Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

For discussions specific to the 64-bit version of the browser on Windows.

Moderator: Indalecio

Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby damjang » Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:36 am

HI! I have Win7 x64 and use PaleMoon x32, but I'm interested on PaleMoon x64. I find that there is also another port of Firefox x64 that is called Waterfox. So here is my 3 questions:
- what is the difference of Palemoon x64 and Waterfox?
- how is the actual x64 plugins compatibility with x64 browsers? I know that there is 64 bit version of java and flash, but don't know if it was buggy and if work ok. And other plugins/addons? Are some ported to x64?
- I read that there is a wrapper for use of 32 bit plugins with x64 browser in linux. Is on windows something like this?

Thank you!
damjang
Moongazer
Moongazer
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:22 am

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Moonchild » Sat Jan 14, 2012 1:02 pm

  1. Waterfox is a straight-up 64-bit build of Mozilla Firefox with no further optimizations or changes. Pale Moon is based on Firefox, but with a number of significant changes. As such, when Mozilla starts building and publishing 64-bit versions of their browser, Waterfox will become redundant; Pale Moon will not.
  2. Plugins will have to be 64-bit native, so do extensions with binary components (although that number is very small). Most extensions will therefore work without an issue. I don't know which vendors have released 64-bit plugins yet, you'll have to check yourself. The list is still (extremely) short at the moment (Flash, java, Silverlight (beta))
  3. A 32-bit compatibility layer is not yet available for Windows plugins. It is one major issue that is holding back Mozilla from officially releasing 64-bit release versions of the browser. See also: https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Desktop/64bit_Firefox_Windows_7
Solutions born from paranoia are never the best solutions. -MC
Image
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby damjang » Sat Jan 14, 2012 6:40 pm

Thank You for the explanation. So I think that have to wait some more to see if plugin/addons were translated to x64 or an 32-bit compatibility layer is done...
damjang
Moongazer
Moongazer
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:22 am

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby jaycelou » Sun Jan 15, 2012 10:31 am

You can start using the x64 version of the browser now if you want. :P provided only if you have a x64 OS.

x64 version of famous plugin like Java, Adobe Flash, Silverlight are available (NOT BETA) just search around, you can try at Softpedia if you like.

I'm using the x64 browser since version 7, for my XP Pro x64 and Win 7 Ultimate x64 with x64 native plugin myself, but just that Silverlight x64 only for Win 7, you know, they abandoned XP :x

Extension, I have 40 installed and all works well, some famous one like AdblockPlus, BetterPrivacy, DownloadHelper, Ghostery, NoScript, SimilarWeb, WebMailNotifier... All work fine, for me. :thumbup:

Unless you are running application other than standard browsing, you are free to go for Pale Moon x64 now. ;)
User avatar
jaycelou
Moonbather
Moonbather
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:29 am
Location: Malaysia

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby schauw » Mon Jan 16, 2012 12:29 am

Good to know.. but even if the benchmarks where exactly the same I would prefer Palemoon.
Maybe the Waterfox site looks more "hip" but Palemoon provides way more information and technical details available + own forum.
schauw
 

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Moonchild » Mon Jan 16, 2012 9:10 am

schauw wrote:Maybe the Waterfox site looks more "hip" but Palemoon provides way more information and technical details available

It seems the waterfox dev(s) also try to dazzle people less familiar with compiling Visual C programs:
Waterfox was compiled with SSE, SSE2, x64 favoring and the following optimisation flags: /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy

Solutions born from paranoia are never the best solutions. -MC
Image
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby damjang » Sat Jan 28, 2012 11:47 am

jaycelou wrote:...
Unless you are running application other than standard browsing, you are free to go for Pale Moon x64 now. ;)


I have installed the x64 version and directly use the x32 Plemoon profile (have done nothing!). I have already installed java x64 and silverlight x64. Also flash x64 is ok (I don't know this...). Also use all plugins I have in x32. For now all work ok...

Thankyou
damjang
Moongazer
Moongazer
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jan 14, 2012 11:22 am

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Ryrynz » Tue Mar 06, 2012 8:31 am

http://www.computerworlduk.com/slidesho ... -waterfox/

Not surprising, Palemoon isn't fully optimized for 64bit. I still find the 32bit version to be faster overall but we're talking small differences between Waterfox and Palemoon really.
I don't know when Mozilla is going to release a true 64bit build but when they do Waterfox will be pointless and Palemoon should be faster than the offical build.
Here's hoping they release a 64bit build sometime this year.
Ryrynz
Fanatic
Fanatic
 
Posts: 164
Joined: Sun Oct 23, 2011 11:04 am

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby satrow » Tue Mar 06, 2012 12:47 pm

@ Ryrynz:

I didn't bite the first time that 'test' was linked so I reckon I will this time:- that syndicated 'browser test' is poorly done by someone who has a negligible understanding of modern Mozilla-based browsers and/or basic comparison techniques. Don't believe me - read it carefully.

Today's little test, all latest versions, all from new, individual profiles:
http://img528.imageshack.us/img528/5423/pm92.jpg <----- Pale moon 9.2 x64
http://img685.imageshack.us/img685/8822/wfx90.jpg <-----Waterfox 9.0
http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/8711/nightly13.jpg <- Nightly
User avatar
satrow
Astronaut
Astronaut
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:27 am

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Moonchild » Tue Mar 06, 2012 2:12 pm

Thanks Cym.

