![]() ![]() ![]() For example on my laptop with an i7-4720HQ, Waterfox 40.1.0 runs about ~20% faster in the JetStream (successor to SunSpider) benchmark compared to Firefox 42.0 64-Bit (and Waterfox’ main focus is speed ) ). Intel’s C++ compiler still generates faster code than Visual C++ does and on powerful systems it makes a big difference. The browser development started when there was no 64bit version of Firefox was available, So why people are using the Waterfox when Firefox 64 bit version is available ? The developer answers it as follows Memory usage of the browsers - Lightest browser Earlier we compared the memory usage of the browsers which you can read below Ashwin suggested this browser and I must say that this one is better than Firefox (at least for me). Waterfox registry entries to not use the same as Firefox (Windows Only)įull support for Windows XP (including WebGL, may have to disable Hardware Acceleration)įirefox was hanging on my system, and I wanted to find better browser which is light and faster. Removal of all Mozilla Data Reporting services (properly) Removal of Encrypted Media Extensions (DRM) The latest version of the browser have the following changes The development started on 2011 and now the latest version currently available is 43.0.1 which released last week based on the 43.0.3 Firefox. Waterfox is designed especially for the 64bit operating system. But the HP driver does give a few extra controls at the OS level.Įdit 1: Lists of items, one per line, were collapsed to a paragraph, so I added commas.Waterfox is a browser based on Firefox developed by Alex Kontos. I can print just fine without the addon, even without the HP driver, as Windows 7 has a driver for my printer. It's a somewhat useless addon that is installed with the print driver without a choice. There is a problem with "HP Smart Web Printing" addon, where by default it appears to be disabled with no option to enable it. Preserve Download Modification Timestamp, I would assume differences of about 5% or less would be fairly negligible.ĮQuake Alert (menu bug, always transparent, happens in 32-bit Firefox also), If you want to see performance differences objectively, without any political bias, do your own tests, with a stop watch, or with software profilers that can give microsecond or nanosecond accuracy of the time it takes to perform certain functions like page renders. They may work, have bugs, or not work, only one way to find out if it's right for you. If your plugins or addons are not listed, try it and see. There's little or no excuse to spread fear, uncertainty or doubt about using 64-bit Firefox, either compatibility or performance wise. I notice absolutely no problems with any of my addons or plugins, which probably represents everything the average user could ever want. Occasional app restarts are still necessary due to severe memory leaks (regardless of build). ![]() In this condition, the 64-bit build suffers much less system slowdown (for a while), but eventually both will begin to bog down the system when a few dozen tabs are open and the browser is left running for a month or more. One of the main advantages is that if I have a few hundred tabs open (which I do more often than you'd imagine), the 64-bit browser can allocate the RAM, whereas the 32-bit browser can not. I believe it is a good-faith project that does what it says, nothing more. I have not detected any virus or malware of any kind. I have used Waterfox under Windows 7 for about the past 4 months with no problems. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |