http://www.waterfoxproject.org/
I have been using it for over a year, and it seems to work great for when you have like a billion tabs open. Just wondering if there is really a noticeable difference or just a placebo affect.
Thanks
I currently have 148 tabs open in firefox and 43 in chrome, maybe I should check this out. It seems to update almost immediately and most people did seem like they were getting a speed boost after using this.
I'm interested in it as well. If anyone has more hands-on information on it, please share.
So i'm assuming it would run better on an intel CPU rather than AMD?
So i'm assuming it would run better on an intel CPU rather than AMD?
Why do you assume this? eventho AMD where the first to have a 'desktop' 64bit cpu its a web browser it works on anything....C++ works on any old patato and SSE3, AVX cpu instructions are in all new cpu's...
When thay make it completely multi threaded then i may give monzila a pat on the back....
I havent used fire fox since 3.5 because that's where it all went downhill and thay just made it slow bloatware.
I like it much better than chrome, for some reason I just cant stand using chrome
Using Opera, Chrome and Mozilla (and for nightmares IE installed)
Really they all have different advantages, like using scripts and a lot more options in mozilla (now also on opera with violentmonkey) TubeEnhancer made me use this one for YouTube , Chrome is the fastest but lately I encounter issue's with some sites, while Opera has some great features for previewing tabs when hovering over the tabs and grouping them but it is a bit slow
I can't watch at a default browser anymore it just has to be dark or my eyes burn so hoping for some dark skins and invert page color extensions for Opera and this one, definitely going to download it.
PS: in the extreme bizarre occasion all the browsers have an issue with a website IE might help
Even 64-bit version of IE doesn't work as well as 32-bit version. Windows has issues with 64-bit. So much that Mozilla just gave up on 64-bit versions of Firefox for Windows, even though the 64-bit versions for linux and OSX have been standard for a much longer time, work perfectly fine, and Windows users can still compile the standard 64-bit version from source themselves if they want to. Waterfox just does that, and then tries to mend some of the breakage windows causes. Fact is, windows is still a 32-bit system, the "64-bit" is just window dressing, microsoft never came that far, even after all these years.
Aside from everything, Firefox is by far the safest fully functional browser, especially with the p11kit to force the system's trusted certificates and keys (only on linux of course, since the system has to be safe in order to use this). A little less secure in Windows, but still a hell of a lot better than everything else, since it's the only browser that overrides the trusted certificates and keys from the windows system (which aren't visible nor editable by the user), so at least browsing the web with firefox on windows, guarantees you that you'll see the web content you want to see, not the web content microsoft wants you to see.
I'm not sure what you mean that 64 bit is just a dressing, I thought the only advantage of 64 bit is more memory addressing so you can use more than 4 gb of ram
on the subject of waterfox what about palemoon?
The big problem for me would be add-on compatibility.