Nightly seems to score higher because of faster 2D rendering, which is no surprise considering the work done on the engine in it. Apples and oranges, though.
I guess the pale Moon 9.2 vs. Waterfox comparison speaks for itself.
Solutions born from paranoia are never the best solutions. -MC
Image
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby satrow » Tue Mar 06, 2012 11:47 pm

I hadn't noticed that I'd not updated Waterfox recently, so i just did and ran some different benchmarks.

I've discovered that the Waterfox developer doesn't like Peacekeeper and he seems prefer Browsermark; here's PM 9.2 and WX 10.2, both from clean profiles with interfaces tweaked to my preference:
Image
User avatar
satrow
Astronaut
Astronaut
 
Posts: 939
Joined: Thu Sep 08, 2011 11:27 am

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby jaycelou » Wed Mar 07, 2012 2:26 am

cymroly wrote:@ Ryrynz:

I didn't bite the first time that 'test' was linked so I reckon I will this time:- that syndicated 'browser test' is poorly done by someone who has a negligible understanding of modern Mozilla-based browsers and/or basic comparison techniques. Don't believe me - read it carefully.

This is something like sport car test, does it really matter when Ferrari beat Porsche by 1.1 second? Aston Martin say you have to look at the design, the material used...
User avatar
jaycelou
Moonbather
Moonbather
 
Posts: 36
Joined: Wed Jan 11, 2012 12:29 am
Location: Malaysia

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Moonchild » Wed Mar 07, 2012 7:52 am

Well this browsermark (whichever tests they do under the hood) puts them pretty much at the same score. 345k vs 325k isn't exactly a big difference ;)
It's also not exactly made for testing desktop browsers (it's made for phones) so in the higher end it's most likely extremely inaccurate and/or biased.

To tally it all up:
  • The syndicated test checks load times, which depends on a lot of different factors and is irrelevant for actual browser operation; especially since we're talking about every browser being loaded (from cold start) in mere seconds
  • The syndicated test checks Kraken, which is pure JavaScript, which doesn't test the speed of the browser but rather the speed of the JIT library only (how fast can one library spit out machine code?)
  • Peacekeeper, an overall test supplying details, puts Pale Moon with a clear lead ahead of Waterfox
  • Browsermark puts them real close, and is a test not designed for testing browsers on fast machines - it also doesn't give details about what exactly is tested

Missing from this list is Dromaeo, which I personally think is a good indication of Javascript performance, especially when looking at the DOM tests.

Overall, and I've said this many times, synthetic tests only give a partial picture since they tend to test one specific part of the browser and not overall function as it would normally be used (UI speed, networking speed, page composition speed, image decoding and painting, etc.); the tests focus very heavily on JavaScript and not on actual rendering speed, let alone the (just as important) networking back-end for page loading, as well as most tests using very tight loops to test speed which is not necessarily the best (or realistic) way of testing.
Solutions born from paranoia are never the best solutions. -MC
Image
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Moonchild » Thu Mar 22, 2012 2:58 pm

Checking some benchmark results with the new version 11, it seems that Waterfox is now falling behind the official Mozilla Firefox builds.
Dromaeo seems to agree with Peacekeeper mentioned above, and the results (as kindly submitted by a tester) can be seen here for the default Dromaeo test set:
http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542
Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit)
Solutions born from paranoia are never the best solutions. -MC
Image
User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
 
Posts: 12131
Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 5:27 pm
Location: Sweden

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby Lance1965 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 3:26 pm

The Pale Moon x64 is far superior to Waterfox in my opinion. Tried both ended up going back to the standard Pale Moon. I don't know why but it just seems faster to me.
User avatar
Lance1965
Hobby Astronomer
Hobby Astronomer
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 4:43 am
Location: Seattle USA

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Postby ranger72 » Tue Apr 24, 2012 9:39 pm

damjang wrote:HI! I have Win7 x64 and use PaleMoon x32, but I'm interested on PaleMoon x64. I find that there is also another port of Firefox x64 that is called Waterfox. So here is my 3 questions:
- what is the difference of Palemoon x64 and Waterfox?
- how is the actual x64 plugins compatibility with x64 browsers? I know that there is 64 bit version of java and flash, but don't know if it was buggy and if work ok. And other plugins/addons? Are some ported to x64?
- I read that there is a wrapper for use of 32 bit plugins with x64 browser in linux. Is on windows something like this?

Thank you!

This is my first post in these forums.

I am running "WIN 7 Ultimate 64 Bit" for an OS on a Multi-Core Processor with 12 GiGs DDR3 ram and all kinds of other Hi-test crap. (I will show my full spec's later) I only recently heard of "PaleMoon" recently so I came to Moonchild's website and lurked around for a while and then downloaded Palemoon 64 bit to try it.

Its magnificent! It seems to run faster than the latest "Firefox version" I don't seem to have any glitches going on..It seems to work well with the version of FF that I am using as a base and I was able to migrate all my FF settings very easily.

Just download it and try it. If you have fairly modern hardware it works like a charm; For me anyway

Great Work,

I am on the very verge of making it my Default Browser.

Thanks,
Moonchild,
ranger72 :clap:
ranger72
 


Return to Pale Moon x64

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests