Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Users and developers helping users with generic and technical Pale Moon issues on all operating systems.

Moderator: trava90

Forum rules
This board is for technical/general usage questions and troubleshooting for the Pale Moon browser only.
Technical issues and questions not related to the Pale Moon browser should be posted in other boards!
Please keep off-topic and general discussion out of this board, thank you!
damjang
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 98
Joined: 2012-01-14, 11:22

Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by damjang » 2012-01-14, 11:36

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!

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35473
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Moonchild » 2012-01-14, 13:02

  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
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

damjang
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 98
Joined: 2012-01-14, 11:22

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by damjang » 2012-01-14, 18:40

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...

jaycelou

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by jaycelou » 2012-01-15, 10:31

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. ;)

schauw

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by schauw » 2012-01-16, 00:29

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.

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35473
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Moonchild » 2012-01-16, 09:10

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
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

damjang
Moon lover
Moon lover
Posts: 98
Joined: 2012-01-14, 11:22

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by damjang » 2012-01-28, 11:47

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

Ryrynz

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Ryrynz » 2012-03-06, 08:31

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.

User avatar
satrow
Forum staff
Forum staff
Posts: 1884
Joined: 2011-09-08, 11:27

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by satrow » 2012-03-06, 12:47

@ 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
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35473
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Moonchild » 2012-03-06, 14:12

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.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
satrow
Forum staff
Forum staff
Posts: 1884
Joined: 2011-09-08, 11:27

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by satrow » 2012-03-06, 23:47

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

jaycelou

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by jaycelou » 2012-03-07, 02:26

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
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35473
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Moonchild » 2012-03-07, 07:52

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.
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

User avatar
Moonchild
Pale Moon guru
Pale Moon guru
Posts: 35473
Joined: 2011-08-28, 17:27
Location: Motala, SE
Contact:

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Moonchild » 2012-03-22, 14:58

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)
"Sometimes, the best way to get what you want is to be a good person." -- Louis Rossmann
"Seek wisdom, not knowledge. Knowledge is of the past; wisdom is of the future." -- Native American proverb
"Linux makes everything difficult." -- Lyceus Anubite

Lance1965

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by Lance1965 » 2012-04-24, 15:26

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.

ranger72

Re: Pale Moon x64 vs Waterfox

Unread post by ranger72 » 2012-04-24, 21:39

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:

Locked