



I don't want this to become a duel and create a Waterfox v Cyberfox mentality. It's not good, it doesn't accomplish anything. We're both working for the community and that should be good for everyone.

Mr Alex.

I also am not here to start or have this become a flame war, as you can see I have never spammed your forum or sites with any type of posts in the past and I am not here now to change that.

The assumption that the Cyberfox developer was behind any spam attacks against your project or sites is what I came here to clear up as I believe no one should be getting blamed for things they have not done. As I said in my post the developer of Cyberfox I have known for over a decade. I was a big fan of waterfox back in the day as I always used to complain how much better x64 systems are yet we are held back by not enough x64 programs that can make use of all the benefits an x64 system gives us. If you were too look at the site where Cyberfox originated from before he made a dedicated site for it due to the popularity of it. You will find large posts from myself about the Waterfox project and links back to your sites and so on as I was a large booster of your browser.

As things happened though and you were unable to make new builds and since myself I have just personal ones I do on the side for myself but nothing mainstream as I don't have the time to dedicate to a project of that nature. I asked my friend if he would like to take a stab at making an x64 browser as it was unclear if Waterfox would ever return. He is also a very busy guy but he loves to take on challenges and loves to write programming code so he took on my project.

As stated in my earlier post it was more so asking him to make them tailored to AMD machines, He started with Intel as he is an Intel user himself and got that build perfected using the Intel compiler and then working with me he got the AMD builds perfected tweaking for AMD users like myself. I am giving you this background information just to understand what kind of guy he is. To squash this notion that he would go around spamming your or anyone else project for any reason he is not that type of person, that he just made the browser as a favor to me and keeps it updated as he does as just a side project among the many other projects he is involved with.

What I am letting you know is it's not the Cyberfox developer that is behind any of the spam he has always said he is not in any type of competition with any other firefox variant browser it's a side project for him he does as a favor to myself. That's what I wanted to clear up you know the internet as well as the rest of us we cannot control people that get angry and do stupid things or say stupid things but I wanted the blame game to stop because the Cyberfox developer does not deserve such things being said when he is behind none of it and just doing a favor for a friend.
post #6385 of 7359
Thread Starter 

Right, 34.0 is done in preliminary testing so I'll upload a build for everyone to test as well with tcmalloc (memory allocator used by Chrome). Should solve memory issues. Unfortunately about:memory doesn't work currently because of this.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThunderStruck-1 View Post
*snip*

 

That's fair enough. It was the only logical thing I could deduce. But glad it's all cleared up now either way.

    
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 #6386 of 7359
Thread Starter 

All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).

    
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 #6387 of 7359
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).

Does not start - immediate error:

Created with GIMP

(Windows 7, older versions of Waterfox run fine)
Edited by uglydwarf - 12/10/14 at 6:42am
post #6388 of 7359
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by uglydwarf View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrAlex View Post

All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).

Does not start: "Couldn´t load XPCOM."

 

Could you take a screenshot please?

 

Thanks!

    
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 #6389 of 7359
I copied mine ontop of my v33 install and it seem to be working fine.
HTML5 now works and give a 475 / 555 at http://html5test.com/
post #6390 of 7359
Quote:
Originally Posted by uglydwarf View Post

Does not start - immediate error:

Created with GIMP

(Windows 7, older versions of Waterfox run fine)



I had the same problem with Avast,if you have Avast antivirus has deleted a file and that's why you get the error,avast think it's a virus ( i think it's a false positive ) , i reported the error to avast.
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]