Waterfox - worth using?

TheVoice

TheVoice

TheVoice

Soldato
Joined
15 Aug 2005
Posts
23,440
Location
Glasgow
I've seen Waterfox mentioned a few times on here, thought I might check it out but I see it's still on version 18 whereas Firefox is at 21 now. Does this cause any problems with add-ons, plug-ins etc?

Is it actually noticeably faster than Firefox, or is it just that 'cnew install' feeling because it isn't yet bogged down with extensions and other files? I generally don't have any performance issues with Firefox, but it can seem to chug a bit at times which, on a Core i7 with 12GB of RAM, is rather ridiculous. It'd be nice if Waterfox solved that, but I don't want to end up using an out-of-date browser as a consequence.
 
I normally use Firefox, but I've also tried Waterfox and Pale Moon (x86 and x64) at various times - I don't know how the latest builds benchmark relative to each other, but in normal use I've never noticed any real speed difference between them.

I think when Firefox bogs down it can often be traced to some extension or other, or maybe just too many of them.
 
i don't use it now but when i did, i never noticed any difference.

i reckon people who think it's faster are just experiencing placebo. i'd like to challenge them to tell the difference in a test where they don't which browser they are using. :p
 
CaptainCrash said:
I normally use Firefox, but I've also tried Waterfox and Pale Moon (x86 and x64) at various times - I don't know how the latest builds benchmark relative to each other, but in normal use I've never noticed any real speed difference between them.
Click to expand...

Exactly my experience, also tried Cyberfox. Just not worth the effort in my view as it can only introduce incompatibilities.
 
Thanks all, I might give it a go at some point (I assume it doesn't interfere with Firefox at all) but can't see any immediate reason to switch over if the improvements aren't all that noticeable.
 
It renders content heavy pages faster and more reliably.
80pp @ Youtube and Gifs thread, for example.

This is on an SSD so speed otherwise is superlative I guess.
 
I used it and thought it was a nice improvement over Firefox on a modestly specced PC with an SSD. That was with all the same extensions and plugins, not comparing a well-used FF install to a clean WF install.
However, I then ran into some freezing issues, where it froze for around 5-30 seconds at a time. I never managed to track it down to something specific, though I suspect an update either of WF, a plugin or extension as my parents' PC, also with WF installed, started exhibiting the same issue at around the same time. I uninstalled it, went back to FF, and haven't encountered the issue again.
Nevertheless, I intend trying it out once I get my new build up and running, if I don't run into the same problem I'll keep it.
 
robinbredin said:
Just another version of FireFox, not worth it.
Click to expand...

One is 32bit only the other is rebuilt on 64bit architecture. Yes, another version of Firefox it might be but a (mostly) better version all the same.

Please do some research next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom