# Waterfox 56.0.2: 7 January [Free, open and private web browser.]



## [email protected]

WOW a 64bit? I still don't know if i should try it. Cuz it's a modified browser. Kinda sketchy but i await results from others til i try, i applaud you for adding 64bit!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];12886944*
> WOW a 64bit? I still don't know if i should try it. Cuz it's a modified browser. Kinda sketchy but i await results from others til i try, i applaud you for adding 64bit!


Thanks. I hardly did much, just recompiled the program


----------



## xd_1771

Wonder if it's also SSE2 optimized - if so I'll give it a go


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12887200*
> Wonder if it's also SSE2 optimized - if so I'll give it a go


In the next build I'll be enabling the following optimisations:

MMX
SSE2
SSE3
There is also the option to add SSE4.1 but lots of users still use AMD processors and old Core 2 Duo CPUs, such as me


----------



## xd_1771

Wow, that is awesome







I think I'll be switching to waterfox pending 64-bit plugin support for 1 or 2 things such as Silverlight that I will probably find easily!
What's awesome is firefox 4 is already fast enough but I can imagine this would be a lot faster


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12891020*
> Wow, that is awesome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think I'll be switching to waterfox pending 64-bit plugin support for 1 or 2 things such as Silverlight that I will probably find easily!
> What's awesome is firefox 4 is already fast enough but I can imagine this would be a lot faster


Voila. The new build is now available, and it's been done properly this time







everything is named correctly too









Also, Silverlight 5 will bring 64-Bit support. Current release date is 1H 2011


----------



## xd_1771

Awesome!







will be downloading and importing my firefox profile soon!
And meh, I don't visit many sites (if at all) that use Silverlight yet anyway

EDIT: I get an MSVCR100.dll is missing from your computer error on startup. Trying to fix this error myself now by d/l-ing the DLL and placing it in the program folder...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12892285*
> Awesome!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> will be downloading and importing my firefox profile soon!
> And meh, I don't visit many sites (if at all) that use Silverlight yet anyway
> 
> EDIT: I get an MSVCR100.dll is missing from your computer error on startup. Trying to fix this error myself now by d/l-ing the DLL and placing it in the program folder...


Sorry my mistake. Updated the thread with the missing file required.


----------



## xd_1771

Nearly forgot to launch the install - this is certainly much much faster! Even adapted to my Firefox profile upon first startup which is great, so I can revert to regular firefox in case of issues. I'm definitely liking it so far









I'm going to put a link to Waterfox in my "Optimizing Firefox" article (see sig)


----------



## ~kRon1k~

does not install on xp x64


----------



## xd_1771

I wonder if the plugin container was purposely disabled in this build... I don't see that exe running.
Also, quite the RAM heavy.... 280MB on 2 tabs







I don't really mind though with 8GB. Might be that plugin container lack though. EDIT: Must've been something else, now it's down to 179MB.

I also realize... you got the blue firefox icon from Speedyfox, didn't you? I rather like it


----------



## returned4good

Is this carried over from Minefield?


----------



## xd_1771

I think he recompiled it himself from the source codes.
Peacekeeper actually doesn't give me that much better results (probably I'm highly optimized enough?) but I do get somewhat noticeably faster startup times on Waterfox vs. Firefox - and the web browsing to me (not Peacekeeper) seems a tad bit faster. Perhaps it's due to GPU acceleration being enabled that the results aren't much better if at all (since I think that's an entirely different API).


----------



## returned4good

Epic post. Thanks man! +rep

I wish I could find a 64 bit Chromium project :/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12899265*
> Nearly forgot to launch the install - this is certainly much much faster! Even adapted to my Firefox profile upon first startup which is great, so I can revert to regular firefox in case of issues. I'm definitely liking it so far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to put a link to Waterfox in my "Optimizing Firefox" article (see sig)


Thanks








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *~kRon1k~;12899288*
> does not install on xp x64


It was compiled with VC2010 and requires some features that XP doesn't support. This build isn't for legacy hardware/software







sorry about that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12899450*
> I wonder if the plugin container was purposely disabled in this build... I don't see that exe running.
> Also, quite the RAM heavy.... 280MB on 2 tabs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really mind though with 8GB. Might be that plugin container lack though. EDIT: Must've been something else, now it's down to 179MB.
> 
> I also realize... you got the blue firefox icon from Speedyfox, didn't you? I rather like it


Strange...plugin container is running as a separate exe for me and Firefox takes up a specific % of your RAM. Can't remember what it was







. But I've noticed that the extra RAM usage helps. I got it from Deviantart actually








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12899493*
> I think he recompiled it himself from the source codes.
> Peacekeeper actually doesn't give me that much better results (probably I'm highly optimized enough?) but I do get somewhat noticeably faster startup times on Waterfox vs. Firefox - and the web browsing to me (not Peacekeeper) seems a tad bit faster. Perhaps it's due to GPU acceleration being enabled that the results aren't much better if at all (since I think that's an entirely different API).


If you're running the same/similar builds on Peacekeeper, the hardware is what then affects the score. It's JavaScript execution times etc that should be reduced (albeit not much since you have a beastly rig).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *returned4good;12899512*
> Epic post. Thanks man! +rep
> 
> I wish I could find a 64 bit Chromium project :/


Heh thanks


----------



## xd_1771

When I started it up today plugin manager opened with it this time
Still uses more RAM but that is something I can live with, I rock 8GB







I know that Firefox is RAM-adaptive like Windows 7, it just seems that Waterfox uses somewhat more RAM than Firefox did.


----------



## JohnDProb

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *returned4good;12899512*
> Epic post. Thanks man! +rep
> 
> I wish I could find a 64 bit Chromium project :/


no need each tab and extension is its own process, so unless youve managed to find a 4 gig webpage....


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JohnDProb;12905108*
> no need each tab and extension is its own process, so unless youve managed to find a 4 gig webpage....


There are more advantages than the ability to use more RAM:

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd630755%28office.12%29.aspx


Memory addressability
Better parallel processing
Faster bus architecture
More Secure
Better scalability


----------



## ChocoboLIVE

Weird occure, the waterfox don't react to mouse or keyboard function. Closing followed by opening again. Writting on website instead of English it is Russian language keyboard... followed by another freezing effect. Waterfox popping in plugin-in not working...


----------



## xd_1771

Well this is a rather sad occurence
Are me and the developer the only ones to get Waterfox working with zero issue?


----------



## ChocoboLIVE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12913883*
> Well this is a rather sad occurence
> Are me and the developer the only ones to get Waterfox working with zero issue?


Well, this is first time it happen from the day yesterday I am using. Doesn't have 2nd occure yet so...

Oki it seems to be occure when I open this website...

http://www.mycrysis.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=14734

Edit: Turning plugin off or on doesn't seems any effect.

Edit: Fixed by installed ''no-script addon'' 64 bits is working great atm. ^_^


----------



## derickwm

I'll give it a shot tomorrow on my desktop!

Very good work though OP! I haven't used Firefox in years but this is kind of intriguing.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *derickwm;12913915*
> I'll give it a shot tomorrow on my desktop!
> 
> Very good work though OP! I haven't used Firefox in years but this is kind of intriguing.


Thanks


----------



## superste2201

I'm going give it a go later.

64-bit Firefox sounds amazing!


----------



## returned4good

No problems so far.


----------



## Boyboyd

Can't believe i just tried this at work.

oh my 32 bit computer







I'm such a fool.


----------



## Gnomepatrol

I'll give it a go later tonight


----------



## Deano12345

On it now, will report back with any problems. All's good so far Cap'n !
















Edit : Problem, when I open Waterfox off a cold boot, and attempt to open 3 tabs one after the other quickly (Facebook, Twitter and OCN) Waterfox displays the (not responding) message. It does sort whatever the problem is within about 15 seconds though


----------



## MrAlex

Thanks, glad it's working for everyone


----------



## jethro_static

Ima try this right now. I wonder if the extensions work for this version?


----------



## bavarianblessed

Ditto. Do the standard addons like adblock plus work? Either way I'll give it a go when I get home. Silly work computer is 32-bit.


----------



## MrAlex

Yes, add-ons work on ANY version of Firefox on ANY platform. That's the whole point of it


----------



## Theory

Like it a lot, anyone on the fence about trying it, just get it....


----------



## jaz

I ran a peacekeeper benchie and got a score of 4057. I have some add-ons; adblockplus +3 fanboy's adblock lists, better privacy, noscript, a custom skin and page resizer. I also installed the 64-bit versions of flash and java from MrAlex's page.

this is the 1st time i ever ran a browser benchmark... are these add-ons slowing it down to get a low score? I seen ff4 (32 bit) on other forums getting above 5k.

But everything about this browser is great. It "adapted" everything from my ff4 install, and i have it pretty configured. Everything copied perfectly! Rep for MrAlex!


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;12934936*
> I ran a peacekeeper benchie and got a score of 4057. I have some add-ons; adblockplus +3 fanboy's adblock lists, better privacy, noscript, a custom skin and page resizer. I also installed the 64-bit versions of flash and java from MrAlex's page.
> 
> this is the 1st time i ever ran a browser benchmark... are these add-ons slowing it down to get a low score? I seen ff4 (32 bit) on other forums getting above 5k.
> 
> But everything about this browser is great. It "adapted" everything from my ff4 install, and i have it pretty configured. Everything copied perfectly! Rep for MrAlex!


What is this--I've got 46 different addons and I'm getting within the 6000s for peacekeeper








Perhaps you're doing it wrong?


----------



## jaz

I just ran another test after installing ghostery...Your fastest score for Firefox (waterfox)4.0
3786 Points. What could i be doing wrong? Ha..."doing it wrong' is your usertitle...just noticed that...good one...


----------



## Vowels

Waterfox is using twice the memory that Firefox uses. I know 64-bit applications have more overhead but double seems a little excessive. Maybe I'm doing something wrong.

EDIT: Seems like I checked memory usage at the worst possible time haha. After some more browsing, average memory usage has dropped a fair bit.


----------



## C-zom

Very nice, very stable. Don't be afraid to optimize in the future further.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C-zom;12938790*
> Very nice, very stable. Don't be afraid to optimize in the future further.


I might release seperate builds with SSSE3 and SSE 4.1/4.2 enabled








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;12934936*
> I ran a peacekeeper benchie and got a score of 4057. I have some add-ons; adblockplus +3 fanboy's adblock lists, better privacy, noscript, a custom skin and page resizer. I also installed the 64-bit versions of flash and java from MrAlex's page.
> 
> this is the 1st time i ever ran a browser benchmark... are these add-ons slowing it down to get a low score? I seen ff4 (32 bit) on other forums getting above 5k.
> 
> But everything about this browser is great. It "adapted" everything from my ff4 install, and i have it pretty configured. Everything copied perfectly! Rep for MrAlex!


Your score on peacekeeper is affected by what hardware you have. Noticed that people with the same browser but different hardware get different scores? It's probably THE most unreliable benchmark to use


----------



## Woundman

Hey MrAlex,

First of all, great work.







I'm currently using Pale Moon, but going to give your browser a shot.

Just curious, have you disabled the following features? ActiveX and ActiveX scripting, Accessibility features, Parental controls and the other miscellaneous things like the crash reporter?


----------



## Craiga35

If only firefox had a decent omnibar ...(the one in the add-on doesn't work as well as the chrome one)

I do like this build over vanilla FF4.0 though, much faster when using 64-bit.


----------



## Sinoox

This is unspeakably fast on my computer! Oh man!! What a dramatic improvement over Firefox 4!! How is this even possible?! Everything is pretty much the same aside from the banner, but it's just so much faster! No incompatibility problems from my time using it so far, so I'll definitely be sticking with this!

Thanks so much, MrAlex! I browse the net for leisure and work(which means I'm on a lot), so this is gonna safe me a lot of time!

I'll be very sure to spread the word about this for sure! You rock!


----------



## Shredicus

Hm, is there any way I could directly transfer and reinstall my addons from Pale Moon to this without having to install each one manually? I'd really like to give it a whirl, but just got Pale Moon all configured


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Shredicus;12942058*
> Hm, is there any way I could directly transfer and reinstall my addons from Pale Moon to this without having to install each one manually? I'd really like to give it a whirl, but just got Pale Moon all configured


Open up Windows Explorer and type in the location bar %appdata%. This will bring you to your appdata folder. Find the folder named Moonchild Productions (or Pale Moon, forgot which one it is) and inside it you should see a Profiles folder. Inside that folder you see a folder called .default. Copy the contents of .default folder. Find the Mozilla folder back in %appdata%, go a few levels in until you see Profiles and a different .default folder. Paste contents of .default from Pale Moon into Firefox.

I think that's clear enough


----------



## pjBSOD

This is really cool and I'm interested, I might give it a go.


----------



## townending

the adobe plug-in wouldn't work for me, so youtube wasn't available, but great job none the less


----------



## E30M3

Just tried this and got the MSVCR100.dll error, I thought this might have been fixed in the link. I'll just try downloading it and placing it manually.


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *E30M3;12942329*
> Just tried this and got the MSVCR100.dll error, I thought this might have been fixed in the link. I'll just try downloading it and placing it manually.


Installing the Visual C++ x64 Redistributable linked in the OP should fix that. I had the same problem


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *townending;12942247*
> the adobe plug-in wouldn't work for me, so youtube wasn't available, but great job none the less


Why didn't it work? What problems did you have?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *E30M3;12942329*
> Just tried this and got the MSVCR100.dll error, I thought this might have been fixed in the link. I'll just try downloading it and placing it manually.


As Vowels says below:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;12942340*
> Installing the Visual C++ x64 Redistributable linked in the OP should fix that. I had the same problem


----------



## chinesethunda

this opened up my firefox and nothing different was shown.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesethunda;12946809*
> this opened up my firefox and nothing different was shown.


If you're running Firefox at the same time, then when you open Waterfox it'll just open another window in Firefox...and vise-versa. This includes if the vanilla Firefox .exe is still running as a process in the background.


----------



## chinesethunda

my ff4 wasnt running at the time. it was on my taskbar and it just opened the firefox after i said run waterfox


----------



## tkrist

Not noticing much of a difference in responsiveness, but I'll take your word for it.


----------



## syntax32

wow this is actually faster i do notice a difference great job


----------



## Pyro_Teknic

+rep. noticeably faster for me only issue is silverlight/netflix not working. ill just run netflix on ff4 for now and subd for updates


----------



## xd_1771

Task manager > process tab
Make sure there are NO instances of firefox.exe running.
You can still have Firefox 4 32-bit installed and use it (obviously you can't use both at the same time but at least you can use the other) if you need something from it.


----------



## uncholowapo

Personally using it as my default browser now


----------



## chinesethunda

so... is this supposed to be a separate browser with icon and all? because this is still showing up as firefox 4 for me....


----------



## B3RGY

so far, this is awesome and everything i wanted from a browser, good job!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesethunda;12967885*
> so... is this supposed to be a separate browser with icon and all? because this is still showing up as firefox 4 for me....


Yes it is. Then something is wrong...are you sure that a firefox process isn't running silently in the background?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *B3RGY;12972139*
> so far, this is awesome and everything i wanted from a browser, good job!


Thanks, glad you're enjoying it


----------



## xd_1771

Waterfox (and Firefox) users who love addons and want to find more of them can check my wonderful and amazing addons collection








Loving Waterfox by the way. Completely flawless so far. Just the extra RAM usage over firefox might bother some users.


----------



## chinesethunda

yeah im sure nothing is running, i checked my task manager and nothing related to FF is running. Do I have to uninstall FF4? because even if i open it from the program folders it opens as ff4


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesethunda;12977415*
> yeah im sure nothing is running, i checked my task manager and nothing related to FF is running. Do I have to uninstall FF4? because even if i open it from the program folders it opens as ff4


That is really strange. Try uninstalling both and then installing Waterfox again and see if it works


----------



## Code Geass

Liking Waterfox at the moment, thanks MrAlex.

One issue that I found is that DivX web player plug-in isn't working with Waterfox. I've got it installed in Firefox and it's working fine, only when Waterfox is used that the plug-in isn't detected.


----------



## narmour

This is a fantastic build, kudos!


----------



## Allectis

Hmm, should I be concerned at all about vulnerabilities?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Code Geass;12981735*
> Liking Waterfox at the moment, thanks MrAlex.
> 
> One issue that I found is that DivX web player plug-in isn't working with Waterfox. I've got it installed in Firefox and it's working fine, only when Waterfox is used that the plug-in isn't detected.


32-Bit plugins won't work, only 64-Bit plugins will. It's up to the DivX developers to implement a 64-Bit plugin.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *narmour;12981885*
> This is a fantastic build, kudos!


Glad you like it








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Allectis;12981948*
> Hmm, should I be concerned at all about vulnerabilities?


It will have the exact same vulnerabilities that Firefox 4.0.0 have.


----------



## Code Geass

Thanks for clearing that up! +Rep


----------



## Nautilus

+REP

Can't wait for SSSE3, SSE 4.1 and 4.2 support.

Bulldozer will support SSSE3, SSE 4.1 and SSE 4.2 as well so i think AMD guys will utilize it too. They just need to wait for 2-3 months so you don't have to worry about AMD guys. Just add the support!

Thanks for this awesome project!


----------



## chinesethunda

still no go. but heres the wierd thing. I uninstalled all firefox and waterfox, clean my registry. delete any leftover folders. reinstall waterfox, and it opens, the whole waterfox setup runs, and the icons and all show up. but when i install firefox again and open up waterfox, it opens up as a firefox program and shows up as another firefox window


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Nautilus*


+REP

Can't wait for SSSE3, SSE 4.1 and 4.2 support.

Bulldozer will support SSSE3, SSE 4.1 and SSE 4.2 as well so i think AMD guys will utilize it too. They just need to wait for 2-3 months so you don't have to worry about AMD guys. Just add the support!

Thanks for this awesome project!


Yeah, I might just make a separate build to support the older hardware and another for the newer. I can't see how much a difference the extra SSE instruction sets will make







but hey, the more the merrier right?









Quote:



Originally Posted by *chinesethunda*


still no go. but heres the wierd thing. I uninstalled all firefox and waterfox, clean my registry. delete any leftover folders. reinstall waterfox, and it opens, the whole waterfox setup runs, and the icons and all show up. but when i install firefox again and open up waterfox, it opens up as a firefox program and shows up as another firefox window


That's really strange. I (and other users) have had both installed at the same time with no conflicts. Sorry mate I literally have *no* idea what is wrong. When Waterfox was installed by itself did that issue occur? Were you actually able to run Waterfox as shown in the picture above? Did you use the installer that I released when I first made this thread or the updated installer?


----------



## Quantum Reality

I'm going to give this a shot on Win7 64-bit with my E6700, which is noted to have SSE up to SSE3.

(*EDIT:* I didn't need to download any DLLs at all! Nice. It ran out of the box. I just disabled update checking for "Waterfox" as well as Crash Report submission since I want to make sure this thing won't accidentally update with a 32-bit Firefox and wipe out the 64-bit browser









Also, see the attached Task Manager screenie - no *32!







)


----------



## chinesethunda

i redownloaded the one you have in the OP and installed it. when it is waterfox by itself it runs as shown. but when FF4 is installed everything runs as FF4


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yeah, I noticed that. I have FF 32bit already installed and I can't run both at the same time. Oh well, I'll probably be reinstalling sooner or later anyway and will just switch 100% to Waterfox after reinstalling.


----------



## dragneel

Just installed it, it works great and I can still use the 32 bit Firefox.







definitely noticed a speed increase.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;12993232*
> Yeah, I noticed that. I have FF 32bit already installed and I can't run both at the same time. Oh well, I'll probably be reinstalling sooner or later anyway and will just switch 100% to Waterfox after reinstalling.


You can't run both at the _same_ time. You can't do that when mixing different version of Firefox browsers. Whichever instant of Firefox you have open will be the one that keeps opening when you try different versions








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chinesethunda;12992886*
> i redownloaded the one you have in the OP and installed it. when it is waterfox by itself it runs as shown. but when FF4 is installed everything runs as FF4


Strange, I honestly have no idea, as you can see below it works for people








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dragneel;12993330*
> Just installed it, it works great and I can still use the 32 bit Firefox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> definitely noticed a speed increase.


Great to hear that


----------



## xd_1771

Looks like the RAM usage really adapted for the guy with only 2GB RAM


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yeah. I could have had 4 gigs but I wanted to use the DDR3 I had no other use for.







It's a pretty zippy system anyway.


----------



## stumped

the only thing i've noticed is foxytunes + foobar2000 doesn't work anymore (but i'm assuming foxytunes + youtube still works, haven't really tried).

still pretty fast though


----------



## Dirtyworks

is there a difference between this and the FF4 x64 nightly builds?


----------



## sgr215

I've noticed some extensions refuse to work on Waterfox for me. So far the ones I've found are:

IETab - It installs fine but complains about a missing plugin but doesn't tell you specifically which one it's missing

Greasemonkey - After you reboot Waterfox to complete the installation it's no where to be found

*edit:* Figured out IETab. IEtab uses it's own plugin which doesn't support 64 bit


----------



## Woundman

Working great so far, zero issues. Thank you.


----------



## Homeles

Seems much, much faster, but, could just be the placebo effect.


----------



## LBear

Will waterfox get security updates as well?


----------



## Rpg2

You and the guy who does Pale Moon should get together to make the best browser ever.

Ever.


----------



## xd_1771

I now realize IE Tab isn't working.
Never use it anyway, and I can just re-enable internet explorer on my PC in the rare case that I ever need IE, but with things such as Windows Update not requiring IE, I doubt I ever will again.


----------



## Sodalink

This looks nice I should give it a try.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dirtyworks;12998753*
> is there a difference between this and the FF4 x64 nightly builds?


Yes, the FF7 x64 nightly builds aren't always stable and they aren't compiled with MMX, SSE2 and SSE3.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LBear;13002068*
> Will waterfox get security updates as well?


Yes, whenever Firefox gets its security updates, so will Waterfox.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rpg2;13002210*
> You and the guy who does Pale Moon should get together to make the best browser ever.
> 
> Ever.










We're essentially doing the same thing







.


----------



## EpicPie

Not sure if trust.


----------



## Dirtyworks

Alright, thanks! I'll download this after midnight - My satellite internet is throttled during the day. I only get max dl speeds between midnight and 8am :\


----------



## LBear

Im not sure if im seeing things but this seems faster than the 32-bit.....


----------



## animal0307

You got another one trying it. We will see how it goes. I'm a tab hording pack-rat. Lets see if 64 bit can handle 20+ better.


----------



## Dirtyworks

I just installed it and it is noticeably faster, even on my system!
Sadly, my Imageshack toolbar isn't compatible with FF4 yet :[


----------



## xd_1771

You might be able to force the addon compatibility (see the "Awesome addons" link in my sig, the instructions are on the bottom of the first post)


----------



## Dirtyworks

It'll install and appear normal, but the basic functionality won't work. Pretty much just the parts of it that are just a link to a website work.
I'm patiently waiting for it to become FF4 compatible >:[


----------



## Taylorsci

Is anyone else having an issue with flash crashing?


----------



## uncholowapo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;13019463*
> Is anyone else having an issue with flash crashing?


You mean it freezing and stopping the browser? I usually wait for it and starts to work again.


----------



## xd_1771

I use 64 addons with Waterfox and I don't get problems.
You're doing it wrong?


----------



## uncholowapo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13019538*
> ...You're doing it wrong?


AHHHH you said it!!!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;13019463*
> Is anyone else having an issue with flash crashing?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uncholowapo;13019509*
> You mean it freezing and stopping the browser? I usually wait for it and starts to work again.


Have you overclocked your system? Even if you have a stable overclock for everything else, simple things such as Flash and the likes may become unstable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dirtyworks;13019444*
> It'll install and appear normal, but the basic functionality won't work. Pretty much just the parts of it that are just a link to a website work.
> I'm patiently waiting for it to become FF4 compatible >:[


Strange. I don't quite get what your problem is? Have any screenshots?


----------



## moonmanas

Flash crashed my FF4 when I had Dark Fox persona installed, got rid of that and no more crashes.

This Waterfox is FAB How do I put the Waterfox Project link in my sig so it links to the start page of this tread?

Thanks,

Chris


----------



## moonmanas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonmanas;13030118*
> Flash crashed my FF4 when I had Dark Fox persona installed, got rid of that and no more crashes.
> 
> This Waterfox is FAB How do I put the Waterfox Project link in my sig so it links to the start page of this tread?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Chris


Sussed it


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13025338*
> Have you overclocked your system? Even if you have a stable overclock for everything else, simple things such as Flash and the likes may become unstable.


Yes it's overclocked, I did not have the problem with the previous version of FF. Maybe it's just the 64-bit version of flash.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;13031016*
> Yes it's overclocked, I did not have the problem with the previous version of FF. Maybe it's just the 64-bit version of flash.


It could be, since it's a beta I guess it might not work for all people.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *moonmanas;13030265*
> Sussed it


Wow thanks







glad it's working for you!


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13032114*
> It could be, since it's a beta I guess it might not work for all people.
> 
> Wow thanks
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> glad it's working for you!


Other than that all is well and I do prefer it over the normal version. Thanks!


----------



## sparkler

im using this now as mozilla doesn't seem interested at all in releasing an official native client for 64bit windows and i find it shocking that waterfox didn't set off symantec's WS.REPUTATION.1


----------



## phazer11

Thanks for this MrAlex
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12899450*
> I wonder if the plugin container was purposely disabled in this build... I don't see that exe running.
> Also, quite the RAM heavy.... 280MB on 2 tabs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't really mind though with 8GB. Might be that plugin container lack though. EDIT: Must've been something else, now it's down to 179MB.
> 
> I also realize... you got the blue firefox icon from Speedyfox, didn't you? I rather like it


Really I'm only using ~1 GB with 350 Tabs open about the same if not less than normal FF.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12905068*
> When I started it up today plugin manager opened with it this time
> Still uses more RAM but that is something I can live with, I rock 8GB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know that Firefox is RAM-adaptive like Windows 7, it just seems that Waterfox uses somewhat more RAM than Firefox did.


I'm rocking 8GB too on my Laptop.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;12913883*
> Well this is a rather sad occurence
> Are me and the developer the only ones to get Waterfox working with zero issue?


It's working fine for me although I don't see plug-in container

Anyone else not like the new look of FF4? I dislike it reminds me too much of Chrome not to mention there is no view tab to adjust zoom and suchlike reset etc. The other thing I've noticed since switching to FF 4 normal over a week ago is more often than not my scroll wheel tells FF to zoom in and out when I'm trying to get it to scroll lol.

Edit: Nevermind I found the plugin containers there are two one is 5 MB and the other is 3.5MB plugin container usually takes up about 200kb for me in normal FF.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phazer11;13036201*
> Anyone else not like the new look of FF4? I dislike it reminds me too much of Chrome not to mention there is no view tab to adjust zoom and suchlike reset etc. The other thing I've noticed since switching to FF 4 normal over a week ago is more often than not my scroll wheel tells FF to zoom in and out when I'm trying to get it to scroll lol.


Yeah, I don't like the Chrome-like interface. I especially dislike the lack of a status bar that shows the URL of the thing you're hovering your mouse pointer over; now it fades in at the bottom and it's not as obvious.

Any chance we can get some interface customizations here?

* Edit: also, you may notice in FF 3 that when a page loads, the status bar shows what URL is being accessed and what pages of the site are being loaded, which I find useful as a progress indicator.


----------



## superhead91

This seems cool. I'll definitely be trying this out when I get home from work.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;13037006*
> Yeah, I don't like the Chrome-like interface. I especially dislike the lack of a status bar that shows the URL of the thing you're hovering your mouse pointer over; now it fades in at the bottom and it's not as obvious.
> 
> Any chance we can get some interface customizations here?
> 
> * Edit: also, you may notice in FF 3 that when a page loads, the status bar shows what URL is being accessed and what pages of the site are being loaded, which I find useful as a progress indicator.


Well you could look for add-ons and such. I like to keep my builds stock








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superhead91;13037157*
> This seems cool. I'll definitely be trying this out when I get home from work.


Thanks, hope you like it


----------



## Nilareon

Heres an error I got, I have been using it for maybe a week, no problems other than nice, nice browser.


----------



## superhead91

Awesome. Just got home and downloaded it and it definitely seems faster. Good job. I do have a question relating to firefox in general though. Firefox 4 is supposed to have the simplified menu that's just one button in the top left corner. For some reason mine isn't like that. Anyone know how to enable that?


----------



## Code Geass

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superhead91;13039898*
> Awesome. Just got home and downloaded it and it definitely seems faster. Good job. I do have a question relating to firefox in general though. Firefox 4 is supposed to have the simplified menu that's just one button in the top left corner. For some reason mine isn't like that. Anyone know how to enable that?


Right click on the top part of the toolbar, then uncheck the "Menu Bar".


----------



## superhead91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Code Geass;13039942*
> Right click on the top part of the toolbar, then uncheck the "Menu Bar".


Ahhh... Thanks. So much cleaner


----------



## phazer11

Ah thanks It's starting to look more like firefox


----------



## moonmanas

Quote:



Originally Posted by *superhead91*


Awesome. Just got home and downloaded it and it definitely seems faster. Good job. I do have a question relating to firefox in general though. Firefox 4 is supposed to have the simplified menu that's just one button in the top left corner. For some reason mine isn't like that. Anyone know how to enable that?


You may like these too









https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...irefox-button/

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...clear/?src=api

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...personal-menu/


----------



## IlovetheChosenone

Can you make a waterfox for 3.6 firefox?


----------



## xd_1771

Clicking alt temporarily brings menu back


----------



## slash129

Not sure if anyone has asked this, probably somewhere, but does anyone know if this will be faster than Chrome?


----------



## phazer11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13041833*
> Clicking alt temporarily brings menu back


Or you could just leave menu enabled ^v^


----------



## yashau

Great project dude! I hope you continue doing this


----------



## phazer11

Ok the memory usage is a little lol.


----------



## TwistedMind

I've got certain settings in my Flash Player Manager, set, same setting as FF432bit.

I use









to control what gets placed on my computer which is always deny when I play flash videos.

On WaterFox, on certain flash video websites, I cannot click allow or deny buttons on









when I play flash videos in WaterFox but works just fine in FF432bit.

Is this a Flash x64 problem?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phazer11;13058259*
> Ok the memory usage is a little lol.


What do you mean?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13066229*
> I've got certain settings in my Flash Player Manager, set, same setting as FF432bit.
> 
> I use
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> to control what gets placed on my computer which is always deny when I play flash videos.
> 
> On WaterFox, on certain flash video websites, I cannot click allow or deny buttons on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when I play flash videos in WaterFox but works just fine in FF432bit.
> 
> Is this a Flash x64 problem?


I've had that problem as well sometimes with various versions of flash. Sometimes they seem to fix it and sometimes break it. I guess it is a fault of x64 flash.


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13069336*
> I've had that problem as well sometimes with various versions of flash. Sometimes they seem to fix it and sometimes break it. I guess it is a fault of x64 flash.


Yea, that was my guess too, glad I am not the only one with the problem and that hopefully Adobe takes notice of this problem & apply a fix for it.

I wonder if there is a bug submitting report for the x64 version:thinking:.

By the way, great job on WF.


----------



## _Marvin_

Will it use my previous firefox bookmarks?


----------



## superhead91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *_Marvin_;13070897*
> Will it use my previous firefox bookmarks?


It should.


----------



## _Marvin_

it did, and its mega fast!


----------



## phazer11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13041833*
> Clicking alt temporarily brings menu back


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13069336*
> What do you mean?


As in it's using about 1.5-5GB of RAM to keep my 300+ tabs open. I'll switch back to 3.5 it only used up to a gb


----------



## superhead91

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phazer11;13075298*
> As in it's using about 1.5-5GB of RAM to keep my 300+ tabs open. I'll switch back to 3.5 it only used up to a gb


Why in blue blazes do you need 300+ tabs?


----------



## phazer11

I'm actually having withdrawals I used to have about 800 open at a time. But I do alot of reading during classes and lol I just leave them open with about 200-500 being wikipedia entries, forum posts, news articles,sometimes a few videos(none atm though) etc


----------



## MrCynical

Wow, and I thought me and my 80 tabs were a lot...


----------



## ChronoBodi

dude, holy crap... Gmail doesn't even show the loading bar, it's just there, poof!

Why the hell are they still making 32-bit? it's so much faster it's not funny.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ChronoBodi*


dude, holy crap... Gmail doesn't even show the loading bar, it's just there, poof!

Why the hell are they still making 32-bit? it's so much faster it's not funny.


Glad to know it's working out for you









Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


As in it's using about 1.5-5GB of RAM to keep my 300+ tabs open. I'll switch back to 3.5 it only used up to a gb


Using less RAM doesn't = better performance. In fact you'll probably see a decrease in performance if Firefox uses less RAM.


----------



## phazer11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13083925*
> Glad to know it's working out for you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Using less RAM doesn't = better performance. In fact you'll probably see a decrease in performance if Firefox uses less RAM.


I know it doesn't I just can't afford the RAM I normally use ~6.5GB at any given time _and then also have_ Firefox running. It is fast I'll give you that.


----------



## ChronoBodi

What program or whatever did you use to compile this?


----------



## Xx573v3xX_Z28

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phazer11;13077290*
> I'm actually having withdrawals I used to have about 800 open at a time. But I do alot of reading during classes and lol I just leave them open with about 200-500 being wikipedia entries, forum posts, news articles,sometimes a few videos(none atm though) etc


WTH???? after 6 tabs i get annoyed


----------



## chinesethunda

i guess il just have to not have FF 32bit installed because my 32 bit and this cannot coexist

also its not showing any pictures on facebook... what to do?


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


What is this--I've got 46 different addons and I'm getting within the 6000s for peacekeeper








Perhaps you're doing it wrong?











Quote:



Originally Posted by *jaz*


I ran a peacekeeper benchie and got a score of 4057. I have some add-ons; adblockplus +3 fanboy's adblock lists, better privacy, noscript, a custom skin and page resizer. I also installed the 64-bit versions of flash and java from MrAlex's page.

this is the 1st time i ever ran a browser benchmark... are these add-ons slowing it down to get a low score? I seen ff4 (32 bit) on other forums getting above 5k.

But everything about this browser is great. It "adapted" everything from my ff4 install, and i have it pretty configured. Everything copied perfectly! Rep for MrAlex!


Yeah same here, FF4 gets 5836 & WF gets 5156 on peacekeeper.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


(obviously you can't use both at the same time but at least you can use the other) if you need something from it.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


You can't run both at the _same_ time. You can't do that when mixing different version of Firefox browsers. Whichever instant of Firefox you have open will be the one that keeps opening when you try different versions











Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


Yeah, I noticed that. I have FF 32bit already installed and I can't run both at the same time. Oh well, I'll probably be reinstalling sooner or later anyway and will just switch 100% to Waterfox after reinstalling.










oic hrm







.














.

Edit: 
Removed huge SS showing multiple firefox's running.
Added a tut on how to run multiple instances of Firefox and or different versions I created a How-To here.


----------



## chinesethunda

yeah well i have no clue how you do it then, but i can't seem to have FF4 and WF or palemoon 4 in the same instance installed. because they all open to the same thing


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*


*snip*


Care to share? I doubt you got it like that natively.


----------



## Le_Loup

Basically it replaces your firefox, have to reinstall java/flash, etc, the usual. But otherwise, it "feels" faster, but not sure if that's because of what I read (mental approach) or if literal (physically displaying/running faster?).

We'll see, but certainly nice. It even kept my previous FF4 theme at the same time,


----------



## Quantum Reality

What happens if Waterfox tries to download an update to Firefox from the FF servers? Would the updater go "hey, wait a sec, this is a 64-bit FF, no can do", or just happily chug along and mess things up?


----------



## Le_Loup

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


What happens if Waterfox tries to download an update to Firefox from the FF servers? Would the updater go "hey, wait a sec, this is a 64-bit FF, no can do", or just happily chug along and mess things up?










A valid question, has anyone come across this as of yet? Or does it redirect to waterfox servers at a much slower pace as the actual download? Curious...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


What happens if Waterfox tries to download an update to Firefox from the FF servers? Would the updater go "hey, wait a sec, this is a 64-bit FF, no can do", or just happily chug along and mess things up?











Quote:



Originally Posted by *Le_Loup*


A valid question, has anyone come across this as of yet? Or does it redirect to waterfox servers at a much slower pace as the actual download? Curious...


Auto-updates aren't enabled for custom builds







Not yet at least


----------



## TwistedMind

The ones wondering how to run multiple instances of Firefox and or different versions I created a How-To here.


----------



## Gualichu04

Great modified browser it has worked wonderfully so far till recently one small issue which maybe flash 64bits fault. When i go to http://www.newegg.com/ the flash for the deals on the home page where you can click the 1-5 is blank/faded or overlapping one another but numbers are there and are click able but still blank photo also, sometimes the contest part to the right goes blank randomly.


----------



## Prox

This is an excellent program. It even fixed a bit of stuttering I got in FF4 x86 when auto-scrolling.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13095573*
> The ones wondering how to run multiple instances of Firefox and or different versions I created a How-To here.


Cool








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gualichu04;13096758*
> Great modified browser it has worked wonderfully so far till recently one small issue which maybe flash 64bits fault. When i go to http://www.newegg.com/ the flash for the deals on the home page where you can click the 1-5 is blank/faded or overlapping one another but numbers are there and are click able but still blank photo also, sometimes the contest part to the right goes blank randomly.


Definitely bugs with Adobe Flash. Hopefully Adobe will release an update version soon with some bug fixes!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prox;13099348*
> This is an excellent program. It even fixed a bit of stuttering I got in FF4 x86 when auto-scrolling.


Great to hear


----------



## MrAlex

Just letting everyone know that on April 26th Firefox will be updated to 4.0.1 and so will Waterfox and automatic updates will be implemented as well in that build so users won't have to keep coming to this thread to check for updates.


----------



## IlovetheChosenone

Waterfox 3.6


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13146361*
> Just letting everyone know that on April 26th Firefox will be updated to 4.0.1 and so will Waterfox and automatic updates will be implemented as well in that build so users won't have to keep coming to this thread to check for updates.


I'm curious, I'm always wondering when updates might come around for Firefox.

How were you notified about April 26th update?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13147621*
> I'm curious, I'm always wondering when updates might come around for Firefox.
> 
> How were you notified about April 26th update?


https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases


----------



## TwistedMind

Much appreciated. Thank you.


----------



## archangelabove

Just downloaded and installed.

I like it already







I like the blue/black logo







Though it seems kinda low res if you have big icons ^^

The install was nice and quick, easy, and Waterfox just imported everything.

Can you somehow build the 2010 C++ Redistributable into the Waterfox install? Is that possible?


----------



## L D4WG

Ive been running it on my sig rig and on my GF's laptop for about a week now, we haven't had any problems at all! Seems to be working great!!. I haven't noticed a massive performance gain but firefox has always run extremely fast for me anyway


----------



## ronnin426850

Huge rep+, man!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hey all!









So I installed it on my spankin' new Core i5 machine running Vista 64-bit.

I installed the VC++ redist, then Waterfox. I had a bit of weird funkiness where during the initial load of Waterfox the minimize, maximize and close buttons seemed to be flickering and it didn't respond to a minimize when I tried. After some time it behaved normally and I was able to get stuff configured and set up.

What I've noticed is that downloads seemed initially a bit sluggish; I don't know if that's some sort of Vista prefetch information gathering thing or what, but now everything's pretty snappy. Haven't installed 64-bit flash or Java yet, but NoScript works like a champ on Waterfox.

Another thing is the colors are different. The smaller-resolution image is my Firefox (32-bit) 3.6.16 screenie of this thread and the larger-res image is my Waterfox screenie.

EDIT: Weird! My monitor actually displays the background of my FF32 screenie in the same darker blue shade as my Waterfox screenie. I guess my laptop's monitor is set up to display brighter colors for some reason. I'll have to twiddle things a bit I guess.









EDIT 2: I looked at this on my laptop, and same deal. What I think are two different shades of blue really are the same shade.









EDIT 3: 64-bit flash works!







Am watching Youtube in Waterfox!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13151137*
> Much appreciated. Thank you.


No problem








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *archangelabove;13160097*
> Just downloaded and installed.
> 
> I like it already
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the blue/black logo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Though it seems kinda low res if you have big icons ^^
> 
> The install was nice and quick, easy, and Waterfox just imported everything.
> 
> Can you somehow build the 2010 C++ Redistributable into the Waterfox install? Is that possible?


Strange all the icons etc should be the exact same resolution as the original icons








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG;13160113*
> Ive been running it on my sig rig and on my GF's laptop for about a week now, we haven't had any problems at all! Seems to be working great!!. I haven't noticed a massive performance gain but firefox has always run extremely fast for me anyway


Systems that run Firefox fast already will barely notice a difference. Lucky bugger








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ronnin426850;13160137*
> Huge rep+, man!


Thanks, glad you like it








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;13162412*
> Hey all!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I installed it on my spankin' new Core i5 machine running Vista 64-bit.
> 
> I installed the VC++ redist, then Waterfox. I had a bit of weird funkiness where during the initial load of Waterfox the minimize, maximize and close buttons seemed to be flickering and it didn't respond to a minimize when I tried. After some time it behaved normally and I was able to get stuff configured and set up.
> 
> What I've noticed is that downloads seemed initially a bit sluggish; I don't know if that's some sort of Vista prefetch information gathering thing or what, but now everything's pretty snappy. Haven't installed 64-bit flash or Java yet, but NoScript works like a champ on Waterfox.
> 
> Another thing is the colors are different. The smaller-resolution image is my Firefox (32-bit) 3.6.16 screenie of this thread and the larger-res image is my Waterfox screenie.
> 
> EDIT: Weird! My monitor actually displays the background of my FF32 screenie in the same darker blue shade as my Waterfox screenie. I guess my laptop's monitor is set up to display brighter colors for some reason. I'll have to twiddle things a bit I guess.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT 2: I looked at this on my laptop, and same deal. What I think are two different shades of blue really are the same shade.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT 3: 64-bit flash works!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Am watching Youtube in Waterfox!


Glad to know it all worked out in the end. Not too sure about those sluggish downloads though


----------



## archangelabove

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13176690*
> Strange all the icons etc should be the exact same resolution as the original icons


I meant desktop icons. My Win7 desktop icons are big, and when the .ico image is low resolution, it shows









EDIT: But Waterfox has been awesome. I've noticed more speed, though Firefox was always pretty fast. I'm just happy at how stable it is


----------



## TwistedMind

Yea, I noticed that when I first installed WF, I even changed the icon to FF's icon, it was just a big mess so I left it default. I tore apart FF4 installation exe and got the original FF icon pack[total of 15 or [email protected] different sizes and resolution] and tried every single one and WF's something kept overriding. WF is great. Icons could use some sharpening work or something.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *archangelabove;13181614*
> I meant desktop icons. My Win7 desktop icons are big, and when the .ico image is low resolution, it shows
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: But Waterfox has been awesome. I've noticed more speed, though Firefox was always pretty fast. I'm just happy at how stable it is


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13181739*
> Yea, I noticed that when I first installed WF, I even changed the icon to FF's icon, it was just a big mess so I left it default. I tore apart FF4 installation exe and got the original FF icon pack[total of 15 or [email protected] different sizes and resolution] and tried every single one and WF's something kept overriding. WF is great. Icons could use some sharpening work or something.


Hmm this is strange. I've just noticed too. The actual icon files are the correct size and resolution (as you can see in the attached images) but they don't seem to come out like that


----------



## yashau

We need 4.0.1!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yashau;13202088*
> We need 4.0.1!


6 Days


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13203899*
> 6 Days


Would you know of any release notes for 4.0.1 being 6 days early? or we just have to wait for release notes on the 26th?


----------



## Lord Venom

Awesome 64-bit build of Firefox!

. o O ( 64-bit Google Chrome branded builds anyone? Hahaha )


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13205232*
> Would you know of any release notes for 4.0.1 being 6 days early? or we just have to wait for release notes on the 26th?


Nope.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13211581*
> Awesome 64-bit build of Firefox!
> 
> . o O ( 64-bit Google Chrome branded builds anyone? Hahaha )


Unfortunately no:
Quote:


> Neither Chromium nor V8 has a 64-bit version on the Windows platform right now. However, Chrome does run on 64-bit Windows as a 32-bit application. V8 should only need a small number of changes to build on the Windows platform.


----------



## Lord Venom

Ah man, oh well. Waterfox is working fantastic!


----------



## Domino

Just started to use this. And I gotta say, niiiiice.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13215831*
> Ah man, oh well. Waterfox is working fantastic!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Domino;13236216*
> Just started to use this. And I gotta say, niiiiice.


Glad you like it


----------



## syntax32

anyone able to play quakelive on waterfox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *syntax32*


anyone able to play quakelive on waterfox?


Quake Live requires a plug-in, and only 64-bit plugins will work.


----------



## TwistedMind

I've done a benchmark. Waterfox vs Pale Moon x64.

Waterfox smokes pale moon x64.

http://dromaeo.com/?id=138640,138639

Waterfox = 138639
Pale Moon x64 = 138640


----------



## Kaldari

Just installed it. Absolutely no problems to note right off the bat.

Great work!









*edit*:

RoboForm isn't supported, so I have to go back to 32-bit.









Oh well.


----------



## Anth0789

Lets see if this is better than Nightly 6.0 Alpha 1.

Edit: It actually runs good.


----------



## Rick Arter

Dude this is super cool thanks for posting this gonna sub this thread and try it out tomorrow. I use Firefox 24/7 and you gave me another reason to love it more!


----------



## Rpg2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13285584*
> I've done a benchmark. Waterfox vs Pale Moon x64.
> 
> Waterfox smokes pale moon x64.
> 
> http://dromaeo.com/?id=138640,138639
> 
> Waterfox = 138639
> Pale Moon x64 = 138640


*Le Gasp*


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13285584*
> I've done a benchmark. Waterfox vs Pale Moon x64.
> 
> Waterfox smokes pale moon x64.
> 
> http://dromaeo.com/?id=138640,138639
> 
> Waterfox = 138639
> Pale Moon x64 = 138640


Oh, snap








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari;13285652*
> Just installed it. Absolutely no problems to note right off the bat.
> 
> Great work!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *edit*:
> 
> RoboForm isn't supported, so I have to go back to 32-bit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh well.


You could always use the RoboForm Add-on? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/roboform-online-password-manag/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anth0789;13287106*
> Lets see if this is better than Nightly 6.0 Alpha 1.
> 
> Edit: It actually runs good.


Glad to hear!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rick Arter;13287930*
> Dude this is super cool thanks for posting this gonna sub this thread and try it out tomorrow. I use Firefox 24/7 and you gave me another reason to love it more!


Thanks a lot


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13288066*
> You could always use the RoboForm Add-on? https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/roboform-online-password-manag/


I didn't even realize they added that! It's only been up a month. And this bar doesn't have the alpha issues of the "full version."

More rep for joo!

(oh yeah, back to Waterfox.)


----------



## IcySon55

Hey there MrAlex

I was searching around the web for a better icon for WaterFox and came across ArcticFox (just an icon) here: http://www.freethemesdownload.net/themes/firefox-ico

Would you consider using it (with permission of the author I suppose) in the upcoming builds? (i.e. 4.0.1, etc)

Love the WaterFox build btw, this thing is excellent.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Welp, I've pretty much been sold on Waterfox. I'm using it on my clean-install of windows 7 home premium on my laptop and it hasn't given me any grief whatsoever. 64-bit Java and Flash work seamlessly, as does NoScript.


----------



## jaz

I'm having problems with my sound card, and i boiled it down to the 64 bit version of warterfox. I never have any problems with it useing 32-bit FF4, but shortly after i switch to waterfox, (tried rebooting before making it default browser and all kinds of troublshooting, including making it run in compatibility mode for win 7, run as admin-(both waterfox and creative control panel), and I've re-installed creatives new drivers using driver sweeper in safe mode to update...nothing works, except using FF4 32 bit.

So, anybody else having problems with similar set-up? Other than that, waterfox itself is fine, except I've had a few crashes. But i heard just about everybody experiences that, that it's a java or flash thing. Java and flash are also updated as everything is.


----------



## Lord Venom

Looks like Firefox 4.0.1 is out.


----------



## xd_1771

Waterfox 4.0.1 anyone?


----------



## jaz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


Looks like Firefox 4.0.1 is out.










Yeah, i just upgraded...now that I'm using the 32 bit version of FF4, i really can't see much, (if any at all) difference in speed or performance. I've had more crashes with both versions than i care for, but hopefully this fix will "fix" that.

And the sound card issues I said i was having have diminished greatly, but once in a great while, i have to fiddle with the creative CP to fix it and it works again. Something is incompatible on my system. I hope the fix takes care of that also.

If anybody could chime in, i'd appreciate it. Aside from that, I'm really happy i have finally found a version of FF i like. Now i can't imagine browsing with any other browser. Noscript, adblock+ with 3 of fanboys lists, better privacy, and last but certainly not least, ghostery.

I have never actually enjoyed using a browser before this. A browser was a browser, no big deal. But i do enjoy my browsing now. Love FF4. I hope they make it even better, and keep any google/chrome stuff off this awesome browser.


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


Looks like Firefox 4.0.1 is out.











Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


Waterfox 4.0.1 anyone?


Um, had anyone able to update Waterfox to 4.0.1. I check for updates and says there are none but I know there is.


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*


Um, had anyone able to update Waterfox to 4.0.1. I check for updates and says there are none but I know there is.


He'll have to make a new 64-bit version out of this update. You can't just update Waterfox straight from the Firefox releases as far a I know.

I had to stop using it, though, because the RoboForm addon is lacking to the full toolbar.


----------



## Lord Venom

Custom Firefox builds can't auto-update unless they have a custom auto-update function - which I assume Waterfox is getting in a future update.









Until then you have to manually check this topic for updates.


----------



## xd_1771

He stated in an earlier page waterfox 4.0.1 will be out around as soon as firefox 4.0.1


----------



## TheReaperWaits

Anyone else get constant adobe flash 64bit crashes?


----------



## sdla4ever

Quote:



Originally Posted by *TheReaperWaits*


Anyone else get constant adobe flash 64bit crashes?


none yet.

This is just as secure as FF4 right? I mean its basically the same code.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sdla4ever*


none yet.

This is just as secure as FF4 right? I mean its basically the same code.


Yes, exactly the same code, just compiled differently.

Right guys, Mozilla *still* hasn't released the source code for 4.0.1 yet.
You can check for yourselves here:
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
Hopefully it'll be released soon. I'll check when I get back home (it'll be late morning/early afternoon US time?). The auto-update function should be working in this next release as well.


----------



## IcySon55

Hey MrAlex,

Any considerations given to the ArcticFox icon?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcySon55;13315529*
> Hey MrAlex,
> 
> Any considerations given to the ArcticFox icon?


It wouldn't quite match the Waterfox name would it







but thanks for the icon. The thing is it comes at the exact same resolution as the icons I already use. And I replaced the Minefield icons with the exact same specifications.


----------



## IcySon55

I'd go in and replace the icon in the exe myself, but I don't have any 64bit resource editors...









I suggested that icon because the one you did use, at 32x32 has very jagged edges (bad resize program?). What about this, let me know the specs for the icon and any other sizes/formats (png, etc) you need it in and I'll make you a Waterfox icon (based on the one you already use) all shnazzy-like at all sizes.


----------



## Victor_Mizer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcySon55;13317958*
> I'd go in and replace the icon in the exe myself, but I don't have any 64bit resource editors...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I suggested that icon because the one you did use, at 32x32 has very jagged edges (bad resize program?). What about this, let me know the specs for the icon and any other sizes/formats (png, etc) you need it in and I'll make you a Waterfox icon (based on the one you already use) all shnazzy-like at all sizes.


Create shortcut, change icon, pin to whatever.. win?


----------



## hometoast

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13315478*
> Yes, exactly the same code, just compiled differently.
> 
> Right guys, Mozilla *still* hasn't released the source code for 4.0.1 yet.
> You can check for yourselves here:
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
> Hopefully it'll be released soon. I'll check when I get back home (it'll be late morning/early afternoon US time?). The auto-update function should be working in this next release as well.


here? ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/4.0.1/


----------



## IcySon55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Victor_Mizer;13319586*
> Create shortcut, change icon, pin to whatever.. win?


Already done, but not enough win. The icon only changes on the Shortcut/Start Menu/Taskbar that way. What's wrong with wanting to help anyways? =P


----------



## Paladin Goo

Where is my 4.0.1!?!?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *IcySon55*


I'd go in and replace the icon in the exe myself, but I don't have any 64bit resource editors...









I suggested that icon because the one you did use, at 32x32 has very jagged edges (bad resize program?). What about this, let me know the specs for the icon and any other sizes/formats (png, etc) you need it in and I'll make you a Waterfox icon (based on the one you already use) all shnazzy-like at all sizes.


I think I know what is at fault. I'll try and see if it works in the updated build. If not I'll list you the file details etc.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hometoast*


here? ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/4.0.1/


That is not the final 4.0.1 release. Check the upload date









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*


Where is my 4.0.1!?!?


It's coming when Mozilla releases the source


----------



## hometoast

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


That is not the final 4.0.1 release. Check the upload date











How do you tell when it's the final release?


----------



## Lord Venom

I don't think the upload date actually matters, since I bet they haven't changed the code before it was finalized.


----------



## Rpg2

Flash didn't seem to work properly for Waterfox in the unofficialocn tinychat. I couldn't click allow or deny for when tinychat asked for permission to use the webcam/mic. I couldn't even close the option window. Works fine on firefox 32bit, but not waterfox. I did have the 64bit flash plugin installed.

Just a heads up.


----------



## 3dfxvoodoo

lol the default Linux ver of firefox is 64-bit
and you windows users don't even have one
so you had to make one


----------



## MrAlex

Finally 4.0.1 and auto-update are enabled







Get it while it's hot people!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hometoast*


How do you tell when it's the final release?


When it is released the same time as the release.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


I don't think the upload date actually matters, since I bet they haven't changed the code before it was finalized.


It does. That's why the release was delayed 2 days.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rpg2*


Flash didn't seem to work properly for Waterfox in the unofficialocn tinychat. I couldn't click allow or deny for when tinychat asked for permission to use the webcam/mic. I couldn't even close the option window. Works fine on firefox 32bit, but not waterfox. I did have the 64bit flash plugin installed.

Just a heads up.


Yeah Adobe haven't update Flash 64-Bit in a while now









Quote:



Originally Posted by *3dfxvoodoo*


lol the default Linux ver of firefox is 64-bit
and you windows users don't even have one 
so you had to make one


That was such a great post. It really benefited everyone?


----------



## xd_1771

Downloading immediately








I noticed firefox 4.0.1 over 4.0 apparently had some app load time improvement on another PC, hopefully same here!

EDIT: A full second (down from 3 to 2) to my load time! Thanks!


----------



## Paladin Goo

Thank you good sir!

YEAH, 64 BITS OF AWESOME! YEAAAAHHHHHHH!!! SNAP INTO A SLIM JIM!!!

</overacting>


----------



## Lord Venom

Okay, when running the installer (custom install mode) there's references to MozillaDeveloperPreview instead of Waterfox's name.

I noticed the icons haven't been fixed, so I'm looking into it. What I've found so far is the about-logo and associated icons aren't the same size as the original Firefox logo - in-fact it looks like the Waterfox logo is based off another image entirely or is a custom redraw or a vector image.

But, it looks like the existing images can be centered correctly and a drop shadow added to them like the original icon however they'll still be slightly smaller than the original icons. Though, I've got a few ideas how to 'fix' this with the smaller icons. I'll take a look and see what can be done.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


Okay, when running the installer (custom install mode) there's references to MozillaDeveloperPreview instead of Waterfox's name.

Also the icon size issues are fixed, right?


Yes I realise the name problem, but it's just on the installer







.

Seem to be fixed for me:


----------



## LBear

Thanks for the update


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Yes I realise the name problem, but it's just on the installer







.


Actually, it's in the executable too. Open Waterfox up in resource hacker (the one that has 64-bit support) and look at the version info.









Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Seem to be fixed for me:


It's not, and I know why (see the previous post edit). I've found the source 512x512 image used for Waterfox on Google and scaled it to the exact size/placement/dimensions of the original Firefox icon for each image so it should be perfect or near perfect. If you want icons to use, I've included those as well for every size. So, try these out and tell me what you think.









http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P7TSSKH5


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13333326*
> Actually, it's in the executable too. Open Waterfox up in resource hacker (the one that has 64-bit support) and look at the version info.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not, and I know why (see the previous post edit). I've found the source 512x512 image used for Waterfox on Google and scaled it to the exact size/placement/dimensions of the original Firefox icon for each image so it should be perfect or near perfect. If you want icons to use, I've included those as well for every size. So, try these out and tell me what you think.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P7TSSKH5


Thanks, I'll check it out







oh well I'll fix these issues in the next build.


----------



## Segovax

Thanks for getting it to us so quickly.


----------



## dragneel

Has anyone worked out a way to run both firefox and waterfox at the same time without having to open the profile manager to open up the other version?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *dragneel*


Has anyone worked out a way to run both firefox and waterfox at the same time without having to open the profile manager to open up the other version?


No, because 2 different instances of Firefox cannot be using the same profile.


----------



## andrei.c

Thanks, you do a great job. Keep up the good work








Don't know why but I like it more than the original FF.


----------



## [email protected]

I can't find a regular firefox 4.0 thread instead of this one.. sorry to jump into someone else's server but could use someone's help to find it for me. I couldn't find it. I have questions for the browser, it has NOTHING to do with your custom firefox version. I'm using 4.0 regular version from the web and i still wonder why we cannot see the Security LOCK bar on the bottom like the older versions? Is there something we can do to see it? I like to know what's secure and not secured.


----------



## Quantum Reality

How do I manually upgrade? Just run the installer and point it at the existing directory?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected];13345296*
> I can't find a regular firefox 4.0 thread instead of this one.. sorry to jump into someone else's server but could use someone's help to find it for me. I couldn't find it. I have questions for the browser, it has NOTHING to do with your custom firefox version. I'm using 4.0 regular version from the web and i still wonder why we cannot see the Security LOCK bar on the bottom like the older versions? Is there something we can do to see it? I like to know what's secure and not secured.


Its been replaced by the Site Identity Button, which is better:
https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Site%20Identity%20Button
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;13345684*
> How do I manually upgrade? Just run the installer and point it at the existing directory?


Yes


----------



## IcySon55

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


It's not, and I know why (see the previous post edit). I've found the source 512x512 image used for Waterfox on Google and scaled it to the exact size/placement/dimensions of the original Firefox icon for each image so it should be perfect or near perfect. If you want icons to use, I've included those as well for every size. So, try these out and tell me what you think.








http://www.megaupload.com/?d=P7TSSKH5


Thank you for posting the original icons Lord Venom.

I can see where the problem lies now. The icon used is of only one size (48x48). .ico files can contain multiple sizes and that's how they look good in all the views.

So using the source PNGs Lord Venom provided, here's your icon chock full of all the sizes usually required:
http://sx.sytes.net/waterfox.ico (Save link as I suppose...)

I double checked the icon files in the zip and most of them were broken. The 16x16 icon included larger sizes but they were based on the 16x16 and very jagged... So i took the 256x256 and 16x16 and reproduced all the sizes in between from the 256x256. Except 16x16 which looks better when generated from vectors instead of resized from a larger image.

Enjoy~ (For 4.0.2...







)


----------



## IlovetheChosenone

Can you release a waterfox 4.0 that looks *exactly* like 3.6 firefox?


----------



## phazer11

You can make it look MUCH more like 3.6 by right clicking the top and saying menu bar. 
Anyways I can't wait for 64-Bit silverlite Q.Q no netflix


----------



## Lord Venom

You can download a developer preview of the 64-bit Silverlight.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


You can download a developer preview of the 64-bit Silverlight.


If I'm not mistaken that is for the developer tools? And the 64-Bit Silverlight plugin won't be released until the actual final build?


----------



## Quantum Reality

One thing I've noticed is that on some sites you need to click twice to get Waterfox to jump to the site instead of wasting time loading forever. Is this a firefox 4 issue or specific to a 64-bit library/DLL?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;13369483*
> One thing I've noticed is that on some sites you need to click twice to get Waterfox to jump to the site instead of wasting time loading forever. Is this a firefox 4 issue or specific to a 64-bit library/DLL?


I've never had that problem


----------



## phazer11

Are you sure you're not using NoScript or flashblock which could be causing the problem? I've only had a problem similar to that when I have all 900 tabs open but it usually just freezes for 5 minutes and is on it's merry way for a bit... it's never crashed though. But by then I'm inching on 5 GB+ of RAM so lmao. I usually only have 200 though as things start to slow down around 300.

Anyways what's this about a dev tool?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


Are you sure you're not using NoScript or flashblock which could be causing the problem? I've only had a problem similar to that when I have all 900 tabs open but it usually just freezes for 5 minutes and is on it's merry way for a bit... it's never crashed though. But by then I'm inching on 5 GB+ of RAM so lmao. I usually only have 200 though as things start to slow down around 300.

Anyways what's this about a dev tool?


The Silverlight developers tool.


----------



## phazer11

Ah. Anything new?


----------



## Cipher

I've gotta give credit to you for compiling it yourself, the mozilla's nightly x64 atm doesn't even run on my system.
But your build does oddly enough


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


Ah. Anything new?


Nope, nothing. Firefox 5 is out next month. Doesn't seem right









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cipher*


I've gotta give credit to you for compiling it yourself, the mozilla's nightly x64 atm doesn't even run on my system.
But your build does oddly enough


Yes, I had that problem too. Some nightly builds would run..some wouldn't, was a huge mess, but that's the problem with nightly builds and a risk you have to take unfortunately to get the bleeding edge. And thank you


----------



## Wbroach23

Holy damn!! it's like 9 trillion times faster than the crappy IE8 here at my work i got it its









Edit: Def putting it on my Puter at home


----------



## Quantum Reality

One thing I've noticed is a couple of saved websites don't display any HTML when I try to view the files. I'll doublecheck, but I'm suspecting some kind of CSS incompatibility. Any chance we could get a modification that tells the browser to ignore all div and style tags in a kind of "html debug" mode?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


One thing I've noticed is a couple of saved websites don't display any HTML when I try to view the files. I'll doublecheck, but I'm suspecting some kind of CSS incompatibility. Any chance we could get a modification that tells the browser to ignore all div and style tags in a kind of "html debug" mode?


You could try this for Firefox:
http://getfirebug.com/


----------



## wh-ATI

I'm afraid not being able to import private data from chrome sorta ruins FF for me.


----------



## Cipher

I switched to chrome's nightly version, Chromium, about a year ago.
I've forgotten the reason why I made the switch..
With 64-bit flash and java available, seems a waste not to have a 64-bit browser


----------



## MrAlex

On 17 May Firefox 5 Beta will be released. So far haven't seen anything at all about 4.0.2. If Mozilla doesn't release a 64-Bit Beta, Waterfox 5 Beta will be the next update


----------



## Cipher

If I find the time I might look into compiling it myself one day, always been a bit curious. It'll put my x6 to good use at least


----------



## Laylow

Just started using this, it is great. Noticed an increase in speed right away.
Thanks for doing this!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cipher;13452436*
> If I find the time I might look into compiling it myself one day, always been a bit curious. It'll put my x6 to good use at least


Yeah, it's quite a fun thing to do. But note it takes a long time to compile








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Laylow;13452903*
> Just started using this, it is great. Noticed an increase in speed right away.
> Thanks for doing this!


No problem, great to hear it worked out for you


----------



## qwertymac93

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IlovetheChosenone;13358930*
> Can you release a waterfox 4.0 that looks *exactly* like 3.6 firefox?












Eh, close enough.


----------



## stalker7d7

I've been running Waterfox for about 2 weeks now, and can't say I notice any change in performance over Firefox. Not to say that a difference doesn't exist.

However, the amount of memory it uses over Firefox is inexcusable.

Firefox with 1 tab = 122,340K
Waterfox with same 1 tab = 143,976K
Firefox with 5 tabs = 189,840K
Waterfox with same 5 tabs = 262,404K

Of course, the difference changes depending on what web pages, and other factors. But it remains that Waterfox uses much more memory than Firefox.

And also, of course, they both use much less memory than chrome. ~100,000K less on average when using multiple tabs.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stalker7d7;13465090*
> I've been running Waterfox for about 2 weeks now, and can't say I notice any change in performance over Firefox. Not to say that a difference doesn't exist.
> 
> However, the amount of memory it uses over Firefox is inexcusable.
> 
> Firefox with 1 tab = 122,340K
> Waterfox with same 1 tab = 143,976K
> Firefox with 5 tabs = 189,840K
> Waterfox with same 5 tabs = 262,404K
> 
> Of course, the difference changes depending on what web pages, and other factors. But it remains that Waterfox uses much more memory than Firefox.
> 
> And also, of course, they both use much less memory than chrome. ~100,000K less on average when using multiple tabs.


The increase in RAM usage equals to an increase in browser performance. So it is excusable







if you depend on your RAM and it is critical that it is used by another application then switch to Chrome or the likes.


----------



## TwistedMind

Least I know the ram I paid for is being used up rather sitting doing nothing.


----------



## stalker7d7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13467342*
> Least I know the ram I paid for is being used up rather sitting doing nothing.


Well, when using that much more memory, and not having a noticeable performance increase, I'd rather save the extra memory for other things like photoshop and video games...

Then again, when I upgrade to 8 gigs of ram from 4 gigs, I see no problem using waterfox again.


----------



## mbudden

Going to give this a try tomorrow.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stalker7d7;13475076*
> Well, when using that much more memory, and not having a noticeable performance increase, I'd rather save the extra memory for other things like photoshop and video games...
> 
> Then again, when I upgrade to 8 gigs of ram from 4 gigs, I see no problem using waterfox again.


For sure, to each their own








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbudden;13485974*
> Going to give this a try tomorrow.


Hope you'll enjoy using it


----------



## Invisible Penguin

I should probably thank you as I've been using Waterfox for at least a month and it is the best browser I've ever used. Flawless (aside from one or two annoying little flash bugs but that irrelevant to this.)

about to download 4.1


----------



## mbudden

Unfortunately, it didn't work.
But that's not just a Waterfox thing.
I have been trying to install Firefox 4 on my parents computer, but it instantly crashes upon opening.
Same happens with your program. I thought Waterfox would fix it, but I guess not.

I would love to try it out, but I'm using Linux.


----------



## therock003

Does this 64bit version improve performance on newer systems as well?

I'm really a tab freak, creating sessions of over 50 tabs at once. Will i have any gains using this version?

So let me get this right. The Mozilla team release the 64bit as source code, and others just have to compile this?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Invisible Penguin;13499537*
> I should probably thank you as I've been using Waterfox for at least a month and it is the best browser I've ever used. Flawless (aside from one or two annoying little flash bugs but that irrelevant to this.)
> 
> about to download 4.1


Glad to hear it








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbudden;13500584*
> Unfortunately, it didn't work.
> But that's not just a Waterfox thing.
> I have been trying to install Firefox 4 on my parents computer, but it instantly crashes upon opening.
> Same happens with your program. I thought Waterfox would fix it, but I guess not.
> 
> I would love to try it out, but I'm using Linux.


Ah bummer, haven't got a clue what could be wrong








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *therock003;13510607*
> Does this 64bit version improve performance on newer systems as well?
> 
> I'm really a tab freak, creating sessions of over 50 tabs at once. Will i have any gains using this version?
> 
> So let me get this right. The Mozilla team release the 64bit as source code, and others just have to compile this?


Mozilla releases the source code (it is not 32-bit or 64-bit specific) and Windows is the only version which hasn't received a 64-Bit variant directly from Mozilla. It is 64-Bit because I used a 64-Bit compiler. The way you compile is important.

And you could possibly notice an improvement. Try it and see if it does or doesn't


----------



## Bal3Wolf

thanks iv used this a few days much better then 32bit firefox 4.0 i hated 32bit but i like your waterfox 4.0 64bit mosty the theme lol.


----------



## therock003

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Mozilla releases the source code (it is not 32-bit or 64-bit specific) and Windows is the only version which hasn't received a 64-Bit variant directly from Mozilla. It is 64-Bit because I used a 64-Bit compiler. The way you compile is important.

And you could possibly notice an improvement. Try it and see if it does or doesn't










Ok got it. BTW i dont have much RAM (only 4GB) and i hear it uses even more RAM so that could be a problem... Also is there any portable version of this? I try to keep installations to a minimum. Prefer portables nowadays


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *therock003*


Ok got it. BTW i dont have much RAM (only 4GB) and i hear it uses even more RAM so that could be a problem... Also is there any portable version of this? I try to keep installations to a minimum. Prefer portables nowadays










Firefox is set up to use a certain % of your RAM, generally 4GiB will tend to be consumed at around ~200MiB, but the more tabs you use of course the higher the RAM usage. Some people have had 50+ Tabs open and only had around ~1GiB taken up.

And sorry no not yet unfortunately







there hasn't really been any demand for a portable version.


----------



## mbudden

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Ah bummer, haven't got a clue what could be wrong










Don't worry. It's not your fault.
It's rather weird though. 3.6 works rather fine.
But I try 4.0 and nothing works.

Hurry up and make a version for Ubuntu


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mbudden*


Don't worry. It's not your fault.
It's rather weird though. 3.6 works rather fine.
But I try 4.0 and nothing works.

Hurry up and make a version for Ubuntu










Linux already has a 64-Bit version







ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/re.../linux-x86_64/


----------



## mbudden

Not with a cool blue logo








I'll give it a look thanks


----------



## xd_1771

I wonder which particular compiler did you use
There used to be compilers that are Intel-optimized but basically "AMD-sabotaged", they were removed upon request by Intel in a lawsuit. I don't think any such performance loss is happening on my system, but I just thought I'd tell you about it


----------



## phazer11

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Nope, nothing. Firefox 5 is out next month. Doesn't seem right









Yes, I had that problem too. Some nightly builds would run..some wouldn't, was a huge mess, but that's the problem with nightly builds and a risk you have to take unfortunately to get the bleeding edge. And thank you










What? But FF 4 just got out of beta right?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


On 17 May Firefox 5 Beta will be released. So far haven't seen anything at all about 4.0.2. If Mozilla doesn't release a 64-Bit Beta, Waterfox 5 Beta will be the next update










Any idea if it'll be 64-bit?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mbudden*


Unfortunately, it didn't work.
But that's not just a Waterfox thing.
I have been trying to install Firefox 4 on my parents computer, but it instantly crashes upon opening.
Same happens with your program. I thought Waterfox would fix it, but I guess not.

I would love to try it out, but I'm using Linux.










Um... this is for Windows so you'd have to use WINE to open it.
Strange problem though have you tried doing a system update? I haven't used MINT but I'd assume it updates the same

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mbudden*


Not with a cool blue logo








I'll give it a look thanks










Lol I'm sure MrAlex can tell you how to do it.


----------



## mbudden

Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


Um... this is for Windows so you'd have to use WINE to open it.
Strange problem though have you tried doing a system update? I haven't used MINT but I'd assume it updates the same


No no. My parents use Windows 7.
On their machine, I have had nothing but problems trying to get FF4 to work.
But in Linux, FF4 hasn't been updated for Linux (I don't think?)
Because I'm still running 3.6.17 or something like that.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


Lol I'm sure MrAlex can tell you how to do it.










if i knew how to compile it into a .deb file
then i would.


----------



## Cipher

I've got firefox 4 on my ubuntu 10.10, I had to manually add firefox to Ubuntu's update list.
I'm not sure how to do it on mint, but here's how to do it on Ubuntu. http://www.webupd8.org/2011/03/install-firefox-4-in-ubuntu-1004-1010.html
Hopefully it gives you an idea on how to install it on Mint


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I wonder which particular compiler did you use
There used to be compilers that are Intel-optimized but basically "AMD-sabotaged", they were removed upon request by Intel in a lawsuit. I don't think any such performance loss is happening on my system, but I just thought I'd tell you about it


I used Visual Studio 2010 compiler







. And I didn't make the build Intel or AMD specific, because that would take around 9 hours to compile 3 builds, time which I don't really have









Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


What? But FF 4 just got out of beta right?

Any idea if it'll be 64-bit?

Um... this is for Windows so you'd have to use WINE to open it.
Strange problem though have you tried doing a system update? I haven't used MINT but I'd assume it updates the same

Lol I'm sure MrAlex can tell you how to do it.


Yes, but Firefox is now releasing a new version every few months. I think it's stupid







And no idea. If it is 64-Bit then there isn't really any point of me carrying on Waterfox









Quote:



Originally Posted by *mbudden*









if i knew how to compile it into a .deb file
then i would.


There is an add-on that allows you to change Firefox's name and icon I believe







(And Firefox 4 is released for Linux. Firefox updates release simultaneously across all platforms).


----------



## Thogar

Is there any way to make it use a different profiles folder/location?
It used all my settings and what not from my 3.6 firefox, and then i had to reconfigure my 3.6 after running Waterfox.
I want to be able to run both independently with no profile conflicts


----------



## therock003

What's the update status on this release? After its install can we just update via the program, or do we have to get back here and get the newer versions?

Also i asked before about portables. You said this is not widely requested. So are there no future plans for a portable version?

Thanks


----------



## MrAlex

Firefox 5 Beta 1 uploaded before Mozilla








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thogar;13533443*
> Is there any way to make it use a different profiles folder/location?
> It used all my settings and what not from my 3.6 firefox, and then i had to reconfigure my 3.6 after running Waterfox.
> I want to be able to run both independently with no profile conflicts


http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Managing%20profiles
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *therock003;13534393*
> What's the update status on this release? After its install can we just update via the program, or do we have to get back here and get the newer versions?
> 
> Also i asked before about portables. You said this is not widely requested. So are there no future plans for a portable version?
> 
> Thanks


For the stable releases from 4.0.1 and onwards, auto-update is enabled and it (hopefully) works







.

I'm not sure about a portable version. I'll have to think on that. If I had a more powerful computer then sure I wouldn't mind. At the moment I'm stuck on laptop compiling Waterfox


----------



## Le_Loup

k, i'm having the issue where I check for updates with 4.0 waterfox, and it's telling me there is no more updates... I'm on windows 7 ulti 64bit. And administrator

- Le_Loup


----------



## TwistedMind

Got ya on Start64.com. Submitted the two links sourceforge and this thread to them a while ago.

http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5219:waterfox&catid=25:64bit-internet-software&Itemid=75


----------



## kiqo

PGO? jemalloc?


----------



## RealEyes

Installed Waterfox, now it makes weird sounds when opening/closing tabs?

I think it's the sound of my onboard video or something? Why would this browser make my machine do a weird sound?


----------



## Cipher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13538221*
> I'm not sure about a portable version. I'll have to think on that. If I had a more powerful computer then sure I wouldn't mind. At the moment I'm stuck on laptop compiling Waterfox


There's no need to make it portable you can use the portableapps.com version and replace some files. I've done it on more than one occasion.

To make waterfox portable all you have to do is:
1. Manually extract the files from the waterfox setup exe.
2. Rename the folder labelled "core" to "Firefox"
3. Run the portable apps installer for portable firefox
4. In the firefox portable folder , Goto the "App" Folder
5. Delete the "Firefox" folder and replace with the one you extracted from the waterfox setup.

Viola you've got portable waterfox


----------



## IcySon55

Seriously Mr. Alex? Didn't get the icon into the 5.0b1 build? *sigh*

Here's the link again for good measure http://sx.sytes.net/waterfox.ico

Please and thank you...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Le_Loup;13539506*
> k, i'm having the issue where I check for updates with 4.0 waterfox, and it's telling me there is no more updates... I'm on windows 7 ulti 64bit. And administrator
> 
> - Le_Loup


There's no update yet. And 4.0 (not 4.0.1) doesn't have auto-updates enabled.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13540605*
> Got ya on Start64.com. Submitted the two links sourceforge and this thread to them a while ago.
> 
> http://www.start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5219:waterfox&catid=25:64bit-internet-software&Itemid=75


Sweet thanks a lot








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealEyes;13544193*
> Installed Waterfox, now it makes weird sounds when opening/closing tabs?
> 
> I think it's the sound of my onboard video or something? Why would this browser make my machine do a weird sound?










That's really...odd. I've never heard of that before!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cipher;13545447*
> There's no need to make it portable you can use the portableapps.com version and replace some files. I've done it on more than one occasion.
> 
> To make waterfox portable all you have to do is:
> 1. Manually extract the files from the waterfox setup exe.
> 2. Rename the folder labelled "core" to "Firefox"
> 3. Run the portable apps installer for portable firefox
> 4. In the firefox portable folder , Goto the "App" Folder
> 5. Delete the "Firefox" folder and replace with the one you extracted from the waterfox setup.
> 
> Viola you've got portable waterfox


Yes, there is also an official way of making a portable version. That's the way I was thinking of.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcySon55;13545832*
> Seriously Mr. Alex? Didn't get the icon into the 5.0b1 build? *sigh*
> 
> Here's the link again for good measure http://sx.sytes.net/waterfox.ico
> 
> Please and thank you...


That's the icon I used. So...calm down. It never seems to do it properly


----------



## animal0307

I enjoyed WaterFox while my windows was working. dead mobo, raid toast... I said screw reinstalling and went with Ubuntu. I would love to see Linux support. I only which I could be of any help in the possible development of it. Would love to be a tester though.


----------



## xd_1771

You have Firefox 5 b1 as Waterfox!? I'm gonna try it out, from benchmarks I've seen there were huge performance gains










(I'm the type for beta software too anyway







)


----------



## Lord Venom

Uhh, Firefox 5 beta 1 isn't officially released yet. The version found in the releases folder on the Mozilla FTP is a candidate build made from an older Aurora snapshot to help test out the beta channel - the actual beta won't be until later this month.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2183129


----------



## xd_1771

I'm seeing noticeable improvements in the rendering engine speed.... I'm no longer seeing flickering in my tab previews when I open them! Web pages seem to load significantly faster - from 1 or half a second to instantly! A lot of other areas have been improved speed-wise too!
Not actual beta, but still an improvement nontheless and I am satisfied with it

I also really like the new "About waterfox" window. First to notice gets a cookie?


----------



## bfe_vern

Thanks so much for this!!!


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealEyes;13544193*
> Installed Waterfox, now it makes weird sounds when opening/closing tabs?
> 
> I think it's the sound of my onboard video or something? Why would this browser make my machine do a weird sound?


I get a whine noise when I scroll up or down or very fast but this is with any type of 4.0+ Firefox build, whether x64 or 32bit. I'm on an SSD, so it is not my hdd, GPU & CPU are OC'd so for me its most likely a capacitor vibrating or something, I tried zoom listening with a paper towel tube but cannot find where it is coming from.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13545936*
> Sweet thanks a lot


np:1coolsmil


----------



## FuRy88

did anyone else get the 0xc000007b error ... ?


----------



## IcySon55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13545936*
> That's the icon I used. So...calm down. It never seems to do it properly


Hmmm, does the project build with a resource file? somename.rc?

If it does, you may need to update it with the new icon. Visual Studio should be able to easily do that. ^_^


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13545947*
> I enjoyed WaterFox while my windows was working. dead mobo, raid toast... I said screw reinstalling and went with Ubuntu. I would love to see Linux support. I only which I could be of any help in the possible development of it. Would love to be a tester though.


Who know, when I get my new computer I might just do that







I'll also be able to compile with SSE3/4.1/4.2 and AVX if I use a cross platform compiler








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13546184*
> Uhh, Firefox 5 beta 1 isn't officially released yet. The version found in the releases folder on the Mozilla FTP is a candidate build made from an older Aurora snapshot to help test out the beta channel - the actual beta won't be until later this month.
> 
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2183129


Yes you are correct, but they won't update the source








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13546235*
> I'm seeing noticeable improvements in the rendering engine speed.... I'm no longer seeing flickering in my tab previews when I open them! Web pages seem to load significantly faster - from 1 or half a second to instantly! A lot of other areas have been improved speed-wise too!
> Not actual beta, but still an improvement nontheless and I am satisfied with it
> 
> I also really like the new "About waterfox" window. First to notice gets a cookie?


Hehe glad it's working for you








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13546359*
> Thanks so much for this!!!


No problem








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FuRy88;13548274*
> did anyone else get the 0xc000007b error ... ?


Never heard of anyone getting that error







and searching about it doesn't help either.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcySon55;13548868*
> Hmmm, does the project build with a resource file? somename.rc?
> 
> If it does, you may need to update it with the new icon. Visual Studio should be able to easily do that. ^_^


Nope, it literally takes an .ico file name firefox.ico. Strange thing is, other 256x256 show beautifully, but whenever I name it firefox.ico it looks really crappy and jagged and it gets resized to 64x64 in the thumbnail preview, yet when I double click on the file to view it it appears perfectly


----------



## tasiogurria

MrAlex thank you for a great 64bit firefox. I've used it for 2 weeks and rox.

I have a request.

Could be possible you do a spanish version or anyway to translate it with patch?
Is there anyway i can get off the red line under any word i write?

Regards


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tasiogurria;13550225*
> MrAlex thank you for a great 64bit firefox. I've used it for 2 weeks and rox.
> 
> I have a request.
> 
> Could be possible you do a spanish version or anyway to translate it with patch?
> Is there anyway i can get off the red line under any word i write?
> 
> Regards


Yes of course! To remove the spell-checking:
Quote:


> At the top of the Firefox window, click on the Firefox button (Tools menu in Windows XP) and then click Options
> Select the Advanced panel.
> Click the General tab.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Uncheck *Check my spelling as I type*.
> Click OK.


At the moment Mozilla doesn't have a Spanish language pack available, but a Spanish dictionary IS available:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/
(Scroll down to Spanish







)


----------



## tasiogurria

Thank you!


----------



## Lord Venom

The installer, about dialog, etc. all state it's Aurora and not Waterfox.


----------



## kiqo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kiqo;13541334*
> PGO? jemalloc?


----------



## Colt

Hehe, i know from where you stole the blue firefox icon, but ill be quiet








Very awesome work trough, i hope this build will be more stable than other x64 i have used.

Also, maybe we can draw a more watery Waterfox icon for your project?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tasiogurria;13550298*
> Thank you!


You're welcome!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13550391*
> The installer, about dialog, etc. all state it's Aurora and not Waterfox.


I know







I've JUST updated the build to fix that








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kiqo;13550415*


I thought the same thing...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Colt;13550817*
> Hehe, i know from where you stole the blue firefox icon, but ill be quiet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very awesome work trough, i hope this build will be more stable than other x64 i have used.
> 
> Also, maybe we can draw a more watery Waterfox icon for your project?


So do I...Deviantart









Yeah I wouldn't mind a more personalised icon


----------



## xd_1771

What
Now I have to install Waterfox all over again


----------



## UrbanSmooth

So, what advantage does Water have over Fire? (Fox, that is)


----------



## nyxcharon

This is awesome, thanks! Going to go try it now


----------



## win7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


What is Waterfox?
Since Firefox 4 was not released with any 64-Bit variants for Windows, I decided to compile it myself. Thus was born the Waterfox project. A 64-Bit version of Firefox.


This month is actually the one-year anniversary of Windows 64-bit Firefox 4 builds:
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.o...zilla-central/
slowpoke.gif?


----------



## superhead91

Oh wow.. definitely noticed a speed increase in the 5 beta, but I can't use some of my add-ons...


----------



## win7

Quote:



Originally Posted by *superhead91*


Oh wow.. definitely noticed a speed increase in the 5 beta, but I can't use some of my add-ons...










get this addon to fix that:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...lity-reporter/


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:



Originally Posted by *UrbanSmooth*


So, what advantage does Water have over Fire? (Fox, that is)


Its a little faster than 32 bit FF and its a 64 bit app.


----------



## superhead91

Quote:



Originally Posted by *win7*


get this addon to fix that:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...lity-reporter/


Sweet! Thanks.


----------



## Rpg2

What are the benefits and changes in Firefox 5? I hate the new naming system....


----------



## win7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rpg2;13556031*
> What are the benefits and changes in Firefox 5? I hate the new naming system....


uninformed opinions FTW >__>

I'm going to assume that you know very little about Firefox's development process (and the software development process in general).

Most notably, an official 64-bit version is planned (you can grab 5.0a1 64-bit windows off of their servers).

Firefox 5 fixes a few UI issues that 4 didn't quite do right, makes things more intuitive, and essentially tries to draw in those who decided to stick with Fx 3.x.
It is also going to bring a new account manager (due to the current one being pretty lacking, especially if you have multiple accounts for the same website, etc.)

The reason for the switch is because it took Firefox 4 almost a YEAR to be released. The issue with this is that it took that much longer for users to have all of the new things that they created over that time such as:
-new tab data structure for faster tab switching
-new javascript rendering engine
-new HTML rendering engine
-new UI
-new database structure for storing user profile information
-etc.
Do you see how these features could have easily been split into two or three separate firefox releases?


----------



## UrbanSmooth

When do Airfox and Snowfox make their debut?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13555384*
> What
> Now I have to install Waterfox all over again


Haha, sorry about that








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UrbanSmooth;13555424*
> So, what advantage does Water have over Fire? (Fox, that is)


It's in the FAQ








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nyxcharon;13555455*
> This is awesome, thanks! Going to go try it now


Hope you like it








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *win7;13555465*
> This month is actually the one-year anniversary of Windows 64-bit Firefox 4 builds:
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2010/05/2010-05-28-06-mozilla-central/
> slowpoke.gif?


Yes because nightly builds are stable are they?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superhead91;13555470*
> Oh wow.. definitely noticed a speed increase in the 5 beta, but I can't use some of my add-ons...


You can force incompatible add-ons to work







Sometimes they work just fine:
http://compixels.com/6280/how-to-enable-old-incompatible-browser-add-ons-on-firefox-4
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *UrbanSmooth;13558050*
> When do Airfox and Snowfox make their debut?


----------



## qwertymac93

I Admit, when i first installed i was disappointed it had the crap text quality that all other FF4 buillds have on my rig
Luckily however, i found out that disabling direct2d in about:config fixes it.

I used FF back in the 1.5 days. I'm trying to switch back, but its hard getting over the mental thing, just so used to chrome now. one of the main reasons for my switch to chrome was UI, and I'm happy to say FF4 has officially beat both chrome and opera IMHO(with a little tweaking







).









Only problem is no 64-bit silverlight, so no netflix







oh well, I'll use chrome for netflix and Waterfox for everything else.


----------



## Colt

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *win7;13555465*
> This month is actually the one-year anniversary of Windows 64-bit Firefox 4 builds:
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2010/05/2010-05-28-06-mozilla-central/
> slowpoke.gif?


Mozilla's nightly builds are not new, those are extremely unstable and has lots of bugs.

One-year anniversary









slowpoke.gif


----------



## kiqo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13551097*
> I thought the same thing...


You should be informed about what you compile&#8230;








PGO = Profile Guided Optimization, esp. good for start times
jemalloc = better heap allocator, leads to less fragmentation
It's two of the reasons why there are no offical stable win64 builds of Firefox yet.


----------



## win7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Colt;13560574*
> Mozilla's nightly builds are not new, those are extremely unstable and has lots of bugs.
> 
> One-year anniversary
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> slowpoke.gif


Considering that the nightlies released during the tree freeze for the weeks before Fx 4's release are the exact same code and are just as stable as the official Fx 4 release, I would say that my point still stands that there were official 64-bit Firefox 4 builds.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13558152*
> Yes because nightly builds are stable are they?


Some of them are a hell of a lot more stable than Waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kiqo;13564368*
> You should be informed about what you compile&#8230;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PGO = Profile Guided Optimization, esp. good for start times
> jemalloc = better heap allocator, leads to less fragmentation
> It's two of the reasons why there are no offical stable win64 builds of Firefox yet.


All you said was PGO and jemalloc, you didn't even ask a question or anything. I used the -O2 compiler flag. I can't compile with jemalloc because I compile with VC 2010 and jemalloc is only supported up to VC 2008







https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Windows_Build_Prerequisites
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *win7;13567868*
> Some of them are a hell of a lot more stable than Waterfox.


If you don't like it then get lost. I have yet to hear anything from anyone about stability issues in Waterfox.


----------



## returned4good

IMO, the 5 beta seems lighter and quicker. You so rock.


----------



## Rpg2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *win7;13557332*
> uninformed opinions FTW >__>
> 
> I'm going to assume that you know very little about Firefox's development process (and the software development process in general).
> 
> Most notably, an official 64-bit version is planned (you can grab 5.0a1 64-bit windows off of their servers).
> 
> Firefox 5 fixes a few UI issues that 4 didn't quite do right, makes things more intuitive, and essentially tries to draw in those who decided to stick with Fx 3.x.
> It is also going to bring a new account manager (due to the current one being pretty lacking, especially if you have multiple accounts for the same website, etc.)
> 
> The reason for the switch is because it took Firefox 4 almost a YEAR to be released. The issue with this is that it took that much longer for users to have all of the new things that they created over that time such as:
> -new tab data structure for faster tab switching
> -new javascript rendering engine
> -new HTML rendering engine
> -new UI
> -new database structure for storing user profile information
> -etc.
> Do you see how these features could have easily been split into two or three separate firefox releases?


I like the old system, I don't care for the new system. I'm aware that they would use this new naming scheme for 1-2 significant changes per number increment versus the old 5-6 big improvements going from 3 to 4. Not uninformed. That's why they should just do 4.X increments like they had with 3.5 and 3.6 etc. It looks like a desperate attempt to mirror Chrome.

I asked for the changes in FF5, not for your poorly constructed opinion on me. Get off your high horse and stop assuming things of other people based on absolutely nothing. Wrongly judging others FTW.


----------



## oc500

Thanks a lot!

And by the way, I had no idea there was a 64-bit Flash plugin!

Very surprising that Microsoft hasn't built a 64-bit Silverlight since they have been building a 64-bit IE for half a decade. Any news on a 64-bit Silverlight?


----------



## Homeles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13570452*
> If you don't like it then get lost. I have yet to hear anything from anyone about stability issues in Waterfox.


None here. Love Waterfox.


----------



## squad

Some reason I could install it but can't run it.. This pop up always comes up

http://i.imgur.com/mV6lC.jpg


----------



## Jester-

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *squad;13577973*
> Some reason I could install it but can't run it.. This pop up always comes up
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/mV6lC.jpg


if you go to the very frist page it'll have the fix for your error there


----------



## Wiremaster

I am now posting from Waterfox.

Edit:

Now I'm not, 'cause Silverlight doesn't work.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oc500;13577276*
> Thanks a lot!
> 
> And by the way, I had no idea there was a 64-bit Flash plugin!
> 
> Very surprising that Microsoft hasn't built a 64-bit Silverlight since they have been building a 64-bit IE for half a decade. Any news on a 64-bit Silverlight?


Silverlight 64-Bit is said to be coming with the release of Silverlight 5. So we just have to wait 'till then 








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Homeles;13577765*
> None here. Love Waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Firefox 5 Beta 2 was released and voila, I present Waterfox 5 Beta 2


----------



## Goaky

Thanks a lot, this is awesome.


----------



## Lord Venom

I guess you can't override the about dialog's background to make it more like Firefox's instead of Aurora's. =\


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13584774*
> I guess you can't override the about dialog's background to make it more like Firefox's instead of Aurora's. =\


I can, but I got a bit lazy


----------



## jaz

I just installed it, and made it my default browser, but i couldn't install any add-ons at all from mozilla's page. So i uninstalled it and am back to pale moon now.

Edit; huh, i had FF4.0.1 32bit all set up the same way i have pale moon set up, (palemoon transferred every setting from ff4), but now i just tried to open it up, and it has lost everything...it's like i just dl'ed it.

I set most things back up, i don't know why, it's either going to be waterfox or palemoon anyway, maybe I'll switch to FF for good when they release a fully working 64 bit version.

Also a strange thing...I like the fact i can enter private browsing mode from the start menu with waterfox, and FF4, but palemoon resides at the top of the start menu and doesn't show the little arrows pointing to the icon and "new window, or new incognito window.

I don't like having to start the browser, then click "enter private browsing mode" from the menu...lol. But i guess i can live with it.


----------



## xd_1771

Another second off my firef--ahem, waterfox start time!








Beta 2 rules


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Idk why, but with the 5.0 beta, I have problems with some of the flash animations on newegg. Like the one on the home page doesnt load correctly :/ anyone else experiencing this?

EDIT: Seems that I have narrowed down the problem. It has something to do with the 64-bit flash player not working :/ I installed Firefox, and there were no problems at all. I have tried completely reinstalling Waterfox, but nothing has worked so far.


----------



## Vowels

Does 5.0 beta install over 4.0.1?


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vowels*


Does 5.0 beta install over 4.0.1?


Just uninstall and install 5.0 beta. You don't lose any of your personal data (unless you check that box)


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*


Idk why, but with the 5.0 beta, I have problems with some of the flash animations on newegg. Like the one on the home page doesnt load correctly :/ anyone else experiencing this?

EDIT: Seems that I have narrowed down the problem. It has something to do with the 64-bit flash player not working :/ I installed Firefox, and there were no problems at all. I have tried completely reinstalling Waterfox, but nothing has worked so far.


I get that problem, might even be adblock causing that though... any case, whatever flash items I need to see such as YouTube videos, I do see - so this isn't a huge issue.


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I get that problem, might even be adblock causing that though... any case, whatever flash items I need to see such as YouTube videos, I do see - so this isn't a huge issue.


Same here, but when I tried it using FF w/adblock, it worked fine, so I don't think that is it x.x


----------



## sapient

Can we have the _option_ of autoupdate for the 5.0 betas please? The betas can have the app.update.auto parameter default to false for safety, but for those who want it, it could be very helpful if the option was there.


----------



## Reflux

Dunno why but it took me a few minutes to grab the background image @ about:home for use with RocketDock.

The URL is:

chrome://branding/content/about-logo.png

Hope that helps someone, can't stand blurry RocketDock icons!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sapient;13606077*
> Can we have the _option_ of autoupdate for the 5.0 betas please? The betas can have the app.update.auto parameter default to false for safety, but for those who want it, it could be very helpful if the option was there.


Sorry but no. That would require me to compile 2 builds, and also the Beta's release quite frequently and I don't have time to compile two versions as well as creature the .MAR files for the updates. If I had a faster computer I would though








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reflux;13606190*
> Dunno why but it took me a few minutes to grab the background image @ about:home for use with RocketDock.
> 
> The URL is chrome://branding/content/about-logo.png
> 
> Hope that helps someone, can't stand blurry RocketDock icons!


Yes, my computer is ******ed. Sorry about that I'll try my best to fix the stupid Waterfox icon mess.


----------



## iamme

woot running waterfox 64 now!


----------



## sapient

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Sorry but no. That would require me to compile 2 builds, and also the Beta's release quite frequently and I don't have time to compile two versions as well as creature the .MAR files for the updates. If I had a faster computer I would though










Why 2 builds? I was thinking just one build, with the autoupdate possible but turned off on the default options. Those that want it would just go into the about:config and turn it on. You would need to create the .mar files though... 
If that is still too much... we'll make do


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sapient;13613221*
> Why 2 builds? I was thinking just one build, with the autoupdate possible but turned off on the default options. Those that want it would just go into the about:config and turn it on. You would need to create the .mar files though...
> If that is still too much... we'll make do


Ah yes I see what you're saying now. It shouldn't be much problem either. Hmm, I'll try on the next build then. Im a bit hesitant though because I remember there being problems when using automatic update for Beta's, causing bugs etc and I thought it would be best to have the user reinstall to try and avoid those situations.


----------



## tridc

Hi MrAlex,

I'm using Waterfox 4.0.1 and it's so good but maybe it has a problem with font rendering. Fonts in waterfox is displayed differently with other programs like Chrome in Win7 x64, it has no cleartype.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tridc;13619758*
> Hi MrAlex,
> 
> I'm using Waterfox 4.0.1 and it's so good but maybe it has a problem with font rendering. Fonts in waterfox is displayed differently with other programs like Chrome in Win7 x64, it has no cleartype.


Have you tried doing this:

1) Type *about:config* in the address bar.
2) In the filter at the top type *gfx.direct2d.disabled*
3) Change it from *false* to *true*.

Does that help/solve your problem?


----------



## tridc

Thank you so much! it's very helpful, font is now truly.


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13619819*
> Have you tried doing this:
> 
> 1) Type *about:config* in the address bar.
> 2) In the filter at the top type *gfx.direct2d.disabled*
> 3) Change it from *false* to *true*.
> 
> Does that help/solve your problem?


What did that exactly do? What is not correct with the screenshot? Not being facetious , just asking.

EDIT: So I looked it up and I know what it does. But I still don't see what is wrong with the picture above. Its suppose to be a fix for blurry text, right? I'm glad it got fixed for you though.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13623962*
> What did that exactly do? What is not correct with the screenshot? Not being facetious , just asking.
> 
> EDIT: So I looked it up and I know what it does. But I still don't see what is wrong with the picture above. Its suppose to be a fix for blurry text, right? I'm glad it got fixed for you though.


Yes it fixed 'blurry' text. Some people don't like it, some do. It depends on the person I suppose


----------



## xd_1771

I rather like the new text style








Combine it with changing system fonts to "Ubuntu" and win, win, win


----------



## phazer11

I don't suppose anyone has compiled a 64-bit Silverlight 5 beta yet have they?
Cool WF 5 beta


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *phazer11*


I don't suppose anyone has compiled a 64-bit Silverlight 5 beta yet have they?
Cool WF 5 beta


Nope, Silverlight is not open source









Added a way to view PDF, Doc, Docx, and PPT files in the browser now


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13619819*
> Have you tried doing this:
> 
> 1) Type *about:config* in the address bar.
> 2) In the filter at the top type *gfx.direct2d.disabled*
> 3) Change it from *false* to *true*.
> 
> Does that help/solve your problem?


Wow thanks!

I asked XD about it and he told me to check the thread for the fix..

Damn you XD! Could have told me it's on the last page! God damnit







!







Now I have to convince myself to use Waterfox instead of Chrome









Edit: There is one thing I CAN'T live without: SmoothGestures from Chrome. I saw Firefox / Waterfox now has All-In-One Gestures but it's not compatible with FF5, WUTDO?


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13633890*
> Wow thanks!
> 
> Edit: There is one thing I CAN'T live without: SmoothGestures from Chrome. I saw Firefox / Waterfox now has All-In-One Gestures but it's not compatible with FF5, WUTDO?


I use StrokeIt so that I have mouse gestures in all of Windows. I needed it when I moved over to Win 7 during the RC stages. At that time they didn't have support for Kensington's mouse/trackball program. Without it the additional buttons on my trackball were useless. After finding StrokeIt I no longer needed Kensington's software. I have been using Firefox's gesture prior but no longer need it either.


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13634528*
> I use StrokeIt so that I have mouse gestures in all of Windows. I needed it when I moved over to Win 7 during the RC stages. At that time they didn't have support for Kensington's mouse/trackball program. Without it the additional buttons on my trackball were useless. After finding StrokeIt I no longer needed Kensington's software. I have been using Firefox's gesture prior but no longer need it either.


Thanks. As long as I can refresh the tab with my mouse, open a new one, and close one really fast, I'm fine.

It works, I just don't need 98% of the features









Edit: Having hard time refreshing, I added a new command but it doesn't work as great as SmoothGestures ;(

I can't seem to find /UP \DOWN


----------



## bfe_vern

Some gestures work better than others. Try a different gesture or try training it.


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13634960*
> Some gestures work better than others. Try a different gesture or try training it.


It will do the job, until they update for FF5.


----------



## xd_1771

Blostorm: Hey I never said anything about which page it was on








I was hoping you'd find it easily, it's on the last page and not anywhere in between.
Could've also tried a google search! There are many different ways of fixing this, even a firefox addon that lets you tune the effect.


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13637332*
> Blostorm: Hey I never said anything about which page it was on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I was hoping you'd find it easily, it's on the last page and not anywhere in between.
> Could've also tried a google search! There are many different ways of fixing this, even a firefox addon that lets you tune the effect.


It works now ... But...After reading all the pages, I found it!


----------



## Damage82

It keeps prompting me to download adobe flash player and then nothing, still prompts me to download/install a flash player?


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Damage82;13638088*
> It keeps prompting me to download adobe flash player and then nothing, still prompts me to download/install a flash player?


You need the 64 bit versions. They are on the first post.


----------



## XAslanX

Anyone else having problems with flash where a box will pop up and you cant click anything in it, and it wont disappear? See below, can't click anything on the pop up:


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *XAslanX*


Anyone else having problems with flash where a box will pop up and you cant click anything in it, and it wont disappear? See below, can't click anything on the pop up:


That's a bug with Adobe Flash







. There haven't been any updates since February







and Flash 64-Bit is supposed to come out stable by this year, so hopefully sooner than later!


----------



## superhead91

Just to see the difference, I downloaded Chrome last night to compare. Waterfox is so much faster.


----------



## Alex132

WaterFox vs FireFox 4.1 vanilla what is the actual difference?
Real world difference that is


----------



## MrAlex

I've decided when Firefox 5 releases I'll be compiling an AVX version as well for Sandy Bridge and Bulldozer processors








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superhead91;13641834*
> Just to see the difference, I downloaded Chrome last night to compare. Waterfox is so much faster.


Glad to hear that








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thealex132;13641840*
> WaterFox vs FireFox 4.1 vanilla what is the actual difference?
> Real world difference that is


It depends on the user if they notice a difference or not.


----------



## Blostorm

I still think Chrome is faster, but I'm using 45ish addons in Waterfox







And only 2 in Chrome.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13637431*
> It works now ... But...After reading all the pages, I found it!


I'm so ******ed ! I just can't hide it ! I didn't know you could install addons even if they were not updated for FF5..I now have my Gestures back and will be using Waterfox as my main browser, but I still think it's a lil bit slower.


----------



## superste2201

Wow awesome! Now using waterfox as my main browser


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13644959*
> I still think Chrome is faster, but I'm using 45ish addons in Waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And only 2 in Chrome.


Well with 45 add-ons there will be some that impact performance








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *superste2201;13645023*
> Wow awesome! Now using waterfox as my main browser










Great to hear!


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13644959*
> I still think Chrome is faster, but I'm using 45ish addons in Waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And only 2 in Chrome.
> 
> I'm so ******ed ! I just can't hide it ! I didn't know you could install addons even if they were not updated for FF5..I now have my Gestures back and will be using Waterfox as my main browser, but I still think it's a lil bit slower.


Try benching your browser with Peacekeeper. Then you can tell which is actually faster and whether or not it makes a difference in your perception.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13645057*
> Try benching your browser with Peacekeeper. Then you can tell which is actually faster and whether or not it makes a difference in your perception.


Problem is Peacekeeper scores are greatly affected by hardware







http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action is much better.


----------



## Blostorm

Outch...


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13645098*
> Problem is Peacekeeper scores are greatly affected by hardware
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action is much better.


That is true but you use the hardware when you are using the browser, no? It's like just comparing engines on a car without comparing the rest of the powertrain or chassis. Thanks for the linky though. I will use that too.


----------



## blackbuilder

I saw this on start64







are you the owner?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13645231*
> 
> Outch...


Yeah, Chrome always scores higher scores in every benchmark I've seen








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13645255*
> That is true but you use the hardware when you are using the browser, no? It's like just comparing engines on a car without comparing the rest of the powertrain or chassis. Thanks for the linky though. I will use that too.


True, true








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackbuilder;13645296*
> I saw this on start64
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> are you the owner?


Yes I am







Someone from here posted it on there.


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13645347*
> Yeah, Chrome always scores higher scores in every benchmark I've seen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> True, true
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I am
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Someone from here posted it on there.


So I guess Chrome is still faster than Firefox


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13645564*
> So I guess Chrome is still faster than Firefox


Not really...it just scores higher in browser benchmarks. It scores almost the same in JavaScript and other such benchmarks. Nothing the end user can tell anyway


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13645875*
> Not really...it just scores higher in browser benchmarks. It scores almost the same in JavaScript and other such benchmarks. Nothing the end user can tell anyway


It feels snappier to me, let me disable all my addons and see.


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13645875*
> Not really...it just scores higher in browser benchmarks. It scores almost the same in JavaScript and other such benchmarks. Nothing the end user can tell anyway


I think that what the user feels is what really matters in the end regardless of what benchmarks say.


----------



## animal0307

Fresh install of WF 5 beta 2 on a fresh install of Win 7 64. Errored after installing flash.


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13649416*
> Fresh install of WF 5 beta 2 on a fresh install of Win 7 64. Errored after installing flash.


From the first page FAQ:
Quote:


> Q: I get a msvcr100.dll is missing error.
> A: You must have the Visual C++ Redistributable file I linked above installed.


Link: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867


----------



## animal0307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13649527*
> From the first page FAQ:
> 
> Link: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867


Thanks. I wasn't sure if it was a beta issue or not.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13645564*
> So I guess Chrome is still faster than Firefox


Yeah, it is. I'm thinking it'll be like that for a good time to come until if/when Mozilla optimizes performance and speed on Windows to try to match Chrome. Chrome's super fast to open and close with no lag with switching/dragging tabs around, however Firefox has the edge with customization and addons.


----------



## MrAlex

Finally! No wonder Flash 64-Bit hadn't been updated, it got a codename change to Incubator (from Square)! Currently at version 11.0.1.3! Released 15 days ago. Woohoo!

EDIT: False alarm







Seems Incubator doesn't have a 64-Bit build yet! Damn it Adobe


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13652780*
> Damn it Adobe


They are blah for 64bit flash. Dunno why, but they should be on top of things as far as x64 flash goes with how fast 64 bit browsers are rapidly becoming.

I just found a x64 email clients. Seems to be fast.
Lanikai aka Thunder x64 - http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Thunderbirdownload


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;13655519*
> I just found a x64 email clients. Seems to be fast.
> Lanikai aka Thunder x64 - http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Thunderbirdownload


Yep, Adobe really are lacking in 64-Bit support.


----------



## Blostorm

While using 800 MB of memory with Waterfox, I opened all the same things in Chrome to see a nice 100 MB.


----------



## xd_1771

I use Sumatra PDF reader. I just set PDFs to download and then automatically open separately in the program; not much different from opening in a browser tab really. Arguably it's better as your browser plugins are less cluttered. Same would apply if you use Adobe Reader.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm;13666821*
> While using 800 MB of memory with Waterfox, I opened all the same things in Chrome to see a nice 100 MB.


Um...okay? Don't use Waterfox then. Although I can't even begin to imagine what would be using up 800MB compared to 100MB in Chrome.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13672068*
> I use Sumatra PDF reader. I just set PDFs to download and then automatically open separately in the program; not much different from opening in a browser tab really. Arguably it's better as your browser plugins are less cluttered. Same would apply if you use Adobe Reader.


I suppose but that really annoys me haha


----------



## Fl1p_mo

For some reason, on some occasions when I try to open Waterfox it seems to crash.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fl1p_mo;13673891*
> For some reason, on some occasions when I try to open Waterfox it seems to crash.


Could you be more specific or is it the moment you open it it crashes?


----------



## Fl1p_mo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13676738*
> Could you be more specific or is it the moment you open it it crashes?


It's when I immediately open it. Is it an add-on problem?


----------



## jaz

I have been having problems with 64 bit flash, at least I'm pretty sure it's the cause of my problems. My pc would lock op and freeze while browsing and streaming audio via vlc. It happens so often it blew out my control pod in my logitech speakers.

Then the constant freezing hard-rebooting blew out my windows themes, and i could only get solid colors. i have over 100 really nice pics i rotate every few minutes. I had to go to a windows help forum to learn how to fix the problem.

I renamed the file from .jpg to .old and it worked. I got my themes working 100% again, and speakers replaced, now it keeps freezing, but i turn off my speakers power before i reboot. I tried reverting back to a 32 bit browser, (Iron), and no crashes for over an hour now and I'm listening to streaming audio. It didn't happen when i was 1st using the 32 bit version of FF4.

Anybody else having similar problems? Waterfox and Palemoon 64 bit were both crashing, and i know 64 bit flash is wonky, so I'm blaming it on that. It can't be just a browser problem. Palemoon just updated to 4.0.7. Both Waterfox and Palmoon are fine, and i am still trying to figure out what the problem is.

All my add-ons and plug ins are updated flash v. 10.3


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fl1p_mo;13679506*
> It's when I immediately open it. Is it an add-on problem?


Could be. Trying running without any add-ons and plugins enabled.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;13688029*
> I have been having problems with 64 bit flash, at least I'm pretty sure it's the cause of my problems. My pc would lock op and freeze while browsing and streaming audio via vlc. It happens so often it blew out my control pod in my logitech speakers.
> 
> Then the constant freezing hard-rebooting blew out my windows themes, and i could only get solid colors. i have over 100 really nice pics i rotate every few minutes. I had to go to a windows help forum to learn how to fix the problem.
> 
> I renamed the file from .jpg to .old and it worked. I got my themes working 100% again, and speakers replaced, now it keeps freezing, but i turn off my speakers power before i reboot. I tried reverting back to a 32 bit browser, (Iron), and no crashes for over an hour now and I'm listening to streaming audio. It didn't happen when i was 1st using the 32 bit version of FF4.
> 
> Anybody else having similar problems? Waterfox and Palemoon 64 bit were both crashing, and i know 64 bit flash is wonky, so I'm blaming it on that. It can't be just a browser problem. Palemoon just updated to 4.0.7. Both Waterfox and Palmoon are fine, and i am still trying to figure out what the problem is.


Wow that seems to be a lot of trouble to be caused by a browser. Are you sure you haven't installed another program could be causing such problems? I've never heard of anyone having any problems like that before, not from any browser :s if it is flash 64-bit or Waterfox then don't use them I suppose. Internet Explorer 64-Bit doesn't cause any problems though does it? (It's already installed in 64-Bit systems in-case you didn't know).


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;13688029*
> I have been having problems with 64 bit flash, at least I'm pretty sure it's the cause of my problems. My pc would lock op and freeze while browsing and streaming audio via vlc. It happens so often it blew out my control pod in my logitech speakers.
> 
> Then the constant freezing hard-rebooting blew out my windows themes, and i could only get solid colors. i have over 100 really nice pics i rotate every few minutes. I had to go to a windows help forum to learn how to fix the problem.
> 
> I renamed the file from .jpg to .old and it worked. I got my themes working 100% again, and speakers replaced, now it keeps freezing, but i turn off my speakers power before i reboot. I tried reverting back to a 32 bit browser, (Iron), and no crashes for over an hour now and I'm listening to streaming audio. It didn't happen when i was 1st using the 32 bit version of FF4.
> 
> Anybody else having similar problems? Waterfox and Palemoon 64 bit were both crashing, and i know 64 bit flash is wonky, so I'm blaming it on that. It can't be just a browser problem. Palemoon just updated to 4.0.7. Both Waterfox and Palmoon are fine, and i am still trying to figure out what the problem is.
> 
> All my add-ons and plug ins are updated flash v. 10.3


Looks like, something is wrong with your system. Looks like you have a completely *unstable* overclock.


----------



## jaz

These lock-ups started when i started using 64 bit versions of waterfox and palemoon. That's the only thing that changed before the lock-ups started. All my programs have been on there before and nothing new has been added.

I am taking any system or program changes into consideration before the problems started, as is the 1st troubleshooting step, and everything has remained the same, except for my installing 64 bit flash and java, on your page. I also of course have the Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x64) installed.

So everything points to 64 bit flash. It wasn't crashing when i was 1st using the 32 bit version of ff4 when it came out for release.


----------



## jaz

No, i can play crysis for hours and pass ibt for 20 passes on medium. And like i said, i never get any crashes with 32 bit browsers. This never happend before. The only thing that changed just before the crashing was me dling 64 bit browser, flash, java and distributable (64) bit package.

My overclock has been stable for quite some time. I've ran other benchies, like heaven dx11, stone giant, the sled demo, 3dmark11...no problems. So that pretty much rules out the graphics as being the culptrit. Plus my temps are all fine cpu and gpu-wise. i have excellent airflow in my CM stacker 830 case.

@Mr Alex, I've never used the 64 bit version of IE...i haven't used even the 32 bit for almost a year now. So no, i don't know if that will crash. Not really in the mood to find out...lol.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;13688273*
> *Snip*


I honestly have no idea. Have you tried running Waterfox/Palemoon with all the plug-ins disabled? Does it occur? If it doesn't then it is one of the 64-Bit plug-ins.


----------



## jaz

Actually, I'm kinda flustered at troubleshooting this, so i"m back at a 32 bit version. I'll hang back and see what happens with upcoming releases of FF and see if they found anything wrong or whatever.

Kudos again to you MrAlex and Moonchild for your awesome work on these browsers. they themselves are fine. I realize it's something to do with some program or driver conflict, most likely with new 64 bit flash. They always were a shady bunch...lol.


----------



## msuguy71

Running Waterfox 5b2. When I close a pop-up window Waterfox asks me if I want to close all my browser windows. I have to click cancel or the main browser closes when the pop-up closes. I don't recall that happening in version 4 or version 5b1.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

This is an issue with the WaterFox 4 but Yahoo for some reason would lock up and force me to restart Waterfox completely. This only happened with Yahoo when I was checking my mail there (not on any of my other webmail accounts for schools). I just upgraded to the 5.0 and haven't had any issues at all. I just tried cycling through some emails on yahoo and it went faster than I've ever seen it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;13690808*
> Actually, I'm kinda flustered at troubleshooting this, so i"m back at a 32 bit version. I'll hang back and see what happens with upcoming releases of FF and see if they found anything wrong or whatever.
> 
> Kudos again to you MrAlex and Moonchild for your awesome work on these browsers. they themselves are fine. I realize it's something to do with some program or driver conflict, most likely with new 64 bit flash. They always were a shady bunch...lol.


Thank you, and yes they were








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71;13694096*
> Running Waterfox 5b2. When I close a pop-up window Waterfox asks me if I want to close all my browser windows. I have to click cancel or the main browser closes when the pop-up closes. I don't recall that happening in version 4 or version 5b1.


Yes, it appears to be a bug in Firefox 5 Beta 2
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VW_TDI_02;13694195*
> This is an issue with the WaterFox 4 but Yahoo for some reason would lock up and force me to restart Waterfox completely. This only happened with Yahoo when I was checking my mail there (not on any of my other webmail accounts for schools). I just upgraded to the 5.0 and haven't had any issues at all. I just tried cycling through some emails on yahoo and it went faster than I've ever seen it.


Hmm that's strange. Glad to see it's sorted now.

I need some people to test a Sandy Bridge specific build for me, just to see if there is any notable improvement. It's currently being compiled specifically for Intel64 and with the AVX instruction set. Any volunteers?








Scrap that, I need a processor with the AVX instruction set to do that









EDIT: Okay people, I'm attempting to build Firefox with GCC now, which means I'll be able to add in SSE 3 support (and when I get my Core i7, SSE 4.2) and jemalloc meaning *hopefully* somewhat faster builds. So hopefully I'll have a proper system set up by the time the final Firefox 5 source code is released


----------



## Lord Venom

So, Firefox 5 beta 3 is out now.


----------



## xd_1771

I hope that GCC isn't Intel optimized but AMD sabotaged








No seriously, compilers like those are out there in the wild


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


So, Firefox 5 beta 3 is out now.










Thank you, updated build is now available









Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I hope that GCC isn't Intel optimized but AMD sabotaged








No seriously, compilers like those are out there in the wild


Haha yes I know, but I'm sure GNU are more respectful than that. Even Intel's own compiler has options that favours both AMD AND Intel







(I'd be using Intel's compiler if it was free -.-).


----------



## xd_1771

Downloading 5.0b3 now! I want to see some more performance improvements!


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


Downloading 5.0b3 now! I want to see some more performance improvements!


Because of you, I've been running Waterfox since you sent me your fast profile









Downloading Beta 3


----------



## xd_1771

I haven't seen too many improvements though it seems tab opening is a lot faster
5.0b2 froze on me a few times after long time running, hope it's gone in 5.0b3
RAM usage is 500MB 4 tabs open, then again Waterfox probably uses my 8GB RAM for all benefit possible

*Blostorm*: I'm actually considering updating & uploading my generic profile for the public







something that would be updatable from me if any addons see major changes only or if I find new ones. How do you find it vs Chrome so far?


----------



## Blostorm

I think Chrome is quicker and stuff, but overall, I think all the customizations you did is worth the switch.


----------



## xd_1771

The profile I use is not even close to the one I sent you actually; that one is meant to be minimal and take shape with a particular user's web browsing habits; my own profile which is actually significantly more complicated is adjusted for my web browsing habits, but if I did a straight-up upload of it it may not adjust to other users' web browsing habits/preferences.

I use my customized/generic profile for computer builds I do for other people where I am also in charge of installing OS/software. The other PCs in the house used by my family have that profile installed and being used.

Both my fully customized/personalized profile and customized/generic profile work very well with both Waterfox and Firefox


----------



## alur

I registered here just to say thank you! I've been looking for something like this for a very long time, much appreciated


----------



## mavihs

@MrAlex
nice project!!








the only thing keeping me from trying it is Flash 64bit!








if i had an option i wouldn't use flash in the 32bit as its buggy crashes a good amount. & i hate to think wat will happen is i use the 64bit version!

also i wanted to know how will waterfox stand with 100+ tabs open???


----------



## falcon26

I like this waterfox its great. Very fast. I only have 1 issue. When trying to play embedded video on some sites it will not play, the screen remains blank. I know its not java because if I use firefox 32 bit it works. Could it be the flash?


----------



## jaz

Soooo, more people having problems with 64 bit flash. I thought that was the source of my 64bit browser crashing while listening to streaming audio. I bet it's not playing nice with creatives "fussy" drivers. I haven't had 1 crash since switching back to 32 bit browser.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alur;13734908*
> I registered here just to say thank you! I've been looking for something like this for a very long time, much appreciated


Glad I've been of assistance









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mavihs;13754572*
> @MrAlex
> nice project!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing keeping me from trying it is Flash 64bit!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if i had an option i wouldn't use flash in the 32bit as its buggy crashes a good amount. & i hate to think wat will happen is i use the 64bit version!
> 
> also i wanted to know how will waterfox stand with 100+ tabs open???


64-Bit flash isn't as bad as I thought it would be, so it's bearable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *falcon26;13760213*
> I like this waterfox its great. Very fast. I only have 1 issue. When trying to play embedded video on some sites it will not play, the screen remains blank. I know its not java because if I use firefox 32 bit it works. Could it be the flash?


Hmm I'm not sure, I haven't had that issue before.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaz;13760291*
> Soooo, more people having problems with 64 bit flash. I thought that was the source of my 64bit browser crashing while listening to streaming audio. I bet it's not playing nice with creatives "fussy" drivers. I haven't had 1 crash since switching back to 32 bit browser.


Most likely. Adobe really need to step up their game in 64-Bit Flash development.


----------



## phazer11

Any news about silverlight? Downloading v5 beta 3 now!

Someone asked about how well it performs with 100+ tabs open...
It's awesome as long as... you don't try Autopaging 75 350,000 word fanfictions at the same time (like me) and then go foruming ^v^

Otherwise if you've got the ram it should do 400 tabs easily it really just seems to be an autopager bug, there are a few sites that make it act similiarly i.e. stutter, freeze on tab load or scrolling, scrolling up and down the page, making your other programs blink in front of your browser window, etc lol but it hasn't "crashed" on me I've just closed it out of annoyance. Also I use Hibernate so my windows never close, however the issue remains even if I reboot and then autopage the stories and leave it open for a few hours.


----------



## IcySon55

Tested and confirmed (at least for me) that Firefox 5.0 b3 fails to load and display the main portion of Twitter.

All you get is the header and menu at the top. Downgraded to 5.0 b2 until b4 comes out to test again.


----------



## bfe_vern

Decided to give 5.0b3 a chance. Its looking good so far. I had a few extensions that were not compatible but its currently not a show stopper.


----------



## xd_1771

Check any one of the Firefox-related links in my sig for ways to force add-on compatibility


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13778846*
> Check any one of the Firefox-related links in my sig for ways to force add-on compatibility


Tx for that. I knew another way of forcing compatibility on a one-by-one basis but either didn't know or forgot that there was a way of doing it in one full sweep.

EDIT: I was going to rep you but since you are a mod I guess thats not happening.


----------



## xd_1771

Yeah, I use tons of supposedly incompatible addons in my 67 addons profile







I usually do some quick testing and so far all of them work well, and with other tools I can report to mozilla & the add-on developer on whether the addon works with this firefox version or not and has bugs. Many of them are being updated for full compatibility though, which is also a good thing.


----------



## bfe_vern

I used to have plenty of addons myself. As each new version of FF came out I started to pare it down. In my recent switch to FF4/WF5b3 I am down to 9. There were many add-ons that I considered essential but even those have been pared down.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phazer11;13766451*
> Any news about silverlight? Downloading v5 beta 3 now!


I have no idea what Microsoft's release schedules is.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcySon55;13777004*
> Tested and confirmed (at least for me) that Firefox 5.0 b3 fails to load and display the main portion of Twitter.
> 
> All you get is the header and menu at the top. Downgraded to 5.0 b2 until b4 comes out to test again.


Hmm strange, Twitter works fine for me.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13779360*
> EDIT: I was going to rep you but since you are a mod I guess thats not happening.


Link to rep them for their post http://www.overclock.net/reputation.php?p=13781185


----------



## bfe_vern

Tx Alex. So that adds it to their profile but does it accrue even though the stat itself is not visible?


----------



## animal0307

Hey guys I have a problem running Hulu. Running beta 5.2 and as far as I can tell flash is installed correctly. I get the message "Unable to load player, Try clearing browser cache." Gave it it a shot and nothing. May try updating to 5.3


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13785966*
> I used to have plenty of addons myself. As each new version of FF came out I started to pare it down. In my recent switch to FF4/WF5b3 I am down to 9. There were many add-ons that I considered essential but even those have been pared down.


67 addons here, and many stylish scripts. My browser's still pretty fast regardless


----------



## bfe_vern

For me its about memory consumption. You have 4GB more than I do. When I rectify that I will start raising up the add-on count.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 5 Beta 5 is out.

Alex, can you pleaseeeee give the About window the Waterfox look?


----------



## xEzekialx

Im running the new Waterfox 4 but im having problems watching videos. It freezes after watching one.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13787241*
> Tx Alex. So that adds it to their profile but does it accrue even though the stat itself is not visible?


Yes.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13815000*
> Hey guys I have a problem running Hulu. Running beta 5.2 and as far as I can tell flash is installed correctly. I get the message "Unable to load player, Try clearing browser cache." Gave it it a shot and nothing. May try updating to 5.3


I've never used Hulu, so I can't help sorry.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13822303*
> Firefox 5 Beta 5 is out.
> 
> Alex, can you pleaseeeee give the About window the Waterfox look?


Beta 5 already?? Thanks for the heads up, and sure








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xEzekialx;13824168*
> Im running the new Waterfox 4 but im having problems watching videos. It freezes after watching one.


Does the browser itself freeze or the plugin?


----------



## bfe_vern

Hulu working fine for me with 5.3.


----------



## xd_1771

I'm awaiting Waterfox 5 Beta 5. Looks like the home button is now on the tab bar in Firefox 5B5.... home tab already or not? I rather like having my "Home" button as just text on my bookmarks toolbar, though I could just as easily replace it with a bookmark.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I'm awaiting Waterfox 5 Beta 5. Looks like the home button is now on the tab bar in Firefox 5B5.... home tab already or not? I rather like having my "Home" button as just text on my bookmarks toolbar, though I could just as easily replace it with a bookmark.


Sorry that this build is slightly delayed. I've got some plans set out for Waterfox 5 and it's not going as smoothly as I hoped







Hopefully by the time Firefox 5 becomes final I'll have it all sorted out


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13815000*
> Hey guys I have a problem running Hulu. Running beta 5.2 and as far as I can tell flash is installed correctly. I get the message "Unable to load player, Try clearing browser cache." Gave it it a shot and nothing. May try updating to 5.3


Even on 5.3 it doesn't work. I believe its an issue with 64-bit Flash Player.


----------



## Goaky

Been using Waterfox for quite some time now and I have to say that it is absolutely fantastic. I don´t have to deal with nearly as many crashes and the slow startup times that Firefox still suffers from. The icon also looks cooler.









Thanks a lot.


----------



## xd_1771

I can live with Beta 3 for now


----------



## ALUCARDVPR

This is awesome!!!


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13833460*
> Sorry that this build is slightly delayed. I've got some plans set out for Waterfox 5 and it's not going as smoothly as I hoped
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully by the time Firefox 5 becomes final I'll have it all sorted out


I read Firefox 5 is supposed to have a 64bit build, is this still the case?
If there is indeed a 64bit coming out what will make Waterfox different?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;13842194*
> I read Firefox 5 is supposed to have a 64bit build, is this still the case?
> If there is indeed a 64bit coming out what will make Waterfox different?


Most likely. Waterfox is compiled with optimisations, basically to make it 'faster'. Firefox tries to work on as many systems as possible, therefore it barely has any optimisations. I doubt Mozilla will release 64-Bit variant yet, otherwise they would have started to release 64-Bit Beta's as well.

Beta 5 is up and running people.


----------



## Paladin Goo

I approve of this thread.


----------



## xd_1771

Wooo it's here







trying out

EDIT: MASSIVE improvements
Aside from being the fastest download ever, it was the fastest Waterfox install ever.
Browser startup time has gone from around 3 seconds to 2 seconds (from 4.0.1 to 5.0 b1) to now fully instant (to 5.0 b5). With 67 addons installed. Waterfox now fully takes on Chrome in startup speed.

Now that's more like it









Just swapped Firefox in all the family computers (that have 64-bit installed) for Waterfox as well. To avoid confusion between family members (what with the blue icon) and have them use Waterfox rather than thinking Firefox isn't there and have them use another browser, I had to rename the desktop icons/etc. to Mozilla Firefox (64-bit).


----------



## zefram

Seems very nice.
Any plans to compile from Aurora branch (currently 6.0) ? That would be even nicer.


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13842919*
> Most likely. Waterfox is compiled with optimisations, basically to make it 'faster'. Firefox tries to work on as many systems as possible, therefore it barely has any optimisations. I doubt Mozilla will release 64-Bit variant yet, otherwise they would have started to release 64-Bit Beta's as well.
> 
> Beta 5 is up and running people.


Nice, so it looks like this will likely be the most popular alternative build to Firefox, pretty smart naming for it I think.

One request please, could you update the icon and make it more blended? It's pretty jagged looking.


----------



## bfe_vern

Woot!!! On WF5.5b now!! Liking it!!! Many thanks Alex!!!


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


Just swapped Firefox in all the family computers (that have 64-bit installed) for Waterfox as well. To avoid confusion between family members (what with the blue icon) and have them use Waterfox rather than thinking Firefox isn't there and have them use another browser, I had to rename the desktop icons/etc. to Mozilla Firefox (64-bit).


For even less confusion I could send you the Firefox icon and then you could just edit the shortcut and point to the original icon.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *zefram*


Seems very nice.
Any plans to compile from Aurora branch (currently 6.0) ? That would be even nicer.










Well when Firefox 6 enters Beta









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*


Nice, so it looks like this will likely be the most popular alternative build to Firefox, pretty smart naming for it I think.

One request please, could you update the icon and make it more blended? It's pretty jagged looking.


I know, I've tried so many different ways but the icon just keeps on looking jagged! It's the EXACT same size as the icon it's replacing as well. I'll have to try something else.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *bfe_vern*


Woot!!! On WF5.5b now!! Liking it!!! Many thanks Alex!!!


You're welcome


----------



## Ryrynz

Peacekeeper test

Waterfox result highlighted in orange.










Tested on Core 2 Quad 3.0GHz, 4GB RAM with about 40 addons installed.

All results shown were tested by me at various times.

Previous non Waterfox 5.0 Beta build I was using scored 5398


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*


Peacekeeper test

Waterfox result highlighted in orange.










Tested on Core 2 Quad 3.0GHz, 4GB RAM with about 40 addons installed.

All results shown were tested by me at various times.

Previous non Waterfox 5.0 Beta build I was using scored 5398



I tend to disregard peacekeeper benchmarks, since it heavily relies on hardware







http://browsermark.rightware.com/bro...k/index.action does a better job of being a benchmark even though it's for mobile phones, it still gives the most consistent results.


----------



## Ryrynz

Yeah, I found that out benching another machine, but since nothing has changed on my machine I thought it would be interesting comparing the different versions. Since hardware does differ a lot and software can be tailored to some hardware more than others I think peacekeeper certainly has a place in identifying browser performance.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*


For even less confusion I could send you the Firefox icon and then you could just edit the shortcut and point to the original icon.


I know, I could extract it from the default firefox.exe myself. I think this wouldn't matter too much.


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae;13834929*
> Even on 5.3 it doesn't work. I believe its an issue with 64-bit Flash Player.


I stand corrected. It doesn't work for me either. I had a different browser open Hulu. Not a show stopper for me.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 5 beta 6 is out. But, beta 7 is already built after a few last minute fixes and may be released officially at any time. It also might be the last beta before the final.


----------



## xd_1771

Beta 6 looks like it apparently has even more performance improvements... I'm hoping it translates into even better startup time?


----------



## Lord Venom

Heh, you should try the 7.0 Nightly build as its performance is currently horrible (to be expected, since it's a nightly).

I'm still waiting for them to optimize performance, startup and response times on Windows. Until then, I'll probably have to keep using Google Chrome.


----------



## Ryrynz

Firefox 5 is due to be released by next week, should be a quick RC or 2 then release, they're really stepping it up. Poor Alex can't keep up









Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


Beta 6 looks like it apparently has even more performance improvements... I'm hoping it translates into even better startup time?


Nice to hear, I think if ya need faster start up time best to invest in an SSD. It's the best money you'll ever spend on a computer. Without addons the normal Firefox 4.01 I have at work starts up in about 1-2 seconds and it's only a Pentium dual core 2.6GHz I think with 2GB of RAM and 500GB HDD so I doubt startup time could be tweaked much further.

When Beta 6 rolls it'll be time for Peacekeeper!!!! 
Oh..I guess I'll run Browsermark too..


----------



## IcySon55

Just an update on my earlier trouble if it helps. Twitter working just fine again on 5.0 b5.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 5 beta 7's out now.


----------



## zefram

MrAlex, could you please write a small guide about how to compile FX source in VS2010? I tried a couple of times but I failed. Thanks.


----------



## tyrannor

I am posting due to the frustration of WaterFox hanging regularly for about 15 sec before responding.
I use an MSI laptop with a core i7 CPU and GTX 285M card from nvidia.
The temporary hanging occurs sometimes when I click on links, regularly when I click on bookmarks and 100% when I access history ( I haven't been able to access it so far). This bug was present in FF nightly 6.0a1 too but isnt present in pale moon.

Also can someone tell me which would be suitable for my current laptop and also an old laptop with an AMD Athlon 64 processor and ATI X200 IGP? (Waterfoc or Palemoon)

Thank you.


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry guys I've been away for 2 days! Haven't had time to keep up with all these updates








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;13891139*
> Firefox 5 is due to be released by next week, should be a quick RC or 2 then release, they're really stepping it up. Poor Alex can't keep up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice to hear, I think if ya need faster start up time best to invest in an SSD. It's the best money you'll ever spend on a computer. Without addons the normal Firefox 4.01 I have at work starts up in about 1-2 seconds and it's only a Pentium dual core 2.6GHz I think with 2GB of RAM and 500GB HDD so I doubt startup time could be tweaked much further.
> 
> When Beta 6 rolls it'll be time for Peacekeeper!!!!
> Oh..I guess I'll run Browsermark too..


I'll try my best








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zefram;13894912*
> MrAlex, could you please write a small guide about how to compile FX source in VS2010? I tried a couple of times but I failed. Thanks.


Sure I will do when I get some time!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13895568*
> I am posting due to the frustration of WaterFox hanging regularly for about 15 sec before responding.
> I use an MSI laptop with a core i7 CPU and GTX 285M card from nvidia.
> The temporary hanging occurs sometimes when I click on links, regularly when I click on bookmarks and 100% when I access history ( I haven't been able to access it so far). This bug was present in FF nightly 6.0a1 too but isnt present in pale moon.
> 
> Also can someone tell me which would be suitable for my current laptop and also an old laptop with an AMD Athlon 64 processor and ATI X200 IGP? (Waterfoc or Palemoon)
> 
> Thank you.


I'd recommend you use whatever works for you without any problems


----------



## Shadowkillerdragon

Hmm. When I do use WaterFox, I get this weird memory leak that keeps rising to no other, sometimes going up to 2GB LOL and then I would have to end the program and reopening but the same thing keeps happening D:.
Looking at task manager right now and the memory usage is rising without me doing anything.


----------



## xd_1771

beta 7 out now too?
Any improvements over beta 6? 5?


----------



## snelan

Looks like it's not detecting my Silverlight installation. Are there any fixes for this?


----------



## Strat79

Quote:



Originally Posted by *snelan*


Looks like it's not detecting my Silverlight installation. Are there any fixes for this?


Silverlight is 32-bit only as of right now. The next build of Silverlight is supposed to have native 64 bit support and is due out sometime in 1H this year. Only 64 bit plugins will work on Waterfox, being a 64 bit compiled browser.


----------



## snelan

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Strat79*


Silverlight is 32-bit only as of right now. The next build of Silverlight is supposed to have native 64 bit support and is due out sometime in 1H this year. Only 64 bit plugins will work on Waterfox, being a 64 bit compiled browser.


That makes sense. I is there a 64bit version of Flash Player?

+rep


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:



Originally Posted by *snelan*


That makes sense. I is there a 64bit version of Flash Player?

+rep










Yes, check the first post. It also has 64 bit Java.


----------



## tyrannor

I am curious to know if anyone else has been experiencing the browser not responding for 15 sec or so. Is it a problem with my hardware? I was told cleaning the GC could help but I doubt it. Or is it just that the build is not stable on some laptops.


----------



## tyrannor

Again, I want to know if the extensions that I install from the mozilla site are 64 bit.
If they are 32 bit and work, then why dont 32 bit flash and java work (why are separate 64 bit extensions posted for Waterfox)?


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 5 Beta 7 is now available! Website is up and preparing for the final Waterfox 5 release on the 21st/22nd of June. There will be 3 versions of Waterfox:


Platform independent (for all 64-Bit systems)
For AMD platform (build will be optimised for AMD systems)
For Intel platform (build will be optimised for Intel systems)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13904662*
> I am curious to know if anyone else has been experiencing the browser not responding for 15 sec or so. Is it a problem with my hardware? I was told cleaning the GC could help but I doubt it. Or is it just that the build is not stable on some laptops.


I'm not sure. Try out the latest beta (7).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13904778*
> Again, I want to know if the extensions that I install from the mozilla site are 64 bit.
> If they are 32 bit and work, then why dont 32 bit flash and java work (why are separate 64 bit extensions posted for Waterfox)?


You are confusing extensions with plug-ins. Extensions work on ANY version of Firefox (as long as it is supported) and on ANY platform (i.e Windows, Linux, Mac).

Plug-ins are 3rd party applications that run things such as Flash and Silverlight etc, and require to be compiled for 64-Bit operating systems to be able to be used by a 64-Bit browser.


----------



## tyrannor

Thanks for enlightening me.
I will go straight to the final release as it is coming very soon, I hope the annoying bug will go away.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

What happened to Beta 6???


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VW_TDI_02;13905653*
> What happened to Beta 6???


Beta 7 came out and I was away when Beta 6 was released.


----------



## xd_1771

Judging from the site, you want to make Intel and AMD optimized versions? That's interesting.
About to install beta 7...

EDIT: Seem to be some more startup speed increase, I can't be sure. Nothing too much else to notice.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;13906163*
> Judging from the site, you want to make Intel and AMD optimized versions? That's interesting.
> About to install beta 7...


Yes I do, the two builds will be built with libraries optimised for the specific platform. I'm not sure how much of a difference it'll make though.


----------



## tyrannor

Why aren't there any benchmarks for this? I am sure everyone wants to see Waterfox vs Firefox.


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13906448*
> Why aren't there any benchmarks for this? I am sure everyone wants to see Waterfox vs Firefox.


If you read up several postings you will see someone did bench me thinks.

Here it is: Posted by Ryrynz http://www.overclock.net/other-software/975626-waterfox-firefox-64-bit-firefox-5-a-44.html#post13852159


----------



## tyrannor

Where is Waterfox in the benchmark? I dont even see it as Firefox 64 bit.
Omn an unrelated note, FF 4.2a1 is better than 6.0a1? Wasn't expecting 4.x with so many other versions coming out soon. Does this mean that the latest version isnt always better?


----------



## sanitarium

http://clients.futuremark.com/peacekeeper/results.action?key=686D


----------



## Ryrynz

Waterfox identifies itself on the web as Firefox so Peacekeeper will not label it as Waterfox. Beta 7 is about 5-10% slower than Beta 5 judging the Peacekeeper and Browsermark runs I just did.


----------



## AMD_Freak

Waterfox is the 5.0 in orange vs firefox 4.0 in blue test was ran a few minutes ago both is what I had installed on my drive I did not compare it to anything else since I don't use others . I just installed Waterfox for the 1st time last night and quite impressed how smooth everything is and how all my add ons/persona but 1 (url shorter) (but mc afees worked fine) installed to waterfox with ease the only thing I had to change was Java x64 / Flash x64 I tried minefield but for what ever reason things didn't run to smooth and couldn't be set as default browser. Ill use Waterfox for a few days and see if it continues to run smooth for me.


----------



## bfe_vern

On v5b7 now. Many thanks Alex!!


----------



## VW_TDI_02

Already got an issue with Beta 7 Whenever I try to log into Yahoo! it says that the newest version of Yahoo! Mail doesn't work Attached is the error message I get. Also whenever I get this i just press F5 and it goes straight to my Inbox with no issues. It only happens when I go from the Yahoo! home page to the mail and it happens every time.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13906448*
> Why aren't there any benchmarks for this? I am sure everyone wants to see Waterfox vs Firefox.


They will be on the website, but I'm waiting for the final version before I benchmark.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13908219*
> On v5b7 now. Many thanks Alex!!


You're welcome!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VW_TDI_02;13908279*
> Already got an issue with Beta 7 Whenever I try to log into Yahoo! it says that the newest version of Yahoo! Mail doesn't work Attached is the error message I get. Also whenever I get this i just press F5 and it goes straight to my Inbox with no issues. It only happens when I go from the Yahoo! home page to the mail and it happens every time.


I don't use Yahoo! Mail so I'm not sure what the problem could be. If it is a bug due to Firefox then surely more people will have it and therefore it should get fixed for the final release.


----------



## sst

Hi, ...

Waterfox v.5.0b7-candidates build x64
Windows 7 x64 Amd Sp1. x64

Thanks for the x64 5.0b7-candidates build.
I have use the win32 fr.xpi, to translate it to French Canada.
It mean that your x64 build, can use "Win32 .xpi".

@Alex = Please add a link to ".xpi language files section" of each of your build. = (Can it be made ?).

Like that below, ...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/5.0b7-candidates/build1/win32/xpi/


Thanks in advance, ...


----------



## Ryrynz

Wow no RCs, BOOM! final is out.


----------



## MrAlex

Firefox 5 final source has been released! Unfortunately I won't be home this weekend so everything will be available on Monday







. This will also be the first time I'll be using auto-update as well, so let's hope it all goes well








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sst;13911348*
> Hi, ...
> 
> Waterfox v.5.0b7-candidates build x64
> Windows 7 x64 Amd Sp1. x64
> 
> Thanks for the x64 5.0b7-candidates build.
> I have use the win32 fr.xpi, to translate it to French Canada.
> It mean that your x64 build, can use "Win32 .xpi".
> 
> @Alex = Please add a link to ".xpi language files section" of each of your build. = (Can it be made ?).
> 
> Like that below, ...
> 
> https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/5.0b7-candidates/build1/win32/xpi/
> 
> 
> Thanks in advance, ...


You can also get them from here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/

I'll make sure to add it onto the main download page.


----------



## Ironcobra

Hey, great project here thanks nice upgrade from vanilla firefox, just one question netflix wont recognize silver light is installed are u aware of this bug? on beta 7 by the way.


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13915686*
> Firefox 5 final source has been released! Unfortunately I won't be home this weekend so everything will be available on Monday
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . This will also be the first time I'll be using auto-update as well, so let's hope it all goes well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can also get them from here:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/
> 
> I'll make sure to add it onto the main download page.


Looking forward to Monday then!!!! Many thanks again Alex!!!


----------



## Pentium4 531 overclocker

wait so is this official mozilla release thats been renamed waterfox and is for 64 bit? or did u just mod it yourself? im confused... and im running beta 7 right now, =P


----------



## tyrannor

I am confused too, if the source code is from Mozilla then why don't they release a 64bit browser themselves?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13917407*
> Hey, great project here thanks nice upgrade from vanilla firefox, just one question netflix wont recognize silver light is installed are u aware of this bug? on beta 7 by the way.


It's not a bug unfortunately. Silverlight is only 32-Bit at the moment. When Silverlight 5 releases it will release with 64-Bit variant which will then work with Waterfox. So you'll have to use a 32-Bit browser until then








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13919241*
> Looking forward to Monday then!!!! Many thanks again Alex!!!


No problem








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pentium4 531 overclocker;13919315*
> wait so is this official mozilla release thats been renamed waterfox and is for 64 bit? or did u just mod it yourself? im confused... and im running beta 7 right now, =P


It's the official Mozilla release, but it has been compiled with optimisations. Since Mozilla want Firefox to work on as many systems as possible they can hardly perform any if at all optimisations.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13922893*
> I am confused too, if the source code is from Mozilla then why don't they release a 64bit browser themselves?


I don't know why they haven't released a 64-Bit browser for Windows. They have for Linux though.


----------



## Vowels

I hear there are some more optimization flags available in the Aurora channel. When Firefox 6 becomes beta, will we see a Waterfox 6 with those same optimizations?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;13925121*
> I hear there are some more optimization flags available in the Aurora channel. When Firefox 6 becomes beta, will we see a Waterfox 6 with those same optimizations?


What sort of optimisation flags? Could you be more specific? And I doubt it because flags are set during compiling.


----------



## Ryrynz

Never mind, already answered.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13925143*
> What sort of optimisation flags? Could you be more specific? And I doubt it because flags are set during compiling.


Optimizations for AMD or Intel processors (based on instruction set support I think)


----------



## Homeles

Firefox 5 Final is out! Get to work!


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 5 has been released. So far I'm limited, as I don't have the resources to do the following:

-Platform specific builds, since I don't have an AMD system
-Auto-update, because I don't have a server that can perform what is required

So therefore we're sticking to the old manual update which only takes up not even a minute of ones time


----------



## Homeles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13927724*
> Waterfox 5 has been released. So far I'm limited, as I don't have the resources to do the following:
> 
> -Platform specific builds, since I don't have an AMD system
> -Auto-update, because I don't have a server that can perform what is required
> 
> So therefore we're sticking to the old manual update which only takes up not even a minute of ones time


Hooray!


----------



## DefCoN

will greasemonkey / IQs 4.9 scripts work with waterfox?


----------



## thrasherht

I am running it on my sig rig right now. Yay.

IT IS SO FAST!!!!!!!!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DefCoN;13927921*
> will greasemonkey / IQs 4.9 scripts work with waterfox?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;12886912*
> *Q: Do all my Add-Ons work?*
> A: Yes! Add-Ons work on any version of Firefox, on any platform.


It's in the first post...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thrasherht;13928016*
> I am running it on my sig rig right now. Yay.
> 
> IT IS SO FAST!!!!!!!!


Glad to hear it


----------



## superhead91

I don't know if waterfox had anything to do with it, but as soon as I installed waterfox 5.0 my computer started BSODing every time I start up...


----------



## animal0307

I'm having issues downloading the installer. I tried under waterfox and now firefox. I click download it loads and then nothing.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13928220*
> I'm having issues downloading the installer. I tried under waterfox and now firefox. I click download it loads and then nothing.


I just downloaded using waterfox with no problems. Try this link, http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/click.php?id=8.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13815000*
> Hey guys I have a problem running Hulu. Running beta 5.2 and as far as I can tell flash is installed correctly. I get the message "Unable to load player, Try clearing browser cache." Gave it it a shot and nothing. May try updating to 5.3


I've been having the same problem, I tried clearing all private data and it didn't help. I just load up hulu in chrome whenever I want to watch something there.


----------



## animal0307

That did it thanks.

Still has issues with Hulu. I updated to WaterFox 5 and updated my flash to the lastest version according to the download link.


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;13928242*
> I just downloaded using waterfox with no problems. Try this link, http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/click.php?id=8.
> 
> I've been having the same problem, I tried clearing all private data and it didn't help. I just load up hulu in chrome whenever I want to watch something there.


Doing the same here. Not a showstopper for me.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;13928288*
> That did it thanks.
> 
> Still has issues with Hulu. I updated to WaterFox 5 and updated my flash to the lastest version according to the download link.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;13928403*
> Doing the same here. Not a showstopper for me.


Yeah no big deal, the weird thing is I can watch hulu shows on fancast.com. That doesn't make any sense to me, since it's just embedded hulu videos (mostly).


----------



## animal0307

I just switch over to good old fire fox. Or just use my laptop. It would be nice to know why though.


----------



## Fullinator

I just installed WaterFox 5.0. It's actually noticeably faster for me. I also cannot load Hulu videos although it's not a huge deal for me because I use Chrome on my second monitor to watch all of my videos. I don't know if it's something Mozilla will update or a plugin or something that has to be fixed in waterfox itself.

Thanks for the download though!


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fullinator;13929173*
> I just installed WaterFox 5.0. It's actually noticeably faster for me. I also cannot load Hulu videos although it's not a huge deal for me because I use Chrome on my second monitor to watch all of my videos. I don't know if it's something Mozilla will update or a plugin or something that has to be fixed in waterfox itself.
> 
> Thanks for the download though!


It's nothing mozilla will fix, since it works fine in regular firefox. I don't think it's a plugin either, as I have no problem with other flash videos or even with hulu videos embedded on another site.

Does anyone know what this problem is? The text is all messed up, it only does it occasionally and it doesn't do it to all the font on the page. (Even the same type of font)


----------



## xd_1771

I haven't noticed too significant improvements with the final edition, but at the moment I'm definitely using it!


----------



## zefram

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13927724*
> Waterfox 5 has been released. So far I'm limited, as I don't have the resources to do the following:
> 
> -Platform specific builds, since I don't have an AMD system
> ...


I can help you out with that. I have a quadcore AMD system. As I said earlier, I only need a small guide on compiling firefox.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;13929538*
> It's nothing mozilla will fix, since it works fine in regular firefox. I don't think it's a plugin either, as I have no problem with other flash videos or even with hulu videos embedded on another site.
> 
> Does anyone know what this problem is? The text is all messed up, it only does it occasionally and it doesn't do it to all the font on the page. (Even the same type of font)


It's Adobe Flash. It happens often on just simple flash text and it's quite annoying. Adobe really need to update 64-Bit flash, it has been ages since the last one








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zefram;13937302*
> I can help you out with that. I have a quadcore AMD system. As I said earlier, I only need a small guide on compiling firefox.


Here you go:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build

Although the platform specific builds will hardly make a performance difference anymore.


----------



## scrotes

this isnt working for me everytime i try and run it i get the MSVCR100.dll error does anyone know how to fix this


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scrotes;13940792*
> this isnt working for me everytime i try and run it i get the MSVCR100.dll error does anyone know how to fix this


From the OP:
Quote:


> *Q: I get a msvcr100.dll is missing error.*
> A: You must have the Visual C++ Redistributable file I linked above installed.


(He says he linked one, I don't see it. But this should work) *edit* It's on the download page at the top. The link I supplied is the same thing though.
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=14632


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *scrotes;13940792*
> this isnt working for me everytime i try and run it i get the MSVCR100.dll error does anyone know how to fix this


Why doesn't anyone read the first post


----------



## tyrannor

Now, the benchmarks please....


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tyrannor*


Now, the benchmarks please....


Calm down, I have better things to do with my life, I do this in my spare time. If you're that desperate for benchmarks, download Waterfox and Firefox and run them yourself.


----------



## Lord Venom

I wonder if you can legally include MSVCR100.dll in the installer, and install it only if it isn't present on the system?


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;13948443*
> Why doesn't anyone read the first post


I think it's time you made that HUGE disclaimer again in the first post or at least move the relevant question to the top of the FAQ. I have a feeling everyone is skipping the FAQ (even if they have a problem).


----------



## tyrannor

So far, v5 has showed increased stability. The browser does not stop responding briefly as it used to.


----------



## Ironcobra

Very stable for me as well, nice job appreciate your project. Now if silverlight would release there 64bit version it would be perfect.


----------



## AMD_Freak

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13948997*
> Now, the benchmarks please....


here's mine http://www.overclock.net/13907832-post467.html Ive had NO issues what so ever and those I have recommended the browser to also have had no issues I can not thank Mr Alex enough for such as great x64 browser, Ive tried a couple more x64 and none of them can hold a candle to Waterfox


----------



## Knightsbr1dge

Downloaded and installed. I'm a web designer so I use pretty much every web browser I can to check site cross-browser compatability.
Got to say, absolutely love this Waterfox release.
Keep up the good work mate


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13952988*
> I wonder if you can legally include MSVCR100.dll in the installer, and install it only if it isn't present on the system?


I think there are problems doing that, because the whole library is needed, not just the .dll, even if the whole library isn't used.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;13955809*
> I think it's time you made that HUGE disclaimer again in the first post or at least move the relevant question to the top of the FAQ. I have a feeling everyone is skipping the FAQ (even if they have a problem).


I think I should do that :L
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;13974288*
> So far, v5 has showed increased stability. The browser does not stop responding briefly as it used to.


That's good to hear








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;13976043*
> Very stable for me as well, nice job appreciate your project. Now if silverlight would release there 64bit version it would be perfect.


Hopefully Microsoft release it sooner than later








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AMD_Freak;13976361*
> here's mine http://www.overclock.net/13907832-post467.html Ive had NO issues what so ever and those I have recommended the browser to also have had no issues I can not thank Mr Alex enough for such as great x64 browser, Ive tried a couple more x64 and none of them can hold a candle to Waterfox


That's awesome to hear, thanks a lot








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sunny Sahota;13976437*
> Downloaded and installed. I'm a web designer so I use pretty much every web browser I can to check site cross-browser compatability.
> Got to say, absolutely love this Waterfox release.
> Keep up the good work mate


Awesome, I'll try my best


----------



## Lord Venom

Okay, what about a .NET framework check in the installer itself - if .NET isn't installed, then it prompts the user to download and install it?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13978321*
> Okay, what about a .NET framework check in the installer itself - if .NET isn't installed, then it prompts the user to download and install it?


That would require modifying the Firefox source code, and I cannot program Python or C++, only VB.NET/C# and HTML/CSS


----------



## Lord Venom

I mean you could do this by using the installer script and not by modifying Firefox itself. I already know that's possible - in fact you can probably bundle the Visual C++ runtimes installer and execute it silently. Programs out there already do this.

Try adding it and executing it from the installer as vcredist_x64.exe /s and see if that works. It *should*.

Here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2010/10/20/10078468.aspx

I believe you can legally include it in the installer as long as it's the redistributable version. Other people already do this.

EDIT: Here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235299.aspx


----------



## reedo

I am cheerfully jamming this into my face as hard as I can, thanks for an awesome upload.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;13978630*
> I mean you could do this by using the installer script and not by modifying Firefox itself. I already know that's possible - in fact you can probably bundle the Visual C++ runtimes installer and execute it silently. Programs out there already do this.
> 
> Try adding it and executing it from the installer as vcredist_x64.exe /s and see if that works. It *should*.
> 
> Here: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/astebner/archive/2010/10/20/10078468.aspx
> 
> I believe you can legally include it in the installer as long as it's the redistributable version. Other people already do this.
> 
> EDIT: Here: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms235299.aspx


Yes, but the installer, nsinstall, is part of the Firefox source code and is written in Python and C++. It is compiled along with Firefox. I can't program in those languages so there's no way for me to include the redistributable within the installer









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *reedo;13981585*
> I am cheerfully jamming this into my face as hard as I can, thanks for an awesome upload.


I'll take it that that's a good thing







You're welcome!


----------



## Quantum Reality

I've upgraded to the 5.0 final - looks the same as 4.0 but I imagine under the hood there's some improvements! No complaints, really.









I don't suppose you've thought of making AMD and Intel-specific customizations?


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, in chat case why not use a different installer like Inno Setup? I'm sure you can compile Firefox's files then use a custom installer of your own.


----------



## Antsu

Too bad you didnÃ¤t make this while I played RuneScape, runs butter smooth on this 64-bit browser, but I already quit. Thanks for it though! The Blue logo is much cooler and browser faster = WIN


----------



## Quantum Reality

Oh yeah, the Switch to Tab blacklist Add-On? Works like a charm when you add [".*"] to the blacklist!


----------



## Taylorsci

Is anyone else having trouble viewing hulu videos on the hulu website? I know one other person was.

I contacted hulu support and was unable to resolve the issue. I'm wondering if it's related directly to this build of the browser or something else.


----------



## bfe_vern

Yep. Still having problems with Hulu. Not a showstopper for me since I use multiple browsers anyway.


----------



## iEATu

What does this mean? A window pops up when Waterfox starts up titled "Javascript application"

TypeError: Components.classes[cid] is undefined


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14052938*
> What does this mean? A window pops up when Waterfox starts up titled "Javascript application"
> 
> TypeError: Components.classes[cid] is undefined


That's caused by an extension. Disable your add-ons and then re-enable them one by one to see which one cause the error.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14057256*
> That's caused by an extension. Disable your add-ons and then re-enable them one by one to see which one cause the error.


Thanks. It looks like Waterfox is loading the pages much faster now.

The extension that caused this was "One Click Youtube Downloader 1.0.7" which used by Orbit, a download accelerator. Good thing I don't even use this addon since I can just use Orbit's Grab++ feature.


----------



## sparkler

request: are you able to port one of those open source flash players to windows?? as adobe still haven't updated the 64bit version and its full of security holes and i doubt they will ever release an official 64bit version

and this message pisses me off its been saying the something since vista was released

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adobe is actively working on the release of a native 64-bit Flash Player for the desktop and plans to provide native support for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux 64-bit platforms in an upcoming major release of Flash Player. 
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

actively working on it my ass windows 8 is coming and its stil not here


----------



## iEATu

It works fine though. Is there a place where I could read what security holes there are in the 64bit version?


----------



## Inverse

So~ does Flash not work on this at all? Going to flash sites asks me to install it, and when I go to Adobe they say it doesn't support this browser~.

Edit: Yeah this is awesome fast, but if I can't even go to Youtube on it~ it's not really going to work for me. ; ;


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Inverse*


So~ does Flash not work on this at all? Going to flash sites asks me to install it, and when I go to Adobe they say it doesn't support this browser~.

Edit: Yeah this is awesome fast, but if I can't even go to Youtube on it~ it's not really going to work for me. ; ;


Install the Flash from the first post.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Inverse*


So~ does Flash not work on this at all? Going to flash sites asks me to install it, and when I go to Adobe they say it doesn't support this browser~.

Edit: Yeah this is awesome fast, but if I can't even go to Youtube on it~ it's not really going to work for me. ; ;


http://download.macromedia.com/pub/l...gin_111710.exe

That should be the latest version, let me know if it works for you.

(Yes the latest version is from November of 2010, nice job updating adobe)


----------



## Inverse

Thanks~ jees Adobe is ridiculous. It should be available already. I combed their site and found nothing. Thanks for the link.


----------



## sparkler

Quote:



Originally Posted by *iEATu*


It works fine though. Is there a place where I could read what security holes there are in the 64bit version?


search CVE for flash vulnerabilities for the 32bit version since flash 64bit pre3 was released its pretty much vulnerable to most if not all of them


----------



## iEATu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sparkler*


search CVE for flash vulnerabilities for the 32bit version since flash 64bit pre3 was released its pretty much vulnerable to most if not all of them


Wow those look pretty bad. Well I'll just make sure that I go on safe sites when using Waterfox then. Or at least make sure NoScript is blocking everything.


----------



## MrLimozine

Flash Player Doesnt work


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrLimozine*


Flash Player Doesnt work










It works fine (on most things), did you download the 64-bit version here?
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/l...gin_111710.exe


----------



## abu46

just started using waterfox 5 and boy is it great or what!!!!!!









-startup is much faster than firefox even with all the addons installed
-page loadup time is also slightly faster
-it took my default profile as i didnt have to import my bookmarks or install my addons again

just hope the security is just as good as with firefox as i intend to use it as my default browser......

thanks a lot mr alex


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14087375*
> just started using waterfox 5 and boy is it great or what!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -startup is much faster than firefox even with all the addons installed
> -page loadup time is also slightly faster
> -it took my default profile as i didnt have to import my bookmarks or install my addons again
> 
> just hope the security is just as good as with firefox as i intend to use it as my default browser......
> 
> thanks a lot mr alex


Besides flash (possibly java, idk if they keep up to date), everything should be just as secure as the 32bit counterpart.


----------



## MrLimozine

I'll try that, thanks.


----------



## abu46

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;14087528*
> Besides flash (possibly java, idk if they keep up to date), everything should be just as secure as the 32bit counterpart.


thnx

i guess thats the case with any browser, aint it?
i use flash block, so no issues their, and will update to javax64


----------



## AMD_Freak

I have not had 1 issue with flash/ youtube ;/ crashing or problems with any website I have tried to view with Waterfox ..unlike firefox crashing load times are 1/3 faster on webpages and startup.
http://www.overclock.net/13907832-post467.html


----------



## neonraver

has anyone tried the silverlight 5 beta? does it work on waterfox?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *neonraver*


has anyone tried the silverlight 5 beta? does it work on waterfox?


link?


----------



## cloppy007

The installer won't let me install under XP x64


----------



## abu46

i am facing the following problem with waterfox:

since installing waterfox i liked it very much and uninstalled firefox5, now i save webpages in mht format through the extension unmht, but now when i try to open those webpages i cannot do that even as waterfox is set to my default browser and the icons of those pages are blank









i cant even choose waterfox via "open with" option as i cannot sselect waterfox witin it

plz help as i want to keep using waterfox


----------



## Lord Venom

You have to manually associate file extensions (HTML and HTM) with Waterfox in Windows.


----------



## abu46

^^
do you mean by setting default programs coz windows isnt selecting waterfox when i click on it

if there is any other method kindly share


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14107011*
> ^^
> do you mean by setting default programs coz windows isnt selecting waterfox when i click on it
> 
> if there is any other method kindly share


Do you mean it's not showing up, or it's showing up and when you click on it the icon isn't highlighted?


----------



## abu46

^^
it shows up but when i click on it, it dosent get selected


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cloppy007;14099842*
> The installer won't let me install under XP x64


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14107278*
> ^^
> it shows up but when i click on it, it dosent get selected


Control Panel>Default Programs>Set Associations
Then find the extension, click on it, then click on Change program...


----------



## abu46

@mralex

yes thats exactly what i have been trying
but whenever i click on the waterfox app/exe it dosent gets selected in the next window

see screenshots


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *abu46*


@mralex

yes thats exactly what i have been trying
but whenever i click on the waterfox app/exe it dosent gets selected in the next window

see screenshots


You can open the files by pressing Ctrl+O and then selecting the MHTML files. 
Also, does the extension automatically make MHTML files associate with Firefox? If it does and you had this extension before Waterfox it may still be trying to associate the files to the default Firefox directory instead of Waterfox's directory. You can try uninstalling the add-on and the redownloading/installing it. Just in-case it is the add-on but that doesn't work, you may try this as well:
http://maf.mozdev.org/


----------



## abu46

well none of the above worked, so had to take the ultimate step of a complete reinstall









everything working now


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *abu46*


well none of the above worked, so had to take the ultimate step of a complete reinstall









everything working now


Well as long as it's working now


----------



## tridc

Is there windows media plugin for waterfox? I can't play wma on the web directly


----------



## tyrannor

Is there a 64bit Divx Web Player plugin?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tridc*


Is there windows media plugin for waterfox? I can't play wma on the web directly


You could try this, but I don't know if it'll work with Waterfox: http://www.interoperabilitybridges.c...efoxplugin.exe

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tyrannor*


Is there a 64bit Divx Web Player plugin?


I don't think there is, you could ask in the DivX support forum to see if they have any plans in the future for a 64-Bit version


----------



## abu46

some of the addons like menu editor, simple clocks, download status bar etc. which i was using normally with firefox5 are showing incompatible with waterfox!!!

even though the addons sites claim to be compatible even with firefox6

i have to use them by disabling compatibility check

is this normal?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *abu46*


some of the addons like menu editor, simple clocks, download status bar etc. which i was using normally with firefox5 are showing incompatible with waterfox!!!

even though the addons sites claim to be compatible even with firefox6

i have to use them by disabling compatibility check

is this normal?


That's strange, never had that happen with me, and it shouldn't happen considering that it is the exact same program


----------



## abu46

have a look at the screenshot


----------



## sparkler

you have to manually check for updates then the addons will work after a reset and download statusbar defiantly works as im using it


----------



## abu46

today i clicked on check for updates in the addon tab and it didnt download any updates but now says all my addons are compatible

guess its a bug of some kind


----------



## xd_1771

Firefox 6 Beta 1 is out!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14159703*
> Firefox 6 Beta 1 is out!


Oooh thanks







. Gah I'm so close to creating Mozilla Archives (MAR) which means I will be able to have automatic updates...but I keep getting stuck and it's annoying me now


----------



## adridu59

Pale Moon is a Firefox optimized build and it has x64 support too...


----------



## abu46

i did try palemoon prior to waterfox but IMO waterfox is better


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adridu59;14166417*
> Pale Moon is a Firefox optimized build and it has x64 support too...


Well done. When Waterfox first came out Palemoon didn't even have a 64-Bit version. What's your point?


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adridu59;14166417*
> Pale Moon is a Firefox optimized build and it has x64 support too...


It doesn't have the cool name, though.


----------



## stolid

I've been meaning to try this. Is it compiled with SSE3? What compiler did you use?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hey, has anyone gotten a 64bit Shockwave plugin? Also, why does the 64-bit flash plugin do autoupdates? *puzzled*


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


Hey, has anyone gotten a 64bit Shockwave plugin? Also, why does the 64-bit flash plugin do autoupdates? *puzzled*


Don't know, but the 64-bit version of flash has not been updated since november.


----------



## abu46

^^
is it ok to use the old 64-bit plugin??

plugin checker shows it to be outdated


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys I'm going to holiday today and therefore no more builds until I get back which is Sunday.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stolid;14172505*
> I've been meaning to try this. Is it compiled with SSE3? What compiler did you use?


No it isn't because it's compiled with MSVC, as per Mozilla's instructions.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14173804*
> Hey, has anyone gotten a 64bit Shockwave plugin? Also, why does the 64-bit flash plugin do autoupdates? *puzzled*


Nope, unfortunately there isn't. Lack of plug-ins is one of the drawbacks of 64-Bit browsers







. And yes it does that to me as well. Adobe really should pay more focus to 64-Bit computing.


----------



## bl0wf1sh

I don't want to pressurize anyone... and thanks again for the 64 bit compile!









Are you going to continue compiling with version 6 betas? I have a continuing bug with Flash not being able to stay full screen - having to use Chrome for watching videos and playing flash games.

Good job!

*EDIT* should have read your last post more thoroughly... cool!


----------



## sst

Firefox 5.0.1 is out!


----------



## abu46

^^
see the change log, its only has improvements for ********s running macs


----------



## Quantum Reality

Question - any chance you could put an SSE3 capable build up as well as the usual? Or would SSE3 just slow it down? Some really old CPUs wouldn't handle it but most of the 2000s-era generation should be able to. (See here)


----------



## Lord Venom

Should consider a 7.0 Aurora build, since they've made noticeable performance improvements.


----------



## Vowels

Update for 64-bit Flash!

http://www.overclock.net/software-ne...eta-1-x32.html
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vowels*


Update for 64-bit Flash!

http://www.overclock.net/software-ne...eta-1-x32.html
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html


Woo! It's about time!

*edit*

Hulu works now!


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, they announced Flash 11 beta with x64 support.


----------



## slimpyman

Stubhub.com says that i need a new version of flash. and a few other sites say i need flash to view the site... is it a 64 bit firefox/ 64 bit flash problem? id love to use just this browser (it seems so fast) but flash is almost a necessity on a desktop.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *slimpyman;14206776*
> Stubhub.com says that i need a new version of flash. and a few other sites say i need flash to view the site... is it a 64 bit firefox/ 64 bit flash problem? id love to use just this browser (it seems so fast) but flash is almost a necessity on a desktop.


You need the 64-bit version of flash for this version of firefox. The most updated version up until today was from november of 2010. Download the latest here, http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html


----------



## slimpyman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;14207209*
> You need the 64-bit version of flash for this version of firefox. The most updated version up until today was from november of 2010. Download the latest here, http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html


yeah dude, i definitely got the newest one that was released today. I only found out about waterfox yesterday when i did a reformat, and tried the link from in the OP. didnt work, and then i tried the one from adobes site from today, and that didnt work either.


----------



## Cozmoz

I've created an improved icon file for Waterfox as I don't like the jagged lines found on the current one; please find here:

http://cozmonort.deviantart.com/art/...icon-228266483

The .ico file can be found in the zip folder once downloaded. The Photoshop and Illustrator files are available on request.

Hope you like it


----------



## Lord Venom

Now that's an awesome icon. I haven't checked but is it the exact same size as the Firefox icon? One thing I think would be interesting to have is the little lights like the Aurora icon has to signify lighted cities. Have Waterfox being "night" and Firefox being "day".


----------



## Cozmoz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


Now that's an awesome icon. I haven't checked but is it the exact same size as the Firefox icon? One thing I think would be interesting to have is the little lights like the Aurora icon has to signify lighted cities. Have Waterfox being "night" and Firefox being "day".


Yeah, it's the same size with the exception that it hasn't got the little shadow underneath.

Interesting idea about the lights, I'm not sure how well they would work since the fox would cover most of them but I'll look into it.


----------



## Cozmoz

Just created a little comparison using a modified version of the Nightly logo.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cozmoz*


Just created a little comparison using a modified version of the Nightly logo.











Very nice!


----------



## Lord Venom

Very nice indeed.







It looks AWESOME now. As for the shadow, it should be possible to add a drop shadow or use Photoshop to copy the shadow from the Firefox icon and add to the Waterfox icon. At least, that's what I did when I was messing with the icon.


----------



## iEATu

Does anyone know how to change the icon for the .exe file since I don't have Waterfox on my desktop but instead it is pinned to my taskbar.


----------



## Lord Venom

You could open it in Resource Hacker I guess, or find the archive in the directory with the icons in it. I might test the new icons this way.


----------



## Jinnai

Just found this and tried it out. I'm glad someone went and created a 64-bit version!

There is one problem I'm having though. Running W7x64 and I can run this fine the first time after booting, but after closing it, I have to reboot sometimes. I haven't been able to confirm if this is all of the time or after doing plugin installs (happened after I installed java and the flash beta). It seems to start loading, but the program stops working before the window is launched.


----------



## xd_1771

OH SNAP
Flash 11 beta... has a 64 bit edition!

Link


----------



## Ryrynz

Firefox 6.0 Beta 2 is out, Waterfox release?


----------



## BALAST

What do you think that same developers also work on Waterfox?


----------



## Vowels

The guy who compiles Waterfox is on vacation right now, I believe.


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BALAST*


What do you think that same developers also work on Waterfox?


No, Waterfox is not created by Mozilla and any person even remotely educated would know this.

Thanks Vowels.


----------



## abu46

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cozmoz*


Just created a little comparison using a modified version of the Nightly logo.


nice
hope mr alex uses this in his next build


----------



## Reuter

How can i create my own language pack, since there is no german language available at this time?

Greetings


----------



## Cozmoz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cozmoz;14225554*
> Just created a little comparison using a modified version of the Nightly logo.


I have uploaded a copy of the second icon, both can be found below:

http://cozmonort.deviantart.com/art/Waterfox-icon-228266483

http://cozmonort.deviantart.com/art/Waterfox-icon-Nightly-remix-238901822

Enjoy!


----------



## sst

Hi, ...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reuter;14244478*
> How can i create my own language pack, since there is no german language available at this time?
> 
> Greetings


Hi, ...

I have use the "fr.xpi", to have Waterfox x64, in French Canada.
It mean that your Waterfox x64 build, can use " .xpi".
Try for German language "Deutsch" and Waterfox x64 = "de.xpi".

1) Download =

You can go to release section, and select the version nbr of your browser release version and after the .xpi = https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/

In example for v5.0 of Firefox and Waterfox, "de.xpi" = use that url below. it go directly to the download link.

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/5.0/win32/xpi/de.xpi

Please remember, that for now, its in win32 section, but work with x64 build of the same version nbr.

2) After type that url link inside Waterfox

About:config

3) it go to the parameter configuration section.

4)
from
general.useragent.locale = en_US
to
general.useragent.locale = de

or in example
general.useragent.locale = fr_CA

5) Restart Waterfox.

6) Then now Waterfox, is in your language.


----------



## Inverse

Is this going to only be updated as the RCs get released, or will we be seeing Waterfox's based on Aurora or Nightly builds? I'd like to use Firefox 8 Nightly, but love Waterfox so much, I can't justify it.


----------



## xd_1771

Not trying to push you but just to let you know, Firefox 6 beta 2 is out


----------



## JokerCPoC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;14205019*
> Woo! It's about time!
> 
> *edit*
> 
> Hulu works now!


Only partly, I went and searched for Fringe and clicked on an Episode and I get loading and then a black screen.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14189335*
> Question - any chance you could put an SSE3 capable build up as well as the usual? Or would SSE3 just slow it down? Some really old CPUs wouldn't handle it but most of the 2000s-era generation should be able to. (See here)


Unfortunately not. Microsoft decided they wouldn't include anything further than SSE 2 optimisation flags in the Visual Studio compiler. Although thankfully they have allowed the AVX extension.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cozmoz;14224921*
> I've created an improved icon file for Waterfox as I don't like the jagged lines found on the current one; please find here:
> 
> http://cozmonort.deviantart.com/art/Waterfox-icon-228266483
> 
> The .ico file can be found in the zip folder once downloaded. The Photoshop and Illustrator files are available on request.
> 
> Hope you like it


Thank you very much! I'll be using that from now on








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Inverse;14248709*
> Is this going to only be updated as the RCs get released, or will we be seeing Waterfox's based on Aurora or Nightly builds? I'd like to use Firefox 8 Nightly, but love Waterfox so much, I can't justify it.


Only as RCs are released. I literally don't have the time or money to do such a feat. It takes 4 hours to compile Waterfox, doing that every day? I wouldn't be able to, since I'm busy almost every single day. As for the money, that would be needed to build a system capable of compiling Waterfox faster and have it make 'automated' builds. Unfortunately I don't have money to spend








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14250494*
> Not trying to push you but just to let you know, Firefox 6 beta 2 is out


I don't think I can keep up with all the Beta's that are coming out. I'm trying to get auto-update working so whenever there is a release it's as simple as clicking a button. Firefox 6 is releasing next month anyway







I'll see if I have time to compile Beta's. Sorry about this. If I had a faster computer then it wouldn't be a problem, but 4 hours is a long time to spend each day


----------



## Cozmoz

Cool, glad to here your gonna use it.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Was gone to use Firefox Nightly 64-bit until I realized there is no 64bit Silverlight by M$ so that means no Netflix or any other SL streaming service. So I can't use it quite yet.









Even Flash (used by Youtube) is not even 64bit released yet:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Adobe*
> Will Flash Player come in a 64-bit version soon?
> 
> Adobe is actively working on the release of a native 64-bit Flash Player for the desktop and plans to provide native support for Windows, Macintosh, and Linux 64-bit platforms in an upcoming major release of Flash Player.
> 
> Note: You can download a preview release of Flash Player with the codename "Square." This release includes full support for 64-bit web browsers on Windows, Mac, and Linux computers from Adobe Labs (http://labs.adobe.com). The preview release installs into 64-bit web browsers, so you do not need to use a 32-bit browser to view Flash Player content.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337;14256425*
> 
> Even Flash (used by Youtube) is not even 64bit released yet:


Have you even GLANCED at this thread at all?

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html


----------



## abu46

well ,mr alex is back









how was your vacation??

may you get auto updates working and buy a nice powerful pc
amen


----------



## Quantum Reality

Is there a way to reinstate the time limit that Firefox/Waterfox uses to expire your links in your history?

EDIT: And can you give a set of directions for anyone who wants to compile Waterfox on their own? That way (as the fellow above says) people can do certain customizations if need be.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14256777*
> well ,mr alex is back
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how was your vacation??
> 
> may you get auto updates working and buy a nice powerful pc
> amen


My vacation was great thank you. Well I've managed to add more optimisation flags to Waterfox 5.0.1, but the main power station here on the island has been destroyed and they cut off the electricity every now and again and it keeps cutting me off when I'm in the middle of building it!







And thank you








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14257010*
> Is there a way to reinstate the time limit that Firefox/Waterfox uses to expire your links in your history?
> 
> EDIT: And can you give a set of directions for anyone who wants to compile Waterfox on their own? That way (as the fellow above says) people can do certain customizations if need be.


What do you mean by expiring links? Could you explain a bit more please? Also for how to build Firefox:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build


----------



## Lord Venom

I really like the nightly remix icon for Waterfox. I think it'd do perfectly.







MrAlex, for the next build can you make the about window's background the default white instead of black? The black is kinda throwing me off.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14257596*
> What do you mean by expiring links? Could you explain a bit more please? Also for how to build Firefox:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build


See the attachment. This feature got taken out in ver 5+ of Firefox.


----------



## slimpyman

is there any way to have firefrox 32bit, and waterfox 64 bit installed simultaneously, as well as have adobe64bit and adobe 32bit simultaneously?

some sites (stubhub) think there is no flash installed when im using waterfox and adobe64bit flash... and then when i use firefox, and go to a flash site (stubhub) it says its not installed. i must then uninstall 64bit flash and install 32bit flash to view it.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Have you even GLANCED at this thread at all?

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html











Yea, thats why I said "released". I don't count Betas (or Alphas) as releases, just mere product testing.

I never said it wasn't available, even hinted by the text in my quote.


----------



## JokerCPoC

I'm having problems right clicking on pictures in Waterfox, to do so takes 2 tries before the menus comes up. Otherwise no problems.


----------



## IcySon55

Any news about a Waterfox 6.0 in line with the Firefox 6.0 betas?


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry it's taking so long for the next build, power cuts have not helped :| I've tried 3 times so far!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *IcySon55*


Any news about a Waterfox 6.0 in line with the Firefox 6.0 betas?


I can't even build the next stable release, let alone keep up with every beta


----------



## Ryrynz

It would be almost pointless in to compile every beta as there are so few changes over such a short period of time. Just release whenever you have the time and desire to do so. A few betas would be sufficient I think before the final release.


----------



## xd_1771

Waterfox & Firefox can be installed (just not run) simultaneously.


----------



## MrAlex

Finally, Waterfox 5.0.1 is available!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JokerCPoC;14273699*
> I'm having problems right clicking on pictures in Waterfox, to do so takes 2 tries before the menus comes up. Otherwise no problems.


Strange, don't have that problem, haven't heard of anyone else having that problem








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;14291643*
> It would be almost pointless in to compile every beta as there are so few changes over such a short period of time. Just release whenever you have the time and desire to do so. A few betas would be sufficient I think before the final release.


Think that's what I'll do


----------



## Vowels

Odd...after upgrading to 5.0.1, some AJAX/javascript isn't working. Having some troubles with Google+ and Facebook right now.

Seems to fix itself if I revert back to 5.0.0. Well I'm fine with 5.0.0, waiting for Waterfox 6 beta


----------



## meetajhu

I always wanted to ask you a question. Why does your Waterfox sourgeforge page lag on Firefox and Waterfox and Palemoon browsers and not on I.E 9 or Chrome?


----------



## Blostorm

We are not July 22nd yet


----------



## Lord Venom

The logo is missing from the about dialog. And it's still black (shouldn't it be white like Firefox is?)


----------



## Strat79

You mentioned it taking several hours to compile on your computer. What kind of rig are you running, which CPU? Just curious. It sounds like you are running a pretty outdated one if it is taking that long, though I have very little experience with compiling to compare it to. That said, I would donate my CPU time to compile for you if it would help. I wish I knew more about it, I'd like to do it for myself just for educational purposes.


----------



## Homeles

So what happens with your project when Firefox officially launches 64 bit?


----------



## Strat79

One other thing, I just updated to the 5.0.1 build and now my little preview that is supposed to pop up on the main page when you hover over a thread name is gone. The one that shows you the first few lines of the original post on the current threads and the news posts. It works fine once you go inside a sub-forum and hover, but on the main page it will not show the previews anymore. Not sure if it is a bug with this version or something else related to my rig in particular. Just know it works fine if I go back to 5.0.

Edit: Cannot edit a post now either. The save/Go Advanced/Cancel buttons will not work. Had to go to IE9 to post this.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Homeles*


So what happens with your project when Firefox officially launches 64 bit?


With the track record of their x64 builds, this one will probably still be a better build. They have x64 builds out on their FTP server, but they are horribly bug ridden and have been since they came out. If/when they do come out with a great version, this can either die off or still give people a choice and keep it updated.


----------



## Riou

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Strat79*


You mentioned it taking several hours to compile on your computer. What kind of rig are you running, which CPU? Just curious. It sounds like you are running a pretty outdated one if it is taking that long, though I have very little experience with compiling to compare it to. That said, I would donate my CPU time to compile for you if it would help. I wish I knew more about it, I'd like to do it for myself just for educational purposes.


Firefox 64-bit source code has some bugs that increase compile times from what I have read.


----------



## Strat79

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Riou*


Firefox 64-bit source code has some bugs that increase compile times from what I have read.


Makes sense. I figured he just had an old machine. I'd happily donate my CPU time if it would speed it up considerably. Probably not worth it to him though, just offering









Edit: Cannot edit/Go Advanced, etc or click on any of the buttons like add link or picture after hitting edit. Coupled with the no preview on the main page, I am going back to 5.0.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vowels*


Odd...after upgrading to 5.0.1, some AJAX/javascript isn't working. Having some troubles with Google+ and Facebook right now.

Seems to fix itself if I revert back to 5.0.0. Well I'm fine with 5.0.0, waiting for Waterfox 6 beta










Seems to be a problem with 5.0.1!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *meetajhu*


I always wanted to ask you a question. Why does your Waterfox sourgeforge page lag on Firefox and Waterfox and Palemoon browsers and not on I.E 9 or Chrome?


To be honest I have no idea. Most probably because the website designer optimised it for Webkit browsers, but it seems to run smoothly for me.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


The logo is missing from the about dialog. And it's still black (shouldn't it be white like Firefox is?)


I know, Mozilla have made custom builds strange lately. They're not doing what they're supposed to, random errors, it's really annoying.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Strat79*


You mentioned it taking several hours to compile on your computer. What kind of rig are you running, which CPU? Just curious. It sounds like you are running a pretty outdated one if it is taking that long, though I have very little experience with compiling to compare it to. That said, I would donate my CPU time to compile for you if it would help. I wish I knew more about it, I'd like to do it for myself just for educational purposes.


Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 @ 2GHz
Intel G945M Graphics
4GB DDR2 667MHz
80GB SeaGate that is VERY slow. Takes 3 minutes for my computer to boot up, is the main culprit -.-

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Homeles*


So what happens with your project when Firefox officially launches 64 bit?


I'm not sure. When Firefox officially launches 64-Bit the performance difference between any custom build and it will be almost not noticable, because Mozilla will have switched to compiling with Visual Studio 2010, and will have re-enabled jemalloc. Also 64-Bit builds automatically compile with SSE and SSE2. So I'll probably just stop the project when that happens as Mozilla will have the superior product.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Strat79*


One other thing, I just updated to the 5.0.1 build and now my little preview that is supposed to pop up on the main page when you hover over a thread name is gone. The one that shows you the first few lines of the original post on the current threads and the news posts. It works fine once you go inside a sub-forum and hover, but on the main page it will not show the previews anymore. Not sure if it is a bug with this version or something else related to my rig in particular. Just know it works fine if I go back to 5.0.

Edit: Cannot edit a post now either. The save/Go Advanced/Cancel buttons will not work. Had to go to IE9 to post this.


Problem with 5.0.1, revert back to 5.0

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Riou*


Firefox 64-bit source code has some bugs that increase compile times from what I have read.


Not really, it's my very slow computer that is the actual problem. It's 5 years old so it does take it's time :|

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Strat79*


Makes sense. I figured he just had an old machine. I'd happily donate my CPU time if it would speed it up considerably. Probably not worth it to him though, just offering










If you wanted to then you could, and then compiling AVX builds for Sandy Bridge processors and Bulldozer processors would be possible


----------



## bfe_vern

Reverted back before I saw your post. I was having a problem with NoScript.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 @ 2GHz
Intel G945M Graphics
4GB DDR2 667MHz
80GB SeaGate that is VERY slow. Takes 3 minutes for my computer to boot up, is the main culprit -.-


It really sounds like you're having to do this on a laptop







And laptops don't have great hard drives.

What'd your budget be for a decent compilebox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


It really sounds like you're having to do this on a laptop







And laptops don't have great hard drives.

What'd your budget be for a decent compilebox?


Well, I've already got the following components, I started collecting them since 2009 :|


Intel Core i7 960
Foxconn Flamingblade GTi
4GB DDR3 1600MHz
XFX 850W
Problem is I need a GPU (and a HDD but they can be bought anywhere) and for example a 5850 is 250 euro here. I'm REALLY tight on money as well, need to have an operation that will cost a lot and so I'm trying to save every penny. But I also need to build this computer to sell it to buy a laptop because now I'm going to University in September








That's why I keep looking in the For Sale section for a GTX 465 that's around $100-110 so in total it'll only cost $155 to ship here and it'd be the best card I could buy for the money.


----------



## Cozmoz

Well as far as the hard drive goes you can use your laptop one until you can afford a better one.


----------



## Korlus

You could also look at a regular GTX 460, or an HD 6850/5850 from elsewhere too. They're all approximately similar performance and go for similar prices in the used section.

Also, I've been having problems getting DivX running in the browser. Is there anything you would suggest to do? As it is, I'm having to download whatever I wanted to stream and then watch it in VLC Player, which is not ideal at all.


----------



## Cozmoz

Have you tried windows media player with k-lite.


----------



## abu46

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14315939*
> Well, I've already got the following components, I started collecting them since 2009 :|
> 
> 
> Intel Core i7 960
> Foxconn Flamingblade GTi
> 4GB DDR3 1600MHz
> XFX 850W
> Problem is I need a GPU (and a HDD but they can be bought anywhere) and for example a 5850 is 250 euro here. I'm REALLY tight on money as well, need to have an operation that will cost a lot and so I'm trying to save every penny. But I also need to build this computer to sell it to buy a laptop because now I'm going to University in September
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why I keep looking in the For Sale section for a GTX 465 that's around $100-110 so in total it'll only cost $155 to ship here and it'd be the best card I could buy for the money.


really sad to know that you have to go under the knife








hope its not too serious

dont know anything about compiling and all but if i could be of any help just let me know

BTW i think you should release 6 beta2 instead of 5.0.1


----------



## xd_1771

I wonder how the compile process works. I have a Phenom II hexa with about as much multithreaded power clock-for-clock as a nehalem i7 that could possibly help here(when I get home from a vacation). I also woner if it could be made possible that this be compiled for 64-bit linux (it's an interesting possibility).

Also CCCP + MPC-HC makes for a great combination for playing pretty much anything.

Try reducing your boot time by running ccleaner, system ninja, and defraggler, and reducing your startup programs and services running.


----------



## tyrannor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14318587*
> I wonder how the compile process works. I have a Phenom II hexa with about as much multithreaded power clock-for-clock as a nehalem i7 that could possibly help here(when I get home from a vacation). I also woner if it could be made possible that this be compiled for 64-bit linux (it's an interesting possibility).
> 
> Also CCCP + MPC-HC makes for a great combination for playing pretty much anything.
> 
> Try reducing your boot time by running ccleaner, system ninja, and defraggler, and reducing your startup programs and services running.


Are there any good codec packs around. I need one to work with 64 bit DAUM Pot Player and the K-lite codec pack 64 bit doesn't do it for rmvb videos. Does better than the built in codecs that come with the player though.


----------



## Vowels

Try UMPlayer + Lachs0r's mplayer2 as the back-end. It works for everything I've thrown at it so far though I haven't tried rmvb. You could also just use the base UMPlayer install which uses mplayer backend.

http://www.umplayer.com/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cozmoz*


Well as far as the hard drive goes you can use your laptop one until you can afford a better one.


Hell no! I've got a WD HDD from another laptop lying around, or I'll just buy a small capacity HDD









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Korlus*


You could also look at a regular GTX 460, or an HD 6850/5850 from elsewhere too. They're all approximately similar performance and go for similar prices in the used section.

Also, I've been having problems getting DivX running in the browser. Is there anything you would suggest to do? As it is, I'm having to download whatever I wanted to stream and then watch it in VLC Player, which is not ideal at all.


6850/5850s actually go for much higher







. EVGA have GTX 465s for $110, so it's just a matter of finding someone to get one, then me pay them for the GPU + shipping to Cyprus.

As for watching DivX things in the browser, you have to bug the DivX development team to develop a 64-Bit DivX browser plug-in!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cozmoz*


Have you tried windows media player with k-lite.


I think he meant in the browser?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *abu46*


really sad to know that you have to go under the knife








hope its not too serious

dont know anything about compiling and all but if i could be of any help just let me know









BTW i think you should release 6 beta2 instead of 5.0.1


I wish it wasn't serious







And yeah I think I'll manage for now thanks









Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I wonder how the compile process works. I have a Phenom II hexa with about as much multithreaded power clock-for-clock as a nehalem i7 that could possibly help here(when I get home from a vacation). I also woner if it could be made possible that this be compiled for 64-bit linux (it's an interesting possibility).

Also CCCP + MPC-HC makes for a great combination for playing pretty much anything.

Try reducing your boot time by running ccleaner, system ninja, and defraggler, and reducing your startup programs and services running.


Unfortunately due to compiling with Visual Studio 2010, it's only single-threaded. But processor power does not play a big a role here, HDD speed and amount of RAM is what counts. The more RAM and faster the HDD, the faster the compile time. And yes I could make a 64-Bit Linux version. If I were to make a 64-Bit Linux version I'd be able to compile with MMX, SSE, SSE2, SSE3, SSE4 etc due to using the GCC compiler which is MUCH more flexible. I tried using the GCC compiler to compile Waterfox for Windows but I kept on getting errors that no-one seemed to know how to fix. But I've found the Mozilla developer channel so I might try again and ask for help there.

Haha you'd be surprised to know that I have _no_ programs that start-up. And it still takes 3 minutes. That's how crap my HDD is.


----------



## Jashh

Can anyone tell me if the Spywareblaster database is also used for Waterfox? I have been using it for years now and it has protection for specifically Firefox and IE. Does it see Waterfox as Firefox now?


----------



## bfe_vern

Maybe someone can donate a faster drive or more memory to the cause. If I could I would but as you can see from my specs I'm running on older generation HW.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jashh;14328580*
> Can anyone tell me if the Spywareblaster database is also used for Waterfox? I have been using it for years now and it has protection for specifically Firefox and IE. Does it see Waterfox as Firefox now?


It should see Waterfox as Firefox. The only issue I would see is if Spywareblaster supports 64-Bit programs? I'd send an e-mail to their support and ask them if they support 64-Bit browsers.


----------



## Strat79

Well, I have VS 2010 installed already on my computer. I was going to ask you which one you used but you have already answered that. I didn't know it was single threaded. I have plenty of RAM and a decent speed raid array so it would probably be alot faster on mine, and like you said I could do the AVX builds. I wasn't sure if you did anything special with the source code so I was hesitant to even ask if you wanted any help. Didn't know if you were comfortable sending it to someone you hardly knew, etc. Anyway, if you need any help just shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to either do the AVX builds or the normal ones as well. I have very little experience with compiling just so you know. I have done some in the past, but it has been a while. Not sure how hard it would be to give a short step by step instruction list or if that is even feasible. If not and too complicated to try to put into words/vid, then I'll try to do some reading and learn what all I need to do. I pick up on things very quick


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;14328678*
> Maybe someone can donate a faster drive or more memory to the cause. If I could I would but as you can see from my specs I'm running on older generation HW.


I was thinking about donations or something but I don't want to make it seem like I'm doing this just to get things. I don't know, what do you think?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Strat79;14332588*
> Well, I have VS 2010 installed already on my computer. I was going to ask you which one you used but you have already answered that. I didn't know it was single threaded. I have plenty of RAM and a decent speed raid array so it would probably be alot faster on mine, and like you said I could do the AVX builds. I wasn't sure if you did anything special with the source code so I was hesitant to even ask if you wanted any help. Didn't know if you were comfortable sending it to someone you hardly knew, etc. Anyway, if you need any help just shoot me a PM and I'd be happy to either do the AVX builds or the normal ones as well. I have very little experience with compiling just so you know. I have done some in the past, but it has been a while. Not sure how hard it would be to give a short step by step instruction list or if that is even feasible. If not and too complicated to try to put into words/vid, then I'll try to do some reading and learn what all I need to do. I pick up on things very quick


PMed


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


I was thinking about donations or something but I don't want to make it seem like I'm doing this just to get things. I don't know, what do you think?

PMed










I think donations would also work. People could make it as small or as large as they need to. Those who can will and those who can't wont. Any little can help. Setup a Paypal account for the donations and put it on the first post.


----------



## Jashh

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


It should see Waterfox as Firefox. The only issue I would see is if Spywareblaster supports 64-Bit programs? I'd send an e-mail to their support and ask them if they support 64-Bit browsers.


Thank you


----------



## arranmc182

This is nice but still find chrome to run that little faster, should do a Linux version as chrome on Linux is not as fast as on windows lol


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 6 Release Candidate 1 is on its way guys. Bear with me, compiling has become a pain lately







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arranmc182;14367612*
> This is nice but still find chrome to run that little faster, should do a Linux version as chrome on Linux is not as fast as on windows lol


I'm struggling with Windows builds as it is







but I'm experimenting compiling Waterfox under Linux, and if that goes well then I wouldn't mind compiling Linux builds as well.


----------



## Cozmoz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arranmc182;14367612*
> This is nice but still find chrome to run that little faster, should do a Linux version as chrome on Linux is not as fast as on windows lol


Firefox on Linux is already 64 bit if you are using a 64 bit version of Linux.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14367653*
> Waterfox 6 Release Candidate 1 is on its way guys. Bear with me, compiling has become a pain lately


I have a VS2010 ISO I have yet to install, how do I do it myself?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


I have a VS2010 ISO I have yet to install, how do I do it myself?










Do what yourself? Build Firefox?
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14367653*
> Waterfox 6 Release Candidate 1 is on its way guys. Bear with me, compiling has become a pain lately
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm struggling with Windows builds as it is
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but I'm experimenting compiling Waterfox under Linux, and if that goes well then I wouldn't mind compiling Linux builds as well.


On the way to DL your latest. Thanks again Alex!!!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Do what yourself? Build Firefox?
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Simple_Firefox_build


Thank ye kindly.







Ditto Waterfox, then, if you put the source up?


----------



## Cozmoz

Hi Alex,

I noticed the icon for internet shortcuts has changed with version 6, would you like me to create a custom icon for this? Here's a pic so you know what I'm talking about.


----------



## sst

Hi, ...

Please add to "Frequently Asked Questions", ...

Change the language of Waterfox.

I have use the "fr.xpi", to have Waterfox x64, in French Canada.
It mean that your Waterfox x64 build, can use " .xpi".
Try for German language "Deutsch" and Waterfox x64 = "de.xpi".

1) Download =

You can go to release section, and select the version nbr of your browser release version and after the .xpi =

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/

Please remember, that for now, its in win32 section, but work with x64 build of the same version nbr.

2) After type that url link inside Waterfox

About:config

3) it go to the parameter configuration section.

4)
from
general.useragent.locale = en_US
to
general.useragent.locale = de

or in example
general.useragent.locale = fr_CA

5) Restart Waterfox.

6) Then now Waterfox, is in your language.


----------



## abu46

WF6 working great









thnx


----------



## xd_1771

Was about to announce that I had temporarily abandoned waterfox for firefox 8 alpha 1
Then I saw 6.0 RC1...
Yay! Installing now

EDIT: Looks like waterfox 6 RC is still the startup time winner, but by slightly (it's hard to tell)
Page loading, not sure... they seem equal


----------



## Cozmoz

Yeah I noticed that has a 64 bit version too, I'll probably switch over once they start releasing Beta 64 bit builds.


----------



## xd_1771

I doubt Waterfox will disappear after Firefox 64-bit. Waterfox is not only 64-bit optimized.... but also SSE2, SSE3, perhaps even SSE4, for different platforms or so it is planned. If MrAlex happened to in the future obtain one of the AMD FX CPUs, he would have the widest possible instruction support and optimization possibilities (the FX supports all current instruction sets including the new AVX and AES, as well as some of its own).


----------



## bfe_vern

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14428638*
> I doubt Waterfox will disappear after Firefox 64-bit. Waterfox is not only 64-bit optimized.... but also SSE2, SSE3, perhaps even SSE4, for different platforms or so it is planned. If MrAlex happened to in the future obtain one of the AMD FX CPUs, he would have the widest possible instruction support and optimization possibilities (the FX supports all current instruction sets including the new AVX and AES, as well as some of its own).


+1 on this.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;14428762*
> +1 on this.


+2 plus love supporting the home team..


----------



## iEATu

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


+2 plus love supporting the home team..










+3....because I can


----------



## bfe_vern

I'm thinking its tee shirt time Alex!!!! Maybe OCN on the opposite side....


----------



## Ironcobra

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CjVkplphsBU[/ame[/URL]]


----------



## arranmc182

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cozmoz*


Firefox on Linux is already 64 bit if you are using a 64 bit version of Linux.


But Firefox is not at all optimized on 64bit Linux runs slower than the 32bit version I found.

Sent from my GT-P1000 using Tapatalk


----------



## MrAlex

Little bump so people know RC2 is available.


----------



## abu46

^^
thanks


----------



## Lord Venom

The about dialog logo not working... it has to be something to do with the size of the Waterfox logo or the bit-depth or something like that.

Somebody post the original Firefox logo file used by the about dialog and the current one Waterfox uses. I'll take a quick look at it and see what's happening there.


----------



## dlee7283

anyway u would do a Intel Waterfox that take advantage of their instruction sets and another build for AMD Waterfox with their sets?


----------



## xd_1771

I recently took to removing my navigation bar (that's right, browsing without addressbar and back & forward ftw) and making a few other tweaks - and along with Waterfox 6, my web browsing experience is faster, smoother, and better than ever









I don't think I've ever been this comfortable on the web.


----------



## abu46

^^
can you share the screenshots?
how do you manage w/o the add. bar??


----------



## Cozmoz

I've updated the icon in an effort to fix the problem by changing the max icon size from 256x256 as suggested on the Microsoft website to 128x128. Hope this solves the problem.


----------



## xd_1771

See link








The addressbar is still there actually, but it's auto hidden until pressing the ctrl key (along with the search box and the back/forward button). It's still brought up when needed, but not nearly as often anymore. After pressing the ctrl key, I can mouselessly type in a new URL into address bar or term in search bar after ctrl+e shortcut. I can also press ctrl + c when nothing is selected on a page, to copy the page URL. Much faster.

Eventually I plan on removing the back/forward button altogether, and even removing the addressbar and search box by integrating them into the tabs and tab bar (somehow), but I will need to find addons to do that first...

I can't wait for Waterfox 7 and 8.... Firefox 7 and 8 have memory leaks fixed, I wonder what'll happen with Waterfox. Though it uses more memory at first, it does leak. I have 6 tabs open using 1.5GB RAM right now








8GB of RAM ftw. I don't mind if Waterfox will continue to use more memory than usual, i just hope the leaking (which is different from the usual memory usage) stops.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14512292*
> I can't wait for Waterfox 7 and 8.... Firefox 7 and 8 have memory leaks fixed, I wonder what'll happen with Waterfox. Though it uses more memory at first, it does leak. I have 6 tabs open using 1.5GB RAM right now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 8GB of RAM ftw. I don't mind if Waterfox will continue to use more memory than usual, i just hope the leaking (which is different from the usual memory usage) stops.


Quote:


> New in Firefox Aurora:
> 
> Performance Enhancements: Faster startup time on Mac, Windows, and Linux
> Optimized Memory Use:
> Improved memory management: For many users, memory use is reduced by 30 percent or more, responsiveness is enhanced
> The JavaScript garbage collector runs frequently to free up more memory when Firefox is idle
> 
> Firefox Sync: Bookmarks and passwords now sync instantly
> Enhanced Font Rendering: Fonts are rendered clear and sharp
> New platform features and developer tools:
> 
> Telemetry: Users can opt-in for automatic memory usage, performance testing and reporting to help improve future versions Firefox
> Web timing spec: Measure performance characteristics of websites as users experience them
> Azure Direct2D for Canvas: Canvas-based animations on the Web are dramatically faster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Support for CSS3 Text-Overflow: ellipsis: New and more elegant way to display text content that has overflowed its given layout area


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, I can't wait to see Waterfox 7 and 8 too. I've been using Nightly for the last couple days and I'm impressed.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14520358*
> Yeah, I can't wait to see Waterfox 7 and 8 too. I've been using Nightly for the last couple days and I'm impressed.


Is Nightly somewhat stable? What's so much better about it? I've been using Aurora a lot now and it's pretty good.


----------



## gregory121295

Nightly is completely stable for me. The only annoying thing is most add-ons are only compatible up to firefox 7, not 8. Nightly has daily updates, and is just faster in general.


----------



## xd_1771

See one of the firefox-related links in my sig for info on how to circumvent the addon compatibility check


----------



## bfe_vern

^ +1 ...works all the time for me!


----------



## chrischoi

Opened up Google. Should it be this resource heavy? I know that it's up there, but didn't think it was this high.

Was 6.0 RC2.

Trying 5.0 and same thing... I have nothing else open. Fresh restart... I can barely put up a Facebook status... 448,xxx K... 28% Physical Memory.







Guess I can't be in the club.

Trying to wipe and reinstall. Maybe it's a add-on. Blah.

Thanks.


----------



## Cozmoz

Mines the same.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *chrischoi*


Opened up Google. Should it be this resource heavy? I know that it's up there, but didn't think it was this high.

Was 6.0 RC2.

Trying 5.0 and same thing... I have nothing else open. Fresh restart... I can barely put up a Facebook status... 448,xxx K... 28% Physical Memory.







Guess I can't be in the club.

Trying to wipe and reinstall. Maybe it's a add-on. Blah.

Thanks.


Firefox uses a specific % of RAM. I have 4GB, exactly half the amount you have and my memory usage is around 200,000K, exactly half the amount it uses for you. You have all that RAM for a reason right?


----------



## Cozmoz

MrAlex, I also have 4 gb of ram and my memory usage is showing 385,504 with just this tab open.


----------



## chrischoi

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Firefox uses a specific % of RAM. I have 4GB, exactly half the amount you have and my memory usage is around 200,000K, exactly half the amount it uses for you. You have all that RAM for a reason right?










I downloaded 32bit Firefox just to test it out. With this tab and Facebook I'm at 127,160 K. Oh well. I guess I just noticed it freezing up and stuff... I figured it was just lacking memory or something. I'll keep trying it.

Thank you.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Cozmoz*


MrAlex, I also have 4 gb of ram and my memory usage is showing 385,504 with just this tab open.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *chrischoi*


I downloaded 32bit Firefox just to test it out. With this tab and Facebook I'm at 127,160 K. Oh well. I guess I just noticed it freezing up and stuff... I figured it was just lacking memory or something. I'll keep trying it.

Thank you.


Well all I can really say is use whatever works best for you guys


----------



## Cozmoz

Thanks, it's not a problem for me really as I have a pretty beefy system and it makes up for it with load times. I just wanted you to know that his not alone in regards to the ram usage.


----------



## tyrannor

The latest flash update seems to cause squares in my videos. they are not artifacts in the video but actual tiny squares on the flash player's screen. things seemed to work fine before the latest update. Anyone else has the same problem?


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;14545805*
> The latest flash update seems to cause squares in my videos. they are not artifacts in the video but actual tiny squares on the flash player's screen. things seemed to work fine before the latest update. Anyone else has the same problem?


Yes, only on hulu though. Youtube seems to be unaffected.


----------



## xd_1771

Both Firefox and Waterfox adapt to the amount of system memory available. Waterfox is tuned to use more memory when it is available - which means on systems with above 4GB of RAM (aka 64-bit OS installed or else) you will get higher memory usage, but at the benefit also of higher performance.


----------



## chrischoi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14549412*
> Both Firefox and Waterfox adapt to the amount of system memory available. Waterfox is tuned to use more memory when it is available - which means on systems with above 4GB of RAM (aka 64-bit OS installed or else) you will get higher memory usage, but at the benefit also of higher performance.


Thank you. I figured that out later. Just was a little suprised because it seems like it's so much.


----------



## alur

Is it just me, or does Waterfox lag something terrible on the Waterfox download page? It doesn't seem to happen with Firefox or other browsers. At least I have yet to find another website with this problem.


----------



## tyrannor

It looks like FF6 is already out.
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Download-Firefox-6-Final-216705.shtml


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alur;14564927*
> Is it just me, or does Waterfox lag something terrible on the Waterfox download page? It doesn't seem to happen with Firefox or other browsers. At least I have yet to find another website with this problem.


I've heard a few people complaining about that, but for some reason I haven't been able to recreate the problem







I think I'm going to try and re-design the website to make it more elegant. At the moment it looks a bit too, unprofessional. A nice dark theme would suit very nicely.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;14568995*
> It looks like FF6 is already out.
> http://news.softpedia.com/news/Download-Firefox-6-Final-216705.shtml


Yep, I'll have it out as soon as possible. I've been messing around with the compiler flags and I've figured out some nice speedy combinations


----------



## Zudeo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14570645*
> Yep, I'll have it out as soon as possible. I've been messing around with the compiler flags and I've figured out some nice speedy combinations


Take your time. Also, I'm loving Waterfox. I've been using it since 5.0 released! Keep up the good work!


----------



## Lord Venom

Haha, I fixed the about dialog issues. All you need to do Alex is download and add these two files to omni.jar (chrome/browser/content/branding). The main issue is that aboutDialog.css was pointing to an non-existent image file so I fixed it to point to the right image by replacing the file with the one from Firefox so it perfectly matches Firefox. I also modified about-logo.png to be perfectly sized and in the same placement with the about-logo.png found in Firefox builds so both are needed.


















EDIT: Updated the image to fix an issue that caused it to get cut off on top, please re-download!


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> I've been messing around with the compiler flags and I've figured out some nice speedy combinations


Sounds intriguing!
I wonder when would it be possible that you make processor-optimized variants of waterfox.

I'm going to go ahead and suggest that you look at the AMD Bulldozer (FX) processor and AM3+ platform. It will have the widest current instruction set support of all processors.


----------



## demos

waiting for waterfox 6 final =)


----------



## abu46

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14570645*
> Yep, I'll have it out as soon as possible. I've been messing around with the compiler flags and I've figured out some nice speedy combinations


whooo... that sounds exciting!!!!!

waiting for the release


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zudeo;14571285*
> Take your time. Also, I'm loving Waterfox. I've been using it since 5.0 released! Keep up the good work!


Thank you








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14571341*
> Haha, I fixed the about dialog issues. All you need to do Alex is download and add these two files to omni.jar (chrome/browser/content/branding). The main issue is that aboutDialog.css was pointing to an non-existent image file so I fixed it to point to the right image by replacing the file with the one from Firefox so it perfectly matches Firefox. I also modified about-logo.png to be perfectly sized and in the same placement with the about-logo.png found in Firefox builds so both are needed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Updated the image to fix an issue that caused it to get cut off on top, please re-download!


Fantastic, thank you







There are so many customisations available to the about dialog, but I forgot you can edit this directly, and I kept on thinking "Oh god I have to recompile every time I want to check the dialog box". You've saved me a lot of time, thank you!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14571664*
> Sounds intriguing!
> I wonder when would it be possible that you make processor-optimized variants of waterfox.
> 
> I'm going to go ahead and suggest that you look at the AMD Bulldozer (FX) processor and AM3+ platform. It will have the widest current instruction set support of all processors.


I don't think that'd be possible. I'd require and Intel system and an AMD system







And 4 versions of Waterfox would be a bit of a hassle








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demos;14571863*
> waiting for waterfox 6 final =)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14577597*
> whooo... that sounds exciting!!!!!
> 
> waiting for the release


It's coming, should be available tomorrow


----------



## tyrannor

Speedy combinations = speedy compilation or faster browser experience?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;14578619*
> Speedy combinations = speedy compilation or faster browser experience?


Faster browser experience.


----------



## xd_1771

You sure about that? the FX series does have wide instruction support. This means that you could compile with all the optimizations for FX series optimization, or compile with only the required optimizations for a certain processor. One processor could compile for everything.

Can't wait for tomorrow








But more importantly, can't wait for Waterfox 7 beta


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14581890*
> You sure about that? the FX series does have wide instruction support. This means that you could compile with all the optimizations for FX series optimization, or compile with only the required optimizations for a certain processor. One processor could compile for everything.
> 
> Can't wait for tomorrow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But more importantly, can't wait for Waterfox 7 beta


Yeah. For platform specific libraries to be used, you need to be using *that* platforms processor, unfortunately.


----------



## kyle-reece

So what exactly is this? a blue theme for firefox?


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kyle-reece;14583892*
> So what exactly is this? a blue theme for firefox?


That plus it's 64-bit and is compiled with some optimizations not included in the regular version of FF.


----------



## animal0307

has the Hulu issue been fixed with Waterfox 6?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hey, does anyone know where flash actually installs to? I'm concerned that I may have mixed together 32 and 64 bit versions because even the 64bit will check for an update and ask you to update if the version # is newer.

Any word on issues with Waterfox 6?


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *animal0307;14584175*
> has the Hulu issue been fixed with Waterfox 6?


Flash was the problem not waterfox. It's fixed the original problem of not loading videos, but the new problem is that the video looks blocky.


----------



## animal0307

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;14584280*
> Flash was the problem not waterfox. It's fixed the original problem of not loading videos, but the new problem is that the video looks blocky.


I realized that is was probably flash a soon as I posted. I just installed and was going to try it myself.

Thanks for the answer


----------



## iEATu

Great to see Waterfox 6!

Can someone tell me the difference between Flash Player 11 Beta 2 Global SWC vs the regular browser plugin?
http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html


----------



## Lord Venom

Working fine here.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14582835*
> Yeah. For platform specific libraries to be used, you need to be using *that* platforms processor, unfortunately.


Ohh, I see how it works









I'm about to install the final, will be using it alongside nightly 8.0.1 alpha x64 (waterfox during regular days and nightly if I need the RAM usage to be less i.e. video editing same time).

OP states "Surprise in a few days







"...... Exciting


----------



## oorenotsoo

I just downloaded 6.0. Great stuff. I'm also wondering what the surprise will be.

Edit: Maybe it's just me, but this seems really really fast. Nice


----------



## quisnox

Hello,

I have brand new laptop with Intel Core i5 & 64 bit windows : ) I wanna try how fast Firefox can be using FULL processor power (SSE 4.2 or 4.1). It's possible to get somewhere x64 SSE 4.2 optimized Firefox build?


----------



## Lord Venom

Sure, you can try building it yourself.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Ahem, guys? I would like to know about that Flash installation location....


----------



## Wishmaker

Nice effort guys. I just need to encounter a situation where a 64 bit browser is needed.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *quisnox;14588787*
> Hello,
> 
> I have brand new laptop with Intel Core i5 & 64 bit windows : ) I wanna try how fast Firefox can be using FULL processor power (SSE 4.2 or 4.1). It's possible to get somewhere x64 SSE 4.2 optimized Firefox build?


You can't unless you're using Linux. You will hardly see any performance improvements. Unless you view raw images that are 100MB+ in size that is...but then internet speed will be the bottleneck unless you have a very fast one.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14590016*
> Sure, you can try building it yourself.


Not unless on Linux, or using Intel's C++ compiler, but then that cripples performance on AMD systems, which is why I don't use it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14590038*
> Ahem, guys? I would like to know about that Flash installation location....


C:\Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wishmaker;14590097*
> Nice effort guys. I just need to encounter a situation where a 64 bit browser is needed.


Browser intensive websites such as HTML5 websites.


----------



## Quantum Reality

So even the 64-bit flash installs to system32? Nice design. Adobe.


----------



## tyrannor

Quote:



Originally Posted by *oorenotsoo*


I just downloaded 6.0. Great stuff. I'm also wondering what the surprise will be.

Edit: Maybe it's just me, but this seems really really fast. Nice










I thought the final version wasn't out yet. Or are you talking about the RCs?


----------



## iEATu

Alright so I installed Waterfox 6 over the previously installed folder and none of the firefox versions work. 5, aurora, and nightly don't work and neither does waterfox. They all freeze right when starting. Could something have happened to the profile folder? I tried unistalling waterfox but not the profile and they still freeze when starting.

Any one know what happened? Do I need to reset my profile?


----------



## Vowels

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tyrannor*


I thought the final version wasn't out yet. Or are you talking about the RCs?


Firefox 6 Final isn't officially released to the public yet but the files for it have been available for a few days now.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


So even the 64-bit flash installs to system32? Nice design. Adobe.










Sounds correct to me, since I believe 32-bit Flash on a 64-bit system installs into SysWOW64, not System32.

In other 'news' looks like Mozilla's going to be dumping the version number.


----------



## MPIXAPP

*My review :

1 - Totally bug free !
2 - Faster load time than original firefox !
3 - Feels much better in task manager







!
4 - It's now my default browser ( Unpinned Firefox from taskbar







)

At last , Thank you very much for your hard work !








*


----------



## abu46

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14592951*
> Alright so I installed Waterfox 6 over the previously installed folder and none of the firefox versions work. 5, aurora, and nightly don't work and neither does waterfox. They all freeze right when starting. Could something have happened to the profile folder? I tried unistalling waterfox but not the profile and they still freeze when starting.
> 
> Any one know what happened? Do I need to reset my profile?


my suggestion would be a complete uninstalling of waterfox along with other FF builds you have and then install waterfox


----------



## Vowels

The description for Waterfox 6 in my task manager processes tab says -APPVERSION. The plugin container also references -APPVERSION in its description. Very minor bug haha


----------



## tyrannor

where is the link to Waterfox 6?
EDIT: Forgot I had to go to 'Homepage'


----------



## superhead91

Quote:



Originally Posted by *tyrannor*


where is the link to Waterfox 6?


First post. Downloads link.


----------



## tyrannor

Why does this install into a folder called Waterfox SE? The addons are intact though.


----------



## Lord Venom

Special edition? Anyways I changed the install path back to 'normal' when installing it.


----------



## MystKid

sorry guys but why should somone go with a 3rd party build when mozilla is alredy working on the 64 bit version of FF. i am currently using it and it is awesome. i am talking about firefox Nightly 8.0


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MystKid*


sorry guys but why should somone go with a 3rd party build when mozilla is alredy working on the 64 bit version of FF. i am currently using it and it is awesome. i am talking about firefox Nightly 8.0


This version is compiled with optimizations.


----------



## Lord Venom

Plus the x64 versions Mozilla currently provides are Nightly builds, not release builds.


----------



## Lord Venom

Found an issue, internally the program is referred to as -APPVERSION. You can verify this via Task Manager and look at Waterfox's description. I fixed it myself by reshacking Waterfox.


----------



## abu46

waiting for the surprise...................


----------



## LBear

Thanks for the update


----------



## Lord Venom

There's a Firefox 7 beta candidate build now.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14614337*
> waiting for the surprise...................


The surprise depends on someone else not me, but hopefully it comes soon.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LBear;14621471*
> Thanks for the update


No problem.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14623117*
> There's a Firefox 7 beta candidate build now.


I'll get right on it, I've been having a hectic few days


----------



## libastral

Can you please upload your modified source code and the list of used flags and changes or compilation log? That way users can be sure that the build is clean and doesn't contain any trojans or such stuff.


----------



## xd_1771

Firefox 9 alpha already... interesting


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 7 beta 1's officially released.


----------



## Archmage

Hmm... considering Mozilla's new 6-week release schedule, maybe the OP would be less stressed just getting us the Final releases and any relevant updates...

I'll be updated to Waterfox 6.0 I suppose... so thanks for that.

Hmm... Firefox 7.0 is called "Aurora" eh... that looks to be the update we've been wanting from Mozilla, but I'll wait for the Final.

Edit: Wait, is FF 7.0 "Aurora"? The alpha seems to be Aurora, and the beta is not labeled as such...makes no sense...


----------



## Ryrynz

Yeah I mentioned the same thing a few pages back. I think Alex has decided on two or three RCs and a final for each version, at the end of the day it's whatever suits him. I personally feel a total of three builds per version is good as was done with FF6.


----------



## abu46

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14625580*
> I'll get right on it, I've been having a hectic few days


nice!!!!
FF7 looks really promising and the best since FF4 acc. to the changelog


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *libastral;14629751*
> Can you please upload your modified source code and the list of used flags and changes or compilation log? That way users can be sure that the build is clean and doesn't contain any trojans or such stuff.


The source isn't modified. And you can use an antivirus if you're that paranoid. Plus there is no compilation log.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14631171*
> Firefox 9 alpha already... interesting


Firefox 8 is what I'm looking forward too. Should have the memory management completely fixed, plus release 64-Bit builds







. Which means I can focus more on making Waterfox a 'high-end' version of Firefox by using the AVX instruction set. I was originally planning to have another user compile a Waterfox Extreme Edition using the AVX, but he hasn't gotten back to me, and by the time Firefox 8 comes out I should have a laptop with the AVX instruction set







.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14631895*
> Firefox 7 beta 1's officially released.


Waterfox RC1 is up








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Archmage;14636462*
> Hmm... considering Mozilla's new 6-week release schedule, maybe the OP would be less stressed just getting us the Final releases and any relevant updates...
> 
> I'll be updated to Waterfox 6.0 I suppose... so thanks for that.
> 
> Hmm... Firefox 7.0 is called "Aurora" eh... that looks to be the update we've been wanting from Mozilla, but I'll wait for the Final.
> 
> Edit: Wait, is FF 7.0 "Aurora"? The alpha seems to be Aurora, and the beta is not labeled as such...makes no sense...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;14637716*
> Yeah I mentioned the same thing a few pages back. I think Alex has decided on two or three RCs and a final for each version, at the end of the day it's whatever suits him. I personally feel a total of three builds per version is good as was done with FF6.


Yes, a few RCs every now and then so I don't have to keep up with all the Betas.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14638137*
> nice!!!!
> FF7 looks really promising and the best since FF4 acc. to the changelog


Yes it is, behind the scenes anyway


----------



## Vowels

Loving Waterfox 7! Currently Using about 70%-75% of the memory I was using with Firefox 6.


----------



## Archmage

Waterfox 7.0 RC1 is working well right now.

It was extremely sluggish upon just the first use (rendering, loading), but that resolved itself after a quick browser restart and hasn't recurred.

Installing fasterfox lite and performing some optimizations hopefully helped a bit more... I'm liking it thus far









Thanks.


----------



## abu46

WF 7 running perfectly, thanks









BTW do you suggest to upgrade WF by installing it over the previous one or first uninstalling the previous ver. and then install. the new one??


----------



## bfe_vern

Dayum!!! That starts quick!!!! Thank you again Alex!!!


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;14653482*
> Dayum!!! That starts quick!!!! Thank you again Alex!!!


No doubt, I think it finally starts faster than chrome, and that makes it the best browser by far now:applaud:


----------



## kpnamja

Adobe Flash Player 10 plugin doesn't work, it keeps telling me to install missing plugins which is Flash player. Once its installed I restart the browser and it still tells me to install missing plugins.

Nevermind Flash 10.3 doesn't work with Waterfox 64-bit, I installed the Flash 11 beta and now it works.


----------



## sst

Hi, ...

This website is verry slow to use with = scrool up and down, and also when try to click a download link.

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/download.html

---

I test with beta and final
waterfox 5.0 6.0 7.0
firefox 5.0 6.0 7.0


----------



## Archmage

I'm experiencing the same issue with that page.

It's slow to open, and scrolling is delayed as well. If I open it as a new tab, then there is a substantial lag time when switching focus to that tab.

Interesting... I don't have Chrome installed to test it out...oh well


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

I've gotten a huge issue. Waterfox has stopped working. I don't mean it's crashing, but pages do not load, at all. Currently using Chrome until issue is fixed.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *abu46*


WF 7 running perfectly, thanks









BTW do you suggest to upgrade WF by installing it over the previous one or first uninstalling the previous ver. and then install. the new one??


I usually do the 'upgrade' which is installing it in the same directory without uninstalling it









Quote:



Originally Posted by *bfe_vern*


Dayum!!! That starts quick!!!! Thank you again Alex!!!



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*


No doubt, I think it finally starts faster than chrome, and that makes it the best browser by far now
























I was actually surprised that it ACTUALLY loaded faster.









Quote:



Originally Posted by *sst*


Hi, ...

This website is verry slow to use with = scrool up and down, and also when try to click a download link.

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/download.html

---

I test with beta and final 
waterfox 5.0 6.0 7.0
firefox 5.0 6.0 7.0



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Archmage*


I'm experiencing the same issue with that page.

It's slow to open, and scrolling is delayed as well. If I open it as a new tab, then there is a substantial lag time when switching focus to that tab.

Interesting... I don't have Chrome installed to test it out...oh well


It's strange. Some people have this problem, others don't







right time to get a new design for the website.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0*


I've gotten a huge issue. Waterfox has stopped working. I don't mean it's crashing, but pages do not load, at all. Currently using Chrome until issue is fixed.










First time I've heard of that problem! Which version of Waterfox are you using?


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

I am using 7.0. The memory usage is better, but right now, I am stuck with Chrome until it's fixed.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


It's strange. Some people have this problem, others don't







right time to get a new design for the website.


It spikes the CPU too. Doesn't matter which version of Firefox you're using either. Works fine in Google Chrome though.

Oh man though, you really should think about skipping FF7 and going right to the FF8 Aurora builds. It has way better memory usage than FF7 and it's faster starting up than FF7 beta too.


----------



## Quantum Reality

nice!


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0;14660097*
> I've gotten a huge issue. Waterfox has stopped working. I don't mean it's crashing, but pages do not load, at all. Currently using Chrome until issue is fixed.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0;14661437*
> I am using 7.0. The memory usage is better, but right now, I am stuck with Chrome until it's fixed.


This happened to me to after installing one of the Waterfox versions. Run Waterfox in safe mode by holding "shift" while opening it. If it works then, then it is probably because of an extension. If you can't access the extensions through Firefox to manually disable them you'll have to go to the Firefox profile folder in your Window's user folder and move, or rename by putting something like an "!" in front of the extension folder (will look something like this: "{2e17e2b2-b8d4-4a67-8d7b-fafa6cc9d1d0}"), and then run Waterfox again each time. Once you find the extension that is causing the problem, you can run Waterfox with it disabled and then uninstall it.

I was only able to uninstall through Waterfox because the addon was incompatible and I was using "Addon Compatibility Reporter", so the addon was previously enabled. But once it was incompatible I was able to uninstall through Waterfox.
It might be fine to just delete the folder of the addon itself. Make sure you get rid of any other extra files it leaves in the profile folder if you do that.


----------



## Quantum Reality

One thing I found - how to configure Java Update... you can use this to disable updates in the 64-bit version until Adobe _finally_ comes out with a proper stable release.

Incidentally, can anyone tell me if they've noticed any issues with 64-bit flash?


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14667492*
> This happened to me to after installing one of the Waterfox versions. Run Waterfox in safe mode by holding "shift" while opening it. If it works then, then it is probably because of an extension. If you can't access the extensions through Firefox to manually disable them you'll have to go to the Firefox profile folder in your Window's user folder and move, or rename by putting something like an "!" in front of the extension folder (will look something like this: "{2e17e2b2-b8d4-4a67-8d7b-fafa6cc9d1d0}"), and then run Waterfox again each time. Once you find the extension that is causing the problem, you can run Waterfox with it disabled and then uninstall it.
> 
> I was only able to uninstall through Waterfox because the addon was incompatible and I was using "Addon Compatibility Reporter", so the addon was previously enabled. But once it was incompatible I was able to uninstall through Waterfox.
> It might be fine to just delete the folder of the addon itself. Make sure you get rid of any other extra files it leaves in the profile folder if you do that.


There are no other addons added. I have no added any OPTIONAL addons, (insert insult here). I'm currently using WaterFox 6.0 again. It has NOTHING to do with the extensions, だます. Sick of ignorant people thinking it's the extensions.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0;14674067*
> There are no other addons added. I have no added any OPTIONAL addons, (insert insult here). I'm currently using WaterFox 6.0 again. It has NOTHING to do with the extensions, だます. Sick of ignorant people thinking it's the extensions.


Ignorant people? Sorry for trying to help and not knowing that you didn't have any other addons installed. I was showing you how I fixed it since it seemed you had the same problem. And most times when there's something weird happening with Firefox it's because of an extension.

You could try making a new profile and try using Waterfox 7 with the new profile and see if it works then.
Managing Profiles
This shows you how to make a new profile.


----------



## djriful

Oh wow interesting project, I am definitely going to test it out v7 RC1.

edited: It is really fast!


----------



## xd_1771

I see a new text (no link yet) on the main download page called "Waterfox Extreme Edition"...








What would that be?


----------



## Vowels

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I see a new text (no link yet) on the main download page called "Waterfox Extreme Edition"...








What would that be?


AVX build?


----------



## ambusher

I also have problems with the Waterfox website,scrolling and clicking links is delayed and lags the browser.I think it's better to post download links here.


----------



## aramil

Very Fast


----------



## demos

Thank you MrAlex, I really like Waterfox 7.0! Waiting for news about the Extreme Edition.


----------



## xd_1771

Firefox 7 itself has just hit beta 2


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, I believe they're doing weekly betas or so.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Google SSL cert stolen

How do I manually update Waterfox's SSL certs? This is kinda important as I use Gmail.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


Google SSL cert stolen

How do I manually update Waterfox's SSL certs? This is kinda important as I use Gmail.


You can't. You have to wait for Mozilla to release an official update (Beta 3?). To stay safe don't click on any suspicious links in any spam mail.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Booooooooooooooooo.

Well, I'll wait for the latest Waterfox then


----------



## xd_1771

6.0.1 is out, I think it fixes that.


----------



## Lord Venom

So is Firefox 7 beta 3 with the fix too. Time for a Waterfox 7 update?


----------



## Lord Venom

Looks like they're getting ready to push out Firefox 7 beta 4.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14763263*
> Booooooooooooooooo.
> 
> Well, I'll wait for the latest Waterfox then


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;14775905*
> 6.0.1 is out, I think it fixes that.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14777491*
> So is Firefox 7 beta 3 with the fix too. Time for a Waterfox 7 update?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14804053*
> Looks like they're getting ready to push out Firefox 7 beta 4.


Sorry I haven't updated Waterfox yet, I've been busy preparing to move country







Going to University, and it's quite hard to pack your whole life into a suit case! I'll get the new Waterfox versions up ASAP


----------



## Quantum Reality

Cool!














So what university will you end up at?


----------



## MrAlex

Okay people, 6.0.1 has been released! 7.0 RC2 should be coming in the next few days. Also got a brand new website, makes it easier for users to keep track of the latest updates.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14810467*
> Cool!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So what university will you end up at?


The University of York (UK) studying Electronic Engineering


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14817243*
> Okay people, 6.0.1 has been released! 7.0 RC2 should be coming in the next few days. Also got a brand new website, makes it easier for users to keep track of the latest updates.


Noice. What about 64-bit Shockwave, by the way?
Quote:


> The University of York (UK) studying Electronic Engineering


Woot!







You'll be able to buy better computer stuff for way cheaper!









Say, do you want donations in UK Pounds or Euros now?


----------



## Lord Venom

There is no 64-bit version of Shockwave, AFAIK. Silverlight 5 hit the RC stage, it should be out soon with a 64-bit driver.


----------



## iEATu

I've never seen a website using silverlight...


----------



## Ikrin

Quote:



Originally Posted by *iEATu*


I've never seen a website using silverlight...


There are plenty of sites that use Silverlight. Maybe you just assumed it was flash. NBC.com is an example. The 2008 Olympics were streamed using a Silverlight player.


----------



## Lord Venom

Doesn't Hulu or Netflix use Silverlight? Can't remember.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14823679*
> Doesn't Hulu or Netflix use Silverlight? Can't remember.


I know that Hulu uses flash.


----------



## sst

Hi, ...
Quote:


> Also got a brand new website, makes it easier for users to keep track of the latest updates.


Thanks to have the website, with = Now no lag, ...























Did my "applaud smilies" lag ???


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> A new version of Waterfox is available for download with the following changes:
> 
> Drastically improved memory use
> Added a new rendering backend to speed up Canvas operations on Windows systems
> Bookmark and password changes now sync almost instantly when using Firefox Sync
> Added support for text-overflow: ellipsis
> Added support for the Web Timing specification
> Added an opt-in system for users to send performance data back to Mozilla to improve future versions of Firefox. This can be enabled by installing an add-on
> Fixed several stability issues
> Please see the complete list of changes in this version. You may also be interested in the list of changes in the previous version.
> Download here.


Source

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14818718*
> Noice. What about 64-bit Shockwave, by the way?
> 
> Woot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You'll be able to buy better computer stuff for way cheaper!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Say, do you want donations in UK Pounds or Euros now?


I don't think there are any plans for a 64-Bit Shockwave player. And if there is, look at how slow development for Flash 64-Bit is going









I think PayPal set it automatically to Euros so I don't think I can change it








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14819004*
> There is no 64-bit version of Shockwave, AFAIK. Silverlight 5 hit the RC stage, it should be out soon with a 64-bit driver.


Hopefully! Microsoft said that when the next version of Silverlight was released it would be released with a 64-Bit version as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sst;14825377*
> Hi, ...
> 
> Thanks to have the website, with = Now no lag, ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did my "applaud smilies" lag ???


Yes, I finally got around to fixing the website


----------



## Casz

Alex, I THANK YOU WITH ALL MY HEART'S CONTENT I FREAKING LOVE THIS BROWSER! INSANELY FAST!


----------



## stasio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14804053*
> Looks like they're getting ready to push out Firefox 7 beta 4.


Mozilla Firefox 7.0 Beta 4

http://dm-download02.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/7.0b4/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%207.0b4.exe


----------



## Casz

I lost Waterfox icon on my taskbar after updating to RC2 :'( I love the pretty blue fox!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Casz;14829266*
> Alex, I THANK YOU WITH ALL MY HEART'S CONTENT I FREAKING LOVE THIS BROWSER! INSANELY FAST!


Haha no problem








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *stasio;14829649*
> Mozilla Firefox 7.0 Beta 4
> 
> http://dm-download02.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/7.0b4/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%207.0b4.exe


Source code isn't available yet. Don't know how long till it will be either.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Casz;14829723*
> I lost Waterfox icon on my taskbar after updating to RC2 :'( I love the pretty blue fox!










Oh no! Erm, have you tried removing it and then pinning it again?


----------



## Casz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*









Oh no! Erm, have you tried removing it and then pinning it again?


Yup and change icon, reboot, logoff, terminate explorer, reinstall, uninstall/install nothing









Edit:
How weird I ran a fourth uninstall/install and suddenly it worked








But again CHEERS!
















Bugs me that I can't show how fast it is on my SSD to my fellow students








Note to self: Arrange a lan party inviting class mates to show off my rig
















OVERKILL SMILIES!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



I think PayPal set it automatically to Euros so I don't think I can change it


Well hopefully it won't be too much trouble to exchange your Euros!


----------



## Lord Venom

Source code? http://dm-download02.mozilla.org/pub.../7.0b4/source/


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Ever since I started using Waterfox 7.0, I've been having issues with restoring my last session. Anyone else having this problem? ><


----------



## sst

Hi, ...
Quote:


> Thanks to have the website, with = Now no lag, ...
> Did my "applaud smilies" lag ???


Quote:


> Yes, I finally got around to fixing the website


Ok, ...

Also, ... = I see on the net, that the global transfert to x64 softwares, is better than previous years.

I will test the latest version, of Waterfox 7.x version x64 soon.


----------



## sst

Hi, ...

Version Waterfox 7.0 Release Candidate 2 not found on the webpage below.

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/?page_id=5


----------



## Quantum Reality

Using Waterfox 6.0.1 + NoScript + 64-bit java and flash

I cannot seem to disable autoupdate through Java but I was able to turn off updates for flash. Oddly though 64-bit flash still claims to be a 32-bit application in the Control Panel.


----------



## Cipher

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14836581*
> Using Waterfox 6.0.1 + NoScript + 64-bit java and flash
> 
> I cannot seem to disable autoupdate through Java


Had a similar issue at work, ended up doing it via the registry.

>HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\JavaSoft\Java Update\Policy
>EnableJavaUpdate
>dword=0

That's for the 32-bit version for Java.
So it may-be located somewhere else in the registry.
Hopefully it'll point you in the right direction though.


----------



## Ironcobra

Every flash video is crashing within 5-10 secs since updating to 7rc2, where should i start troubleshooting?


----------



## Ryrynz

Updating/uninstalling flash, clearing cache, creating a new profile & or disabling addons.


----------



## Casz

trying to install waterfox on my laptop yet I get a error of missing mscvr100.dll I took it in to the waterfox since I already tried to install the visual c++ 2010.

now I am getting program could not launch correctly (0x000007b), any suggestions?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae;14830182*
> Ever since I started using Waterfox 7.0, I've been having issues with restoring my last session. Anyone else having this problem? ><


Here's how you restore:
Here's how to get your tabs and windows from a previous session back if you don't use the default Firefox home page:

At the top of the Firefox window, click the Firefox button, go over to History (click the History menu on Windows XP) and select Restore Previous Session.








http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox%20does%20not%20ask%20to%20save%20tabs%20and%20windows%20on%20exit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sst;14835865*
> Hi, ...
> 
> Version Waterfox 7.0 Release Candidate 2 not found on the webpage below.
> 
> http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/?page_id=5


It's there. Have you found it?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14836581*
> Using Waterfox 6.0.1 + NoScript + 64-bit java and flash
> 
> I cannot seem to disable autoupdate through Java but I was able to turn off updates for flash. Oddly though 64-bit flash still claims to be a 32-bit application in the Control Panel.


That's strange. Although I could never get Java to stop auto-updating. But 64-Bit flash should not be showing as 32-Bit application.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;14838189*
> Every flash video is crashing within 5-10 secs since updating to 7rc2, where should i start troubleshooting?


Do what is said below, because updating Waterfox should not be affecting any of the plug-ins as they aren't part of the browser.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;14838878*
> Updating/uninstalling flash, clearing cache, creating a new profile & or disabling addons.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Casz;14838926*
> trying to install waterfox on my laptop yet I get a error of missing mscvr100.dll I took it in to the waterfox since I already tried to install the visual c++ 2010.
> 
> now I am getting program could not launch correctly (0x000007b), any suggestions?


Are the relevant DirectX files installed? Use this:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=35

It's the only reason I can think of this happening. Otherwise I have no idea.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Do what is said below, because updating Waterfox should not be affecting any of the plug-ins as they aren't part of the browser.


thanks fixed!


----------



## Taylorsci

Have you got the automatic updating sorted?


----------



## bigal1542

How does this compare to Pale Moon and the regular FF? Especially for speed and stability? I am considering switching from Pale Moon 64 if you guys think it would be a good choice









Props and +rep for awesome work so far.


----------



## sst

Hi, ...

Microsoft Delivers Silverlight 5 Release Candidate - 64 bit support

http://www.silverlight.net/downloads


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;14841907*
> Have you got the automatic updating sorted?


I'm trying really hard to get it working there. I really want it to be available when Firefox 7 releases.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigal1542;14842711*
> How does this compare to Pale Moon and the regular FF? Especially for speed and stability? I am considering switching from Pale Moon 64 if you guys think it would be a good choice
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Props and +rep for awesome work so far.


No doubt the 64-Bit version will out-perform the 32-Bit version. As to comparison with Palemoon, Waterfox came out before Palemoon had a 64-Bit version. Waterfox is strictly only for 64-Bit versions of Firefox. But use whatever you prefer.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sst;14843923*
> Hi, ...
> 
> Microsoft Delivers Silverlight 5 Release Candidate - 64 bit support
> 
> http://www.silverlight.net/downloads


Thank you very much! I know lots of users will be glad that's available


----------



## ajslay

i also got the same error as Casz


----------



## bigal1542

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14845002*
> No doubt the 64-Bit version will out-perform the 32-Bit version. As to comparison with Palemoon, Waterfox came out before Palemoon had a 64-Bit version. Waterfox is strictly only for 64-Bit versions of Firefox. But use whatever you prefer.


Since you have been a great thread mod (as it is your own) and have been paying attention to all the posts it seems: Are there many stability problems? You got me hooked and I will recommend to friends if its just as stable or more.

What changes are different between this and Pale Moon? I noticed both are recompiled (don't really understand what that is), but are there any serious differences?

Also, do you recommend version 6, or one of the 7's?


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigal1542;14846223*
> Since you have been a great thread mod (as it is your own) and have been paying attention to all the posts it seems: Are there many stability problems? You got me hooked and I will recommend to friends if its just as stable or more.
> 
> What changes are different between this and Pale Moon? I noticed both are recompiled (don't really understand what that is), but are there any serious differences?
> 
> Also, do you recommend version 6, or one of the 7's?


Get the newest version for faster speed.







And more security features. And better memory management.


----------



## bigal1542

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14847488*
> Get the newest version for faster speed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And more security features. And better memory management.


Good enough for me haha. Consider me changed


----------



## Jtmarch86

Just started using it last week, lovin it so far, not one crash, and speeds are definitely better. Thanks for the great work! +rep


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14839057*
> That's strange. Although I could never get Java to stop auto-updating. But 64-Bit flash should not be showing as 32-Bit application.


See my attachment - Vista Ultimate 64-bit OS.


----------



## Ironcobra

Netflix still doesn't recognize silverlight installed on system with waterfox, and now with the beta installed it no longer works on all browsers. I guess it will take time but i doubt netflix will ever work with 64bit


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigal1542;14846223*
> Since you have been a great thread mod (as it is your own) and have been paying attention to all the posts it seems: Are there many stability problems? You got me hooked and I will recommend to friends if its just as stable or more.
> 
> What changes are different between this and Pale Moon? I noticed both are recompiled (don't really understand what that is), but are there any serious differences?
> 
> Also, do you recommend version 6, or one of the 7's?


No stability problems that I have been aware of







. Should have the exact same stability as Firefox does. I don't know what's different from Palemoon though, I don't know what the creator compiles with







. By recompile it means that we've taken the source code of Firefox (so nothing code wise is different from Firefox) and we've compiled it (i.e made it into a program that can be interacted with etc) with optimisations (i.e for example you COULD compile it specifically for AMD systems and have it perform better on AMD systems than on Intel systems. That's just an example though, and not what I've done







).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14849622*
> See my attachment - Vista Ultimate 64-bit OS.


I have that as well. That's just the Settings Manager. It's a 32-Bit application but it should show you which versions of Flash you have installed:









But to check properly go to Uninstall or Change a program and you should see if it's 64-Bit:








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;14850436*
> Netflix still doesn't recognize silverlight installed on system with waterfox, and now with the beta installed it no longer works on all browsers. I guess it will take time but i doubt netflix will ever work with 64bit


That's strange, it should be plug-in dependant and not whether it's a 32-Bit or 64-Bit version of that plug-in. I've tested a bunch of Silverlight content so far and everything has worked 100%.


----------



## Lord Venom

Flash 11 RC1 is out. Also, Firefox 7 beta 4 with the DigiNotar certificate revoke is officially out.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yup, Add/Remove Programs shows 64-bit


----------



## Czarnodziej

My waterfox 7rc2 after 2-3 hours of using felt kinda sluggish. I checked task manager and noticed firefox.exe was taking away 1,6gb of ram (3 tabs opened, light on graphics). Is it the sign of memory leak or possible case of bad plugin(s) ?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14850924*
> That's strange, it should be plug-in dependant and not whether it's a 32-Bit or 64-Bit version of that plug-in. I've tested a bunch of Silverlight content so far and everything has worked 100%.


Silverlight 5 doesnt seem to work for anybody on netflix at the moment giving drm errors, but when i go to watch a movie on waterfox it asks me if i want to install silverlight.


----------



## spice003

firefox 6.0.2 is out, updated this morning.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hopefully it can be compiled fast soon for Waterfox


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

Damnit. I'm getting more and more pissed at Waterfox.
I stopped running WF7.0 due to sluggish loading speeds. And now WF6.01 is having RAM issues again. When I got home, I had less than 10 tabs open and the browser was using 2.2GB of RAM! Nearly forced me to do a manual reboot cause it was nearing a crash.
So you guessed it, am using Chrome to type this message. Got WF working again, hopefully it won't have such a huge memory leak again. I've never had memory leak problems with Chrome.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0;14857430*
> Damnit. I'm getting more and more pissed at Waterfox.
> I stopped running WF7.0 due to sluggish loading speeds. And now WF6.01 is having RAM issues again. When I got home, I had less than 10 tabs open and the browser was using 2.2GB of RAM! Nearly forced me to do a manual reboot cause it was nearing a crash.
> So you guessed it, am using Chrome to type this message. Got WF working again, hopefully it won't have such a huge memory leak again. I've never had memory leak problems with Chrome.


Had the same problem with V6, I was waking up every morning and waterfox was crashing before I did. One morning I woke up before it crashed and waterfox was at 3.8gB of usage @[email protected] I just closed it and reopened it, problem temp solved. I'm not having any problems with 7RC2 though.


----------



## xd_1771

Something is wrong with your setup. 17 tabs open here, using a profile with 68 addons. 1.05GB RAM usage. Much lower than previous versions of Waterfox, which reached 1GB with as low as 8 tabs (but with the 8GB of RAM I have it's not a big deal).


----------



## sparkler

ive got 16 tabs open now only using 346mb


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra;14854299*
> Silverlight 5 doesnt seem to work for anybody on netflix at the moment giving drm errors, but when i go to watch a movie on waterfox it asks me if i want to install silverlight.


Hopefully Microsoft sees the issue and sorts it out quickly








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spice003;14855245*
> firefox 6.0.2 is out, updated this morning.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;14855287*
> Hopefully it can be compiled fast soon for Waterfox


It has been updated thanks







along with being 1 step closer to auto-updating! I've just got an error to sort out and it'll be ready for Waterfox 7.


----------



## msuguy71

I keep getting the following error when I try to send an email within the Angel learning site at school:

A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.

Script: https://angel.msu.edu/jscript/yahoo/utilities/utilities.js:9

I did not get this error with previous versions of Waterfox. I was able to send the email without a script error.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Rick


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71;14864696*
> I keep getting the following error when I try to send an email within the Angel learning site at school:
> 
> A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.
> 
> Script: https://angel.msu.edu/jscript/yahoo/utilities/utilities.js:9
> 
> I did not get this error with previous versions of Waterfox. I was able to send the email without a script error.
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thanks,
> Rick


Which version of Waterfox? If it's the Release Candidates then it's possible it's a problem with Firefox. Sometimes scripts stop working when Firefox updates. For example to check e-mails from my webhost Firefox no longer support the schema that they use, so I have to use Internet Explorer. It's a real pain. Maybe in the final release Mozilla will fix it, or it could remain the same.


----------



## $ilent

im using waterfox 6.0.2 and it wont let me install flash, is there no way of using flash with waterfox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent;14864959*
> im using waterfox 6.0.2 and it wont let me install flash, is there no way of using flash with waterfox?


Why won't it let you install Flash? It should work just as it does on normal Firefox. What errors are you getting?


----------



## Goaky

LOVE the new shaders on the icon, very well done. Waterfox > Firefox & everything else.


----------



## $ilent

i dont get an an error it just sayd it has installed flash 10.3xxx but when I restart WF it just asks for the missing plugin to be installed yet again.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *$ilent;14865368*
> i dont get an an error it just sayd it has installed flash 10.3xxx but when I restart WF it just asks for the missing plugin to be installed yet again.


That's the wrong version, that isn't Flash 64-Bit. It's on the download page what version of Flash you need to install. Here's a direct link:
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/labs/flashplatformruntimes/flashplayer11/flashplayer11_rc1_install_win_pi64_090611.exe


----------



## msuguy71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14864921*
> Which version of Waterfox? If it's the Release Candidates then it's possible it's a problem with Firefox. Sometimes scripts stop working when Firefox updates. For example to check e-mails from my webhost Firefox no longer support the schema that they use, so I have to use Internet Explorer. It's a real pain. Maybe in the final release Mozilla will fix it, or it could remain the same.


Oops...sorry. Thought I put the version I am using. I am using the last WF7 (RC2) that you posted. I hope they fix it because I don't want to use anything except for waterfox. If everything gets sorted out I am going to switch my mom over to waterfox as well.


----------



## Nick2253

I have been looking for x64 Firefox for forever! You are the man. Not just the man, *THE MAN*.

I, for one, welcome our new MrAlex overlords!


----------



## bigal1542

I ran some Peacekeeper benches and this one blew everything else out of the water. I only like FF for browsers, so it was between this, Pale Moon, reguar FF, FF 64, and FF Nightly.

Nice work


----------



## Amo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigal1542;14871278*
> I ran some Peacekeeper benches and this one blew everything else out of the water. I only like FF for browsers, so it was between this, Pale Moon, reguar FF, FF 64, and FF Nightly.
> 
> Nice work


I don't really know much about that sort of stuff, would you mind posting your results?


----------



## lagittaja

I'll run some Peacekeeper and V8 benchmarks soon. And I'll post the results here.
Going to use regular FF 6.02, WF 6.02 and Chrome 13.something
Chrome results are with 3 other tabs open, FF/WF browsers are with no tabs

*V8 Benchmark Suite version6*
Chrome 13.0.782.220 - 15339
Waterfox 6.02 - 6986
Firefox 6.02 - 7555
*Peacekeeper*
Chrome 13.0.782.220 - 14957
Waterfox 6.02 - 10229
Firefox 6.02 - 10471

And those results are with sigrig, and just for the sake of it:
[email protected]_8Gigabytes of DDR3/1333Mhz CL9_Maximus IV GENE-Z

Results are a bit surprising. Was actually expecting WF to be faster than Chrome.
I think I'll run these tests again when FF/WF 7 stable releases come.

E: Also Chrome seems to be the fastest to load OCN front page, atleast according to the "generated in" counter at the bottom of the page.
Adblock plus enabled with Easylist. Page loaded 2 times after logging in. Result=the last load.
WF 6.02 0.53735 seconds with 15 queries
Chrome 13.yadayada 0.42175 seconds with 15 queries
FF 6.02 0.50186 seconds with 15 queries


----------



## LBear

Is there a waterfox stops responding for bout 10sec? This is happening quite often.


----------



## Nick2253

When you ran the test, did you have any addons installed?


----------



## Wbroach23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lagittaja;14878487*
> I'll run some Peacekeeper and V8 benchmarks soon. And I'll post the results here.
> Going to use regular FF 6.02, WF 6.02 and Chrome 13.something
> Chrome results are with 3 other tabs open, FF/WF browsers are with no tabs
> 
> *V8 Benchmark Suite version6*
> Chrome 13.0.782.220 - 15339
> Waterfox 6.02 - 6986
> Firefox 6.02 - 7555
> *Peacekeeper*
> Chrome 13.0.782.220 - 14957
> Waterfox 6.02 - 10229
> Firefox 6.02 - 10471
> 
> And those results are with sigrig, and just for the sake of it:
> [email protected]_8Gigabytes of DDR3/1333Mhz CL9_Maximus IV GENE-Z
> 
> Results are a bit surprising. Was actually expecting WF to be faster than Chrome.
> I think I'll run these tests again when FF/WF 7 stable releases come.
> 
> E: Also Chrome seems to be the fastest to load OCN front page, atleast according to the "generated in" counter at the bottom of the page.
> Adblock plus enabled with Easylist. Page loaded 2 times after logging in. Result=the last load.
> WF 6.02 0.53735 seconds with 15 queries
> Chrome 13.yadayada 0.42175 seconds with 15 queries
> FF 6.02 0.50186 seconds with 15 queries


Page generated in 0.07712 seconds with 11 queries
Im on Internet Exploader and it sucks why is yours .5 sec? Stab those dang internet nazis in the eye and tell them to give you good netz

Edit: thats was a good load, that one time lol i guess I cant gripe bout ure netz mines not even .5 sec now


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 7 beta 5 is out.


----------



## iEATu

All of you people with "memory leaks" have firefox running with a lot of memory is because you guys have a lot of RAM. The amount of memory that firefox uses depends on the amount of RAM you have. I saw that with a system with only 512 MB firefox ran with 160 MB- 200 MB of RAM with 1-3 tabs. It never went higher than that while continuing to browse for a few hours.


----------



## Amo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14884248*
> All of you people with "memory leaks" have firefox running with a lot of memory is because you guys have a lot of RAM. The amount of memory that firefox uses depends on the amount of RAM you have. I saw that with a system with only 512 MB firefox ran with 160 MB- 200 MB of RAM with 1-3 tabs. It never went higher than that while continuing to browse for a few hours.


Not sure how relevant this is, but I can probably confirm this statement. The firefox on the laptop in my sig only uses 30-35MB xD


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14884248*
> All of you people with "memory leaks" have firefox running with a lot of memory is because you guys have a lot of RAM. The amount of memory that firefox uses depends on the amount of RAM you have. I saw that with a system with only 512 MB firefox ran with 160 MB- 200 MB of RAM with 1-3 tabs. It never went higher than that while continuing to browse for a few hours.


I can testify, owning a laptop with 512MB RAM on which I use firefox 8 alpha, while also owning an 8GB desktop with Waterfox installed.


----------



## Ikrin

I suppose more people are used to the dynamic scaling based on usage model.


----------



## Ryahn

Did I install wrong?


----------



## Nick2253

From the downloads page:
*
You MUST have Visual C++ 2010 Redistributable Package (x64) installed!*


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lagittaja;14878487*
> I'll run some Peacekeeper and V8 benchmarks soon. And I'll post the results here.
> Going to use regular FF 6.02, WF 6.02 and Chrome 13.something
> Chrome results are with 3 other tabs open, FF/WF browsers are with no tabs
> 
> *V8 Benchmark Suite version6*
> Chrome 13.0.782.220 - 15339
> Waterfox 6.02 - 6986
> Firefox 6.02 - 7555
> *Peacekeeper*
> Chrome 13.0.782.220 - 14957
> Waterfox 6.02 - 10229
> Firefox 6.02 - 10471
> 
> And those results are with sigrig, and just for the sake of it:
> [email protected]_8Gigabytes of DDR3/1333Mhz CL9_Maximus IV GENE-Z
> 
> Results are a bit surprising. Was actually expecting WF to be faster than Chrome.
> I think I'll run these tests again when FF/WF 7 stable releases come.
> 
> E: Also Chrome seems to be the fastest to load OCN front page, atleast according to the "generated in" counter at the bottom of the page.
> Adblock plus enabled with Easylist. Page loaded 2 times after logging in. Result=the last load.
> WF 6.02 0.53735 seconds with 15 queries
> Chrome 13.yadayada 0.42175 seconds with 15 queries
> FF 6.02 0.50186 seconds with 15 queries


At lot of people don't like using Peacekeaper as a benchmark because it heavily depends on the type of hardware you use. Plus whenever I re-run it I always get different results. And Chrome always comes out #1 in every single benchmark I've ran. No doubt about that.
I prefer this (even though it's for mobile browsers, it does its job well):
http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action

Also you can't use page loading times because each time it will be different, it's never the same


----------



## tyrannor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LBear;14879635*
> Is there a waterfox stops responding for bout 10sec? This is happening quite often.


I had this problem in Waterfox 4 when I clicked on some links or some Waterfox menus. Since waterfox 5, everything runs smooth.


----------



## raizooor3

Is the Waterfox the only 64bit Firefox version/build ?


----------



## Ryrynz

Nope there is also Pale Moon, Firefox 8 and 9. I couldn't recommend Pale Moon,
I did a quick benchmark of Pale Moon and Waterfox ripped it apart.
Firefox 9 I think feels pretty fast, can't wait for Waterfox version.


----------



## Amo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;14888507*
> Nope there is also Pale Moon, Firefox 8 and 9. I couldn't recommend Pale Moon,
> I did a quick benchmark of Pale Moon and Waterfox ripped it apart.
> Firefox 9 I think feels pretty fast, can't wait for Waterfox version.


I've been using FF9 for a couple of weeks now and I tested it vs. Waterfox 7 RC2 this morning using http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action.

I was a little surprised at the results. FF9 scored 321320 while Waterfox scored 328517. So I switched back to Waterfox . The only benefit FF9 has over WF7 is memory usage, it's about 50mb lower on my machine.


----------



## iEATu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amo;14888687*
> I've been using FF9 for a couple of weeks now and I tested it vs. Waterfox 7 RC2 this morning using http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action.
> 
> I was a little surprised at the results. FF9 scored 321320 while Waterfox scored 328517. So I switched back to Waterfox . The only benefit FF9 has over WF7 is memory usage, it's about 50mb lower on my machine.


you mean your sig laptop?


----------



## mbudden

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *iEATu;14884248*
> All of you people with "memory leaks" have firefox running with a lot of memory is because you guys have a lot of RAM. The amount of memory that firefox uses depends on the amount of RAM you have. I saw that with a system with only 512 MB firefox ran with 160 MB- 200 MB of RAM with 1-3 tabs. It never went higher than that while continuing to browse for a few hours.


I can testify with this as well. Look at the sig rig.


----------



## MrAlex

Good news everyone. Auto-update works







. From Waterfox 7 onwards, no more manual downloads! This also means I can put Waterfox on download sites now and don't have to worry if every gets kept up with the latest version. 27th of September is when Firefox 7 goes final.

For the Release Candidates it's a different story. They get auto-updates starting with Waterfox 7 RC3







Hopefully I'll have that out by tomorrow night.


----------



## mbudden

I want to steal that logo and use it as my OCN avatar. But it would look too much like De-Zants lol


----------



## phz10

Just installed Waterfox, let's see how it runs









Seems to be running smoothly (Y)


----------



## Amo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *iEATu*


you mean your sig laptop?


No my main PC.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



Originally Posted by *LBear*


Is there a waterfox stops responding for bout 10sec? This is happening quite often.


One thing I've noticed is that sometimes it doesn't seem to respond to the Home/End/PgUp/PgDn keys.


----------



## xd_1771

FF7 beta 5 is out! WF7 RC3 based on I think


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Good news everyone. Auto-update works







. From Waterfox 7 onwards, no more manual downloads! This also means I can put Waterfox on download sites now and don't have to worry if every gets kept up with the latest version. 27th of September is when Firefox 7 goes final.

For the Release Candidates it's a different story. They get auto-updates starting with Waterfox 7 RC3







Hopefully I'll have that out by tomorrow night.


thanks MrAlex appreciate your hard work!!


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amo;14888687*
> I've been using FF9 for a couple of weeks now and I tested it vs. Waterfox 7 RC2 this morning using http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action.
> 
> I was a little surprised at the results. FF9 scored 321320 while Waterfox scored 328517. So I switched back to Waterfox . The only benefit FF9 has over WF7 is memory usage, it's about 50mb lower on my machine.


You can't just go by the one benchmark though, SunSpider showed some nice gains on 9 also there are some nice HTML5 benchmarks you can run which also show nice gains, Fishbowl and Soduku are two. Have a read about Firefox 9 below and check out the benchmark links.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/94532-firefox-9-javascript-performance-improved-by-20-30-with-type-inference


----------



## mbudden

Can I install this along side the 32bit version?


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbudden;14894807*
> Can I install this along side the 32bit version?


Yes. You just can't run them at the same time.


----------



## mbudden

Installed WaterFox and so far, so good.
Chrome really has been using tons of memory lately. Been wanting to give WaterFox a try








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nick2253;14896805*
> Yes. You just can't run them at the same time.


Thanks mate.


----------



## Crack_Fox

http://nightly.mozilla.org/

:O Official 64 Bit variant here.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crack_Fox*


http://nightly.mozilla.org/

:O Official 64 Bit variant here.










That's not really "official" in the sense of being issued as a stable release like the 32-bit variant.


----------



## MrAlex

New build now available









Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crack_Fox*


http://nightly.mozilla.org/

:O Official 64 Bit variant here.










This has been addressed and answered by MANY people in this thread. If you won't even do me the decency of at least using the search _function_ to see if this has been mentioned before, then please do me the decency of leaving this thread. I won't bother to explain to you the difference between *nightly* builds and actual *beta/release* builds.


----------



## Rocket Lawnchair

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Crack_Fox*


http://nightly.mozilla.org/

:O Official 64 Bit variant here.










Waterfox 7 is actually faster than Nightly 9.0a1.


----------



## Crack_Fox

Hey, sorry if I came across harsh or like I was trying to draw attention away from Waterfox. I have actually been using Waterfox for a while now







, I was just linking that if anybody didn't know it existed (I guess I should use the search funtion next time







) . Yes, I do know the differences .

Keep up the good work bro


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rocket Lawnchair;14902642*
> Waterfox 7 is actually faster than Nightly 9.0a1.


It is the nightly code, so you'd kinda expect that. Firefox 8 32bit is faster than Firefox 9 and Waterfox 7 in 64bit at least on my machine, it looks like the 8 code hasn't merged much into 9 yet.

I thought full fledged 64bit support was coming with 8, but it's no longer compiled on the ftp, guess we're gonna wait until 9 for it. Don't know why they keep pushing it back when it's clearly quite stable, it was supposed to come out with Firefox 5 I believe, oh well at least we got Waterfox.


----------



## Lord Venom

So, with updating now you'll have to have stable and beta channels?


----------



## xd_1771

Waterfox 7 is optimized for processor code (i.e. SSE/SSE2) in addition to being able to use 64-bit code, while plain Firefox is generic and usable on more processors. It also uses more RAM (when available only as Firefox adapts to memory amount) at performance benefit.


----------



## Vowels

MrAlex, you should promote Waterfox some more. Saw the Pale Moon release topic as the news section. Why can't a Waterfox release be news as well?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Crack_Fox;14903195*
> Hey, sorry if I came across harsh or like I was trying to draw attention away from Waterfox. I have actually been using Waterfox for a while now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , I was just linking that if anybody didn't know it existed (I guess I should use the search funtion next time) . Yes, I do know the differences .
> 
> Keep up the good work bro


Ah that's alright. Sorry about my response, it's just that I've had a few users come here and say what's the point of what I'm doing.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;14905208*
> So, with updating now you'll have to have stable and beta channels?


That's right. There will be a beta channel (release candidates) and a release channel (for release builds).








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;14907279*
> MrAlex, you should promote Waterfox some more. Saw the Pale Moon release topic as the news section. Why can't a Waterfox release be news as well?


I will once Firefox 7 is released. Now that I've got Waterfox builds how I'd like them, it's easier to promote. And it would be a bit strange if every Waterfox update I posted a news thread (plus I don't think it's allowed).


----------



## L D4WG

Yay! Loving Waterfox so far!! Ive only had 1 issue and that was flash's fault, but it was fixed in the last flash update.

Great work, keep it up!!


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14907956*
> Ah that's alright. Sorry about my response, it's just that I've had a few users come here and say what's the point of what I'm doing.
> 
> That's right. There will be a beta channel (release candidates) and a release channel (for release builds).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I will once Firefox 7 is released. Now that I've got Waterfox builds how I'd like them, it's easier to promote. And it would be a bit strange if every Waterfox update I posted a news thread (plus I don't think it's allowed).


I think you should, if you only want to do it occasionally now would be the best time, since you just got auto updating done.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;14907956*
> That's right. There will be a beta channel (release candidates) and a release channel (for release builds).


Awesome, I just split off my Waterfox profile so I can have both release and beta channel versions installed.


----------



## RasutoKage

Awesome browser you have made even better MrAlex. I thank you for sharing.


----------



## Nick2253

Has anyone been able to get Google Voice and Video chat to work in Waterfox? I don't know if Google has a 64-bit plugin hiding around the interwebs, but I haven't been able to find it.

Whenever I want to use Voice and Video I have to switch to Firefox, which is kinda annoying!


----------



## Ryrynz

Why not just run Firefox until it's sorted? We're not talking about a whole heap of performance difference between standard Firefox builds and Waterfox really, I know extra performance is nice and all but if 64 bit builds are not doing what you want wouldn't switching to Firefox be the smart solution? Or here's an idea, what about having 32 bit release only builds of Waterfox available until everything is fully 64 bit compatible? That would likely mean there would only be few builds made 7, 8 and 9 perhaps, what are your thoughts on that Alex?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nick2253;14931146*
> Has anyone been able to get Google Voice and Video chat to work in Waterfox? I don't know if Google has a 64-bit plugin hiding around the interwebs, but I haven't been able to find it.
> 
> Whenever I want to use Voice and Video I have to switch to Firefox, which is kinda annoying!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;14931811*
> Why not just run Firefox until it's sorted? We're not talking about a whole heap of performance difference between standard Firefox builds and Waterfox really, I know extra performance is nice and all but if 64 bit builds are not doing what you want wouldn't switching to Firefox be the smart solution? Or here's an idea, what about having 32 bit release only builds of Waterfox available until everything is fully 64 bit compatible? That would likely mean there would only be few builds made 7, 8 and 9 perhaps, what are your thoughts on that Alex?


No thank you. Waterfox started out as a 64-Bit version of Firefox and it'll remain like that, otherwise it would defeat the whole point of it. I'm focusing just on 64-Bit, and getting the most out of what it has to offer.

Once again, Waterfox's performance depends on what kind of system it's running on, and what kind of websites are visited.


----------



## bfe_vern

I usually have two to three different browsers open. WF is always the first choice, Chrome for Goggle apps, and IE for anything else that needs backward compatibility. I feel like I get the best without losing out on anything else by running multiple browsers. As always thanks Alex for all your work!


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfe_vern;14935286*
> I usually have two to three different browsers open. WF is always the first choice, Chrome for Goggle apps, and IE for anything else that needs backward compatibility. I feel like I get the best without losing out on anything else by running multiple browsers. As always thanks Alex for all your work!










I didn't even think about using multiple browsers. That would make my life easier for sure.


----------



## frankth3frizz

i really like it. i just cant use it as my default because the tumblr follow button is missing for me on firefox :/


----------



## Amo

I'm having a problem opening PDF's in browser. I have Adobe 11RC installed but I'm still getting a missing plugin error, which of course waterfox cannot find. Any suggestions?


----------



## Lord Venom

You installed Adobe Flash 11 RC1 which is for Flash content, not PDF files which is what Adobe Reader/Acrobat is for. However there are currently no 64-bit browser plugins of Adobe Reader/Acrobat nor is there a 64-bit edition of Reader/Acrobat available.

Is there even a PDF plugin for 64-bit browsers? Not heard of one.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Amo*


I'm having a problem opening PDF's in browser. I have Adobe 11RC installed but I'm still getting a missing plugin error, which of course waterfox cannot find. Any suggestions?


Just install Foxit and forget the browser plugin. I've had less issues since I've taken to forcing the browser to launch my PDF reader and read the PDFs separately.

(I've been doing this for a long time, actually







)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *frankth3frizz*


i really like it. i just cant use it as my default because the tumblr follow button is missing for me on firefox :/


Is it a plugin or an extension? If it's an extension then you can disable add-on compatibility check and it should work.

Quote:




Type about:config in the address bar
Right-click -> New -> Boolean
 Name: extensions.checkCompatibility
 Value: false


That should do the trick.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Amo*


I'm having a problem opening PDF's in browser. I have Adobe 11RC installed but I'm still getting a missing plugin error, which of course waterfox cannot find. Any suggestions?


As said below there is no 64-Bit PDF plugin. HOWEVER YOU CAN VIEW PDF/DOCX/PPTX/XLSX etc.. in the browser using this extension:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...r-pdf-doc-doc/

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


You installed Adobe Flash 11 RC1 which is for Flash content, not PDF files which is what Adobe Reader/Acrobat is for. However there are currently no 64-bit browser plugins of Adobe Reader/Acrobat nor is there a 64-bit edition of Reader/Acrobat available.

Is there even a PDF plugin for 64-bit browsers? Not heard of one.



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


Just install Foxit and forget the browser plugin. I've had less issues since I've taken to forcing the browser to launch my PDF reader and read the PDFs separately.

(I've been doing this for a long time, actually







)


You can still use this though:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir...r-pdf-doc-doc/


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

What exactly is waterfox?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl;14952587*
> What exactly is waterfox?


The best browser there is give it a try


----------



## 01Minecrafter

Seems all good to me, its running smooth as a babies bottom ;D


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl;14952587*
> What exactly is waterfox?


From the title of this thread:
Waterfox 7.0 RC3 (With Auto-Updates!): 11/09/11 *[Firefox 64-Bit]*
From my signature:
Waterfox: *64-Bit Firefox* Build project
From the website:
The fastest *64-Bit* variant of *Firefox*!

...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *01Minecrafter;14954530*
> Seems all good to me, its running smooth as a babies bottom ;D


My reaction:








...







...







...


----------



## sawjew

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


You installed Adobe Flash 11 RC1 which is for Flash content, not PDF files which is what Adobe Reader/Acrobat is for. However there are currently no 64-bit browser plugins of Adobe Reader/Acrobat nor is there a 64-bit edition of Reader/Acrobat available.

Is there even a PDF plugin for 64-bit browsers? Not heard of one.


If you install the 64 bit version of PDF-XChange Viewer from here you can choose to install the browser plugin which works in 64 bit IE and Waterfox.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sawjew;14962998*
> If you install the 64 bit version of PDF-XChange Viewer from here you can choose to install the browser plugin which works in 64 bit IE and Waterfox.


Nice! Take some rep.


----------



## abu46

WF rc3 feels slower than rc1(esp. cold starts), maybe its just me but..........................


----------



## Ryrynz

Don't worry about it, new RC builds are out every couple of weeks or so.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46;14965127*
> WF rc3 feels slower than rc1(esp. cold starts), maybe its just me but..........................


It shouldn't. It hasn't for me. Nothing has changed between the 7.0 RCs.


----------



## abu46

i was surprised to see that myself, as i upgraded to rc3 and didnt install any new addons either
anyways i guess this will sort out with the final build

WF rocks


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 7 beta 6 is out.


----------



## ihatelolcats

what can you do about memory usage? i closed waterfox and opened it with the same tabs and usage went down by 2/3. keep up the good work


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ihatelolcats*


what can you do about memory usage? i closed waterfox and opened it with the same tabs and usage went down by 2/3. keep up the good work


If I'm not mistaken, Firefox/Waterfox does not load all tabs when you open the application. If you have tabs in other Panorama groups, those tabs do not get loaded until you open that group. Also, the memory usage is not necessarily the browser's fault. Plugins or addons could the culprit.


----------



## Vowels

I don't know why everyone is hung up on reducing memory usage. As long as there's no memory leak then Firefox/Waterfox can use as much memory as it needs.

I tweaked Waterfox to cache everything to memory (recently visited pages, images, etc.) so that I can get the most speed out of the browser. It's not uncommon for me to see Waterfox using 500MB - 600MB or more of memory after an hour of my typical browsing.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;14993559*
> I don't know why everyone is hung up on reducing memory usage. As long as there's no memory leak then Firefox/Waterfox can use as much memory as it needs.
> 
> I tweaked Waterfox to cache everything to memory (recently visited pages, images, etc.) so that I can get the most speed out of the browser. It's not uncommon for me to see Waterfox using 500MB - 600MB or more of memory after an hour of my typical browsing.










I typically see 2gB+ and I don't have that.







(ofc I'm talking 60+ tabs)


----------



## MrAlex

Anyone using Waterfox 7.0 RC3 and auto-updated to RC4 please let me know how it went


----------



## aramil

I know not really an issue (yet).

It works on Windows 8 but with some graphical errors (icons distorting on top bar)

But functional. (firefox does same so don't loose sleep).

On an update note i was on RC3 but no update....
now manually updated to RC4 and noticed in the about screen it says I am on the BETA update channel?


----------



## Vowels

I don't see an update in the About Waterfox window when I check for updates.


----------



## sbuck333

I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for continuing to work on this. I really love it and have turned some friends onto it as well. I seriously don't think I've ever had 1 bug/glitch/problem in all these months of using it. Its great!


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;15004946*
> I don't see an update in the About Waterfox window when I check for updates.


Same here, nor there is a check for updates button. Anyways, I manually updated.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Damn it. 64-bit flash is now locking up when I try to attach a file in gmail. I even upgraded to the latest release candidate. no go.


----------



## MrAlex

No-one has received a notification or anything yet? That's odd I just tested it out and it worked. Okay can someone type about:config and then type app.update and then take a screenshot of all the options it has for me please?

Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*


I know not really an issue (yet).

It works on Windows 8 but with some graphical errors (icons distorting on top bar)

But functional. (firefox does same so don't loose sleep).

On an update note i was on RC3 but no update....
now manually updated to RC4 and noticed in the about screen it says I am on the BETA update channel?


I'm sure Mozilla will develop Firefox for Windows 8 in due time.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sbuck333*


I just wanted to drop by and say thanks for continuing to work on this. I really love it and have turned some friends onto it as well. I seriously don't think I've ever had 1 bug/glitch/problem in all these months of using it. Its great!


No problem and thanks a lot!

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


Damn it. 64-bit flash is now locking up when I try to attach a file in gmail. I even upgraded to the latest release candidate. no go.










*Sigh* There's always _some _issue with Flash, even after all these years in development and a multimillion dollar company backing it.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15010894*
> No-one has received a notification or anything yet? That's odd I just tested it out and it worked. Okay can someone type about:config and then type app.update and then take a screenshot of all the options it has for me please?


Not sure what happened with the about window, but I think you can still make out what it says.


----------



## aramil




----------



## MrAlex

That's strange. None of the custom config options that were set in RC3 have been implemented. It seems that only on fresh/first installs it gets set. Hmm this poses a problem, I'll need to fix this before the final releases because people who manually update will not get the auto-updates!

Okay guys for you to get auto-updates do this:


 Right Click > New > Boolean: *app.update.cert.requireBuiltIn*
 Value: *False*

 Right Click > New > String: *app.update.url.override*
 Value: *http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/...ON%/update.xml*


----------



## aramil

ok time for a can and some worms!

I now have an update button in about and it says there is a newer version but then this:


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*


ok time for a can and some worms!

I now have an update button in about and it says there is a newer version but then this:


Are you sure *app.update.cert.requireBuiltIn *is set and is set to false? No spaces or typos? That error happens because it wasn't downloaded from a https URL so we disable checking for an SSL certificate.


----------



## aramil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Are you sure *app.update.cert.requireBuiltIn *is set and is set to false? No spaces or typos? That error happens because it wasn't downloaded from a https URL so we disable checking for an SSL certificate.












No Typos


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*











No Typos


Wow this is a headache! I just tested it for myself and it worked fine. Okay I've attached my about:config settings, maybe you'll notice something different I haven't?


----------



## aramil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Wow this is a headache! I just tested it for myself and it worked fine. Okay I've attached my about:config settings, maybe you'll notice something different I haven't?


only that you have logging on?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*


only that you have logging on?










This is very perplexing! Okay, if you turn logging on, then press Ctrl+Shift+J after opening a new session (so the error console comes up) and then attempt to update, could you take a screenshot of the output of the error console? Thank you very much for trying to help me with this by the way


----------



## aramil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*









This is very perplexing! Okay, if you turn logging on, then press Ctrl+Shift+J after opening a new session (so the error console comes up) and then attempt to update, could you take a screenshot of the output of the error console? Thank you very much for trying to help me with this by the way










Not a problem


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*


Not a problem










Thank you. I'll look into it and hopefully have it fixed soon


----------



## msuguy71

I am still getting the following error when I try to send an email within the Angel learning site at school:

A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.

Script: https://angel.msu.edu/jscript/yahoo/...utilities.js:9

I am only getting this error in Waterfox, IE9 64bit works fine. I am using WF7 RC4.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Rick


----------



## Reflux

http://browserfame.com/41/firefox-hide-http-address-bar

What's the setting to reenable long URL's in the navbar? I noticed they were removed in the latest version but it totally slipped my mind to ask here.

Sorry, I hate not being able to copy&paste from there. I assume it's a setting in about:config but I can't see anything relevant.

Can you add that back from the old version, maybe as an option somewhere? I seriously hate these short URL's.


----------



## Ellis

I kept getting issues with Firefox 6.0.2 locking up at random times, so I thought "I know, I'll switch to Waterfox!"

But I'm still getting the exact same issue with Waterfox 6.0.2. Do you think it's worth trying Waterfox 7 RC4?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *msuguy71*


I am still getting the following error when I try to send an email within the Angel learning site at school:

A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding. You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script will complete.

Script: https://angel.msu.edu/jscript/yahoo/...utilities.js:9

I am only getting this error in Waterfox, IE9 64bit works fine. I am using WF7 RC4.

Any ideas?

Thanks,
Rick


Unfortunately it has to do with the way Firefox renders things. It may take a while for Yahoo to comply with it (assuming people report the problem). Or they may not know. I'm not sure. I only get scripts not responding when my system gets bogged down, but that's about it and this seems to be a different case. Have you tried normal Firefox? Although it shouldn't make a difference since they're still the exact same program.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Reflux*


http://browserfame.com/41/firefox-hide-http-address-bar

What's the setting to reenable long URL's in the navbar? I noticed they were removed in the latest version but it totally slipped my mind to ask here.

Sorry, I hate not being able to copy&paste from there. I assume it's a setting in about:config but I can't see anything relevant.

Can you add that back from the old version, maybe as an option somewhere? I seriously hate these short URL's.


I tried looking but never found a solution. I don't think you can re-enable it.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ellis*


I kept getting issues with Firefox 6.0.2 locking up at random times, so I thought "I know, I'll switch to Waterfox!"

But I'm still getting the exact same issue with Waterfox 6.0.2. Do you think it's worth trying Waterfox 7 RC4?


You could try Waterfox 7, see if it makes a difference. If it doesn't it could be something wrong with your user profile or an add-on.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Unfortunately it has to do with the way Firefox renders things. It may take a while for Yahoo to comply with it (assuming people report the problem). Or they may not know. I'm not sure. I only get scripts not responding when my system gets bogged down, but that's about it and this seems to be a different case. Have you tried normal Firefox? Although it shouldn't make a difference since they're still the exact same program.

I tried looking but never found a solution. I don't think you can re-enable it.

You could try Waterfox 7, see if it makes a difference. If it doesn't it could be something wrong with your user profile or an add-on.


I tried using Waterfox 7 and it seemed fine, then I decided to see if I could use Nightly at the same time and it seems I can't.

Do Firefox, Nightly and Waterfox all use the same profiles folder? Because they're all installed to different locations, yet they all seem to run Firefox.exe and I can't run two of them at once.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ellis*


I tried using Waterfox 7 and it seemed fine, then I decided to see if I could use Nightly at the same time and it seems I can't.

Do Firefox, Nightly and Waterfox all use the same profiles folder? Because they're all installed to different locations, yet they all seem to run Firefox.exe and I can't run two of them at once.


They all share the same AppData folder.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;15016058*
> They all share the same AppData folder.


Thought they must do. Also, I got the same lock-up using Nightly, so I decided to backup and delete my Mozilla folder in AppData and I'll now try re-installing Waterfox.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis;15016119*
> Thought they must do. Also, I got the same lock-up using Nightly, so I decided to backup and delete my Mozilla folder in AppData and I'll now try re-installing Waterfox.


You should download RC3 and let us know if it updates to RC4, since you have deleted your profiles.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taylorsci;15016177*
> You should download RC3 and let us know if it updates to RC4, since you have deleted your profiles.


Too late, I'm on 6.0.2 and it seems to be stable so far. So I'm not going to change right now, sorry.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis;15016030*
> I tried using Waterfox 7 and it seemed fine, then I decided to see if I could use Nightly at the same time and it seems I can't.
> 
> Do Firefox, Nightly and Waterfox all use the same profiles folder? Because they're all installed to different locations, yet they all seem to run Firefox.exe and I can't run two of them at once.


Yes, Waterfox and Firefox shame the share profile.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis;15016398*
> Too late, I'm on 6.0.2 and it seems to be stable so far. So I'm not going to change right now, sorry.


Don't worry about it, I'll find a way to sort it out


----------



## Ellis

*EDIT:* FAQ didn't appear at first, then I reloaded it and it was fine.


----------



## Cozmoz

Good to see the logo in the About Waterfox section is now working







.


----------



## fredy09

Hi i was wondering if theres any way to bring back the http:// part in the address bar?


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fredy09;15038802*
> Hi i was wondering if theres any way to bring back the http:// part in the address bar?


Type about:config in the address bar and then look for:

browser.urlbar.trimURLs

And change the value of it to the other one (not sure if true or false is what you want it on)

Think that should work.


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis;15016030*
> I tried using Waterfox 7 and it seemed fine, then I decided to see if I could use Nightly at the same time and it seems I can't.
> 
> Do Firefox, Nightly and Waterfox all use the same profiles folder? Because they're all installed to different locations, yet they all seem to run Firefox.exe and I can't run two of them at once.


You could try this.
http://www.overclock.net/other-software/988673-how-run-multiple-instances-ff-versions.html


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind;15047201*
> You could try this.
> http://www.overclock.net/other-software/988673-how-run-multiple-instances-ff-versions.html


Thanks for the link, although I've found myself happy with Waterfox 6.0.2 so I'll just stick with that for now.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, I've got my 7 different Firefox installs setup with separate profiles like that.


----------



## fredy09

The internet download manager plugin isnt supported by waterfox?


----------



## mbudden

WaterFox has been great.
But I have noticed since I have to use Flash 64bit... It likes to crash a lot. lol


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbudden;15058860*
> WaterFox has been great.
> But I have noticed since I have to use Flash 64bit... It likes to crash a lot. lol


Funny you say that, Flash just crashed on me a few minutes ago. First time it's happened though.


----------



## Ryrynz

I think the 64bit plugin has some issues, I've had it crash a number of times on me too, it just freezes. That's the price you pay for participating on the bleeding edge.


----------



## Ellis

I see that Firefox 7 has been finished, any idea how long it will be before Waterfox 7 stable releases?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ellis*


I see that Firefox 7 has been finished, any idea how long it will be before Waterfox 7 stable releases?


A few days time.

I've had a really rough last few days, some personal issued but I'll get right on track.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


A few days time.

I've had a really rough last few days, some personal issued but I'll get right on track.


Sorry to hear about that.









I'm not in any rush, I just wondered how long it would take.


----------



## bigal1542

I am wondering if there is a way to clear the downloads popup when I exit waterfox. From what I got through the search, FF has it under the privacy tab, but I can't seem to find it. I just download a ton of stuff and it's pointless to have a huge list, and a pain to clear the downloads in the time it's up.

Thanks


----------



## L D4WG

Hey Ive been getting a lot of pop ups recently saying that WaterFox is using 700mb of memory, suggest closing and reopening etc, is that normal???


----------



## tyrannor

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fredy09*


The internet download manager plugin isnt supported by waterfox?










It is an extension and not a plugin. It works fine for me in Waterfox 6.


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 7 released









Quote:



Originally Posted by *bigal1542*


I am wondering if there is a way to clear the downloads popup when I exit waterfox. From what I got through the search, FF has it under the privacy tab, but I can't seem to find it. I just download a ton of stuff and it's pointless to have a huge list, and a pain to clear the downloads in the time it's up.

Thanks










Do you mean after you download something and then it says downloaded. That list? If so you have to manually click 'Clear List' each time. It's what I do for as long as I can remember









Quote:



Originally Posted by *L D4WG*


Hey Ive been getting a lot of pop ups recently saying that WaterFox is using 700mb of memory, suggest closing and reopening etc, is that normal???


I've never heard of that issue before. Do you have a screenshot?


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


Waterfox 7 released










Waterfox 7 download


----------



## sfdxsm

I used the update method on the main page and the integrity of the download could not be verified so it would not auto update.

Just FYI - going to download full package.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sfdxsm*


I used the update method on the main page and the integrity of the download could not be verified so it would not auto update.

Just FYI - going to download full package.


From which version of Waterfox?

Release Candidates will only release to other Release Candidate and release builds don't have anything to update to yet.


----------



## Lord Venom

I manually updated to 7.0 final however it says there's an update with the apply update button. When you click it, a dialog pops up and says "The integrity of the update could not be verified".


----------



## Lord Venom

Also, there's a candidate build for Firefox 8 beta 1 so it won't be long until it's released.


----------



## demoneye

i am new here , and just come across this 64 bit of firefox , wounder if it will be any good (faster or what so ever ) on my win 7 x64 ....

anyway just installed waterfox 7 final and i cant GET any add on to install from mozila site , is that only me ?

10x


----------



## aramil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye;15115775*
> i am new here , and just come across this 64 bit of firefox , wounder if it will be any good (faster or what so ever ) on my win 7 x64 ....
> 
> anyway just installed waterfox 7 final and i cant GET any add on to install from mozila site , is that only me ?
> 
> 10x


Try this

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fx7-recovery/


----------



## SIMPSONATOR

I've been using Palemoon 64-bit with no problems. Even flash works. What does Waterfox offer?


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aramil;15116669*
> Try this
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/fx7-recovery/


SOLVED









i think its important to add any remark to such case i have in the front of the waterfox 7 release post









10x mate


----------



## Ikrin

Well, the reviews don't suggest that it always works correctly. Also, given that it is an issue with FF7, and Waterfox is based on that source, then it is a shared problem and not simply an issue with Waterfox.


----------



## bigal1542

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15112521*
> Do you mean after you download something and then it says downloaded. That list? If so you have to manually click 'Clear List' each time. It's what I do for as long as I can remember


I did some more searching and found that they removed that option a while ago :/ my bad there. I found how to change it through the "about:config" tab. Here is a link to it. Might help ya out









http://www.groovypost.com/howto/howto/clear-firefox-4-download-history-automatically/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SIMPSONATOR;15116704*
> I've been using Palemoon 64-bit with no problems. Even flash works. What does Waterfox offer?


Waterfox was a decent amount faster in both peacekeeper benchies and in daily use. It felt snappier







Plus you are supporting a fellow OCN'er


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SIMPSONATOR;15116704*
> I've been using Palemoon 64-bit with no problems. Even flash works. What does Waterfox offer?


Waterfox is updated faster and it's compiled with SSE and SSE2.


----------



## biltong

I highly doubt I'm going to notice any difference at all with my slow 384kbps (bits not bytes) line. The only reason I'd honestly switch to this is if it cut down memory usage.

That said, I still think you're doing a good job by providing this, it's something firefox has needed for ages.


----------



## Lord Venom

Also there's no need to use that addon fix as Mozilla released Firefox 7.0.1 so that means Waterfox will need to be updated.


----------



## TheRockMonsi

Quote:


> Waterfox 7.0 FINAL
> 
> The final version of Waterfox 7.0 has been released, get it from the Downloads page.
> If you are upgrading from previous versions of Waterfox and you want automatic updates you MUST do the following:
> 
> 1.Type about:config in the address bar
> 2.Right Click > New > Boolean: app.update.cert.requireBuiltIn
> 3.Value: False
> 4.*Right Click > New > String: app.update.url.override*


I can't find the "app.update.url.override". Only "app.update.url". Is anyone else having this issue, or am I actually just looking for "app.update.url"?


----------



## demoneye

just a general question.
anyone in here feel any speed or what so ever increasing matter running waterfox 7 on a x64 (windows seven)platform compare to firefox 7 running on x64 platform ?

btw while we speaking , firefox 7.01 hit the road


----------



## Ellis




----------



## Ikrin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheRockMonsi;15117542*
> I can't find the "app.update.url.override". Only "app.update.url". Is anyone else having this issue, or am I actually just looking for "app.update.url"?


I think you need to take a look at those instructions you bolded again.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye;15117627*
> just a general question.
> anyone in here feel any speed or what so ever increasing matter running waterfox 7 on a x64 (windows seven)platform compare to firefox 7 running on x64 platform ?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;15117455*
> Waterfox is updated faster and it's compiled with SSE and SSE2.


You should. However, it may or may not be readily noticeable on some systems. FF7 is still 32-bit. It is also not optimized for Windows or for the instruction sets listed above..


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheRockMonsi;15117542*
> I can't find the "app.update.url.override". Only "app.update.url". Is anyone else having this issue, or am I actually just looking for "app.update.url"?


You create it like it says.


----------



## Wheezo

WF 7.0 working great for me. I'm a one or two tab viewer and it seems to only use about 190,000kb while viewing OCN.
Great browser, keeping it for sure. Had 5.0 on here originally.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> The integrity of the update could not be verified












Oh well, going to d/l the full installer, which i'll need anyway since I secretly install waterfox on any 64-bit computer I find








(Just kidding, but I could do that)

I think the current site style should be final, it's perfect!

EDIT: Now THIS is seriously fast!
Startup time shaved from 1 second to half a second
Every page starts loading the instant I press enter - and finishes loading instantly, on top of that.


----------



## ilikepancakez

wish there was an option to import from chrome :I


----------



## xd_1771

^ I think you can export chrome bookmarks into a format Waterfox/Firefox can read.

This is how I use my Waterfox:








I thought I was already a browsing nut with the perfect interface one year ago, this new experience shames that!


----------



## Singledigit

does waterfox work with silverlight? I miss watching movies on Netflix. Also, is this near the same thing as Firefox Nightly?


----------



## ilikepancakez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15118288*
> ^ I think you can export chrome bookmarks into a format Waterfox/Firefox can read.
> 
> This is how I use my Waterfox:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I was already a browsing nut with the perfect interface one year ago, this new experience shames that!


how do you that? XD


----------



## ilikepancakez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;12886912*
> 
> Logo by Cozmonort
> 
> News
> 
> Frequently Asked Questions
> 
> Downloads
> 
> 
> 
> *A shout out to the people who have donated so far:*
> 
> msuguy71
> Quantum Reality


the website to the string value doesn't seem to be working :I


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Singledigit;15118303*
> does waterfox work with silverlight? I miss watching movies on Netflix. Also, is this near the same thing as Firefox Nightly?


You need the Silverlight 5 RC x64 plugin. And no, it's not the same as Nightly.


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

I have this to say. Tried Waterfox 7 FINAL. Went back to 6 because the performance and stability is just better.


----------



## Ryrynz

Maybe the 8 Betas might be better for you. On another note spotted Waterfox on freeware-guide.com, it's becoming popular!


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *ilikepancakez*


how do you that? XD


This


----------



## ALMIGO

Hello

Can you make a germany version ???

You cant update for your homepage project plugins DIVX Webplayer has a plugin for FF 64 Bit see snapshot !!!























Attachment 231320

Thanks GEORG


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 8 beta 1 is officially out.


----------



## demoneye

also firefix 10.oa1 nightly








it is x64 also and i think maybe its better use this x64 version than waterfox 7?

what you guys think ?


----------



## sawjew

I am having the same problem with updates which has been mentioned a couple of times previously.

I followed the directions to update from 6.0.2 then applied the update, now it keeps telling me to update to 7.0, which I already have, and then responds with "The integrity of the update could not be verified".

i have uninstalled and reinstalled Waterfox with the same problem. Any suggestions?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *demoneye*


also firefix 10.oa1 nightly








it is x64 also and i think maybe its better use this x64 version than waterfox 7?

what you guys think ?


Nightly x64 builds aren't optimized for Windows nor compiled with SSE and SSE2.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sawjew*


I am having the same problem with updates which has been mentioned a couple of times previously.

I followed the directions to update from 6.0.2 then applied the update, now it keeps telling me to update to 7.0, which I already have, and then responds with "The integrity of the update could not be verified".

i have uninstalled and reinstalled Waterfox with the same problem. Any suggestions?


When you go to update there's a button that makes the update notification go away, forgot what it's called.


----------



## aramil

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


When you go to update there's a button that makes the update notification go away, forgot what it's called.


Click "apply update" then "no thanks" button bottom left


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;15125244*
> Nightly x64 builds aren't optimized for Windows nor compiled with SSE and SSE2.


that mean waterfox 7 is faster yes?


----------



## TheRockMonsi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheRockMonsi;15117542*
> I can't find the "app.update.url.override". Only "app.update.url". Is anyone else having this issue, or am I actually just looking for "app.update.url"?


I figured it out...


----------



## bfc_xxx

Great job. I love it. Any chance you will make also localized versions?


----------



## ihatelolcats

just want to say waterfox runs faster than a hellhound on my machine, good work


----------



## MrAlex

Hey everyone sorry for the confusion. You can't update from any version of Waterfox to Waterfox 7 because I didn't create and update files







the instructions are for future Waterfox updates. It's just that the existing users wouldn't get the custom values that are required (while new users will).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;15122483*
> Maybe the 8 Betas might be better for you. On another note spotted Waterfox on freeware-guide.com, it's becoming popular!


Awesome








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ALMIGO;15123887*
> Hello
> 
> Can you make a germany version ???
> 
> You cant update for your homepage project plugins DIVX Webplayer has a plugin for FF 64 Bit see snapshot !!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 231320
> 
> 
> Thanks GEORG


Unfortunately there isn't a German language pack







but you can keep checking every now and then:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sawjew;15125082*
> I am having the same problem with updates which has been mentioned a couple of times previously.
> 
> I followed the directions to update from 6.0.2 then applied the update, now it keeps telling me to update to 7.0, which I already have, and then responds with "The integrity of the update could not be verified".
> 
> i have uninstalled and reinstalled Waterfox with the same problem. Any suggestions?


Sorry about the confusion, I cleared it up above








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bfc_xxx;15128967*
> Great job. I love it. Any chance you will make also localized versions?


You can see if a language pack is available here:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/


----------



## ALMIGO

Thanks MrAlex !!!


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:



Originally Posted by *demoneye*


that mean waterfox 7 is faster yes?










According to at least one test, Waterfox 7 RC is faster than Firefox 9 nightly









Quote:



Originally Posted by *ilikepancakez*


how do you that? XD


Addons and customizations. Lots and lots of addons and customizations.
Specifically.... vertical toolbar, vertical bookmarks toolbar, move most top icons incl. back/forward to vertical toolbar, move bookmarks toolbar to vertical toolbar, set vertical toolbar to autohide/appear on left mouseover, move more icons to an auto-hidden bottom add-on bar (addon Barlesque for auto-hide & compact options), quick search bar for the search bar icons, use MinUI to autohide addressbar/search bar with CTRL key, customize interface with theme & userstyles... the result is the most compact, most versatile Firefox/Waterfox interface ever and the best ever fullscreen browsing experience.


----------



## ?EURVI? In ?i?gui?EUR

flash doesnt work for me on waterfox..


----------



## Rickkins

Just tried Waterfox for the first time. I like it..!!


----------



## Rickkins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ð€VÌ£ Ïñ Ðì§gûï§€;15137864*
> flash doesnt work for me on waterfox..


Try this page http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer11.html

It suggests accessing the page via a 32 bit browser, installing the flash 64, and then restarting 64 bit browser. Worked for me...


----------



## spice003

does any one know when they plan on releasing the official 64bit firefox? so its on their site and you can pick 32 or 64bit, you know?


----------



## layer

waterfox 7 is "equal" to firefox 7.0.1? or only 7.0?

there is any plan to waterbird x64-(thunderbird)?









thank you


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *spice003*


does any one know when they plan on releasing the official 64bit firefox? so its on their site and you can pick 32 or 64bit, you know?


Looks to be Firefox 9 which should be out somewhere around Christmas time.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *layer*


waterfox 7 is "equal" to firefox 7.0.1? or only 7.0?


It's based off of 7.0 code.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *layer*


there is any plan to waterbird x64-(thunderbird)?










Unlikely.


----------



## Amo

I just reinstalled windows and am reinstalling all my programs and get an error when trying to start waterfox.
Quote:


> The program can't start because MSVCR100.dll is missing from your computer.


I've googled it and installed the c++ programs that it said to install but I'm still getting this error. Any thoughts?


----------



## hindslight

I'm having a problem where I have to right-click twice on images to get the context menu. Everywhere else is single-click and I'm not having the same issue with Firefox 7.


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Amo*


I just reinstalled windows and am reinstalling all my programs and get an error when trying to start waterfox.

I've googled it and installed the c++ programs that it said to install but I'm still getting this error. Any thoughts?


If you read the OP you will see the answer to your question.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hindslight*


I'm having a problem where I have to right-click twice on images to get the context menu. Everywhere else is single-click and I'm not having the same issue with Firefox 7.


I'm not having this issue.


----------



## Amo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Taylorsci*


If you read the OP you will see the answer to your question.


Thanks, I must have been installing the wrong distributable.


----------



## falcon26

Do most people get the blurry font issue or is this something that has been fixed?


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *falcon26*


Do most people get the blurry font issue or is this something that has been fixed?


It's common, not fixed yet. I have the same issue.


----------



## hindslight

Quote:



Originally Posted by *hindslight*


I'm having a problem where I have to right-click twice on images to get the context menu. Everywhere else is single-click and I'm not having the same issue with Firefox 7.


Nevermind. It was one of my extensions (Image Zoom) that was causing the problem.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Rickkins*


Just tried Waterfox for the first time. I like it..!!


Great to hear









Quote:



Originally Posted by *falcon26*


Do most people get the blurry font issue or is this something that has been fixed?



Quote:



Originally Posted by *Taylorsci*


It's common, not fixed yet. I have the same issue.


It's 'fixed' in the FAQ section of the website...


----------



## msuguy71

Ok, here is another problem I am having.

Using all versions of Waterfox (including 7 final) I am unable to connect to work through their VPN that uses Juniper VPN client.

I can connect just fine with IE9 (64 bit) though.

Google search shows it is a problem with the java plugin for Firefox. Would this be something I would submit as a bug to the Mozilla bug tracker? or Java development team?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *msuguy71*


Ok, here is another problem I am having.

Using all versions of Waterfox (including 7 final) I am unable to connect to work through their VPN that uses Juniper VPN client.

I can connect just fine with IE9 (64 bit) though.

Google search shows it is a problem with the java plugin for Firefox. Would this be something I would submit as a bug to the Mozilla bug tracker? or Java development team?


I would submit it to the Java development team. If you want you can report to the Mozilla bug tracker but you have to replicate the bug in official Mozilla Firefox builds otherwise they won't submit it.


----------



## donbt09

@MrAlex

It's Firefox 7.0.1 update important?


----------



## Taylorsci

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


It's 'fixed' in the FAQ section of the website...


Oh, thanks. I don't recall that being mentioned when I had the same complaint weeks ago.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *donbt09*


@MrAlex

It's Firefox 7.0.1 update important?


Not really, it was released to fix addons showing up. Not an issue here.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys, I was thinking about hosting a competition on the website for a new logo for Waterfox. For Waterfox to be listed on the Mozilla website and be able to use the 'Powered by Mozilla' we can't use anything related to Firefox such as the logo etc.
So here's how it would work:
-People submit their logos
-I either chose the ones I like the best and then a poll to decide which one to use OR
-All submitted logos are listed and the community pics the best one?
What do you guys think?


----------



## aramil

As long as the current one is in lol ( I kind of like the blue & black)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aramil;15159316*
> As long as the current one is in lol ( I kind of like the blue & black)


I like it too but since Waterfox is becoming more and more popular everyday the logo sort of infringes Mozilla's copyright


----------



## aramil

Not sure what people are after or where you want them posting (new thread)?
























_The fish is a "Waterfox"_


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*


Not sure what people are after or where you want them posting (new thread)?
























_The fish is a "Waterfox"_


I like the first one best.


----------



## msuguy71

Did the Mozilla team email you or something about the logo? Since it is freeware and this is a port of the original, I would think they would not really care about the logo.


----------



## Vowels

Might be a good idea to reach out to DeviantArt or some other online art community for logo ideas. They get exposure if their design ends up on Mozilla's page.


----------



## wanako

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vowels*


Might be a good idea to reach out to DeviantArt or some other online art community for logo ideas. They get exposure if their design ends up on Mozilla's page.


This is not a bad idea at all!

This is the first time I've heard of Waterfox. I'll give it a try once I get home! Intrigued!


----------



## aramil

http://aramil1701.deviantart.com/gallery/33002186

for my gallery







well the Waterfox ones


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *msuguy71*


Did the Mozilla team email you or something about the logo? Since it is freeware and this is a port of the original, I would think they would not really care about the logo.


See this:

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


For Waterfox to be listed on the Mozilla website and be able to use the 'Powered by Mozilla' we can't use anything related to Firefox such as the logo etc.


----------



## MrAlex

The Waterfox competition details are up. Hopefully people will enter









Quote:



Originally Posted by *aramil*


Not sure what people are after or where you want them posting (new thread)?
























_The fish is a "Waterfox"_


Only the last one can be used, the others can't because they are still the Firefox logo

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Vowels*


Might be a good idea to reach out to DeviantArt or some other online art community for logo ideas. They get exposure if their design ends up on Mozilla's page.


That's the plan









Quote:



Originally Posted by *wanako*


This is not a bad idea at all!

This is the first time I've heard of Waterfox. I'll give it a try once I get home! Intrigued!


Hopefully you like it!


----------



## Riou

Quote:



Originally Posted by *msuguy71*


Did the Mozilla team email you or something about the logo? Since it is freeware and this is a port of the original, I would think they would not really care about the logo.


Firefox source code is open source. However, Firefox logo, Firefox name, and Mozilla name is copyrighted by Mozilla. That is why Debian released their own Firefox rebrand called Ice Weasel.


----------



## xd_1771

I'll most certainly be participating


----------



## MrAlex

The final version for Adobe Flash Player 11 has been released! Hoorah







you can find the link on the downloads page.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


I'll most certainly be participating










Great to hear


----------



## CramComplex

Oh! Logo competition? I'm in!


----------



## L D4WG

Awww i really like the current logo, it makes people go, whats blue firefox mean??


----------



## msuguy71

Quote:



Originally Posted by *L D4WG*


Awww i really like the current logo, it makes people go, whats blue firefox mean??


Same here. I think copyright for an open source program's icon is ridiculous. Can plainly see that it is not the exact same icon as Firefox, it is blue. I plan on keeping a copy of the old waterfox icon and I will have to manually change it each time I guess.


----------



## Lord Venom

See, none of the new logos can be even remotely based on the Firefox logo so the ones posted thus far are still copyrighted works based on the Firefox logo. Would have to create something completely new and unique.


----------



## sparkler

Quote:



Originally Posted by *mralex*


what are the terms?

1. The logo must be unique and not use anything related to the firefox logo
2. The logo size needs to be 512Ã-512



will this do its 512x512 and not related to firefox label XD

http://img513.imageshack.us/img513/717/picyt.jpg


----------



## sparkler

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*


See, none of the new logos can be even remotely based on the Firefox logo so the ones posted thus far are still copyrighted works based on the Firefox logo. Would have to create something completely new and unique.



aramil third image its based on the firefox logo its has fish and the last i checked mozilla doesn't use the earth in its logo and doesn't hold copyright to a picture of the earth


----------



## aramil

Yeah I know. I have some ideas up on my DeviantArt now just hoping to inspire some genius!

here


----------



## Ellis

I'm assuming that the Nightly logo is still copyright?


----------



## Lord Venom

Yes it is, same as Aurora.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;15181207*
> Yes it is, same as Aurora.


----------



## tyrannor

Have you received a complaint from Mozilla? If not I think the icon is fine.


----------



## aramil

He can't use the icon and be featured on there website as "powered by" which is a big plus


----------



## xd_1771

Can the globe (just the globe, it's generic branding) be used?


----------



## Lord Venom

You might have to redraw your own with different topography.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15203739*
> Can the globe (just the globe, it's generic branding) be used?


I don't think they would mind. They just don't want something that people can confuse Firefox with.


----------



## xd_1771

^ The globe is usually used as the generic logo for Firefox-based browsers when it is not officially branded as such. I perceive there would be no problem at all with it.

Uploading my concept now...

EDIT: Submitted.
Click here for the Waterfox tidal wave logo submission by xd_1771
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.

I may make one or two modifications of this.


----------



## msuguy71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15208815*
> EDIT: Submitted.
> Click here for the Waterfox tidal wave logo submission by xd_1771


Nice work.


----------



## Varrkarus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771;15208815*
> ^ The globe is usually used as the generic logo for Firefox-based browsers when it is not officially branded as such. I perceive there would be no problem at all with it.
> 
> Uploading my concept now...
> 
> EDIT: Submitted.
> Click here for the Waterfox tidal wave logo submission by xd_1771
> This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 3.0 License.
> 
> I may make one or two modifications of this.


I like it!


----------



## thrasherht

OMG, Now that there is a 64bit silverlight, there is absolutely no reason for me to use chrome anymore. i can watch netflix on waterfox. It now is the best browser out there.


----------



## aramil

O.k. I have submitted some ideas please feel free to make more of anything I submit


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 8 beta 2 is completed. Any chance of a Waterfox 8.0 build?


----------



## biatche

waterfox vs pale moon 64 bit [differences] -- anything to comment anyone?


----------



## Ryrynz

When I tested Palemoon a few months back it was obliterated by Waterfox.


----------



## Varrkarus

I'm gonna try this now. I'll give some feedback soon.

EDIT: It feels different, but I can't tell what's different!
I'm not even sure if there actually is a difference lol
Either way, I'll continue to use it


----------



## DCY

I've been using Waterfox since the first download release, and I love it. Except for a few times of freezing, it's so much faster and smoother than Firefox.









My friend wants to use it too (since he's also tired of Firefox), but for some reason he keeps getting an error saying that the MSVCR 100.dll is missing. Anyone know how to fix that issue? He has Vista 64bit.


----------



## sparkler

Quote:



Originally Posted by *DCY*


My friend wants to use it too (since he's also tired of Firefox), but for some reason he keeps getting an error saying that the MSVCR 100.dll is missing. Anyone know how to fix that issue? He has Vista 64bit.


taking reading lessons will help


----------



## DCY

Quote:



Originally Posted by *sparkler*


taking reading lessons will help


I won't even dignify that with a response.


----------



## aramil

This HERE may help


----------



## csm725

I uploaded a logo too. I really like it.


----------



## aramil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725;15235477*
> I uploaded a logo too. I really like it.


----------



## Teal'c

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY;15230033*
> My friend wants to use it too (since he's also tired of Firefox), but for some reason he keeps getting an error saying that the MSVCR 100.dll is missing. Anyone know how to fix that issue? He has Vista 64bit.


Search and download the msvcr100.dll and msvcp100.dll.
Copy the files in Waterfox directory from Program Files.

P.S. I'm new here so... Hello to all.


----------



## Ryrynz

It really does help to read the FAQ if you have issues and also the first post in it's entirety.


----------



## csm725

This is OCN - we don't read no stinking OP.
Here is a link to my submission - http://csm725.deviantart.com/#/d4caxbo


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725;15244730*
> This is OCN - we don't read no stinking OP.
> Here is a link to my submission - http://csm725.deviantart.com/#/d4caxbo


I saw it man don't worry. Been busy with freshers week is all. I've seen all the submission so far.


----------



## csm725

Oic. Cheers.


----------



## libastral

Anyone tested Waterfox against Palemoon 64? Which is faster?


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

As I refuse to upgrade to Waterfox 7 as it and Firefox 7 is slower than its pervious release. I am now receiving crash problems in Waterfox 6.0.2. And no, I will not re-download and reinstall Waterfox/Firefox 7 for the fifth time. I dislike it with passion.


----------



## Ellis

Waterfox 7 won't auto-update. Every so often I get a message saying "Waterfox was unable to determine if an update is available" and linking me through to the Waterfox site. But I can't be assed to update manually just now.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Paratrooper1n0*


As I refuse to upgrade to Waterfox 7 as it and Firefox 7 is slower than its pervious release. I am now receiving crash problems in Waterfox 6.0.2. And no, I will not re-download and reinstall Waterfox/Firefox 7 for the fifth time. I dislike it with passion.


You're the only person whose Waterfox/Firefox 7 is slower than 6. And also what won't redownload? And how is it crashing? You're also the only person so far who has reported crashing on 6.0.2.

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ellis*


Waterfox 7 won't auto-update. Every so often I get a message saying "Waterfox was unable to determine if an update is available" and linking me through to the Waterfox site. But I can't be assed to update manually just now.










That's strange, that message doesn't pop up for me or anyone else that I'm aware of. There isn't anything to update to so there shouldn't be any message at all.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *MrAlex*


You're the only person whose Waterfox/Firefox 7 is slower than 6. And also what won't redownload? And how is it crashing? You're also the only person so far who has reported crashing on 6.0.2.

That's strange, that message doesn't pop up for me or anyone else that I'm aware of. There isn't anything to update to so there shouldn't be any message at all.


I thought it should update to 7.0.1?


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15291982*
> You're the only person whose Waterfox/Firefox 7 is slower than 6. And also what won't redownload? And how is it crashing? You're also the only person so far who has reported crashing on 6.0.2.


I do not want to re-download and re-install waterfox/firefox 7. But yes, there are times where Waterfox will crash when I try and close a tab.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 8 beta 3's out.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Latest stable Flash 11 64-bit release works like a charm with Waterfox. Haven't jumped up to 7.x yet, but will this weekend.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality;15311882*
> Latest stable Flash 11 64-bit release works like a charm with Waterfox. Haven't jumped up to 7.x yet, but will this weekend.


Upgraded manually. Worked like a charm.







Testing flash now.


----------



## xd_1771

Almost forgot that tomorrow's the last day for this...
Waterfox - Tidal Wave logo draft 2


----------



## ZuesL

Great job on this mate









Downloaded Waterfox 7 yesterday, but since today, it has been running very slow and laggy. Same goes for Firefox. Tried reinstalling and disabling addons and plugins, but still very slow. Any ideas?


----------



## melvinjn

Hi all

Sorry to interrupt. 
Like to know if anyone knows if windows media player 64bit plugin is available for Waterfox ??


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *melvinjn*


Like to know if anyone knows if windows media player 64bit plugin is available for Waterfox ??


Nope, there isn't.


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox logo poll is up!


----------



## Quantum Reality

One thing --

Upgraded to Waterfox 7.0, noticed it "dropped" NoScript from Add-Ons, had to manually re-install NoScript to get it back. It had all my old settings so I'm not sure what happened there.


----------



## Teal'c

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15354457*
> Waterfox logo poll is up!


I like the nr7 logo but IMO if it were vertically instead of horizontally it would be perfect.


----------



## Ellis

Voted. Some good submissions there. I must say, I'm quite surprised with the results so far, though.


----------



## csm725

As am I.


----------



## msuguy71

I think that all of the logos I have seen so far (posted) have been great. Everyone did a really good job.


----------



## Nick2253

MrAlex:

What flags are you using for compiling? You had mentioned earlier some of the SSE flags. Do you include SSE4 in the latest versions? Any other flags?

Also, and maybe I'm totally blind, but where's your "Donate" button!? How are we supposed to support you if you don't give us the option


----------



## yyymin

i install wmpfirefoxplugin.exe
but windows media plugin not work how to?

ps: plugin tab not showing wmp plugin


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *yyymin*


i install wmpfirefoxplugin.exe
but windows media plugin not work how to?

ps: plugin tab not showing wmp plugin


Because it isn't available for 64-bit browsers. Microsoft or whomever maintains that plugin would need to develop a 64-bit version of that plugin.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


Upgraded to Waterfox 7.0, noticed it "dropped" NoScript from Add-Ons, had to manually re-install NoScript to get it back. It had all my old settings so I'm not sure what happened there.


This is a bug with Firefox 7 final which they addressed by releasing 7.0.1 but Waterfox is based on 7.0. You can try using this extension to restore your hidden extensions: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/fir.../fx7-recovery/


----------



## abu46

FF 8 beta 4 is up but no WF 8 beta till now..................


----------



## tyrannor

I hope OP has not discontinued Waterfox. No responses from him either these days. I hope it is merely a case of him being busy.


----------



## csm725

He has college. Calm down guys.


----------



## wanako

oh wow. Logo #3 is wonderful.


----------



## csm725

Thanks!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tyrannor;15394413*
> I hope OP has not discontinued Waterfox. No responses from him either these days. I hope it is merely a case of him being busy.


Haven't really had much to reply to







plus why would I discontinue Waterfox but run a logo competition for it?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725;15394680*
> He has college. Calm down guys.


Electronic Engineering







good stuff!


----------



## Lord Venom

When does the voting end?


----------



## Vowels

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wanako;15394959*
> oh wow. Logo #3 is wonderful.


Agreed. #3 looks great


----------



## jlynn33

#5 is the best! #3 looks like a microsoft word logo


----------



## Varrkarus

Quote:



Originally Posted by *jlynn33*


#5 is the best!


Agreed! Looks so awesome >.>


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;15398862*
> When does the voting end?


Either next Monday or when one of the logos pushes miles ahead.


----------



## fishmech

Hi, ever since I switched from main firefox builds to Waterfox, I've had this weird problem where I end up with hundreds of firefox.exe processes after I leave Waterfox open for a while.

I just killed all the processes and restarted Waterfox and already have one again:









Currently I'm using Waterfox 7 Final and this also happened on the preview builds of Waterfox 7. I'm using these extensions and plugins if it matters: Adblock Plus, Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus, DownThemAll, Imgur Uploader, Open In Browser, Scriptish, Session Manager, Stylish, Webmail Notifier. Java 7 64 bit, Flash 11 64 bit, Silverlight 5 64 bit.

Does anyone know why this is happening and how I can stop it? After about 200 of these processess spawn the real one starts slowing down even though the others stay at 0 cpu 116k RAM etc.


----------



## msuguy71

Why not make all the icons available for the end user to pick which one they want to use at install? Then everyone is happy.


----------



## Lord Venom

Unfortunately it's not that simple.


----------



## Ryrynz

Quote:



Originally Posted by *fishmech*


Does anyone know why this is happening and how I can stop it? After about 200 of these processess spawn the real one starts slowing down even though the others stay at 0 cpu 116k RAM etc.


You could try creating a fresh profile.


----------



## xquisit

ty for sharing


----------



## xquisit

Adobe Flash 11 (oct 3 release) won't install. It says chose a browser, and it shows Mozilla Firefox with a circle and a dash. I just reformatted my computer, and I only have IE + Waterfox.


----------



## ambusher

so is logo #2 the official winner?


----------



## csm725

He said next Monday. There's a whole week.


----------



## Vowels

I question the legitimacy of entry #2, or at least the professionalism of it. If you check the actual entry of #2 on DeviantArt, the icon is all pixelated and rough around the edges. It looks like an upscale and a crop out of another picture.

Hell, the fox parts aren't even aligned properly with the edges of the water bowl.

http://liraan.deviantart.com/art/Special-Waterfox-Logo-263432735


----------



## SteveMcQueen

Seems like Battelog is not working in Waterfox. I get the message on-site that I cant use IE x64 (hah) and its not fully supported. the plugin wont work either.

is there any way to manually get it to work? I'm using a portable firefox version for the plugin to work... annoying to have 2 instances open.


----------



## Varrkarus

Quote:



Originally Posted by *SteveMcQueen*


Seems like Battelog is not working in Waterfox. I get the message on-site that I cant use IE x64 (hah) and its not fully supported. the plugin wont work either.

is there any way to manually get it to work? I'm using a portable firefox version for the plugin to work... annoying to have 2 instances open.


Yea, me too. I just made a shortcut on my Desktop to Battlelog and set the bookmark to open in Google Chrome instead. Although that won't work in your situation, will it?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vowels;15437435*
> I question the legitimacy of entry #2, or at least the professionalism of it. If you check the actual entry of #2 on DeviantArt, the icon is all pixelated and rough around the edges. It looks like an upscale and a crop out of another picture.
> 
> Hell, the fox parts aren't even aligned properly with the edges of the water bowl.
> 
> http://liraan.deviantart.com/art/Special-Waterfox-Logo-263432735


I agree. Even the fox might be a reused part of the Firefox logo, which would invalidate the entry due to the copyright.

I honestly feel we need more entries since none of the entries catch my eye honestly.


----------



## abu46

^^
+1 to that


----------



## Quantum Reality

I would prefer that end users be able to choose the Waterfox icon they want.


----------



## Lord Venom

I don't think that's possible.


----------



## msuguy71

I have seen programs that allow the user to pick which icon they want from within the installer. Can't Waterfox's installer be modified to do that?


----------



## Lord Venom

Nope, it can't.


----------



## Ellis

But if a logo got picked that I didn't want to use, surely I'd be able to modify the program after installation and change it? Granted, it's not as easy as picking from a list during installation but surely that is possible.


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ellis*


But if a logo got picked that I didn't want to use, surely I'd be able to modify the program after installation and change it? Granted, it's not as easy as picking from a list during installation but surely that is possible.


You'd be free to change it after-the-fact using whatever program you want to. One problem is that we need an _official_ Waterfox logo for the "powered-by" Mozilla page.

And I'll also ++1 to the suggestion of waiting for more logos. I actually have a logo design in the works (between work and school), and I think it's pretty awesome (of course I would), but the time between opening of the contest and the voting was really short.

I'm not sure if MrAlex would agree with me, but I'd like to see submissions re-open for the month of November, and then vote in the beginning of December, so we could know what logo we want by Christmas time. Like a Christmas present to all of us!


----------



## L D4WG

Yikes!! Those logos are hideous...

If im stuck with one of those that isnt logo 6 ill be uninstalling waterfox







, sorry guys.


----------



## bburd

With the Evernote add-on, I can clip pages to my Evernote account (or to my local hard drive) using Firefox. When I try this with Waterfox, nothing happens. (The "Clip to Evernote" item appears in the context menu and the Evernote icon appears in the browser tools bar, but clicking either of these does nothing and the page doesn't get appended to my Evernote account). Any idea what's going on?


----------



## xd_1771

Would there be a way to reduce RAM usage on Waterfox?
It's probably the fastest browser I have used and I really appreciate that, however the intense RAM usage is starting to move toward the unacceptable side.
It was fine at first, actually. As of more lately though I've been working on several video projects, and it is absolutely impossible to run Waterfox and Sony Vegas at the same time.

I would like for Waterfox to use more RAM (at performance benefit) when I'm not running Vegas. Could there possibly be a way to better tune RAM usage? Despite programs such as Sony Vegas open, Waterfox is hogging all the RAM and not adapting to other programs' needs.

I may be forced to temporarily abandon Waterfox for Nightly if this continues...


----------



## csm725

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG;15465476*
> Yikes!! Those logos are hideous...
> 
> If im stuck with one of those that isnt logo 6 ill be uninstalling waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , sorry guys.











Are you serious? Logo six was not only not created by the submitter, it's infringing copyrights, and UGLY!


----------



## Ryrynz

I know the icon hasn't been selected yet but is there any chance we can get a Waterfox 8 build shortly for us to try out?


----------



## insomnia9669

Great idea, thanks for that. Now I don't have to keep switching defaults (from waterfox and chrome) 
+rep

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Varrkarus*


Yea, me too. I just made a shortcut on my Desktop to Battlelog and set the bookmark to open in Google Chrome instead. Although that won't work in your situation, will it?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*


I know the icon hasn't been selected yet but is there any chance we can get a Waterfox 8 build shortly for us to try out?


He's busy with school. Probably better to wait for the official release of Firefox 8 early next month now. Also it looks like the logo entries are allowed again!







Also, the tidal wave logos infringe on the logo copyright, as it seems to be using the world icon from Nightly.

Here's an idea for a logo. The fox's head is at the top reaching upwards like it's rising above but its body is in a spiral and as you get further down the spiral it becomes more water-like and translucent to an extent.


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

BS! I loved Logo 2! You are a monster!


----------



## Ellis

I still think logo 3 is great. It's very professional looking, and it's not got anything in it that could infringe the copyright of the Firefox logo.


----------



## xd_1771

Okay it turns out nightly may have the same problem. I think I am going to reduce my memory cache size...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:



Originally Posted by *xd_1771*


Okay it turns out nightly may have the same problem. I think I am going to reduce my memory cache size...


Nightly/Waterfox should have pretty much the same memory usage. But don't worry, I'm working on it









Quote:



Jemalloc

Better overall memory usage, primarily due to lower fragmentation
Very tight and well-performing allocator
Scalability in multi-processor and multi-threaded systems achieved, in part, by using multiple arenas. And it seems to have similar performance to current best algorithms for single threaded use.


----------



## MrAlex

Great news! I managed to get jemalloc to work, memory usage has decrease and performance has also in the meanwhile been increased!!!


----------



## csm725

Is it updated yet?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Any chance we can get 7.0.1 soon?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


I would prefer that end users be able to choose the Waterfox icon they want.


One way to do this is to put multiple icons into the .exe; the first is the "public" one, but others (like the one by Cozmonort) can be embedded in, choosable by the "change icon" on the program properties right-clickable in XP/Vista/7.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*


One way to do this is to put multiple icons into the .exe; the first is the "public" one, but others (like the one by Cozmonort) can be embedded in, choosable by the "change icon" on the program properties right-clickable in XP/Vista/7.


Oh, this is actually a really good idea. It makes it easy enough to change the icon for somebody who wants to, but at the same time it doesn't (I don't think) require loads of extra work to integrate it into the installer.


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:



Originally Posted by *Ellis*


Oh, this is actually a really good idea. It makes it easy enough to change the icon for somebody who wants to, but at the same time it doesn't (I don't think) require loads of extra work to integrate it into the installer.


When I was programing back with VB.net like 6 years ago, it was pretty easy to do as it was a pretty common thing, but I don't know how easy it would be with new tools.

Furthermore, if you change the icon, it will only show up on the desktop/quick launch. It won't be program icon, however (although that doesn't really matter for firefox/waterfox).


----------



## skudo12

Will this be updated for 7.0.1? Or will it jump to version 8?


----------



## Ryrynz

Little point in having 7.01 when 8 is out next week and a Waterfox build may follow shortly after.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;15541144*
> Little point in having 7.01 when 8 is out next week and a Waterfox build may follow shortly after.


Firefox 8 releases on the 8th, but usually the source code is released a day before, so that's when the next build of Waterfox will be


----------



## csm725

Yay!


----------



## videoman5

How about this: You include the logos in the installer, and make the user pick one.

Well, only if it is that easy.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *videoman5;15544447*
> How about this: You include the logos in the installer, and make the user pick one.
> 
> Well, only if it is that easy.


Apparently that would be really difficult to implement - it's already been suggested.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, the installer can't be modified it seems. If it could, adding a check for the Visual C++ 2010 runtimes could be done.

A custom installer *should* be possible.


----------



## Nick2253

I don't know if this would be useful, but I found this website about customizing Firefox installers:

http://howto.gumph.org/content/customize-firefox-installer/


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

Firefox 8? Maybe MP4 will be natively supported, HTML5 will be better supported and it will be A LOT better than 7 & better than 6 so I can finally upgrade. 7 was garbage to me.

Also, I would like Quicktime to be supported in Waterfox soon. :/ If it isn't already and I just lack the damn knowledge of how to install the bastard.


----------



## Lord Venom

That's up to Apple to create a 64-bit version of QuickTime. But it looks like they're not doing that anytime soon.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;15554852*
> That's up to Apple to create a 64-bit version of QuickTime. But it looks like they're not doing that anytime soon.


I'm assuming Safari is still 32-bit so I'd imagine we'll have to wait for a 64-bit version of it before we see a 64-bit QuickTime plugin.

Sent from my HTC HD2


----------



## Paratrooper1n0

Well, looks like my site will remain ~70% compatible with Waterfox then. Retesting with FireFox later today. I hope to unveil the site to this forum soon. I want to have the domain name registered first before I give out the name though.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys, I finally managed to find someone who will be designing the new logo. He has a very extensive portfolio as well and the icon will either be ready this weekend or next. So if it's next weekend then Waterfox will be delayed a few days to be able to use the new icon. This will be revealed along with the new website


----------



## aramil




----------



## Lord Venom

The final version of Firefox 8 is on their release FTP folder now.

The source is here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/8.0/source/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom;15586985*
> The final version of Firefox 8 is on their release FTP folder now.
> 
> The source is here: ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/8.0/source/


Yep, just waiting for the logo


----------



## bigal1542

I keep getting this error that pops up every week or so.


----------



## Ryrynz

Same here.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigal1542;15596170*
> I keep getting this error that pops up every week or so.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz;15596447*
> Same here.


It's not an error. Every week it checks for updates, but since I haven't set up a update file on the website stating there is no update, it thinks there is an error.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15596571*
> It's not an error. Every week it checks for updates, but since I haven't set up a update file on the website stating there is no update, it thinks there is an error.


I'm sure when I told you about the exact same error recently, you told me that you had no idea what was going on.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis;15597019*
> I'm sure when I told you about the exact same error recently, you told me that you had no idea what was going on.


I thought that it wouldn't show the message but then I realised that I had gotten the message about a hundred times before







my bad


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15603137*
> I thought that it wouldn't show the message but then I realised that I had gotten the message about a hundred times before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> my bad


Haha, fair enough. When I first saw it I didn't know if it might be Waterfox trying and failing to update to 7.0.1 but then I realised that there was no 7.0.1









Sent from my HTC HD2


----------



## MrAlex

The new website is up, everybody let me know what you think


----------



## Vowels

The navigation bar is overlayed onto "The fastest 64-Bit variant of Firefox" on my screen. I'm using a low resolution (1366x768) so that might be a cause of the title text wrapping down.

Nevermind! It was NoScript not allowing the title text to render properly. It rendered it in plain text and not what the special font that you used.

The website looks great!


----------



## mbudden

From your site.








Quote:


> *Nov 1, 2011*
> Posted by: MrAlex
> 
> After some work I have finally implemented jemalloc into the next major release of Waterfox, due around the *8th of October.*


hehe


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbudden;15619136*
> From your site.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hehe


Quote:


> Nov 8, 2011
> *New Website*
> 
> Category: General
> Posted by: MrAlex
> As you can see, the Waterfox project has a new up-to-date website! This is to coincide with the release of the next major release of Waterfox. *Unfortunately Waterfox 8 has to be delayed until the weekend, but it'll be worth the wait
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


It would be a shame to release Waterfox 8, which brings quite a lot of improvements without the new logo now would it


----------



## mbudden

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15619176*
> It would be a shame to release Waterfox 8, which brings quite a lot of improvements without the new logo now would it


No, what I'm saying is. On Nov. 1st. You posted saying the next major release would be on Oct. 8th. Silly.







It's meant to be Nov. 8th, not Oct. 8th.







Not sure how they'd release it one month in the past









No biggie. Just spotted a simple typo








Can't wait for WF8


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mbudden;15619218*
> No, what I'm saying is. On Nov. 1st. You posted saying the next major release would be on Oct. 8th. Silly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's meant to be Nov. 8th, not Oct. 8th.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure how they'd release it one month in the past
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No biggie. Just spotted a simple typo
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't wait for WF8


Oh right I see, haha sorry I'm oblivious sometimes


----------



## ProphetHu

Hi Development Team:

I would like to ask for three requests to be granted, 1.please have speed of Waterfox slow-down slightly, 2.I ultra extremely strongly hope Waterfox has Traditional Chinese version, 3.please have speed of Waterfox become centillionuple faster OR Infinituple Faster while update to Waterfox 10.

Thank You!

ProphetHu


----------



## melvinjn

Hi Development Team

I really appreciate your hard work in the development of the 64bit variant of Firefox. I would like to make a suggestion at this point with regard to Windows media player plugin which is used on most sites and the 32bit plugin which is available does not work on the 64bit Waterfox browser. I believe you are aware of this issue.

I am kindly asking if Windows Media Player plugin for 64bit Waterfox be made available for the new version of Waterfox 8.0 which should benefit all those who are using this browser.

The 64bit variant of Firefox is really great in the way it works (quick startup) and performs (webpage load times are unnoticeable).

Keep up the good work !!

Thank you very much


----------



## Czarnodziej

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex;15617723*
> The new website is up, everybody let me know what you think


Very clean and good looking


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *melvinjn*
> 
> I really appreciate your hard work in the development of the 64bit variant of Firefox. I would like to make a suggestion at this point with regard to Windows media player plugin which is used on most sites and the 32bit plugin which is available does not work on the 64bit Waterfox browser. I believe you are aware of this issue.
> 
> I am kindly asking if Windows Media Player plugin for 64bit Waterfox be made available for the new version of Waterfox 8.0 which should benefit all those who are using this browser.


As I mentioned before some posts back, this is up to Microsoft to create a plugin for 64-bit browsers. Currently there isn't such a plugin so it's not possible. Nothing can be done about this in Waterfox as Mr. Alex has no control over third party plugins. Some popular plugins like QuickTime, Shockwave and the plugin for Battlefield 3 (Battlelog) will not work in 64-bit browsers. The only popular plugins that will work are Flash, Silverlight and Java since there are 64-bit plugins available.

Alex, maybe you should maintain a list in the FAQ of popular plugins not available for 64-bit browsers?


----------



## abu46

cant wait for WF8

plz release it ASAP


----------



## Ryrynz

Is there going to be a build of FF 9 done as well?


----------



## Quantum Reality

In the interest of browser security, I'd like to let you know that Firefox normally comes with prefetching enabled, which is a security issue. Can Waterfox be made to set the user prefs to turn this OFF by default on first install?


----------



## melvinjn

Thanks for the reply, Lord Venom, I appreciate your response.


----------



## Sonar

Hey there, love Waterfox, you're doing a really great job!

Cant wait for v8







However, I would also like to run firefox at the same time (I have several browsers for testing purposes) but when I installed Waterfox it over-rode the Firefox settings so if I run Firefox I get Waterfox.

Is there any way we can have both? Can Waterfox default to allowing both?


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sonar*
> 
> Hey there, love Waterfox, you're doing a really great job!
> Cant wait for v8
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> However, I would also like to run firefox at the same time (I have several browsers for testing purposes) but when I installed Waterfox it over-rode the Firefox settings so if I run Firefox I get Waterfox.
> Is there any way we can have both? Can Waterfox default to allowing both?


There's no reason that you shouldn't be able to have both at the same time. I currently do, and so do most people I know that use Waterfox. Waterfox and Firefox do share the same profile, however, so I don't know if that's what you are complaining about. Personally, I love that fact, because it means I can switch between 32-bit and 64-bit browsers and all my favorites and tabs move over.


----------



## Lord Venom

You can set up multiple profiles - I currently have one setup for Firefox, one for Firefox Beta and one for Waterfox. Also by adding -no-remote to the shortcuts, I can open multiple Firefox versions at the same time.


----------



## Lord Venom

So is today the day for Waterfox 8?


----------



## mikek1024

I've heard of the firefox memory leaks but I've never actually had a problem till today. I got about 15 tabs open and left my computer on overnight. Even still, I've left my computer on overnight before and it never gets this bad. I'm assuming the plugin container is the problem. Any idea how to fix it besides install more ram?


----------



## Lord Venom

What extensions do you have?


----------



## Sonar

I wasnt complaining, just asking a valid question. Isnt that what forums are for?

Anyway to answer your query, no its not the profile. As I said, if I run waterfox shortcut OR firefox shortcut I get Waterfox, thats not the profile, thats the exe. I have checked the shortcut properties and they point to the correct relavant path to the exe ie...

Waterfox = "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
Firefox = "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"

If I go to the folder for firefox and run the firefox.exe I STILL get Waterfox!

Sounds dodgey to me, so I thought I better mention it in case its a bug on Waterfox.

PS I want the same profile in any case but need to be able to test sites on both browsers.


----------



## mikek1024

Adblock plus
HTTPS-Everywhere
LastPass
NoScript
Test Pilot

Plugins are:
Shockwave Flash
Silverlight Plug-in

Should I just disable them one by one to find the problem?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sonar*
> 
> I wasnt complaining, just asking a valid question. Isnt that what forums are for?
> 
> Anyway to answer your query, no its not the profile. As I said, if I run waterfox shortcut OR firefox shortcut I get Waterfox, thats not the profile, thats the exe. I have checked the shortcut properties and they point to the correct relavant path to the exe ie...
> 
> Waterfox = "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
> Firefox = "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"
> 
> If I go to the folder for firefox and run the firefox.exe I STILL get Waterfox!
> 
> Sounds dodgey to me, so I thought I better mention it in case its a bug on Waterfox.
> 
> PS I want the same profile in any case but need to be able to test sites on both browsers.


That happens with all Firefox derivates that share the same profile. http://lifehacker.com/5481213/master-multiple-firefox-profiles-for-more-productive-browsing It's a year old so the way to do it might have changed but the principal is still the same.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> So is today the day for Waterfox 8?


If everything goes according to plan


----------



## Quantum Reality

Woot!







*looks forward to the upgrade*

Guys? C'mon, donate to the man here, huh? He needs to have a nice fast code-compiling computer!


----------



## Lord Venom

Can't wait!


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Woot!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *looks forward to the upgrade*
> Guys? C'mon, donate to the man here, huh? He needs to have a nice fast code-compiling computer!


I want to, but unless I'm missing something, I can't find a donate link anywhere!


----------



## Lord Venom

Here: http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/donations


----------



## Nick2253

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Here: http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/donations


Thank you!

I'm always glad to help out those that help me. And since I found Waterfox, my browsing experience has been nothing but positive!

Keep up the good work Alex!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nick2253*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Here: http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/donations
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you!
> 
> I'm always glad to help out those that help me. And since I found Waterfox, my browsing experience has been nothing but positive!
> 
> Keep up the good work Alex!
Click to expand...

Thanks a lot, it's very appreciated


----------



## Lord Venom

Has the new logo come in yet?


----------



## Nautilus

Switched from Waterfox to *x64 Nighly* last *Night.*


----------



## Lord Venom

Nightly builds actually aren't optimized.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Has the new logo come in yet?


Not yet








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nautilus*
> 
> Switched from Waterfox to *x64 Nighly* last *Night.*


Erm, that's great?


----------



## Lord Venom

What's the holdup from the icon's artist!?!? Hehe.


----------



## momoko

Can you please add RSS to your site or setup e-mail subscription so I can know when the Waterfox is updated?


----------



## Cozmoz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm, that's great?


What's this about a new logo? Do you need any help?

Nevermind, I read further back. Good luck with the new logo


----------



## abu46

whats the hold up with the icon Alex?


----------



## Ryrynz

LOL, I love how this keeps dragging out..


----------



## Lord Venom

I'm guessing either the new icon's artist hasn't completed the new icon yet or worse, hasn't even started it yet. Alex when the new icon does come in, are you also going to do a Waterfox beta build using Firefox 9.0 by chance?


----------



## sst

Waterfox v6.0 and > i cant change the language to French. = The old way to use the ".xpi" file dont work.
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/win32/xpi/

Did you can made a way, that the interface can be other language(s) than English.


----------



## Lord Venom

I'm not even sure if Waterfox can display languages other than English to be honest.


----------



## fullmoon

for change langage use about:config->general.useragent.locale

Pour le français, mettre fr.
(Warning, the langage pack must be installed)


----------



## Kev-Kanuk

Please see this post, it should assist: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-7-0-new-website-08-11-11-firefox-64-bit/650#post_14383710


----------



## Lord Venom

Read the main Waterfox site, there's news regarding Waterfox 8.0.







Looks like the release is tomorrow without the new icon.


----------



## donbt09

There is an update available for Firefox 8.0 (Firefox 8.0.1)


----------



## xd_1771

He should've been able to find the source code for 8.0.1 beforehand, right?


----------



## Lord Venom

The 8.0.1 source code is here: http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/8.0.1/source/


----------



## Quantum Reality

I'm this close to just saying the blazes with it and trying to find VC++ 2010 or something so I can do the compiling myself for 8.0.1, waterfox icon be damned.









But will upgrade to 8.0 tonight!


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 8 is now available guys. Hopefully the wait wasn't too bad.


----------



## KuroTenshi

I am really happy ! I was waiting for this release since several days.

But, after install and the form of extensions, crash...

Erreur d'analyse XML : entité non définie
Emplacement : chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
Numéro de ligne 228, Colonne 5 :
----^

So, no more Waterfox... What can i do ?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KuroTenshi*
> 
> I am really happy ! I was waiting for this release since several days.
> 
> But, after install and the form of extensions, crash...
> 
> Erreur d'analyse XML : entité non définie
> Emplacement : chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
> Numéro de ligne 228, Colonne 5 :
> ----^
> 
> So, no more Waterfox... What can i do ?


That's strange. I haven't got that error.
Try doing this: Waterfox>Help>Restart with Add-Ons disabled. Then enable each one of your add-ons one by one and find out which one is causing the error.


----------



## fullmoon

Bon ok, j ai oublié de préciser qu'il fallait récupéré la version correspondante dans le ftp de mozilla (pas tapé):
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/
et allé dans la plus recente de la meme version(ici 8).

Perso chez moi ça a marché.


----------



## Lord Venom

So far so good here, except when I check for updates it's prompting about an update to Aurora 8.0.


----------



## beerninja

same here, it seems like the code is based on Aurora? I just installed an add-on and it said something like, "please restart Aurora"


----------



## LBear

Woot! Installing now thanks


----------



## Mannix

Waterfox 8 is drawing twice as much memory as Waterfox 7. What gives? Taskmanager show for Waterfox 8 shows this page is drawing 426,600K memory while v7 shows 230,000K.

Installed Firefox 8 and memory shows 150,000K for this page. Waterfox has some serious issues with memory use.


----------



## Woundman

I took some time to benchmark Waterfox 8.0 and Pale Moon 8.0 x64 (clean profiles).

*Pale Moon 8.0 x64*:



Code:



Code:


Built from http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/rev/04778346a3b0
Build platform
target
x86_64-pc-mingw32
Build tools
Compiler Version Compiler flags
c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\mozilla-build\python\python2.6.exe -O c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\moz-workset\pm80\build\cl.py cl 16.00.30319.01 -TC -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -GL -wd4624 -wd4952 -O2 -GLT -GS-
c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\mozilla-build\python\python2.6.exe -O c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\moz-workset\pm80\build\cl.py cl 16.00.30319.01 -TP -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -wd4800 -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -GL -wd4624 -wd4952 -O2 -GLT -GS-
Configure arguments

--target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --with-distribution-id=Palemoon --enable-update-packaging --enable-official-branding --enable-application=browser '--enable-optimize=-O2 -GLT -GS-' --enable-jemalloc --enable-shared-js --enable-chrome-format=jar --disable-tests --disable-mochitests --enable-strip --disable-crashreporter --disable-accessibility --disable-parental-controls --disable-windows-mobile-components --disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting

*Waterfox 8.0*:



Code:



Code:


Build platform
target
x86_64-pc-mingw32
Build tools
Compiler Version Compiler flags
cl 16.00.40219.01 -TC -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -O2 -favor:blend
cl 16.00.40219.01 -TP -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -wd4800 -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -O2 -favor:blend
Configure arguments

--enable-application=browser --disable-debug --disable-tests --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --enable-extensions=default --enable-strip '--enable-optimize=-O2 -favor:blend' --enable-update-channel=release --enable-update-packaging --disable-crashreporter --enable-jemalloc --enable-debugger-info-modules=no --disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting --disable-auto-deps


----------



## KuroTenshi

Wonderfull release !

I finally resolved my issue. I was because French Language Pack for Firefox 7 was installed and activated.
I resolved this by using safe mode.

So, when updating to Waterfox 8, please remove your language pack and pick up then the Firefox 8 one !!!

Otherwise, it is very fast and the memory is well deallocated. I have 250 mb of memory consumed with 5 extensions and one tab.


----------



## MrAlex

It only says aura because that's the branding files I used, to get the blue menu. For some reason it didn't change Aura to Waterfox. :thinking:

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Woundman*
> 
> I took some time to benchmark Waterfox 8.0 and Pale Moon 8.0 x64 (clean profiles).
> 
> *Pale Moon 8.0 x64*:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Built from http://hg.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla-release/rev/04778346a3b0
> Build platform
> target
> x86_64-pc-mingw32
> Build tools
> Compiler Version Compiler flags
> c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\mozilla-build\python\python2.6.exe -O c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\moz-workset\pm80\build\cl.py cl 16.00.30319.01 -TC -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -GL -wd4624 -wd4952 -O2 -GLT -GS-
> c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\mozilla-build\python\python2.6.exe -O c;C:\mozilla-build\msys\moz-workset\pm80\build\cl.py cl 16.00.30319.01 -TP -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -wd4800 -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -GL -wd4624 -wd4952 -O2 -GLT -GS-
> Configure arguments
> 
> --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --with-distribution-id=Palemoon --enable-update-packaging --enable-official-branding --enable-application=browser '--enable-optimize=-O2 -GLT -GS-' --enable-jemalloc --enable-shared-js --enable-chrome-format=jar --disable-tests --disable-mochitests --enable-strip --disable-crashreporter --disable-accessibility --disable-parental-controls --disable-windows-mobile-components --disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting
> 
> *Waterfox 8.0*:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Build platform
> target
> x86_64-pc-mingw32
> Build tools
> Compiler Version Compiler flags
> cl 16.00.40219.01 -TC -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -O2 -favor:blend
> cl 16.00.40219.01 -TP -nologo -W3 -Gy -Fdgenerated.pdb -wd4800 -we4553 -DNDEBUG -DTRIMMED -Zi -Zi -UDEBUG -DNDEBUG -O2 -favor:blend
> Configure arguments
> 
> --enable-application=browser --disable-debug --disable-tests --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --enable-extensions=default --enable-strip '--enable-optimize=-O2 -favor:blend' --enable-update-channel=release --enable-update-packaging --disable-crashreporter --enable-jemalloc --enable-debugger-info-modules=no --disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting --disable-auto-deps


The problem with using Peacekeeper as a benchmark is that the results always change. See how on some results Waterfox scores much higher and vice versa? If you re-run the benchmark you'll find that the results keep changing. It's hard to benchmark browsers unless there is a HUGE difference, because the results are never consistent.


----------



## csm725

Waterfox 8 is using 875MB of memory with 6 tabs. What do?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725*
> 
> Waterfox 8 is using 875MB of memory with 6 tabs. What do?


Right more and more people seem to be reporting this problem. I'll get right onto it and release an update today.


----------



## csm725

Epic. Thanks.


----------



## Ellis

My Waterfox 7 says that it's up to date.









Did you pull the update due to the memory usage or do I just need to update manually? Probably will wait until the memory usage is fixed anyway.


----------



## Lord Venom

I see the new logo is in, nice! Good work Miloš!


----------



## Ellis

I like it.


----------



## xd_1771

YAY

The logo is epic!

EDIT: Auto-update: "The integrity of the update could not be verified"
Oh well

By the way, this has got to be the fastest Waterfox yet!


----------



## {Unregistered}

Awesome! Just upgraded from 4.0.


----------



## Lord Venom

8.0.1 is out on the main site and the new logo looks pretty damn nice, especially the about dialog!









The only issue that remains is to do with updates. Even with 8.0.1 installed it tries to update to 8.0.1 but when it tries it says "The integrity of the update could not be verified" so I end up just disabling updates. I rather do it manually anyways.


----------



## demos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725*
> 
> Waterfox 8 is using 875MB of memory with 6 tabs. What do?


Yeah for me it's the same.. too much memory in use but still using Waterfox


----------



## Lord Venom

Have you tried 8.0.1 yet? You can get it from the main Waterfox site.


----------



## Mannix

8.0.1 seems to be much better with memory usage on my end then was version 8.


----------



## Aximous

Mine uses ~1,3GB of ram with 24 tabs open and a crapload of addons, don't know if this is an issue of Waterfox or not since I was getting pretty similar memory usages with both FF stable builds and nightlies. Anyway it is pretty much and I can't really trace it back to anything.


----------



## xd_1771

I wonder if it would be possible to integrate Waterfox with addons and userchrome.css (Stylish) scripts (as in, with the installer/installed profile). I actually think it would be fun to see Waterfox released with a sort of different theming, as opposed to the usual Firefox theming.

Here is my UI used with Waterfox, in case it inspires anyone (if anyone is confused with how I even browse, the back button and other buttons are located in another hidden left sidebar; the sidebar also cuts off items on the right of the addressbar when shown, and I haven't been able to fix this problem, but it's gone when the sidebar is and I'm fine with it):



EDIT: I am seeing a VERY noticeable web browsing speed improvement with 8.0.1 vs 8.0


----------



## csm725

xd, why have you not hidden the Waterfox button yet? You can just use Alt instead








Yay, another Ubuntu font user!


----------



## Ryrynz

Alex, still going ahead with the occasional Beta/RC?


----------



## msuguy71

I really like the new icon as well. 8.0.1 version is pretty fast on my machine. Great work Alex and to however did the icon.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> I wonder if it would be possible to integrate Waterfox with addons and userchrome.css (Stylish) scripts (as in, with the installer/installed profile). I actually think it would be fun to see Waterfox released with a sort of different theming, as opposed to the usual Firefox theming.
> 
> Here is my UI used with Waterfox, in case it inspires anyone (if anyone is confused with how I even browse, the back button and other buttons are located in another hidden left sidebar; the sidebar also cuts off items on the right of the addressbar when shown, and I haven't been able to fix this problem, but it's gone when the sidebar is and I'm fine with it):
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I am seeing a VERY noticeable web browsing speed improvement with 8.0.1 vs 8.0


Ssshhh don't ruin my plan for Waterfox.Next  I actually planned to use the new UI in this version of Waterfox but people wanted it quickly so I had no time . But I think I'll post some 'Developer Previews' on the home page so people can see a glimpse of what the new UI will look like.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*
> 
> Alex, still going ahead with the occasional Beta/RC?


Yeah I think this time I'll have enough time 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> I really like the new icon as well. 8.0.1 version is pretty fast on my machine. Great work Alex and to however did the icon.


Great to hear that  and you can see here who did the logo


----------



## ipollesion

I love Waterfox, thanks for developing it.

I just wanted to mention that there is a newer x64 version of Java, it's the same as a developer release, just like what you have for Silverlight.

jre-7u2-ea-bin-b11-windows-x64-27_oct_2011

You can find it here : http://jdk7.java.net/download.html, it works flawlessly with Waterfox and I'm sure we all like the latest things, so go grab a copy.


----------



## csm725

Still using 975MB of memory with two windows and 15 tabs.


----------



## csm725

8.0.1 is unusable, Mr Alex. I get random crashes and it kills Desktop Window Manager (dwm.exe) too. Seriously sucks.
If it helps, it seems it was only when loading lots of images.
Reverted to Waterfox 8, both 8 and 8.0.1 are randomly closing on me... just, randomly.


----------



## super1

Thank you for Waterfox.

I have problem with some addon:

1- Avg safe search is not installed (can't install because it can't find firefox)

2- After I install Battlefield Play4Free and Battlefield Heroes plugin I still can't launch the game because it keeps telling me to install there plugin, But I can see both plugin installed in Add-ons Manager.

any help









Thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725*
> 
> 8.0.1 is unusable, Mr Alex. I get random crashes and it kills Desktop Window Manager (dwm.exe) too. Seriously sucks.
> If it helps, it seems it was only when loading lots of images.
> Reverted to Waterfox 8, both 8 and 8.0.1 are randomly closing on me... just, randomly.


Try make a new profile and running Waterfox of that to see if it makes a difference. So far only you've experienced this problem, so it might be something with your profile.


----------



## csm725

Erm, Firefox noob here, how do I make a new profile?


----------



## TwistedMind

Alex, if you haven't already known, your browser has made it on Betanews.

http://betanews.com/2011/11/17/cant-wait-for-firefox-64-bit-try-waterfox-8/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725*
> 
> Erm, Firefox noob here, how do I make a new profile?


http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Managing-profiles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*
> 
> Alex, if you haven't already known, your browser has made it on Betanews.
> 
> http://betanews.com/2011/11/17/cant-wait-for-firefox-64-bit-try-waterfox-8/


I saw, I also replied to two of the people


----------



## abu46

THE BEST waterfox release till date, hope its not the last

runs very fast even with 20+ addons, faster than chrome canary

cant wait to see the new UI

thanks a ton Alex:thumb:


----------



## Spookstaz

I totally love the speed increase that Waterfox gives.

However it does not work properly with www.logmein.com

Every single time I try to use Logmein to connect from home to my work PC, Waterfox makes me re-install the Logmein plugin again and does not detect that the plugin is already installed. Then after restarting Waterfox sometimes it still doesn't work and I cannot connect to my remote computer.

Regular Firefox including beta versions do not have this issue, so I will have to stick to regular Firefox. Unfortunately I need this site to work properly, I use it frequently.


----------



## Spookstaz

Any chance to look into the logmein issue?


----------



## Lord Venom

I'm guessing the Logmein plugin is for 32-bit browsers, not 64-bit browsers like Waterfox.


----------



## Mannix

Quote:


> 8.0.1 is unusable, Mr Alex. I get random crashes and it kills Desktop Window Manager (dwm.exe) too. Seriously sucks.


I used to get that all the time myself. Turned out it was my antivirus the cause.


----------



## xd_1771

I should note that I too have been experiencing random crashes, but not frequently at all. It really only happens when I happen to be running Waterfox and video editing apps at the same time, both consuming a lot of RAM. It doesn't really bother me as Waterfox restarts in and reloads all the tabs I had before in a few seconds.


----------



## sst

I whant to report that good news = please look at the link below.

Betanews download section of waterfox x64.

http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail/Waterfox/1317314892/1


----------



## ihatelolcats

any chance of getting bf3 battlelog working with waterfox?


----------



## ipollesion

For anyone having troubles, I recommend CCleaner, make sure you uninstall the previous version of Waterfox using the default uninstaller then use CCleaner.

I have not had these memory issues, It could also be because of your profile like stated before, but to truly debug this issue you'll need to recreate it and post logs or screenshots and provide the steps to reproduce.

Thanks guys for supporting Waterfox.


----------



## SteveMcQueen

Is there a possibility to stay with the old logo?


----------



## csm725

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> I should note that I too have been experiencing random crashes, but not frequently at all. It really only happens when I happen to be running Waterfox and video editing apps at the same time, both consuming a lot of RAM. It doesn't really bother me as Waterfox restarts in and reloads all the tabs I had before in a few seconds.


Not frequent either, just when it uses lots of RAM (loading loads of images).


----------



## Towik

I can only say that i cannot find a flash 64 bit for Vista loool only for W7 i can see , but that's not your fault









EDIT:
i just installed for W7 flash and it works , lol , now i can watch flash videos









EDIT_2:
My friend said something like this "I hope this software you installed doesn't send password and other stuff to the software developer " that's what she said


----------



## super1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *super1*
> 
> Thank you for Waterfox.
> I have problem with some addon:
> 1- Avg safe search is not installed (can't install because it can't find firefox)
> 2- After I install Battlefield Play4Free and Battlefield Heroes plugin I still can't launch the game because it keeps telling me to install there plugin, But I can see both plugin installed in Add-ons Manager.
> any help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.


----------



## Lord Venom

Guys, the Battlefield 3 Battlelog plugin WILL NOT work in 64-bit browsers like Waterfox. There's nothing Alex can do about that as it's up to EA/DICE to create a plugin for 64-bit browsers. And AVG Safe Search is probably not for 64-bit browsers either.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Towik*
> 
> My friend said something like this "I hope this software you installed doesn't send password and other stuff to the software developer " that's what she said


It doesn't. It's based off the source code for Firefox with cosmetic changes and it's compiled for 64-bit Windows (I believe there's one other mod for jemalloc to work, not sure). If it was 'sending passwords and other stuff to the software developer" then it'd be sending them to Mozilla but it doesn't.


----------



## Towik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Towik*
> 
> My friend said something like this "I hope this software you installed doesn't send password and other stuff to the software developer " that's what she said
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. It's based off the source code for Firefox with cosmetic changes and it's compiled for 64-bit Windows (I believe there's one other mod for jemalloc to work, not sure). If it was 'sending passwords and other stuff to the software developer" then it'd be sending them to Mozilla but it doesn't.
Click to expand...

Well I said something similar to my friend when she said it , and i laughed too







but i think she just wanted to say to be watch out "you never know" .


----------



## mikol24

the Italian package not istall . (non si istalla)


----------



## Chaoticlarity

Nice work, Alex! Working great here. Wish the icon would scale better. Lord Venom what happened to Stewie?


----------



## Lord Venom

Did you try changing the language to Italian like mentioned a couple pages back?

The avatars on the forums are/were screwed up - it scales them too wide for some reason. No worries though, I fixed it and re-uploaded it.


----------



## Le_Loup

This looks so sexy, looking forward to even better revisions!


----------



## IcySon55

Hey there Mr. Alex. I've went ahead and fixed your icon files. I pulled the 3 existing icons out of Waterfox 8.0.1 and created all the various sizes from the uncompressed 256x256 that was embedded in the program.

You can grab all three here: http://sx.sytes.net/waterfox

If you wouldn't mind using them in the next build or even rebuilding 8.0.1 with them, I'm sure everyone will appreciate it. I made properly compressed versions of the icons so the exe will actually drop in size from 811 KB to 678 KB.

Enjoy~


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *super1*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *super1*
> 
> Thank you for Waterfox.
> I have problem with some addon:
> 1- Avg safe search is not installed (can't install because it can't find firefox)
> 2- After I install Battlefield Play4Free and Battlefield Heroes plugin I still can't launch the game because it keeps telling me to install there plugin, But I can see both plugin installed in Add-ons Manager.
> any help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Are they plugins? Unless they're 64-Bit plugins they won't work. If they're actual add-ons then they'll work no problem.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Towik*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Towik*
> 
> My friend said something like this "I hope this software you installed doesn't send password and other stuff to the software developer " that's what she said
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't. It's based off the source code for Firefox with cosmetic changes and it's compiled for 64-bit Windows (I believe there's one other mod for jemalloc to work, not sure). If it was 'sending passwords and other stuff to the software developer" then it'd be sending them to Mozilla but it doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well I said something similar to my friend when she said it , and i laughed too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but i think she just wanted to say to be watch out "you never know" .
Click to expand...

Waterfox is used by too many people for that to be an issue, if you get what I mean?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikol24*
> 
> the Italian package not istall . (non si istalla)


What problems are you getting?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chaoticlarity*
> 
> Nice work, Alex! Working great here. Wish the icon would scale better. Lord Venom what happened to Stewie?


I'll get on that









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *IcySon55*
> 
> Hey there Mr. Alex. I've went ahead and fixed your icon files. I pulled the 3 existing icons out of Waterfox 8.0.1 and created all the various sizes from the uncompressed 256x256 that was embedded in the program.
> 
> You can grab all three here: http://sx.sytes.net/waterfox
> 
> If you wouldn't mind using them in the next build or even rebuilding 8.0.1 with them, I'm sure everyone will appreciate it. I made properly compressed versions of the icons so the exe will actually drop in size from 811 KB to 678 KB.
> 
> Enjoy~


Thanks a lot, hopefully it'll work. Photoshop never deals with ICO files properly.


----------



## moota1514

Im wanting to remove waterfox.It says "Waterfox uses the same profile that Firefox does. If you uninstall Waterfox make sure you don't have the remove personal data box ticked!"

how do i check to see that the "personal data box is not ticked! "


----------



## Lord Venom

It should have a box when uninstalling for it to optionally remove your personal data and customizations. Make sure that box is unchecked.


----------



## moota1514

Thanks Lord Venom - the only reason is that i dont think "roboform" works with waterfox..........?


----------



## Lord Venom

Is there a 64-bit version of RoboForm for 64-bit browsers?


----------



## demos

Yeah! Much better for sure!


----------



## Paladin Goo

Sorry broski...I love this browser, I tried it, it's amazing...but I can't use it until Battlelog comes out for 64 bit browsers...which I don't see happening


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, EA/DICE probably won't release a version for 64-bit browsers.


----------



## andrei.c

Thanks for doing this MrAlex. It's awesome!
I've been using it since the firs release and never had a problem. I have just installed the 8.0.1 version and it runs great.









However, I would like to use the old logo for the shortcut. Is there a way to do this?


----------



## Cozmoz

Hi Mr Alex, liking the new version, the only problem I can see is that the rendering is really bad on the logo, may I suggest your artist re-exports the logo using GIMP. To do this you export the icon as a 24 bit png using the following sizes 16x16, 32x32, 48x48 64x64 and 128x128. Once this is done place them as layers in a new GIMP file, after that just save it as an icon using the default settings and it will have lovely rounded corners







.

@andrei.c you can find the old icon on my Deviant Art profile here:

http://cozmonort.deviantart.com/art/Waterfox-icon-228266483

http://cozmonort.deviantart.com/art/Waterfox-icon-Nightly-remix-238901822










Costa


----------



## IcySon55

Cozmoz, read: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-8-0-1-improvements-17-11-11-firefox-64-bit/1260#post_15725475

I've already corrected the icon issue. Mr. Alex just needs to use it in the next build.


----------



## Cozmoz

Cool, good to hear, would it be possible to add icons for document shortcuts as well?


----------



## IcySon55

Looks like you didn't click the link in my post. Look at icon 2 in the directory I linked . That _is_ the document icon.


----------



## taimychoo

Is there a way to open a .pdf file ON waterfox (i.e new tab?), because right now it's forcing me to open Acrobat Reader when I click on .pdf. Didn't have this problem before on FF. Made an account just to ask this question cause it's been bothering me haha...


----------



## neonraver

When watching videos on youtube after about 5 minutes I ALWAYS get a message saying that the waterfox plugin container has stopped working and the video crashes. I have the latest version of waterfox and flash. Any ideas why its doing this? It was fine up until about a week ago and it doesn't happen on firefox at all so I don't know what would be causing it. Kind of annoying.


----------



## IcySon55

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *taimychoo*
> 
> Is there a way to open a .pdf file ON waterfox (i.e new tab?)


Until Adobe release a 64bit version of Acrobat and the reader plugin. No.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *neonraver*
> 
> When watching videos on youtube after about 5 minutes I ALWAYS get a message saying that the waterfox plugin container has stopped working and the video crashes. I have the latest version of waterfox and flash. Any ideas why its doing this? It was fine up until about a week ago and it doesn't happen on firefox at all so I don't know what would be causing it. Kind of annoying.


Sounds like it's time to do a clean Waterfox (with clean profile) and Flash 64-bit installs, just in case.


----------



## TinyUltralisk

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *taimychoo*
> 
> Is there a way to open a .pdf file ON waterfox (i.e new tab?), because right now it's forcing me to open Acrobat Reader when I click on .pdf. Didn't have this problem before on FF. Made an account just to ask this question cause it's been bothering me haha...


And I made this account just to tell you that it is possible, hah! I read this thread and was wondering the same thing: Can I open a PDF in my 64-bit browser (Waterfox)?

But it depends on the program. I've used Nitro PDF Reader and Adobe Reader, but both of those only have 32-bit browser plugins. But I've also used PDF-XChange Viewer, which *does* have a 64-bit program version. But back when I used it, I was still using 32-bit Firefox, so I didn't know if it had a 64-bit plugin or not. So I went and re-installed it, just to see if it would install the browser plugin for Waterfox. Sure enough, it did!

So, if you want to view PDFs in Waterfox, so far the only program I know of that will install the 64-bit plugin is the 64-bit version of PDF-XChange Viewer. If there are any others, let me know. The website is

Code:



Code:


http://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer

I apologize if I come across as "advertise-y" but I'm quite excited about this, partly because I didn't know about this before (you learn something new every day!), and partly because it's working!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TinyUltralisk*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *taimychoo*
> 
> Is there a way to open a .pdf file ON waterfox (i.e new tab?), because right now it's forcing me to open Acrobat Reader when I click on .pdf. Didn't have this problem before on FF. Made an account just to ask this question cause it's been bothering me haha...
> 
> 
> 
> And I made this account just to tell you that it is possible, hah! I read this thread and was wondering the same thing: Can I open a PDF in my 64-bit browser (Waterfox)?
> 
> But it depends on the program. I've used Nitro PDF Reader and Adobe Reader, but both of those only have 32-bit browser plugins. But I've also used PDF-XChange Viewer, which *does* have a 64-bit program version. But back when I used it, I was still using 32-bit Firefox, so I didn't know if it had a 64-bit plugin or not. So I went and re-installed it, just to see if it would install the browser plugin for Waterfox. Sure enough, it did!
> 
> So, if you want to view PDFs in Waterfox, so far the only program I know of that will install the 64-bit plugin is the 64-bit version of PDF-XChange Viewer. If there are any others, let me know. The website is
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> http://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer
> 
> I apologize if I come across as "advertise-y" but I'm quite excited about this, partly because I didn't know about this before (you learn something new every day!), and partly because it's working!
Click to expand...

Yes another user posted about this program before as well. Seems to get the job done


----------



## runeazn

so memory leak is "fixed" I dont know if this is normal but i am using more mem than before.
10tabs= 1GB RAM?


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *runeazn*
> 
> so memory leak is "fixed" I dont know if this is normal but i am using more mem than before.
> 10tabs= 1GB RAM?


I've got about 15 tabs open in this tab group, and a few more that will be cached in other tab groups, and I'm using 800MB of RAM.


----------



## runeazn

now i've got 13 tabs and 1.3GB
100mb per tab? thats ridiculous


----------



## Rocket Lawnchair

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis*
> 
> I've got about 15 tabs open in this tab group, and a few more that will be cached in other tab groups, and I'm using 800MB of RAM.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *runeazn*
> 
> now i've got 13 tabs and 1.3GB
> 100mb per tab? thats ridiculous


Being a 64-bit app it's going to use more memory than 32-bit Firefox, but it is also going to run better. I get about the same usage, ~100MB for each tab.


----------



## Ellis

I'm not saying it uses too much RAM, I was just saying that mine used less than runeazn's because he thought his was abnormal. I don't really mind how much RAM it uses, I rarely go near 6GB in use.


----------



## oorenotsoo

Congrats on getting the new logo!


----------



## runeazn

wow you sure memory leak is fixed?
15 tabs=2.7GB RAM O_O
i only noticed cuz norton 360 said i had high ram usage
with waterfox open i get 90% ram usage D:
and i dont want to upgrade to 12 GB D:


----------



## Towik

Hey there.

I think there is a problem but i am not sure where.

Cause my system tells me that i am out of memory at 6gb of 8gb , usually in that moment Plugin Container for .... have 2,5gb
I usually have like 10-20 tabs , often have youtube x4 [480p]

i dunno if it's my system or what the hell .

anyway nice having this program.


----------



## MrAlex

I don't see how everyone gets so much memory usage. I've only got 4GB RAM and with around 5 tabs open, only 300MB is used. Are you sure it's not the specific % that Firefox automatically allocates RAM usage to?


----------



## runeazn

nope frist 10 min is standard value
but if you us 1+hours it keeps hogging more and more memory.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *runeazn*
> 
> nope frist 10 min is standard value
> but if you us 1+hours it keeps hogging more and more memory.


This is a general Firefox issue sadly. If you have alot of tabs open or regularly close/open tabs then the memory usage builds up. I think it is something to do with garbage collection not being agressive enough, if you do about:memory on a tab you can see the 'gc' number is quite high. Memory usage is great for about 4-5 hours, but after that it snowballs, having the browser open for 12 hours and you will be seeing 1.8-3GB. On top of this do not forget that new OCN makes firefox use a ton more memory, I've been seeing 500mb from one tab!



Even my phone runs out of memory (and shows a critical warning) when trying to render huddler OCN. It is due to all that pesky javascript.

about:memory (especially in verbose mode) is also really useful for trying to pinpoint if any of your addons or extensions are responsible for the leak.


----------



## os87

Please bring back the old logo, the new fox is ugly.








for 64bits!


----------



## Lord Venom

Don't think it's possible to use the old logo anymore since it's conceptually based on the copyrighted Firefox logo.


----------



## Riou

New logo vaguely reminds me of Iceweasel since the animal is hugging the globe.


----------



## abu46

^^^
WoW this logo looks great!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!









i also dont like the new logo used in WF 8.0.1

Alex, is it possible to use the above logo in the next release?
will you release WF9 RCs??


----------



## Lord Venom

The above logo is also copyrighted, as it's the Iceweasel logo.


----------



## abu46

^^
thats too bad








i loved the logo...


----------



## Lord Venom

I think the current logo is good as-is.







I doubt it'd be changed anytime soon anyways.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Riou*
> 
> New logo vaguely reminds me of Iceweasel since the animal is hugging the globe.


I asked the artist to do so


----------



## Towik

Ey Mralex , can i just update the WF? cause i see i have a little earlier version?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Nice new logo! Also, WF 8.0.1 feels a bit snappier than 7.0 did. I look forward to giving the new browser a whirl on the web


----------



## ipollesion

still using Waterfox and I just have to say, I love it, thanks and many thanks Mr. Alex.


----------



## Rickkins

My youtube videos play very poorly. Is there any fix for this..??

Thanks.


----------



## Lord Venom

Probably by messing with Flash.


----------



## Rickkins

Any idea how one might do that..?? I think it must be that as all plays fine in firefox 32...


----------



## Sonics

wow nice one, haven't tested it out properly yet but looks great







+


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> Any idea how one might do that..?? I think it must be that as all plays fine in firefox 32...


Well, there's a different version of Flash for 64-bit browsers. I'd try a clean install of that version of the plugin.


----------



## Rickkins

Already done that.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Thank you so much!!! +rep Before when i tried to play canvas rider it was always super jumpy in fullscreen at like 50% gpu usage on a 6970! Now its perfectly smooth wiht 0% gpu usage.


----------



## xd_1771

So, are there going to be any Waterfox 9 betas?


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't see how everyone gets so much memory usage. I've only got 4GB RAM and with around 5 tabs open, only 300MB is used. Are you sure it's not the specific % that Firefox automatically allocates RAM usage to?


from what I understand Firefox/plugin container have a huge bug which doesn't release memory.. so you watch a video, that memory doesn't release, next video, same thing.. same with ALL media..pictures..etc...

I just restarted waterfox (updated add on) and already have over 1gb of memory usage...mostly from one web page that has a lot of pictures on it

google images is a good example of waaay overboard memory usage..let it load up then leave the page and the memory usage doesn't go back down..
flash apps cause it as well...but then flash and FF just don't mix well... some forums that have audio/video players that you need to click the play button won't let the mouse stay focused on the button, it will focus then de-focus and you have to click randomly until you catch it and it plays...

giganews performance page (www.giganews.com/performance) acts this way as well... can't just click the link to start the speed test..it's a hit or miss kinda thing


----------



## Ceadderman

Not likn this. Don't know what's going on but I can't type more than a couple words a minit an get frequent (Not Responding) messages in the header and my AVG advisor is always popping up telling me I'm using Xsomount of RAM.









That never happened with my other browsers/WFox v6 that I can recall.









~Ceadder


----------



## abu46

where is mr. alex?????????????????????????
even FF9 beta5 is out now, guess there wont be any WF9 beta this time


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Not likn this. Don't know what's going on but I can't type more than a couple words a minit an get frequent (Not Responding) messages in the header and my AVG advisor is always popping up telling me I'm using Xsomount of RAM.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That never happened with my other browsers/WFox v6 that I can recall.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


Hmm if anything I've had less memory usage. I'll try and look into the problem, does the problem happen in safe mode?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46*
> 
> where is mr. alex?????????????????????????
> even FF9 beta5 is out now, guess there wont be any WF9 beta this time


Sorry I'm busy studying for my exams that I have on monday and tuesday. Want to make sure I stay in University


----------



## Ceadderman

Yeah I dunno man. I don't use networking in Safe so I never tried.

I will say that I've cut my tabs from 27 down to 18 and one of those is article related so it's more like 17. Shouldn't matter too much though since I'm running 8Gigs of RAM and end up using mebbe 4Gigs while I'm browsing. Not sure what it is but I did run my SiSoft Sandra Lite to benchmark my RAM. Did it while Folding no less and had not a single issue while scoring over 11.25 or something like that. I'm hoping this is just a minor hiccup cause I really liked v6. Didn't have any of these load lags. Last one was so bad it locked up both WF and Safari. I made the mistake of trying to listen to a KNBR Podcast since I can't listen to it in 64bit browser because the Flash doesn't work well with that site. One of the rare times I had to punch the reset. Immediately went to Safe to hit the system with all my AV progs running concurrently. If AVG Internet Sec, Malware Bytes and Spyware Doc can't find it, it's a good bet it doesn't exist.









If it continues to happen though, I'll go into Safe w/Network Access and see what happens there. I'm gonna assume that if it doesn't do it there then it's a cookie or something else. Would suck if it was my connection, but I've even reset the wireless a couple times even when it shows me 4 out of 5 bars and says it's got an axcellent connection and that it's working optimally in the diagnostic systems check.









Apologize for the book but more information is better than lacking information.









~Ceadder


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Yeah I dunno man. I don't use networking in Safe so I never tried.
> 
> I will say that I've cut my tabs from 27 down to 18 and one of those is article related so it's more like 17. Shouldn't matter too much though since I'm running 8Gigs of RAM and end up using mebbe 4Gigs while I'm browsing. Not sure what it is but I did run my SiSoft Sandra Lite to benchmark my RAM. Did it while Folding no less and had not a single issue while scoring over 11.25 or something like that. I'm hoping this is just a minor hiccup cause I really liked v6. Didn't have any of these load lags. Last one was so bad it locked up both WF and Safari. I made the mistake of trying to listen to a KNBR Podcast since I can't listen to it in 64bit browser because the Flash doesn't work well with that site. One of the rare times I had to punch the reset. Immediately went to Safe to hit the system with all my AV progs running concurrently. If AVG Internet Sec, Malware Bytes and Spyware Doc can't find it, it's a good bet it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it continues to happen though, I'll go into Safe w/Network Access and see what happens there. I'm gonna assume that if it doesn't do it there then it's a cookie or something else. Would suck if it was my connection, but I've even reset the wireless a couple times even when it shows me 4 out of 5 bars and says it's got an axcellent connection and that it's working optimally in the diagnostic systems check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologize for the book but more information is better than lacking information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


All the info is great don't worry. I meant put Waterfox into safe mode . Waterfox>Help>Restart with Add-Ons disabled. I'm not sure how many add-ons you have and if any of them could be causing the problem, so I was just curious to see how much it would affect your memory usage. But some websites are very intensive and take up huge amounts of RAM, especially if they have things such as G-Zip compression, which lots of forums do to conserve bandwidth. Imagine how intense a whole HTML5 media website would be!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Is this WF-specific with the 64bit Flash? I've noticed the new Youtube causes videos to go blank at a timed annotation. Sometimes reloading the clip fixes this, sometimes not.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Yeah I dunno man. I don't use networking in Safe so I never tried.
> 
> I will say that I've cut my tabs from 27 down to 18 and one of those is article related so it's more like 17. Shouldn't matter too much though since I'm running 8Gigs of RAM and end up using mebbe 4Gigs while I'm browsing. Not sure what it is but I did run my SiSoft Sandra Lite to benchmark my RAM. Did it while Folding no less and had not a single issue while scoring over 11.25 or something like that. I'm hoping this is just a minor hiccup cause I really liked v6. Didn't have any of these load lags. Last one was so bad it locked up both WF and Safari. I made the mistake of trying to listen to a KNBR Podcast since I can't listen to it in 64bit browser because the Flash doesn't work well with that site. One of the rare times I had to punch the reset. Immediately went to Safe to hit the system with all my AV progs running concurrently. If AVG Internet Sec, Malware Bytes and Spyware Doc can't find it, it's a good bet it doesn't exist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it continues to happen though, I'll go into Safe w/Network Access and see what happens there. I'm gonna assume that if it doesn't do it there then it's a cookie or something else. Would suck if it was my connection, but I've even reset the wireless a couple times even when it shows me 4 out of 5 bars and says it's got an axcellent connection and that it's working optimally in the diagnostic systems check.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Apologize for the book but more information is better than lacking information.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> All the info is great don't worry. I meant put Waterfox into safe mode
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Waterfox>Help>Restart with Add-Ons disabled. I'm not sure how many add-ons you have and if any of them could be causing the problem, so I was just curious to see how much it would affect your memory usage. But some websites are very intensive and take up huge amounts of RAM, especially if they have things such as G-Zip compression, which lots of forums do to conserve bandwidth. Imagine how intense a whole HTML5 media website would be!
Click to expand...

Only have two add-ons since I don't really have a whole lot to do that would require them. I disabled them and it's still doing it. Maybe it's the header pic. I'm a 49er fan so of course the toolbar has the 49er logo on it.









I'm gonna disable it to see how that works. Doubt it'll make much difference though.









~Ceadder


----------



## csm725

Niners


----------



## Ceadderman

I know, right?!?


















Nope that didn't fix anything but when I restarted with 1 tab and stuck with just the one it worked fine. Tells me that WF can't handle near as many tabs open as Safari. Even though my AVG just warned me cause I was using 458MB.









So looks like I gotta cut back on some bandwidth even though I shouldn't have to. Either that or I gotta check the max Memory allotment and see where it's at in my systems menu.









~Ceadder


----------



## csm725

indeed!
Also, not sure - peculiar issue you're having there.


----------



## Ceadderman

Load lag. I've trimmed the fat to 14 tabs and it's still lagging as the pages load. I know there is some of that that cannot be helped but instead of locking up a single tab it's spread to the entire browser and has crossed over into alternate browser territory. I'm pretty sure that it's Fox and not OS related because I can do other things within the OS while I wait for my browser to part its cheeks and fart to remove whatever obstruction.









I tried it in Safe mode and it still was locking up. It's not my connection cause that's running optimally.
It's not RAM as I've got more than enough in the system to run it @8Gigs. I rarely use more than 4 Gigs when I'm browsing.
I am Folding. So maybe I need to check my settings there but I don't believe that should be an issue cause I'm only using 100% of first core and no more. CPU should be able to take anything a Browser can throw at it.








I've run lots more tabs than this(27 minimum) with no lag so this has me more than a bit perplexed. If I were running an old P4 or Athlon system I couldn't do what I do now. But this is a fairly new system under 2 years old and lots of oomph to spare.









I also trimmed the OCN PPP limit from 50 to 20 and still









I've got the minimum running now, I don't even have to use the scroll button in the browser to find a buried tab so I'm at a loss.









~Ceadder


----------



## MrAlex

I'll look into the memory issues some people are having.


----------



## mikorc

Great job.


----------



## Ceadderman

Thanks Al. I've got it trimmed down to 10 tabs now and it's still doing it. I'm going to wait for my current client to finish which will be in 8-9 hours and then I'm going to pause it and see if that helps clear things up. But I've done everything else I can to get it to work cleanly without the lag. I think h2oFox doesn't like OCN though. Cause whenever I do anything on OCN it's really bad. It still lags outside of OCN, but not nearly as bad.









~Ceadder


----------



## SteveMcQueen

I want that old logo back


----------



## msuguy71

New Sliverlight 5 released that includes x64 support.

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/


----------



## djriful

I'm looking forward to test on Mac if there is a mac version.

Also bummer that the BF3 Origin plugin has no 64bit support for Waterfox.


----------



## Lord Venom

I doubt there will be a Mac version. Windows only, more than likely.


----------



## ilam3d

I use the normal x64 firefox. well it's Nightly.. But it does work perfectly o.o.

Why should i use this one instead?


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djriful*
> 
> I'm looking forward to test on Mac if there is a mac version.
> Also bummer that the BF3 Origin plugin has no 64bit support for Waterfox.


Yet another reason for me to trade my BF3 for Skyrim if I can do it.









~Ceadder


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ilam3d*
> I use the normal x64 firefox. well it's Nightly.. But it does work perfectly o.o.
> 
> Why should i use this one instead?


nightlys are not optimized for x64. waterfox is. thus it's faster loading initially, faster running, faster loading sites, etc. etc. waterfox is based on the stable firefox release code; nightlys contain experimental code, bugs, untested 'fixes', etc. which may cause problems. mozilla adopts a 'buyer beware' policy for the nightlies. if they break your pc it's your fault.

for example: nightlies from 8 dec thru 13 dec caused some users pc's to crash, some to be unable to start firefox at all. 14 dec nightly seems to have fixed that. maybe they backed out the bad code. maybe not.

i run both waterfox and the x64 nightlies. my default is waterfox.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ilam3d*
> I use the normal x64 firefox. well it's Nightly.. But it does work perfectly o.o.
> 
> Why should i use this one instead?
> 
> 
> 
> nightlys are not optimized for x64. waterfox is. thus it's faster loading initially, faster running, faster loading sites, etc. etc. waterfox is based on the stable firefox release code; nightlys contain experimental code, bugs, untested 'fixes', etc. which may cause problems. mozilla adopts a 'buyer beware' policy for the nightlies. if they break your pc it's your fault.
> 
> for example: nightlies from 8 dec thru 13 dec caused some users pc's to crash, some to be unable to start firefox at all. 14 dec nightly seems to have fixed that. maybe they backed out the bad code. maybe not.
> 
> i run both waterfox and the x64 nightlies. my default is waterfox.
Click to expand...

Pretty much this, though nightlys are as optimised for x64 as any other x64 firefox build, its just the OP has added some tweaks during the compile process. Though Firefox 10 and above do include some very hefty Javascript optimisations, so Waterfox may actually be slower in this regard. Waterfox should be more stable and has several optimisations specifically to make it lighter and faster. I personally use my own build of Aurora for x64, seems a nice compromise between new features, speed and stability.
Give Waterfox a try, you might prefer it.


----------



## Nautilus

Waterfox crashes constantly. It just vanishes... No "Our apologies.. Firefox crashed, upload the memory dump to developers?" window whatsoever.

I'm running BOINC in the background. [email protected] uses my CPU, Collatz Conjecture uses my GPUs. I disabled GPU acceleration because it was negatively effecting Collatz Conjecture and helps Waterfox to run faster.

I also use a proxy VPN (Hotspot Shield).


----------



## csm725

I was getting this too.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nautilus*
> 
> Waterfox crashes constantly. It just vanishes... No "Our apologies.. Firefox crashed, upload the memory dump to developers?" window whatsoever.
> 
> I'm running BOINC in the background. [email protected] uses my CPU, Collatz Conjecture uses my GPUs. I disabled GPU acceleration because it was negatively effecting Collatz Conjecture and helps Waterfox to run faster.
> 
> I also use a proxy VPN (Hotspot Shield).


Not being silly...but Waterfox may not like your overclock. I could run Prime95 for half a day, but then I'd open up a simply flash application or browse a web page and it would crash. I had to further stabilize my overclock before it would stop crashing. On people who have stock systems Waterfox runs fine, coming for first-hand experience (around 10 people I know use Waterfox) and they've had 0 problems so far.


----------



## csm725

Try disabling hardware acceleration and see if that happens.


----------



## darksideleader

Can you run Firefox and Waterfox simultaneously?


----------



## Lord Venom

I can since I'm using different profiles for both Firefox and Waterfox and I use the -no-remote flag for the Waterfox shortcut.


----------



## Lord Venom

The first build candidate for Firefox 9.0 is out. Won't be long now - three more days until Firefox 9 final!


----------



## xd_1771

Firefox 9 FINAL release in 3 days


----------



## Nautilus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not being silly...but Waterfox may not like your overclock. I could run Prime95 for half a day, but then I'd open up a simply flash application or browse a web page and it would crash. I had to further stabilize my overclock before it would stop crashing. On people who have stock systems Waterfox runs fine, coming for first-hand experience (around 10 people I know use Waterfox) and they've had 0 problems so far.


You might be right after all. I reconsidered my OC today, did some tweaks here and there. And now it runs crash-free for now... Will report back if anything bad happens.


----------



## Ceadderman

It's definitely Waterfox. My issue is definitely WF. I have OCN running junky in WF, and just opened i.e. 9 for comparison/testing purposes and it's running just fine and loading just as quickly as all the other windows in WF. Apparently WF doesn't play well with OCN for me. I now know it's definitely not my system.









~Ceadder


----------



## Le_Loup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> It's definitely Waterfox. My issue is definitely WF. I have OCN running junky in WF, and just opened i.e. 9 for comparison/testing purposes and it's running just fine and loading just as quickly as all the other windows in WF. Apparently WF doesn't play well with OCN for me. I now know it's definitely not my system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


I recognize this, but I have,

IE 9, WF most recent), Chrome, SWare Iron, and Opera. All up to date. (I'd have more, but meh).

All load Overclock.net super smooth, all features, all slide panels, etc. Everything is fluid as if i'm in the site in a virtual reality. (Ok maybe not, but damn close).

And I have your same video card, most recent video drivers (Just downloaded today from amd.ati.com or whichever it is lol).

- Le_Loup


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I can since I'm using different profiles for both Firefox and Waterfox and I use the -no-remote flag for the Waterfox shortcut.


i use both firefox x64 nightly and waterfox. i use the same profile for both w/o any trouble. waterfox is my default & i use the x64 ff nightly more as a check to see what the developers are up to. i also have the firefox x86 9.0b6, using a different profile. they are started in a desktop shortcut with the -p switch, ie 'c:\program files\waterfox\firefox.exe -p "x64" ' or 'c:\program files (x86)\firefox\forefox.exe -p "x86" ' where the profiles were created via the profile manager. i figure it's best to keep the x86 and x64 version profiles seperate due to the plugins. x86 plugins do not work in x64 & visa versa. extensions do work in either.

i also cheat by editing the add-on's install.rdf files to increase the maxversion parameter to work with the nightly version 11.0a1. there have been very few addons that do not work with both firefox nightly & waterfox after such a tweak. those i've uninstalled.

(for info, .xpi's are really just .zip files & you can rename the extension to .zip, open in winzip, edit the install.rdf, update the .zip & rename it. 7zip will open it w/o having to rename it.)


----------



## Ceadderman

Don't know what to tell you guys other than WF lags so badly I cannot change pages from OCN to something that runs smoothly until after the page finishes loading. It did it in standard *and* safe.

My RAM is good, I don't have a whole lot of Tabs open since I lessened amount of tabs open in WF less than what I should be able to run with 8 Gigs of RAM. I've scanned my system for viruses and trojans in both std and Safe modes with 3 AV/Malware Progs and right now I'm running NFLNetwork online on WF while I'm surfing OCN on ie9. I hate ie. Makes me







when I run it.

Oh and before I forget and before anyone asks, yes my 64bit supports are updated and current.









~Ceadder


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Don't know what to tell you guys other than WF lags so badly I cannot change pages from OCN to something that runs smoothly until after the page finishes loading. It did it in standard *and* safe.
> 
> My RAM is good, I don't have a whole lot of Tabs open since I lessened amount of tabs open in WF less than what I should be able to run with 8 Gigs of RAM. I've scanned my system for viruses and trojans in both std and Safe modes with 3 AV/Malware Progs and right now I'm running NFLNetwork online on WF while I'm surfing OCN on ie9. I hate ie. Makes me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when I run it.
> 
> Oh and before I forget and before anyone asks, yes my 64bit supports are updated and current.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


Have you overclocked?


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Don't know what to tell you guys other than WF lags so badly I cannot change pages from OCN to something that runs smoothly until after the page finishes loading. It did it in standard *and* safe.
> 
> My RAM is good, I don't have a whole lot of Tabs open since I lessened amount of tabs open in WF less than what I should be able to run with 8 Gigs of RAM. I've scanned my system for viruses and trojans in both std and Safe modes with 3 AV/Malware Progs and right now I'm running NFLNetwork online on WF while I'm surfing OCN on ie9. I hate ie. Makes me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when I run it.
> 
> Oh and before I forget and before anyone asks, yes my 64bit supports are updated and current.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Have you overclocked?
Click to expand...

Yes, but am currently running Stock Ghz. So if I'm reading your question correctly, my OC is stable.







Hehe

~Ceadder


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 9 final's on Mozilla's releases folder now.


----------



## SpammisT

At home, 3 windows open with 7+ tabs in each at 800 MB usage, kekeke.

Haven't reached a gig yet though, been monitoring my memory usage and keeping tabs up.


----------



## MrAlex

The latest version of Waterfox is up


----------



## csm725

Cheers Alex
BTW is it true that since this is 64 bit with no memory limitation, it will use as much RAM as it needs to (i.e. if I have 16 gigs it will use more than it would if I had, say, 4)?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *csm725*
> 
> Cheers Alex
> BTW is it true that since this is 64 bit with no memory limitation, it will use as much RAM as it needs to (i.e. if I have 16 gigs it will use more than it would if I had, say, 4)?


Theoretically yes, if you ever use that many tabs/memory intensive websites. OCN by itself is pretty intensive. I'm sure if you opened 1000 tabs of OCN you'd get that sort of memory usage  But there's more to 64-Bit computing than more memory being accessible.


----------



## csm725

Haha, okay cheers. When I get my rig mobo I will let you know.


----------



## Ceadderman

Hopefully OCN won't lag this one.









If it doesn't I'll be able to close i.e.









If it still does it then
















MrAlex.









~Ceadder


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Hopefully OCN won't lag this one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it doesn't I'll be able to close i.e.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If it still does it then
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrAlex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


Hope it goes well


----------



## Blostorm

Hey MrAlex,

Is it normal that after downloading the new 9.0 version from the website, they still ask me to update and when I click next it just says blabla integrity thing ?

Other than that, holy balls it's pretty fast!

Again, I'm changing from Chrome to Waterfox... I keep switching


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blostorm*
> 
> Hey MrAlex,
> 
> Is it normal that after downloading the new 9.0 version from the website, they still ask me to update and when I click next it just says blabla integrity thing ?
> 
> Other than that, holy balls it's pretty fast!
> 
> Again, I'm changing from Chrome to Waterfox... I keep switching


Ugh ******ed thing. It does that sometimes. I don't have that problem though. Why don't I ever get these problems so I can fix them  Hopefully it should stop, but if it continues please let me know and I'll sort it out.


----------



## xd_1771

WOW. This edition makes Firefox feel revitalized.... and of course much faster!!!

Pages seem to be loading with much less time required in this version







OCN feels much snappier (though not that it was in any way slow back in Waterfox 8).
RAM usage also looks to be very much improved. I'm no longer hogging well into the 2GB sometimes (though I often didn't mind that) and memory leaks seem to have completely disappeared


----------



## Paladin Goo

Is there ANY sort of hack that can make battlelog work with this?


----------



## LBear

Thanks for the update


----------



## LightSol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Is there ANY sort of hack that can make battlelog work with this?


Indeed, thats a feature i would like to see as well, but i am guessing that would have to be done on EA's side to make it compatible with x64 (ie







)

Other than that, its a fantastic mod that made me change back to FF , i mean WF from chrome









Great job!


----------



## Blostorm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ugh ******ed thing. It does that sometimes. I don't have that problem though. Why don't I ever get these problems so I can fix them
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hopefully it should stop, but if it continues please let me know and I'll sort it out.


Well, they give you "Ask later" "No thanks" or "Next". No thanks fixed the problem


----------



## Paladin Goo

Nothing against Waterfox...but does anyone know of a 32 bit firefox fork thats as optimized as WF? I need battlelog to work


----------



## Ceadderman

I'm only responding on i.e. because the thread isn't in my current list of updated threads.

All I gotta say is...












































































































Is not perfect but damn it sure is faster.









~Ceadder


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Nothing against Waterfox...but does anyone know of a 32 bit firefox fork thats as optimized as WF? I need battlelog to work


I'd say Palemoon is your best bet.


----------



## wjssz

Guys, I'm using Watherfox, I have two questions.
Does it use libjpeg-turbo?
Why it significantly slower than 32bit firefox in Google v8 performance test on my Windows 7 x64?
Regards.


----------



## hclarkjr

just upgraded mine with no trouble at all. thanx for the update


----------



## wjssz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wjssz*
> 
> Why it significantly slower than 32bit firefox in Google v8 performance test on my Windows 7 x64?


I have found the answer, the JIT of JS engine still compile x86 codes, nothing improved, and 8-bytes address of objects consume much more than before.

So let's wait a pure 64bit JS engine.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Raven Dizzle*
> 
> Is there ANY sort of hack that can make battlelog work with this?


No, it's not possible.


----------



## Lord Venom

There's a Firefox 9.0.1 build in the releases folder now.


----------



## hclarkjr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> There's a Firefox 9.0.1 build in the releases folder now.


yes, i just seen that too. what bug did they find?


----------



## MrAlex

Damn, I'm on holiday now and I won't be back until the 4th! Aparently it's a bug with tabs but I haven't noticed it yet (using normal Firefox on this laptop). The moment I get home I'll compile 9.0.1.


----------



## xd_1771

^ I haven't noticed any bug either.


----------



## Ceadderman

Whatever you did seems to have fixed my issue MrAlex so as far as I can tell no hurry necessary. By time you get back there will probably be FF 9.0.2 out.









No more Load Lag. My lord that was such a royal pain in the 6 o'clock that had me questioning my system. I was starting to think my RAM was going bad, for awhile there.









~Ceadder


----------



## Ellis

I wish I could get Waterfox for my laptop, but I don't think it could run 64-bit Windows 7 because the processor is probably only 32









Sent from my HTC HD2 using Tapatalk


----------



## djkilla

Can't believe I just discovered Waterfox today. I've been using the optimized version (32bit) of Tete's Firefox (http://www1.plala.or.jp/tete009/en-US/software.html). I have a few quick questions before I try Waterfox.

1) Will it use the following plugins I have now: 

2) What is this OCN other people have mentioned?


----------



## coffeejunky

1. Yes, almost certainly. It is only plugins (flash and java) you may have issues with, they both have x64 variants anyway, so you just need to install those.
2. OCN is an abbreviation for overclock.net

Hope this helps


----------



## djkilla

Thanks for the quick reply coffeejunky! I'm giving this baby a try. Looking forward to using a new and 64bit optimized browser!


----------



## virtualguy

Question: After I install Waterfox (will probably wait for 9.0.1), can import my current 32-bit Firefox profile into Waterfox ??

~V


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Question: After I install Waterfox (will probably wait for 9.0.1), can import my current 32-bit Firefox profile into Waterfox ??
> 
> ~V


It will by default use your existing Firefox profile without any issues.


----------



## virtualguy

Cool. Thanks for the quick response. Happy holidays!


----------



## Anakunda

Hi, are localized versions of Waterfox planned? I don't have problem with English UI but miss my language in Waterfox. All addons also are switched to Eng UI.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anakunda*
> 
> Hi, are localized versions of Waterfox planned? I don't have problem with English UI but miss my language in Waterfox. All addons also are switched to Eng UI.


See for yourself, as linked to in the Downloads page:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/

Localization is done by language packs (changes the language of the user interface).


----------



## Anakunda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> See for yourself, as linked to in the Downloads page:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/language-tools/
> 
> Localization is done by language packs (changes the language of the user interface).


Okay, I see the dictionary but not language pack, bad luck. Thanks for Waterfox anyway.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anakunda*
> 
> Okay, I see the dictionary but not language pack, bad luck. Thanks for Waterfox anyway.


here xpi langage of last release http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/win32/xpi/


----------



## soundofsilence

Hi i have a problem about waterfox project
i just downloaded setup but there is an error
that saying you must vista x64 and above
and setup closes after this message
when i'm extracting setup extracted setup works fine
but it works like portable version of waterfox
i want to use it normally
can you help me for this situation
i am using windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64
thx from now


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soundofsilence*
> 
> Hi i have a problem about waterfox project
> i just downloaded setup but there is an error
> that saying you must vista x64 and above
> and setup closes after this message
> when i'm extracting setup extracted setup works fine
> but it works like portable version of waterfox
> i want to use it normally
> can you help me for this situation
> i am using windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64
> thx from now


because "windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64" use old kernel and it's different of vista kernel.


----------



## LBear

Anyone using faster fox with water fox and is there an improvement?


----------



## H_C_L

Do I have to uninstall Firefox before I install this?

Thanks.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LBear*
> 
> Anyone using faster fox with water fox and is there an improvement?


fasterfox is a bit obsolete, the recent optimized firefox (and derivatives like waterfox) do not benefit from the tweaks in fasterfox. it's also debatable as to if it helped much in the older versions...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *H_C_L*
> 
> Do I have to uninstall Firefox before I install this?
> Thanks.


no, i have firefox x86, firefox x64 and waterfox all at the same time. they install in seperate folders. they will share the same profile unless you tell them otherwise with a command line " -p {profile name}" switch*. you may want to do that if your firefox is x86 as the 32 bit plugins do not work in 64 bit (& visa versa) tho extensions work with either. my firefox & waterfox x64s happily share the same profile; they do show the checking extensions popup if i switch from one to the other, but start OK anyway. i use a separate one for the x86 firefox.

*- start firefox/waterfox with an appended " -p" to get into the profile manager to create new named profiles.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *soundofsilence*
> 
> Hi i have a problem about waterfox project
> i just downloaded setup but there is an error
> that saying you must vista x64 and above
> and setup closes after this message
> when i'm extracting setup extracted setup works fine
> but it works like portable version of waterfox
> i want to use it normally
> can you help me for this situation
> i am using windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64
> thx from now


Because Waterfox is compiled with MSVC, it doesn't allow anything before Vista, even if it is capable of running it, so the installer is saying no it cannot be installed. So you'll have to manually create shortcuts etc for Waterfox. Sorry about that.


----------



## htraki

Hi,

I would gladly use this fine browser, but I have a little problem with that: The "@" (which is AltGr+v on my keyboard) does not show up when I press it. Everything else is fine! I dont know where is the bug, maybe you did not enabled UTF-8 support? This little, but important thing make this software useless for me.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hey! snagged WF 9.0 and it works very well.







OCN definitely feels snappier and more responsive than under 8.0.1 - tab bug? Haven't noticed any issues but I'll keep an eye out.

It's only a week or so till WF 9.0.1 comes out in Jan, anyway, unless MrAlex wants to compile WF 9.0.1 on his slooooooooooow laptop again.


----------



## Ceadderman

@ Works fine for me bruh, I think that it's probably your KB and not the Browser.









~Ceadder


----------



## htraki

I thought that peoples going to say that, but belive me everywhere else my KB working fine







. I wont throw out my KB or my money for a new keyboard. The problem is in the app, but I dont know if I can fix it.


----------



## soundofsilence

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *soundofsilence*
> 
> Hi i have a problem about waterfox project
> i just downloaded setup but there is an error
> that saying you must vista x64 and above
> and setup closes after this message
> when i'm extracting setup extracted setup works fine
> but it works like portable version of waterfox
> i want to use it normally
> can you help me for this situation
> i am using windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64
> thx from now
> 
> 
> 
> because "windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64" use old kernel and it's different of vista kernel.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *soundofsilence*
> 
> Hi i have a problem about waterfox project
> i just downloaded setup but there is an error
> that saying you must vista x64 and above
> and setup closes after this message
> when i'm extracting setup extracted setup works fine
> but it works like portable version of waterfox
> i want to use it normally
> can you help me for this situation
> i am using windows server 2003 r2 enterprise edition service pack 2 x64
> thx from now
> 
> 
> 
> Because Waterfox is compiled with MSVC, it doesn't allow anything before Vista, even if it is capable of running it, so the installer is saying no it cannot be installed. So you'll have to manually create shortcuts etc for Waterfox. Sorry about that.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your reply but it's sad news for me : (


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *htraki*
> 
> I thought that peoples going to say that, but belive me everywhere else my KB working fine
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I wont throw out my KB or my money for a new keyboard. The problem is in the app, but I dont know if I can fix it.


Some questions:
are you instal the soft after firefox without remove preferences?
otherwise how long have you installed the OS and which one?


----------



## htraki

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Some questions:
> are you instal the soft after firefox without remove preferences?
> otherwise how long have you installed the OS and which one?


I did not remove anything. I use this OS for a long time, I have Windows 7 Home Premium x64. My problem is there since I installed for the first time.


----------



## fullmoon

you should reformat and try again.


----------



## papafabian

Hello All,

First, sorry for my bad english, i'm a poor small french!!!

Second, I would like to use waterfox, i have installed it, it works nice but i I can not have it in French. Is it possible to have it in French? Thanks a lot for help.

Third, spend a happy holiday season


----------



## fullmoon

http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-7-0-new-website-08-11-11-firefox-64-bit/650#post_14383710
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/


----------



## papafabian

Thx for the reply fullmoon

But i must be a big noob because i dont find fr.xpi for Waterfox 9 : i go in win 32, after fr/ and there is only firefox setup 9.0.1.exe
Can you help me please?
Thx a lot


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *papafabian*
> 
> Thx for the reply fullmoon
> 
> But i must be a big noob because i dont find fr.xpi for Waterfox 9 : i go in win 32, after fr/ and there is only firefox setup 9.0.1.exe
> Can you help me please?
> Thx a lot


You're in the wrong directory, xpi files are always here:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/VERSION/win32/xpi/

So for this release the directory is:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/9.0.1/win32/xpi/

And the file is:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/9.0.1/win32/xpi/fr.xpi


----------



## XSAlliN

Just noticed that Waterfox has only 3 tails and there is plenty of space for 6, as in - could look better with 9 tails.


----------



## xxicrimsonixx

Just got hit up on Lifehacker...

EDIT: Just made the switch from Chrome to Firefox. Hated how Firefox moved the new tab to the far right, and always preferred how Chrome did it. Standard Firefox and PaleMoon didn't work for me because of that, but WaterFox handles it how I like.


----------



## mbudden

Seems like they got the article from PCWorld.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/246758/use_a_64bit_pc_instead_of_firefox_try_waterfox_90.html


----------



## htraki

I am not crazy







I dont want to spend a day before my computer, just for one application. Thats not so urgent for me! I could do that, but I dont want.


----------



## manbeard

Just starting using this at work tonight. I work in a NOC with a lot of my work being done in a browser (monitoring tools, ticketing, databases, etc...). Compared to the standard Firefox 9.0 build, the Waterfox build seems to eat a lot more memory and at a somewhat rapid rate. I run two profiles (work and personal). The work profile I have a saved session with 4 windows and 17 tabs, my personal profile has 1 window and 6 tabs. The work profile has been running for about 6.5 hrs and is using 658mb while the personal profile has been restarted and running for a couple hours now and is using 815mb. I definitely notice that sites like Facebook (particularly after the release of Timeline), Google+, Google Reader, etc... tend to contribute to a much more rapid increase in memory consumption.

My work machine unfortunately has the least amount of memory and is the one I have to be most concerned with excessive memory usage (4gb DDR3 running Windows 7 x64). Any ideas on a work around to help alleviate this?


----------



## manbeard

I've noticed Mozilla has 9.0.1 as the version available on the main site when you go to download the latest release, and it has auto-updated on one of my machines, but not all of them. Kinda weird.


----------



## papafabian

Thx Mr Alex

Just noticed that the release is 9.0, not 9.0.1 (dont work with it).
Thx a lot for your help and for your greatfull (not sure that this word exist!!!) waterfox.

Ps : i've lost my waterfox button in the upper left, it becomes firefox. It will be very good if you could do the language pack too to conserve the waterfox identity. But i know it's a lot of work!!

PS 2 : i'm sure my horrible english stinging eyes, very sorry!!!


----------



## markg2

Longtime Firefox user + Win7-64 bit

2 questions for you all--

I know that Norton 360 add ins do not support/run under IE 64 bit. It's an important add in for me, do you know if it runs under your application?

If I install Waterfox and import my current Firefox profile, can I still run my current install of Firefox?

Thanks,

Mark


----------



## fctenorio

I´ve installed portuguese language pack and nothing change occured, the Waterfox still in english.

Could anyone help me?

Thanks,

Fernando


----------



## Klausbert

I feel your pain. I switch to Chrome for GVideo to avoid having to close WF before opening FF.

Other than that, WF is a breeze!


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Can't believe I just discovered Waterfox today. I've been using the optimized version (32bit) of Tete's Firefox (http://www1.plala.or.jp/tete009/en-US/software.html). I have a quick question before I try Waterfox.
> 
> 1) Will it use the following plugins I have now:


UPDATE: IE Tab Plus doesn't work so I switched to IE View Lite (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ie-view-lite/). Roboform doesn't support Firefox 64bit so I switched to Lastpass (https://lastpass.com/). Lastpass is a fantastic form filler and password manager. It does take some time to set it up (http://helpdesk.lastpass.com/) but works perfectly with Waterfox.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *manbeard*
> 
> My work machine unfortunately has the least amount of memory and is the one I have to be most concerned with excessive memory usage (4gb DDR3 running Windows 7 x64). Any ideas on a work around to help alleviate this?


You can try the RAM usage tweaks at the following page (very top and bottom): http://www.bgr.com/2009/01/25/a-handful-of-firefox-tweaks-that-will-double-your-browser-speed/


----------



## fctenorio

I solved the problem, It´s need install the "Locale Switcher" plugin.

Fernando


----------



## Anakunda

Hello. I wanted to know if there\s a tool to provide an objective comparison of Firefox vs. Waterfox speeds. Ie. to let me know how much times Waterfox is faster that FF, respectively how much ms Firefox spends on loading a single page than Waterfox, rather than to rely on subjective impression. An user may fall into the placebo effect easily by comparing both products from knowledge Waterfox is 64bit therefore faster.


----------



## samooryesord

Trying and failing to install this. It extracts the install and then disappears. I tried running as admin, still nothing. added it to my firewall exceptions.. still nothing. Does anyone know how I can get this thing to install? =(

I have Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit

Thanks in advance!


----------



## darksideleader

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I can since I'm using different profiles for both Firefox and Waterfox and I use the -no-remote flag for the Waterfox shortcut.


Thanks.

Now can you or someone else give a more detailed post on how to do that?

I would really like to be to run both waterfox and firefox at the same time.


----------



## tparadox88

I get the oxc000007b error. I didn't read through all the pages, but it doesn't seem to be in the documentation yet, so I'm asking.

Windows 7 Ultimate, latest Waterfox as of yesterday.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darksideleader*
> 
> ...
> I would really like to be to run both waterfox and firefox at the same time.


see my post HERE


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *papafabian*
> 
> Thx Mr Alex
> 
> Just noticed that the release is 9.0, not 9.0.1 (dont work with it).
> Thx a lot for your help and for your greatfull (not sure that this word exist!!!) waterfox.
> 
> Ps : i've lost my waterfox button in the upper left, it becomes firefox. It will be very good if you could do the language pack too to conserve the waterfox identity. But i know it's a lot of work!!
> 
> PS 2 : i'm sure my horrible english stinging eyes, very sorry!!!


Sorry I haven't had time to compile 9.0.1, I'm on holiday. And I'll be sure to make my own language packs, thanks for telling me about that! And your english is good enough for me!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *markg2*
> 
> Longtime Firefox user + Win7-64 bit
> 
> 2 questions for you all--
> 
> I know that Norton 360 add ins do not support/run under IE 64 bit. It's an important add in for me, do you know if it runs under your application?
> 
> If I install Waterfox and import my current Firefox profile, can I still run my current install of Firefox?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Mark


It probably won't be supported, but good antivirus software checks network activity regardless of a browser plugin.

Yes you can, Waterfox uses your existing Firefox profile.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anakunda*
> 
> Hello. I wanted to know if there\s a tool to provide an objective comparison of Firefox vs. Waterfox speeds. Ie. to let me know how much times Waterfox is faster that FF, respectively how much ms Firefox spends on loading a single page than Waterfox, rather than to rely on subjective impression. An user may fall into the placebo effect easily by comparing both products from knowledge Waterfox is 64bit therefore faster.


http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *samooryesord*
> 
> Trying and failing to install this. It extracts the install and then disappears. I tried running as admin, still nothing. added it to my firewall exceptions.. still nothing. Does anyone know how I can get this thing to install? =(
> 
> I have Windows 7 Home Premium 64 bit
> 
> Thanks in advance!


I haven't heard of that problem before. Id say try and find the directory to which the installer extracts to, but I'm not sure where it actually does. Maybe try clearing out your temporary directory and redownload the installer?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tparadox88*
> 
> I get the oxc000007b error. I didn't read through all the pages, but it doesn't seem to be in the documentation yet, so I'm asking.
> 
> Windows 7 Ultimate, latest Waterfox as of yesterday.


Have you tried uninstalling and then reinstalling the Visual C++ Redistributable?


----------



## muggerfugger

i just found waterfox, and it is faster.

But i have one bug that stops me from using. It doesnt seem to want to play ANY file embedded video file inside the browser itself. It always wants to save it and launch it from a local player such as winamp. Very annoying.

is there a fix for this? i did a search but found nothing.


----------



## Lord Venom

No, there is no Windows Media Player or QuickTime plugins for 64-bit browsers.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

guys if you have memory issues use firemin http://www.rizonesoft.com/

it kills all the memory issues been using it forever and it works great


----------



## MrAlex

*Sigh* Some people at Lifehacker really tore me a new one, but I've replied to them trying to sort all these problems out that seemed to have appeared from nowhere. And everyone keeps comparing it to Palemoon, even though Waterfox came out before Palemoon had a 64-Bit variant. Ideally they should both perform exactly the same, to which then it should just come down to personal preference to which one they prefer. But I like the criticism, it helps me to build a better product.

Alright guys, here's my idea for Watefox 10, I'd like to get some peoples oppinion:


No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0
Implication of SSE3 using the Intel compiler WITHOUT the performance disavantages for AMD systems
The Intel compiler is usually higher regarded that the Microsoft compiler for producing smaller, faster code. It also has many more advantages, such as more optimizations and more instruction set support.
Updated website (still similar to the current one, but more professional looking)
Purchase of a TLD thanks to the donations
Working auto-update this time, not one that downloads the update but produces an error.

Any other ideas guys? What do you think about the above?

Thanks all.


----------



## Lord Venom

How about dumping the version number completely or setting the version number to the date? You can probably still add what version of Firefox it's built off of in the about dialog though. Also this would allow you to nuke the stable/beta channel stuff - you could update Waterfox to use the later betas then final versions without issue.

Yes, it might break extensions but they'll be made compatible by default with FF 10, I believe, so that shouldn't be an issue.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> *Sigh* Some people at Lifehacker really tore me a new one, but I've replied to them trying to sort all these problems out that seemed to have appeared from nowhere. And everyone keeps comparing it to Palemoon, even though Waterfox came out before Palemoon had a 64-Bit variant. Ideally they should both perform exactly the same, to which then it should just come down to personal preference to which one they prefer. But I like the criticism, it helps me to build a better product.
> 
> Alright guys, here's my idea for Watefox 10, I'd like to get some peoples oppinion:
> 
> No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0
> Implication of SSE3 using the Intel compiler WITHOUT the performance disavantages for AMD systems
> The Intel compiler is usually higher regarded that the Microsoft compiler for producing smaller, faster code. It also has many more advantages, such as more optimizations and more instruction set support.
> Updated website (still similar to the current one, but more professional looking)
> Purchase of a TLD thanks to the donations
> Working auto-update this time, not one that downloads the update but produces an error.
> Any other ideas guys? What do you think about the above?
> 
> Thanks all.


Palemoon x64 should actually be slower, due to the Palemoon dev building it with a less than ideal setup -
Quote:


> Compiler x64: Visual Studio 2010 command-line x64 compiler. *No PGO or jemalloc* possible in this setup


LINK

All looks good to me


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> How about dumping the version number completely or setting the version number to the date? You can probably still add what version of Firefox it's built off of in the about dialog though. Also this would allow you to nuke the stable/beta channel stuff - you could update Waterfox to use the later betas then final versions without issue.
> 
> Yes, it might break extensions but they'll be made compatible by default with FF 10, I believe, so that shouldn't be an issue.


A version number is required unfortunately, but no worry about compatibility with extension, because I can disable version check. Since the underlying source code will be the latest version of Firefox it shouldn't cause a problem.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> *Sigh* Some people at Lifehacker really tore me a new one, but I've replied to them trying to sort all these problems out that seemed to have appeared from nowhere. And everyone keeps comparing it to Palemoon, even though Waterfox came out before Palemoon had a 64-Bit variant. Ideally they should both perform exactly the same, to which then it should just come down to personal preference to which one they prefer. But I like the criticism, it helps me to build a better product.
> 
> Alright guys, here's my idea for Watefox 10, I'd like to get some peoples oppinion:
> 
> No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0
> Implication of SSE3 using the Intel compiler WITHOUT the performance disavantages for AMD systems
> The Intel compiler is usually higher regarded that the Microsoft compiler for producing smaller, faster code. It also has many more advantages, such as more optimizations and more instruction set support.
> Updated website (still similar to the current one, but more professional looking)
> Purchase of a TLD thanks to the donations
> Working auto-update this time, not one that downloads the update but produces an error.
> Any other ideas guys? What do you think about the above?
> 
> Thanks all.
> 
> 
> 
> Palemoon x64 should actually be slower, due to the Palemoon dev building it with a less than ideal setup -
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Compiler x64: Visual Studio 2010 command-line x64 compiler. *No PGO or jemalloc* possible in this setup
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LINK
> 
> All looks good to me
Click to expand...

Ah that is interesting. Well, hopefully I can get the Intel compiler to work (I have to modify the source code because Firefox is designed to be compiled with MSVC for Windows), so I can pull ahead some more in performance.


----------



## Lord Venom

Okay, how about a date-of-release version number?


----------



## virtualguy

I don't see the advantage to not having a version number. How would you keep track of what version you're on? How would you know if you were using an older, non secure version or the most recent stable, secure version? Also, I don't want my browser to auto update. I want to be notified that an update has become available and let ME choose if and when to initiate the update. Frequent updates, large or small don't bother me. I just want to know my browser is stable and secure.


----------



## djkilla

[*] No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0

Sounds good!

[*] Implication of SSE3 using the Intel compiler WITHOUT the performance disavantages for AMD systems

Sounds good!

[*] The Intel compiler is usually higher regarded that the Microsoft compiler for producing smaller, faster code. It also has many more advantages, such as more optimizations and more instruction set support.

Sounds good!

[*] Updated website (still similar to the current one, but more professional looking)

Sounds good!

[*] Purchase of a TLD thanks to the donations

I have no idea what a TLD is.

[*] Working auto-update this time, not one that downloads the update but produces an error.

I prefer to update on my own.


----------



## kronckew

TLD = top level domain, ie. www.waterfox.com
or could mean Tape Library Device, i'd go with the former rather than the latter as there are better ways to back up now









p.s.- i like version numbers, 10.x.y is good.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I don't see the advantage to not having a version number. How would you keep track of what version you're on? How would you know if you were using an older, non secure version or the most recent stable, secure version? Also, I don't want my browser to auto update. I want to be notified that an update has become available and let ME choose if and when to initiate the update. Frequent updates, large or small don't bother me. I just want to know my browser is stable and secure.


Quote:



> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> [*] No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0
> 
> Sounds good!
> 
> [*] Implication of SSE3 using the Intel compiler WITHOUT the performance disavantages for AMD systems
> 
> Sounds good!
> 
> [*] The Intel compiler is usually higher regarded that the Microsoft compiler for producing smaller, faster code. It also has many more advantages, such as more optimizations and more instruction set support.
> 
> Sounds good!
> 
> [*] Updated website (still similar to the current one, but more professional looking)
> 
> Sounds good!
> 
> [*] Purchase of a TLD thanks to the donations
> 
> I have no idea what a TLD is.
> 
> [*] Working auto-update this time, not one that downloads the update but produces an error.
> 
> I prefer to update on my own.


Don't worry, auto-update doesn't actually download and install by itslef, it works how the current update for Firefox works. It tells you that an update is available and you can either download it or ignore it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> TLD = top level domain, ie. www.waterfox.com
> or could mean Tape Library Device, i'd go with the former rather than the latter as there are better ways to back up now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> p.s.- i like version numbers, 10.x.y is good.


And yes a TLD is a top level domain


----------



## Nightwalker

How about SSE 4.1/4.2 or AVX optimizations ?


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightwalker*
> 
> How about SSE 4.1/4.2 or AVX optimizations ?


Already experimented with those -
http://www.overclock.net/t/1172085/tweaking-firefox-for-sandy-bridge
The build there is out of date, need to get round to updating it. Only really did it as a test to see if AVX would actually make any difference to something as simple as a browser, in short it seems it really does. I have nowhere near the skills MrAlex has, so I would recommend you use Waterfox.

I highly doubt MrAlex will specify the build that much though, lets face it it is only a minority of people at the moment who have supported PCs. If he can find some way of making it work like his plan for SSE3 Intel build without sacrificing performance on unsupported systems, that would be great, I don't think you can do that though.


----------



## Aximous

Do you have plans to release a linux version, MrAlex?


----------



## Anakunda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action


Interseting. My scores are
Fire 8.0.1: 209678
Fire 9.0.1: 189552
Water 9.0: 212191

This shows that Firefox 9 is slower than 8 despite it's claimed to be faster.
Waterfox however proved to be a slightly faster than Firefox 8


----------



## Czarnodziej

MY score on Waterfox 9.0 is 427253. Do you have hw accel enabled?


----------



## virtualguy

Why is it that when I directly execute the firefox.exe file, a Waterfox browser window opens instead of a Firefox window? They're not even in the same folder tree. What's up with that???


----------



## hclarkjr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anakunda*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action
> 
> 
> 
> Interseting. My scores are
> Fire 8.0.1: 209678
> Fire 9.0.1: 189552
> Water 9.0: 212191
> 
> This shows that Firefox 9 is slower than 8 despite it's claimed to be faster.
> Waterfox however proved to be a slightly faster than Firefox 8
Click to expand...

i just ran it with waterfox 9.0 and got 638500 with system in signature


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Nightwalker*
> 
> How about SSE 4.1/4.2 or AVX optimizations ?


Unfortunately if I included that then no AMD users would be able to run Waterfox unless they have a Bulldozer CPU.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aximous*
> 
> Do you have plans to release a linux version, MrAlex?


I do an am practicing compiling on linux. I've tried for years to get used to linux but I just don't seem to like it, but there definately is a plan for linux Waterfox.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> MY score on Waterfox 9.0 is 427253. Do you have hw accel enabled?


Quote:



> Originally Posted by *hclarkjr*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Anakunda*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action
> 
> 
> 
> Interseting. My scores are
> Fire 8.0.1: 209678
> Fire 9.0.1: 189552
> Water 9.0: 212191
> 
> This shows that Firefox 9 is slower than 8 despite it's claimed to be faster.
> Waterfox however proved to be a slightly faster than Firefox 8
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i just ran it with waterfox 9.0 and got 638500 with system in signature
Click to expand...

Benchmark scores will differ system to system, depending on how powerful the system is. That's why you cannot compare your results to someone elses results for browser benchmarking.


----------



## tparadox88

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried uninstalling and then reinstalling the Visual C++ Redistributable?


Which version does it rely upon? I downloaded and installed the latest VCredist version, and nothing changed.


----------



## Anakunda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> MY score on Waterfox 9.0 is 427253. Do you have hw accel enabled?


Yes the tests proved a slightly better performance with HW on. But only slightly.
The low index may be caused by alots of extensions active and that it's only 2 core PC with integrated GPU.
Now I run the benchmark at Peacekeeper and get yet more interesting result.

Overall index of Firefox 9.0.1 without HW acceleration given me 851.
Overall index of FF9 with HW acceleration given me 996.
And Waterfox 9.0 with HW acceleraion given me overall score 969 only








Where Waterfox was faster: Rendering (23.50 / 20.90), HTML5 Capabilities and very slightly in Text Parsing (40636,68 / 40352,41).
Where Firefox was faster: HTML5 canvas (18.75 / 17.29), Data (12704,72 / 11229,62) and DOM operations (4871,61 / 4604,93).


----------



## Ceadderman

My score on Waterfox: 412112

My score on Safari: Fail!

In fact it hung up on Safari for a bit and then went to the parsing tests, finished and failed.

I'm currently DLing DE:HR on Steam the whole time as well and doing all this on wireless. Current DL rate is ~165kbps which for Steam is pretty good via wireless.

I don't have a problem with WF now, but from what I see you have there, all looks good MrAlex.









Although maybe look into YouTube failure? I have to change browsers if I wish to watch any Google in 1080p. Oh it'll start to load but then it'll hang. 480 or less works fine. HD? Nope. Don't know why that would be but it be.









*Edit*







Just reran it on Safari and no joke, Safari scored better. *509582*









~Ceadder


----------



## Lord Venom

Safari uses WebKit so it's no real surprise. Chrome should score that high too, actually. To be honest, the benchmarks really don't matter with real world browser usage.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Safari uses WebKit so it's no real surprise. Chrome should score that high too, actually. To be honest, the benchmarks really don't matter with real world browser usage.


Ahh okay. It didn't change my preferred Browser, I was just kind of shocked with the score. I only use Safari to watch HD on Veetle and for the times when someone has something embedded here that doesn't play well with Waterfox. And listening to replays on KNBR so I can get my Sportsfix.









The rest of the time I'm on waterfox.









~Ceadder


----------



## mikorc

Waterfox 195273
Chrome 421198


----------



## Lord Venom

Shame Chrome won't compile 64-bit binaries on Windows, you could do Chrome builds too in addition to Firefox.


----------



## jonathan8

Is there any plan to update Waterfox to 9.01? Waterfox 9.0 works great on my system. Based on its version number and 12/20 release date, it appears to be based on Firefox 9.0 instead of 9.01. The latest version, 9.01, fixed bugs in 9.0.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/9.0.1/releasenotes/
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/hardware/mozilla-pushes-out-firefox-901/17446.


----------



## xd_1771

When Mr.Alex gets back from vacation on January 5th. We haven't noticed the 9.0 bugs that were fixed in 9.0.1 yet though.

I'm hoping for a WF 10 Beta when he gets back!


----------



## BrMBr

http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action

Opera 11.60: 747977
Chrome 16.0.912.63 m: 738352
IE9 (x86): 486571
Firefox 9.0.1: 405397
Waterfox 9.0: 388952
IE9 (x64): 232044


----------



## Le_Loup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BrMBr*
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action
> Opera 11.60: 747977
> Chrome 16.0.912.63 m: 738352
> IE9 (x86): 486571
> Firefox 9.0.1: 405397
> Waterfox 9.0: 388952
> IE9 (x64): 232044
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Life says "move to Chrome", but I resist.


Mine:

Opera 11.60: 827135
Chrome 16.0.912.63 m: 805697
SRWare Iron 10.0.650.1 (80000): 768682 <-- Initial test, realizing I was out of date.
SRWare Iron 16.0.950.0 (115000): 765382
IE9 (x86): 412136
IE9 (x64): 202491
Waterfox 9.0: 440704
Safari 5.1.2 (7534.52.7): 596558

Can't test FF itself, do not have stand alone FF, WF took it over ages ago.

All tests done on rig below, all tests done mostly at the same time, all set affinity to all cores.

Did have 16gb thumb drive as full ready boost just for the hell of it.

- Le_Loup

P.s. Actual timing from opening icon, to functional, to next page, etc. SRWare Iron actually loads the most efficiently and smoothly compared to all. (My opinion). But i'm a waterfox fan myself.


----------



## jonathan8

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> When Mr.Alex gets back from vacation on January 5th. We haven't noticed the 9.0 bugs that were fixed in 9.0.1 yet though.
> I'm hoping for a WF 10 Beta when he gets back!


Thanks for the quick reply.


----------



## kronckew

? - browser mark seems to be mobile phone oriented. it's javascript based.


----------



## runeazn

wow..
waterfox 9.0
benchmark : 58346
and i thought my system was a little good..
seems it sux










if you dont believe me here a screenshot :


----------



## shinobi32

firefox or waterfox


----------



## coffeejunky

Thats just the way firefox works in general. Even if you download Nightly or Aurora the process name is still firefox.exe


----------



## BMT

Thanks for Waterfox Mr. Alex, but I was wondering if I missed some discussion in the topic?
Is there any reason behind wanting to change the version numbers so that they no longer reflect the Official Firefox versions?

Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to stick with them - if you start changing them how are we supposed to know what version they are based on unless you explicitly state it somewhere else (e.g. on the website).

Cheers!


----------



## faulker

I've come across what seems to be a bug.
I'm running Waterfox 9.0 on a Windows 7 64bit system.

When I go to the fallowing site with javascript enabled it causes Waterfox to crash, I've tried running Waterfox in safe-mode with the same results.

http://www.wondershare.com/

FYI: I tested it with Firefox with all the same plug-ins and it doesn't crash.


----------



## Aximous

It doesn't crash for me on 9.0


----------



## faulker

@Aximous, thanks for the feedback, I guess it is something with my system but its strange that it happens on the same page every time once JavaScript is enabled and it doesn't matter if I have plug-ins enabled or disabled.

I'll check my system at home and see how it holds up.

Update: I tried it at home and it seemed to work but it did lock Waterfox up for about 5-10 sec.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Thanks for Waterfox Mr. Alex, but I was wondering if I missed some discussion in the topic?
> Is there any reason behind wanting to change the version numbers so that they no longer reflect the Official Firefox versions?
> Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to stick with them - if you start changing them how are we supposed to know what version they are based on unless you explicitly state it somewhere else (e.g. on the website).
> Cheers!


My sentiments, exactly.


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Thanks for Waterfox Mr. Alex, but I was wondering if I missed some discussion in the topic?
> Is there any reason behind wanting to change the version numbers so that they no longer reflect the Official Firefox versions?
> 
> Personally I think it makes a lot of sense to stick with them - if you start changing them how are we supposed to know what version they are based on unless you explicitly state it somewhere else (e.g. on the website).
> 
> Cheers!


Is Waterfox 9.0 not based on Firefox 9.0?

Sent from my HTC HD2


----------



## virtualguy

After replacing Firefox with Waterfox and using it for two weeks now, I have run into my first problem. Waterfox has somehow broken the Secunia Online Software Inspector at secunia.com. It appears to start a software scan, but never actually scans anything, and it never stops. Secunia supports 64-bit, but somehow, it's just not working.

~V


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ellis*
> 
> Is Waterfox 9.0 not based on Firefox 9.0?


Currently yes, however my understanding based on this:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Alright guys, here's my idea for Watefox 10, I'd like to get some peoples oppinion:
> 
> No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0


Is that for some reason Mr. Alex wants to stop basing the version number on the Official Firefox version numbers. So for whatever reason he wants to label Firefox 9.0.1 as Waterfox 10.0.0.

Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10.1.0, FF 10.0.1, WF 10.1.1, FF 11, WF 10.2.0 and so on.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> After replacing Firefox with Waterfox and using it for two weeks now, I have run into my first problem. Waterfox has somehow broken the Secunia Online Software Inspector at secunia.com. It appears to start a software scan, but never actually scans anything, and it never stops. Secunia supports 64-bit, but somehow, it's just not working.
> 
> ~V


What type of application is it? Is it a plugin? A Java app?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ellis*
> 
> Is Waterfox 9.0 not based on Firefox 9.0?
> 
> 
> 
> Currently yes, however my understanding based on this:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Alright guys, here's my idea for Watefox 10, I'd like to get some peoples oppinion:
> 
> No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that for some reason Mr. Alex wants to stop basing the version number on the Official Firefox version numbers. So for whatever reason he wants to label Firefox 9.0.1 as Waterfox 10.0.0.
> 
> Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10.1.0, FF 10.0.1, WF 10.1.1, FF 11, WF 10.2.0 and so on.
Click to expand...

No, Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10, but from thereon, people don't seem to like the rapid release cycle version numbering. For example look at the huge differences between Firefox 2 -> 3 -> 3.5. That made sense.

That's not to say that the version numbering now doesn't make sense, but for the general user they won't know the difference between Firefox 5 and 8, whereas before they did with 2 -> 3 or 3 -> 4.

It was also just a suggestion and I did ask for feedback on it..


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No, Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10, but from thereon, people don't seem to like the rapid release cycle version numbering. For example look at the huge differences between Firefox 2 -> 3 -> 3.5. That made sense.
> 
> That's not to say that the version numbering now doesn't make sense, but for the general user they won't know the difference between Firefox 5 and 8, whereas before they did with 2 -> 3 or 3 -> 4.
> 
> It was also just a suggestion and I did ask for feedback on it..


Oh right, my apologies then - I assumed based on what you said that 9.0.1 would become 10.0.0.

In any case, personally I'd much prefer Waterfox stuck with the official Firefox version numbers.

In my opinion it keeps things simpler, because otherwise as I said you're going to have to look up which version of Firefox is equal to which version of Waterfox. At the end of the day some people don't like the rapid release cycle at all, but I don't see that as a reason for needing to change the version numbering.

If anything it'll make things more confusing for most people, especially any new users that come along and think you are providing out of date builds.

Thanks again for the time & effort you have put into Waterfox


----------



## MrAlex

Okay, I've compiled 9.0.1 but have only released the update for it, has anyone running 9.0 got an update notification, and if they have was the update successful?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No, Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10, but from thereon, people don't seem to like the rapid release cycle version numbering. For example look at the huge differences between Firefox 2 -> 3 -> 3.5. That made sense.
> 
> That's not to say that the version numbering now doesn't make sense, but for the general user they won't know the difference between Firefox 5 and 8, whereas before they did with 2 -> 3 or 3 -> 4.
> 
> It was also just a suggestion and I did ask for feedback on it..
> 
> 
> 
> Oh right, my apologies then - I assumed based on what you said that 9.0.1 would become 10.0.0.
> 
> In any case, personally I'd much prefer Waterfox stuck with the official Firefox version numbers.
> 
> In my opinion it keeps things simpler, because otherwise as I said you're going to have to look up which version of Firefox is equal to which version of Waterfox. At the end of the day some people don't like the rapid release cycle at all, but I don't see that as a reason for needing to change the version numbering.
> 
> If anything it'll make things more confusing for most people, especially any new users that come along and think you are providing out of date builds.
> 
> Thanks again for the time & effort you have put into Waterfox
Click to expand...

Well nothing is set in stone yet, and thank you for the input


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay, I've compiled 9.0.1 but have only released the update for it, has anyone running 9.0 got an update notification, and if they have was the update successful?


I was not able to get an update notification even if I manually checked via Help -> About, it checked then simply said "Waterfox is up to date".

However, I was able to manually update using the command line updater method and the new update MAR, so I now have 9.0.1 installed and it seems to be working just fine.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well nothing is set in stone yet, and thank you for the input


No problem


----------



## Ellis

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> After replacing Firefox with Waterfox and using it for two weeks now, I have run into my first problem. Waterfox has somehow broken the Secunia Online Software Inspector at secunia.com. It appears to start a software scan, but never actually scans anything, and it never stops. Secunia supports 64-bit, but somehow, it's just not working.
> 
> ~V
> 
> 
> 
> What type of application is it? Is it a plugin? A Java app?
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ellis*
> 
> Is Waterfox 9.0 not based on Firefox 9.0?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Currently yes, however my understanding based on this:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Alright guys, here's my idea for Watefox 10, I'd like to get some peoples oppinion:
> 
> No more rapid release cycle. The first Waterfox.Next build will be 10.0.0. Any small updates will be 10.0.x and any major updates (such as overhaul of the UI or anything big Mozilla or I changes) will be 10.x.0
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is that for some reason Mr. Alex wants to stop basing the version number on the Official Firefox version numbers. So for whatever reason he wants to label Firefox 9.0.1 as Waterfox 10.0.0.
> 
> Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10.1.0, FF 10.0.1, WF 10.1.1, FF 11, WF 10.2.0 and so on.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10, but from thereon, people don't seem to like the rapid release cycle version numbering. For example look at the huge differences between Firefox 2 -> 3 -> 3.5. That made sense.
> That's not to say that the version numbering now doesn't make sense, but for the general user they won't know the difference between Firefox 5 and 8, whereas before they did with 2 -> 3 or 3 -> 4.
> 
> It was also just a suggestion and I did ask for feedback on it..
Click to expand...

Oh right, that's great, because the rapid release cycle is the worst idea ever. They don't release anything rapidly, they just change the version number more often.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What type of application is it? Is it a plugin? A Java app?


The Secunia Online Software Inspector at Secunia.com is a java applet. It gives a status report that says the applet has properly loaded. But, when I click the Start button, it does not scan. It never hits the hard drive, and the status does not show any activity, as it should.

~V


----------



## [email protected]

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> After replacing Firefox with Waterfox and using it for two weeks now, I have run into my first problem. Waterfox has somehow broken the Secunia Online Software Inspector at secunia.com. It appears to start a software scan, but never actually scans anything, and it never stops. Secunia supports 64-bit, but somehow, it's just not working.
> ~V


This is why i didn't download this yet. As much i want to. I run Secunia like yours. Do you have a problem loading profile? Seems like Secunia are still working on it. Abode Flash Player REALLY needs to fix the exploit. They haven't done so.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No, Firefox 10 will be Waterfox 10, but from thereon, people don't seem to like the rapid release cycle version numbering. For example look at the huge differences between Firefox 2 -> 3 -> 3.5. That made sense.
> That's not to say that the version numbering now doesn't make sense, but for the general user they won't know the difference between Firefox 5 and 8, whereas before they did with 2 -> 3 or 3 -> 4.
> 
> It was also just a suggestion and I did ask for feedback on it..


I prefer to keep Waterfox version numbering concurrent with Firefox version numbering. Otherwise it'll be too hard to match up what got patched in the official build and what you added-on as supplemental patches.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay, I've compiled 9.0.1 but have only released the update for it, has anyone running 9.0 got an update notification, and if they have was the update successful?


I have manual updates selected, but the update checker reveals nothing.

Can you please continue to supply full downloadable versions?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay, I've compiled 9.0.1 but have only released the update for it, has anyone running 9.0 got an update notification, and if they have was the update successful?
> 
> 
> 
> I have manual updates selected, but the update checker reveals nothing.
> 
> Can you please continue to supply full downloadable versions?
Click to expand...

I will, I'm just trying to sort out auto-updating


----------



## charlir

NO luck here dont and i have it set on auto even if I bring the About WaterFox says I am uptodate..

Thanks I love WaterFox btw


----------



## chiwou

manual for mar update

copy mar file to C:\Update and rename to update.mar
copy updater.exe and ini to C:\Update (you can find the files in the waterfox installation dir)

Command line code (just create a batch file (editor copy/paste and save as update.cmd and run as admin)

Code:



Code:


"C:\Update\updater.exe" "C:\Update" "C:\Program Files\Waterfox"

make sure waterfox is closed


----------



## charlir

You so lost me mar file?


----------



## azur879

Hi! I seem to have problem with EA's game platform "Origin". I can't seem to update the web-plugin. And the error message i receive tells me that i cannot use internet explorer 64-bit version for origin?

thanks!

//azur


----------



## kronckew

have updated to 9.0.1 via the help-about-update route. update worked fine for me.

after update, tried help-about-check for updates again, it still says update available & recommends installing it rather than saying i have the latest.


----------



## aramil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> have updated to 9.0.1 via the help-about-update route. update worked fine for me.
> after update, tried help-about-check for updates again, it still says update available & recommends installing it rather than saying i have the latest.


Same here for me on the two machines I have WF on


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azur879*
> 
> Hi! I seem to have problem with EA's game platform "Origin". I can't seem to update the web-plugin. And the error message i receive tells me that i cannot use internet explorer 64-bit version for origin?


As mentioned several times in this topic, EA's Battlelog plugin for Battlefield 3 and Origin doesn't have a 64-bit browser compatible version of the plugin. This isn't an issue with Waterfox, but EA since they don't support it. You'll have to use a 32-bit browser for it to work.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, auto-update's still bonked. Even after you update it still prompts you to update hence why I manually update.


----------



## nobody88

Nice project MrAlex.

The file is damaged

waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.complete.mar 2012-01-05 19.1 MB

but differs from the info on Sourgeforge

18.1 MB (19,051,824 bytes)

CRC32: 6C893E56
MD5: 742C6ECD9D36E2AAE120353842F64D3C
SHA-1: E5363149C9CF25047EFDE212D66E22BE0340BADC

Edit:
By the way. I think that is better to respect the Firefox version number to avoid confusions.


----------



## xd_1771

Successful 9.0.1 here.



Worked on the first try. I'll be trying it out more later today.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

how come i don't have the check for updates button ?...the mar batch file trick worked and im upgraded though


----------



## charlir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> how come i don't have the check for updates button ?...the mar batch file trick worked and im upgraded though


I think what they mean is .. Options-Help-About Firefox .. that brings up the is the update little page..

and The Mar file keeps being talked about .. I seemed to have missed something where is that.. ?

Just for the heck of it I set it to not auto update and just used the check for update button .. still no luck.. wonder if has something to do with how i installed the dec 20th build I just over layed what i had already


----------



## virtualguy

A .mar file is a compressed archive, kinda like a .rar or .zip file. Mar stands for Melting-Pot ARchiver. Mozilla apparently uses this type of compression. I don't think it acts like a .exe file, however. This is new to me, too. A little investigative work on your favorite search engine will tell you even more.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Ok, update still doesn't freakin' work. When is a full downloadable 9.0.1 going up on the page, MrAlex?


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> how come i don't have the check for updates button ?...the mar batch file trick worked and im upgraded though
> 
> 
> 
> I think what they mean is .. Options-Help-About Firefox .. that brings up the is the update little page..
> 
> and The Mar file keeps being talked about .. I seemed to have missed something where is that.. ?
> 
> Just for the heck of it I set it to not auto update and just used the check for update button .. still no luck.. wonder if has something to do with how i installed the dec 20th build I just over layed what i had already
Click to expand...

i know that what i mean is that my page doesnt have that button it looks like this

http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/91044083.jpg/


----------



## MrAlex

Great news everybody, Mozilla approved of the Waterfox project and will soon be listed on their website here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Ok, update still doesn't freakin' work. When is a full downloadable 9.0.1 going up on the page, MrAlex?


Sorry, I'm just trying to iron out the final issues with auto-update. And there is nothing amazing about 9.0.1, if anything it's the same as 9.0 except with a single bug fix that Mozilla released that I haven't seen yet.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> how come i don't have the check for updates button ?...the mar batch file trick worked and im upgraded though
> 
> 
> 
> I think what they mean is .. Options-Help-About Firefox .. that brings up the is the update little page..
> 
> and The Mar file keeps being talked about .. I seemed to have missed something where is that.. ?
> 
> Just for the heck of it I set it to not auto update and just used the check for update button .. still no luck.. wonder if has something to do with how i installed the dec 20th build I just over layed what i had already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know that what i mean is that my page doesnt have that button it looks like this
> 
> http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/684/91044083.jpg/
Click to expand...

That's because you're updated to the latest version, which is reassuring to me because that means auto-update is working!


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Great news everybody, Mozilla approved of the Waterfox project and will soon be listed on their website here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html
> 
> Sorry, I'm just trying to iron out the final issues with auto-update. And there is nothing amazing about 9.0.1, if anything it's the same as 9.0 except with a single bug fix that Mozilla released that I haven't seen yet.


Great news to hear Waterfox will now be listed on Mozilla's web site. It's also mentioned on FavBrowser.com (http://www.favbrowser.com/). All the major places I go to I see it mentioned like LifeHacker, etc..

By the way, Firefox 9.0.1 only fixes one bug that caused 9.0 to crash on Mac computers ONLY. There's NO difference or changes for Windows users.


----------



## charlir

Thanks for the update and wow sort of hard to believe they listed it there(Firefox I mean) .. Gratz


----------



## sabidabi

I got automatically updated to Waterfox 9.0.1, but I do not see any announcement on it, nor do I see it in the download tab.
I just wanted to verify that this is a valid update, and that I am not a victim of some kind of a Spyware or fraud.
Thanks.


----------



## farmers

As regards the 9.0.1 update, My About .. Waterfox window shows the version as 9.0 and says I'm up to date. There's no button marked check for update that others have mentioned, so unless Waterfox finds it itself I've no way of looking for it. In Options I have ticks to automatically check for all 3 kinds of updates, including Waterfox itself, and it's set to automatically install any updates. I did see a couple of messages a week or so again saying Waterfox was unable to check for updates, but I don't have the exact message to quote here.

So, what's wrong here ?


----------



## farmers

Aha! I just found that if I untick in options to check automatically, I get a 'check for updates' button in the About dialog. If I click that, it immediately comes back and says Waterfox is up to date - although the version showing is 9.0.


----------



## SilentBug

mmm....unfortunately i receive no update notifications at all...i always have the autoupdate activated but nothing, tried with the check button but nothing yet, and i am still on 8.0.1 with a "firefox is updated" sentence







any help? thanks!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Great news everybody, Mozilla approved of the Waterfox project and will soon be listed on their website here: http://www.mozilla.org/projects/powered-by.html
> 
> Sorry, I'm just trying to iron out the final issues with auto-update. And there is nothing amazing about 9.0.1, if anything it's the same as 9.0 except with a single bug fix that Mozilla released that I haven't seen yet.
> 
> 
> 
> Great news to hear Waterfox will now be listed on Mozilla's web site. It's also mentioned on FavBrowser.com (http://www.favbrowser.com/). All the major places I go to I see it mentioned like LifeHacker, etc..
> 
> By the way, Firefox 9.0.1 only fixes one bug that caused 9.0 to crash on Mac computers ONLY. There's NO difference or changes for Windows users.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and I thought it was weird, didn't notice any bug.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Thanks for the update and wow sort of hard to believe they listed it there(Firefox I mean) .. Gratz


Thanks!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sabidabi*
> 
> I got automatically updated to Waterfox 9.0.1, but I do not see any announcement on it, nor do I see it in the download tab.
> I just wanted to verify that this is a valid update, and that I am not a victim of some kind of a Spyware or fraud.
> Thanks.


Yes it's a legitimate update, I've updated the website to show that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> As regards the 9.0.1 update, My About .. Waterfox window shows the version as 9.0 and says I'm up to date. There's no button marked check for update that others have mentioned, so unless Waterfox finds it itself I've no way of looking for it. In Options I have ticks to automatically check for all 3 kinds of updates, including Waterfox itself, and it's set to automatically install any updates. I did see a couple of messages a week or so again saying Waterfox was unable to check for updates, but I don't have the exact message to quote here.
> 
> So, what's wrong here ?


I just remember that whenever Mozilla rolls out an update, not every gets it at once, so you'll just have to wait a bit until your browser gets notified of it. There's an internal time in about:config for when it checks for updates, you can change the value if you wish, it's measured in seconds.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Aha! I just found that if I untick in options to check automatically, I get a 'check for updates' button in the About dialog. If I click that, it immediately comes back and says Waterfox is up to date - although the version showing is 9.0.


If I'm not mistaken it takes a while to distribute the update to everyone.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SilentBug*
> 
> mmm....unfortunately i receive no update notifications at all...i always have the autoupdate activated but nothing, tried with the check button but nothing yet, and i am still on 8.0.1 with a "firefox is updated" sentence
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any help? thanks!


Waterfox 8.0.1 doesn't have the correct update configurations enabled, but Waterfox 9.0 does.


----------



## SilentBug

When I choose theme, I have no problem, but when ı open the waterfox browser tomorrow, the theme become disable. I use most popular theme(noia,blue fox etc...). What is the problem for the theme?


----------



## BJay

Auto-Update from 9.0 to 9.0.1 worked for me, though there's still the bug that Waterfox keeps on showing "Apply Update" in the About dialog even though the update is already installed.


----------



## cryohellinc

*MrAlex*
I just wanted to say Thank You for making Waterfox, it's simply fantastic!


----------



## xd_1771

I should mention that there is something in particular I have noticed about Waterfox after long periods of use:

After long periods of use, of course, RAM usage climbs (although this should not be a perceivable problem on my system) and (more importantly) apparently, CPU usage climbs too.

Since it seems Waterfox is single threaded as with regular Firefox, CPU usage maxes out at 17% (1/6 cores). The problem I'm having is that after a long period of use (i.e. a couple of hours with several tab opening instances and , Waterfox is slowing down and becoming somewhat sluggish, the reason being that CPU usage starts to peak (and is limited to that one core). Sometimes the browser completely stops responding. This is completely unusual because GPU acceleration should mitigate the need for most of this.

This has been evident in most of the past versions. A quick browser restart usually solves it for me.

I am thinking that this problem might be the cause of certain browser settings - i.e. my profile has basically been imported right up from Firefox 4 (albeit with several optimizations/clean ups done each week). I don't think anyone else is experiencing the problem to the same extent, but just in case.... anyone?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Ok, I don't know *** is going on?

But I keep using Help | About | Check for Updates

I do NOT SEE AN UPDATE

I am getting a little frustrated and would like a proper full executable, please.


----------



## kronckew

after updating, when i go to the 'about' screen i get:



if i click 'check for updates' i get:



all appears to be working as it should. alles in ordnung. :

congrats on the mozilla acceptance


----------



## cryohellinc

Same, don't even get an update message there.


----------



## farmers

As reported yesterday, if I change in options from check automatically to manual update, the 'about' dialog shows me this :-



If I then click 'Check for updates' it shows :-



Doesn't look right to me. I know this update is apparently not important, but that's not the issue.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Ok, I don't know *** is going on?
> 
> But I keep using Help | About | Check for Updates
> 
> I do NOT SEE AN UPDATE
> 
> I am getting a little frustrated and would like a proper full executable, please.


What's the big rush? There is literally *no difference* between 9.0 and 9.0.1, except for Mac users.

But here you go https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cryohellinc*
> 
> Same, don't even get an update message there.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> As reported yesterday, if I change in options from check automatically to manual update, the 'about' dialog shows me this :-
> 
> 
> 
> If I then click 'Check for updates' it shows :-
> 
> 
> 
> Doesn't look right to me. I know this update is apparently not important, but that's not the issue.


Lets see in a few days, because the update might need time spreading to everyone.


----------



## xd_1771

So I just deleted my "Places" sqlite file in my profile folder (which was a whopping 100MB - I know), letting it regenerate, and I think it has quelled the slowdown problem I described. Some other problems including a couple of choose-search-option problems on Google seem to also have been solved.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What's the big rush? There is literally *no difference* between 9.0 and 9.0.1, except for Mac users.
> But here you go https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe
> 
> Lets see in a few days, because the update might need time spreading to everyone.


I don't understand why it would need to spread.. doesn't the "check for updates" simply check the same server for an updated version on EVERY install of firefox/waterfox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medievil*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What's the big rush? There is literally *no difference* between 9.0 and 9.0.1, except for Mac users.
> But here you go https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe
> 
> Lets see in a few days, because the update might need time spreading to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't understand why it would need to spread.. doesn't the "check for updates" simply check the same server for an updated version on EVERY install of firefox/waterfox?
Click to expand...

Well by spread, it means for the internal clock to check for the update. If you type about:config and then type update, there are several timers. For some reason clicking on the check for updates doesn't seem to work very well, and it takes a while for Waterfox to decide, okay lets check for updates.


----------



## cabaflo

Hello,

I am very interested by this 64-bit version of Firefox, but I have a question : it will be a french translation for waterfox ? I wait for this translation, without it, I can't use waterfox fluently so... I hope it will be realised as soon as possible !

Thanks for your work.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cabaflo*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I am very interested by this 64-bit version of Firefox, but I have a question : it will be a french translation for waterfox ? I wait for this translation, without it, I can't use waterfox fluently so... I hope it will be realised as soon as possible !
> 
> Thanks for your work.


Install this:

http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/9.0.1/win32/xpi/fr.xpi

Then type *about:config* in the address bar, search for *general.useragent.locale* and change *en-US* to *fr-FR*.

Restart Waterfox.


----------



## cabaflo

Thanks for your response... But it doesn't work ! I have this error message :
Quote:


> Français Language Pack could not be installed because it is not compatible with waterfox 9.0.


Is there a solution ?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cabaflo*
> 
> Thanks for your response... But it doesn't work ! I have this error message :
> Is there a solution ?


Yes update waterfox
else : http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/%VERSION%/win32/xpi/
where %VERSION% is the number version (here "9.0.1")


----------



## theturbofd

Quick question lately Ive been getting browser freezing with both water fox and normal firefox but never in nightly any ideas?

BTW this browser rocks thanks alot man


----------



## cabaflo

Oh yes it works !!
But the auto-update has not work, I have update with the link present in this forum (https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe). Now, I have waterfox in french... But in the button at the bottom I have marked "Firefox" and no "Waterfox" anymore... Amazing ! But it's not a real problem !

Thanks for your help !!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cabaflo*
> 
> Oh yes it works !!
> But the auto-update has not work, I have update with the link present in this forum (https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe). Now, I have waterfox in french... But in the button at the bottom I have marked "Firefox" and no "Waterfox" anymore... Amazing ! But it's not a real problem !
> 
> Thanks for your help !!


There are a few problems here and there, and yes language packs rename Waterfox to Firefox, but I'll get onto it


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *theturbofd*
> 
> Quick question lately Ive been getting browser freezing with both water fox and normal firefox but never in nightly any ideas?
> BTW this browser rocks thanks alot man


I don't know, me too. I have often with flash, should be seen in the nightly feature. Perhaps the additions made in the cause aurora freeze, whereas normally they are used to consolidate and stabilize firefox. Personally I do not really understand the step aurora, I did not find what it is exactment.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cabaflo*
> 
> But in the button at the bottom I have marked "Firefox" and no "Waterfox" anymore... Amazing ! But it's not a real problem !
> Thanks for your help !!


normal because waterfox does not provide language pack


----------



## terraprime

Hey dude your recompiling of firefox has taken off quite a bit since the last I seen this thread when version 6 was just released. Have yet to use myself ever since I had problems with Pale moon during there version 4 updates made my browser crash instantly when loading flash content. But I would have to say Congrats on you getting a webpage powered by Mozillia. I will prob try it out here soon since we have x64 versions of the most used plugins now.

Anyways good job, keep up the work and everyone else that is helping, or helped this bad boy get kicking. And ill let you know how it runs on my win7 compared to firefox. PEACE!


----------



## anitac

Is there a 64 bit version of flash for other browsers (as opposed to for Internet Explorer) and how do you install it? I downloaded the 64/32 bit installer and it installed 32 bit flash (according to Control Panel). At the time I only had Firefox installed so it made sense but now I wish to use Waterfox.


----------



## doctorx

you have to reinstall flash after you install waterfox.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anitac*
> 
> Is there a 64 bit version of flash for other browsers (as opposed to for Internet Explorer) and how do you install it? I downloaded the 64/32 bit installer and it installed 32 bit flash (according to Control Panel). At the time I only had Firefox installed so it made sense but now I wish to use Waterfox.


uninstall all version of flash 32bit, after if you're in win 64bit install only version 64bit of flash. For more info go to website of waterfox.


----------



## misoonigiri

Hi,

Using Waterfox 9.0 & 9.0.1, unable to download Thunderbird via http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/.

The download button is not rendered, also clicking on download hyperlink does not lead to same download page as with other browsers.

Thanks.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What's the big rush? There is literally *no difference* between 9.0 and 9.0.1, except for Mac users.
> But here you go https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe
> 
> Lets see in a few days, because the update might need time spreading to everyone.


Hi - how many days should it take for the updates to filter through ? Clicking 'check for updates' is still telling me that 9.0 is up to date.


----------



## runeazn

WEll it seems like norton 360 detects it as dangerous file like always when i update but,
this time i need to update everytime the update isnt permanent, maybe its 360 deleting..


----------



## cryohellinc

In fact for me 9.0.1 gave instability, now RARELY but occurs some pages just hand up. And only way to solve is to close waterfox process in task manager.


----------



## Phoenixlight

Why am I only hearing about this web browser now?! :O I don't think waterfox is a very good name though, sounds slower than firefox.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phoenixlight*
> 
> Why am I only hearing about this web browser now?! :O I don't think waterfox is a very good name though, sounds slower than firefox.


lrn2 elementals








Water > Fire


----------



## tparadox88

I seem to have been lost in the thread traffic. I asked about how to fix the error oxc000007b startup crash, and was asked to uninstall/reinstall the Visual C++ Redistributable.

There are many different versions of the Visual C++ Redistributable installed on my machine. I installed the latest version and nothing changed, so I asked which version I should uninstall/reinstall and got no reply.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *terraprime*
> 
> Hey dude your recompiling of firefox has taken off quite a bit since the last I seen this thread when version 6 was just released. Have yet to use myself ever since I had problems with Pale moon during there version 4 updates made my browser crash instantly when loading flash content. But I would have to say Congrats on you getting a webpage powered by Mozillia. I will prob try it out here soon since we have x64 versions of the most used plugins now.
> 
> Anyways good job, keep up the work and everyone else that is helping, or helped this bad boy get kicking. And ill let you know how it runs on my win7 compared to firefox. PEACE!


Thanks a lot for that post, it really made my day the other day when I read it









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anitac*
> 
> Is there a 64 bit version of flash for other browsers (as opposed to for Internet Explorer) and how do you install it? I downloaded the 64/32 bit installer and it installed 32 bit flash (according to Control Panel). At the time I only had Firefox installed so it made sense but now I wish to use Waterfox.


On the Waterfox download page.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Using Waterfox 9.0 & 9.0.1, unable to download Thunderbird via http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/.
> 
> The download button is not rendered, also clicking on download hyperlink does not lead to same download page as with other browsers.
> 
> Thanks.


http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/all.html

Select the language you want?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What's the big rush? There is literally *no difference* between 9.0 and 9.0.1, except for Mac users.
> But here you go https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe
> 
> Lets see in a few days, because the update might need time spreading to everyone.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi - how many days should it take for the updates to filter through ? Clicking 'check for updates' is still telling me that 9.0 is up to date.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure? Could you type *about:config*, then type *update* in the filter and post a screenshot of your settings please?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *runeazn*
> 
> WEll it seems like norton 360 detects it as dangerous file like always when i update but,
> this time i need to update everytime the update isnt permanent, maybe its 360 deleting..


That could be a possibility. Have you tried disabling Norton while installing the update?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cryohellinc*
> 
> In fact for me 9.0.1 gave instability, now RARELY but occurs some pages just hand up. And only way to solve is to close waterfox process in task manager.


I don't see why it's doing that, if that happens then possibly use 9.0? There isn't any difference between 9.0 and 9.0.1 for Windows users anyway, but it was being demanded.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Phoenixlight*
> 
> Why am I only hearing about this web browser now?! :O I don't think waterfox is a very good name though, sounds slower than firefox.


Well I liked it, seemed like the opposite of Firefox









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tparadox88*
> 
> I seem to have been lost in the thread traffic. I asked about how to fix the error oxc000007b startup crash, and was asked to uninstall/reinstall the Visual C++ Redistributable.
> 
> There are many different versions of the Visual C++ Redistributable installed on my machine. I installed the latest version and nothing changed, so I asked which version I should uninstall/reinstall and got no reply.


Have you got any windows restore points? If so, try to use them.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-windows_programs/error-code-oxc000007b/b0bdfbe4-0895-4f86-904f-97bfe5c5a1ae

Also, I can only give answers as good as Google tells them. This isn't a very common issue, and is usually caused by a conflicting application or software change. The most common way of dealing with it seems to be:


Reinstalling the .NET framework or
Reinstalling the Redistributable (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/en/details.aspx?displaylang=en&FamilyID=bd512d9e-43c8-4655-81bf-9350143d5867) or
Using a system restore point.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm not sure? Could you type *about:config*, then type *update* in the filter and post a screenshot of your settings please?


Hi - here's the update items from about:config - there's more than 1 screenfull so I've captured both pages.


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/all.html
> Select the language you want?


Thanks, i'd managed to download Thunderbird via another browser.









But still kind of curious why http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird doesn't work well with Waterfox...


----------



## cryohellinc

works well for me


----------



## misoonigiri

Oic, so it's only me? I tried new profile, and restart with addons disabled. Still not working for that page.

Anything else to I should try?


----------



## 98uk

Is there anyway to use the Battlelog plugins on this?


----------



## csm725

No








Battlelog is 32 bit :/


----------



## Lord Venom

As said many times in this thread, Battlelog's plugin is for 32-bit browsers only. Nothing can be done to change that unless EA/DICE releases a 64-bit browser plugin.


----------



## Pierre771

Hello everybody

Thks a lot to the project, nice program, nice work. Main Mozilla project should have already done a 64 bits Firefox edition..

I don't need neither Silverlight nor Java (Oracle/Sun) but I miss many other plugins (I say plugins, not extensions).
Waterfox should admit 32 bits plugins because it's very unpleasant not having them (Google talk, Google earth and others).

Unfortunately Waterfox can't be used so.

Better using a separate profile.

It seems Waterfox 9.0.1 does not exist, only 9.0


----------



## Lord Venom

64-bit browsers cannot use 32-bit plugins. There's no way around that and there's nothing Alex can do to support those plugins. Waterfox 9.0.1 exists, it was posted a few pages back and it's available from auto-update.


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> 64-bit browsers cannot use 32-bit plugins. There's no way around that and there's nothing Alex can do to support those plugins. Waterfox 9.0.1 exists, it was posted a few pages back and it's available from auto-update.


Sorry I have not found 9.0.1 anywhere (do you have a link ?) and the auto-update says 9.0 is up to date.


----------



## KILLER_K

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> Sorry I have not found 9.0.1 anywhere (do you have a link ?) and the auto-update says 9.0 is up to date.


https://rapidshare.com/files/202754635/waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe

Thanks


----------



## Pierre771

Thanks a lot !


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> 64-bit browsers cannot use 32-bit plugins. There's no way around that and there's nothing Alex can do to support those plugins.


I come back to this topic and your answer.

Currently and in Windows, it seems it's currently not possible, that's right.

I am not a specialist and there are few articles about it but I found this one : it seems it exists in Linux (nspluginwrapper) cf here and here

It seems this kind of functionality will be necessary to generalize 64 bits browser editions.

Regards


----------



## Lord Venom

Which will never happen. That's why I keep Firefox and Waterfox set up with different profiles.


----------



## Pierre771

I agree about separate profiles, anyway. Necessary and logical.

But I find you pessimist...


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> I should mention that there is something in particular I have noticed about Waterfox after long periods of use:
> After long periods of use, of course, RAM usage climbs (although this should not be a perceivable problem on my system) and (more importantly) apparently, CPU usage climbs too.
> 
> Since it seems Waterfox is single threaded as with regular Firefox, CPU usage maxes out at 17% (1/6 cores). The problem I'm having is that after a long period of use (i.e. a couple of hours with several tab opening instances and , Waterfox is slowing down and becoming somewhat sluggish, the reason being that CPU usage starts to peak (and is limited to that one core). Sometimes the browser completely stops responding. This is completely unusual because GPU acceleration should mitigate the need for most of this.
> 
> This has been evident in most of the past versions. A quick browser restart usually solves it for me.
> 
> I am thinking that this problem might be the cause of certain browser settings - i.e. my profile has basically been imported right up from Firefox 4 (albeit with several optimizations/clean ups done each week). I don't think anyone else is experiencing the problem to the same extent, but just in case.... anyone?










This may be why my PPD output tanked. I keep my Browser open 24/7.









~Ceadder


----------



## King Maliken

Seems to be good so far, I wont be using it as my primary browser until I'm done my tests. Right now I'm testing it's security, it shares all the fails as FF so far(which is safer than most other browsers I've tested) and now wondering if it has some of it's own.


----------



## Swag

I have version 9.0.1 and I just reinstalled it. As well as my entire OS because of this amazing 830. My Waterfox without any add-ons becomes sluggish and slow after around an hour of use. Any recommendations? It doesn't happen as much in Firefox, but the robustness of Waterfox is better than Firefox.


----------



## shadow82

Can i change language to hungarian? Thanks


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shadow82*
> 
> Can i change language to hungarian? Thanks


The specialists will answer but Waterfox is available only in American English. I don't have a French version either.

Dictionaries and language packages

You can install a dictionary for orthographic correction in your language.

Languages packages are available only for some languages such as some minority languages (there is Romanian, not Hungarian !)


----------



## mikeynavy1976

I'm trying to update my Waterfox to 9.0.1. Everytime I go in the About Waterfox and "Check for Updates" it says that the current 9.0 is the current release. How do I get the "internal updater" to update to 9.0.1?


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikeynavy1976*
> 
> I'm trying to update my Waterfox to 9.0.1. Everytime I go in the About Waterfox and "Check for Updates" it says that the current 9.0 is the current release. How do I get the "internal updater" to update to 9.0.1?


Same still happening here. I have 2 profiles, but neither show any update available and tell me 9.0 is the latest. Did the settings I provided the other day from about:config show why the update isn't working ? I understand 9.0.1 isn't an important update, but it's still worrying that the update mechanism appears to be broken.


----------



## Itchywolf

Hi there! I have been loving Waterfox for a long time now, and would like to thank everyone involved in it's development and availability... BUT, I too have NEVER had ANY luck with the automatic updates EVER, I'm sorry I'm drawing a blank because I've gotten so used to it, but I think the error I get is something like "Unable to verify that Waterfox is up-to-date." or something like that. I really never gave a crap because I would just come and download it manually but now I see 9.0.1 is ONLY available through the auto-updater, so I thought I would add to the list of people unable to update. Is there a specific windows service or IP address requirement (I'm on satellite internet behind a wireless router as well, so my IP is pretty wonky, google always thinks I'm 500 miles from where I actually am... IN SPACE!! WOOOSH PEW PEW!! **KLAXXON** BATTLE STATIONS!)? Not sure what else I can say, am pretty wasted out of my mind,







but I'm happy to hear Mozilla is on board with this project, always thought it was totally B.S. that they don't have a 64-bit version available for download.

And yes I also see CPU and RAM spikes after prolonged browser usage, it tends to run slower the longer I use it but it's never gotten so bad that I've shut it down and restarted to get it to speed up again, but I thought that was just what FireFox does even when its 32-bit, so I don't think a 64-bit compiled version of buggy code is going to fix an original firefox coding problem/bug. I don't care how buggy Firefox is I believe in Mozilla, and I always have. Google has gone off the reservation and is now completely disregarding it's mission statement of "Don't be evil." They are SOOO evil. I can't prove it, but driving vans around taking pictures of everyone and everything? HOW IS THAT NOT EVIL? Plus I'm on satellite internet and have usage limits and their little pre-fetch cheat to make the browser seem faster is TOTAL B.S. Yeah, I'm sure Firefox would be fast if it did things I specifically DIDN'T ask it to do! Like download everything as I type it, using up my valuable kilobytes! Oh crap, 5am rant, so sorry, LOVE YOU WATERFOX MAN/MEN/GIRLS/WOMEN/NARWHALS/ANIMATRONIO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Lord Venom

You can download 9.0.1 from a link posted a few pages back and manually update.


----------



## misoonigiri

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misoonigiri*
> 
> Hi,
> Using Waterfox 9.0 & 9.0.1, unable to download Thunderbird via http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/thunderbird/.
> The download button is not rendered, also clicking on download hyperlink does not lead to same download page as with other browsers.
> Thanks.


I found that I get the same problem with Firefox Nightly 64bit & IE9 64bit as well. So its not a Waterfox problem.

Thanks


----------



## zakazak2

Hi, a few weeks ago I switched from Firefox to Waterfox. Waterfox somehow uses the existing Firefox installation which means that all my addons/extensions (includeing quakelive) were available in Waterfox and worked just as fine as with Firefox. So I was happy until the quakelive update this/last week came out. I can't seem to get it work with Waterfox. If I try installing it via Waterfox then I will always get stuck at the "wait for installer to run" page. No matter if I run the installer as admin or standard user. I press "repair queklive", it installs but the quakelive.com website won't reload/go forward. If I reload the page, it wants me to run the installer again.

I then tried the update via Firefox. Worked fine and I could play quakelive.. but only with Firefox. Waterfox doesn't seem to work anymore with quakelive.

Anyone had simliar problems with quakelive & waterfox? Any fix for this?

Thanks


----------



## Lord Venom

Yes, you can't use 32-bit plugins in a 64-bit browser like Waterfox. It's a common issue people trying Waterfox encounter and need to understand that many site's plugins will NOT work in Waterfox.


----------



## zakazak2

I was able to play quakelive with waterfox.. until an update of quakelive got released.

Well is there at least a way to run waters & firefox at the same time?

@edit: isn't flash a 32bit plugin as well?


----------



## FranOnTheEdge

I have downloaded Waterfox (as I have 64bit windows 7) but I want to be able to switch back to FireFox if something goes wrong or some AddOn or Extension doesn't work. I understand that in order to do this I need to 'create separate profiles' - I've never done this before, so are there any instructions on how to do this anywhere?

I did look in the FAQs but there was nothing about how to do this in there.

Help?

Fran


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zakazak2*
> 
> I was able to play quakelive with waterfox.. until an update of quakelive got released.
> 
> Well is there at least a way to run waters & firefox at the same time?
> 
> @edit: isn't flash a 32bit plugin as well?


No, the plugins listed on the download website are for 64-Bit versions of the plugins.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FranOnTheEdge*
> 
> I have downloaded Waterfox (as I have 64bit windows 7) but I want to be able to switch back to FireFox if something goes wrong or some AddOn or Extension doesn't work. I understand that in order to do this I need to 'create separate profiles' - I've never done this before, so are there any instructions on how to do this anywhere?
> 
> I did look in the FAQs but there was nothing about how to do this in there.
> 
> Help?
> 
> Fran


http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Managing-profiles


----------



## zakazak2

Hmm still I was able to play quakelive with waterfox for ~2 weeks oO

And how can I start firefox with it's profile then? Firefox.exe -p profilename ?

Thanks


----------



## Pierre771

"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe" "-p"


----------



## Pierre771

Each of the 2 Flash player programs (for IE, a control activX, and for FF and others, a plugin) is created/updated in the 2 editions : 32 and 64. A good solution.

Flash

For Java you must decide it manually

Java


----------



## zakazak2

That won't work:

I closed waterfox/firefox.

did win + r -> firefox.exe -p

created another profile. I ran Waterfox with my original profile.

I then created a shortcut for /mozilla firefox/firefox.exe -p .. when I execute it, it will just open waterfox


----------



## Caspid

you sure the shortcut target is:
C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe -p "profilename"
?


----------



## Pierre771

You can't execute 2 Firefox instances at the same time


----------



## Lord Venom

Yes you can. Add -no-remote to the shortcut and you can run multiple Firefox builds at once. Here's how my Waterfox shortcut looks...

"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe" -P "Waterfox" -no-remote


----------



## Pierre771

That's right, it works fine, thks !


----------



## runeazn

yeah it climbed up to 3GB and said well its not laggy but this is way 2 much ram
i only have 6GB XD


----------



## ilikevoltaire

So I am using waterfox for the first time, today, and it actually seems worse than firefox. In general when it comes to new tabs and opening new sites, and especially rough around the e dges when dealing with embedded flash like twitch.tv videos. Am I alone in this observation? I wasn't really expecting things to be very much better, if at all, but I am puzzled by finding them to be distinctly worse than my normal firefox experiences. I'm planning on doing some side by side comparisons later tonight.


----------



## cryohellinc

specify. Here all works perfectly stable and same as firefox, but twice as fast.


----------



## Pierre771

For me, Waterfox runs fine but with absolutely the same speed as Firefox and both of them slower than Chrome







(W7 64 bits)

Anyway Waterfox is a very interesting experience but there wil be an official 64 bits Firefox within few months


----------



## xd_1771

The official 64-bit Firefox build might not be optimized for things like SSE, SSE2, SSE3.... etc


----------



## Pierre771

Yes, and is Waterfox optimized for it ?


----------



## Lord Venom

Yes, it is.


----------



## medievil

ok... mine is still at version 9.0... this morning I got this though

"Waterfox is unable to determine if there is an update available. Please make sure you have the latest version of Waterfox
from:
http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net"

so it's trying to check for an update but something is stopping it from seeing one


----------



## Pierre771

The site you are mentioning says 9.0.1 is available but the file to donwload is 9.0 and the automatic update doesn't run.

Above someone gave me an address to donwload 9.0.1 but his file is now expired.


----------



## Brenda

I also have the same issue as the above poster. I downloaded the 9.0 version and tried the updater to get 9.0.1 (as described in the Waterfox website) and nothing happened. It says my version is up-to-date. I don't know if something is going wrong.

Also, I'd like to suggest offering an alternative build with SSE4.1 optimizations. I don't know how much of a difference that would make, but a large number of us are using compatible processors and could make use of it. And for those who don't, they could still download the SSE3 build.

Thanks a lot in advance!









-Brenda


----------



## MrAlex

Good news, I finally got the RSS feed working on the website!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> The site you are mentioning says 9.0.1 is available but the file to donwload is 9.0 and the automatic update doesn't run.
> 
> Above someone gave me an address to donwload 9.0.1 but his file is now expired.


Waterfox 10 is almost released so there's no need for 9.0.1, which didn't even make any changes for windows.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brenda*
> 
> I also have the same issue as the above poster. I downloaded the 9.0 version and tried the updater to get 9.0.1 (as described in the Waterfox website) and nothing happened. It says my version is up-to-date. I don't know if something is going wrong.
> 
> Also, I'd like to suggest offering an alternative build with SSE4.1 optimizations. I don't know how much of a difference that would make, but a large number of us are using compatible processors and could make use of it. And for those who don't, they could still download the SSE3 build.
> 
> Thanks a lot in advance!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -Brenda


There are lots of problems compiling with SSE3+ so Waterfox 10 will mostly likely have PGO as the newest improvement.


----------



## stukav

Began using Waterfox... I'm running it on facebook; it seems to have slower response after like 30mins of use. Even clicking on the facebook tab takes half second before it switches to that tab (I don't experience this on chrome or firefox, though). Is this normal? :v


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> ... Waterfox 10 will mostly likely have PGO as the newest improvement.


for those unfamiliar with PGO:

PGO Optimization for mozilla: Linky


----------



## Brenda

Thanks for your reply!


----------



## Pierre771

_Waterfox 10 is almost released so there's no need for 9.0.1, which didn't even make any changes for windows._

Yes, I know, but the pb is elsewhere : does automatic update run normally ?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> _Waterfox 10 is almost released so there's no need for 9.0.1, which didn't even make any changes for windows._
> Yes, I know, but the pb is elsewhere : does automatic update run normally ?


I think a problem of link in "app.update.url", or problem with sourceforge. Because the rest looks correct.
Good luck MrAlex









Edit: your address is "http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net" or is "http://waterfoxproject.org"?


----------



## sweetmax

absolutely love it, speed is just amazing







. in my case WaterFox is way faster then Firefox (64bit i know







)
but still high CPU usage while running flash. I'm not having this issue in Google Chrome but disabling plugin-container helped me to cool it down.
great browser. In my case I had to switch between chrome and Firefox because of speed and the way Firefox handles the plug-ins but now after almost 8H browsing I'm quite happy with it :king:so I went back to leave a reply. again it's amazing browser I love it totally. great work guys


----------



## Derko1

I love how quick waterfox is! One question I had... is in regards to tweaks that work with firefox to speed up loading of sites... do these tweaks also work on waterfox?


----------



## farmers

I happened to leave Waterfox open last night, on my second profile. The main profile is set for manual updates, and as reported before it still says 9.0 is the latest version if I click to check. The other profile does auto-updates, and this morning the following was on-screen :-



Why is this still happening ? Will the updates work correctly in version 10 ?


----------



## SilentBug

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> I happened to leave Waterfox open last night, on my second profile. The main profile is set for manual updates, and as reported before it still says 9.0 is the latest version if I click to check. The other profile does auto-updates, and this morning the following was on-screen :-
> 
> Why is this still happening ? Will the updates work correctly in version 10 ?


same here! let's hope the new update is working fine


----------



## Lord Venom

Like said before, search in this topic on how to setup auto-update.


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Good news, I finally got the RSS feed working on the website!
> 
> Waterfox 10 is almost released so there's no need for 9.0.1, which didn't even make any changes for windows.
> 
> There are lots of problems compiling with SSE3+ so Waterfox 10 will mostly likely have PGO as the newest improvement.


Hi, MrAlex.
One thing you should really consider is shipping the MSVC runtime. mozconfig can be used or a system var.

export WIN32_REDIST_DIR="/d/redist/x64/Microsoft.VC100.CRT"

Play around with the spaces in that path or just copy the redist folder in a directory without spaces and everything should be fine.

/O2 is equivalent to /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy which means you can remove -Ob2 -Oy
/favor:blend is on by default so you remove that too

More info here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f8h5cxt.aspx

Now, PGO will make a big difference that's for sure. But there's a bug in the amd64 compiler which won't allow you to use it. There are some workarounds like using the cross compiler, I can't find the link though.

If you figure this out, please let me know cause I'm interested myself for this.

PS. Καλησπέρα από Ελλάδα


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Good news, I finally got the RSS feed working on the website!
> 
> Waterfox 10 is almost released so there's no need for 9.0.1, which didn't even make any changes for windows.
> 
> There are lots of problems compiling with SSE3+ so Waterfox 10 will mostly likely have PGO as the newest improvement.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi, MrAlex.
> One thing you should really consider is shipping the MSVC runtime. mozconfig can be used or a system var.
> 
> export WIN32_REDIST_DIR="/d/redist/x64/Microsoft.VC100.CRT"
> 
> Play around with the spaces in that path or just copy the redist folder in a directory without spaces and everything should be fine.
> 
> /O2 is equivalent to /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy which means you can remove -Ob2 -Oy
> /favor:blend is on by default so you remove that too
> 
> More info here http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f8h5cxt.aspx
> 
> Now, PGO will make a big difference that's for sure. But there's a bug in the amd64 compiler which won't allow you to use it. There are some workarounds like using the cross compiler, I can't find the link though.
> 
> If you figure this out, please let me know cause I'm interested myself for this.
> 
> PS. Καλησπέρα από Ελλάδα
Click to expand...

Thanks, I already use -O2 and specify -favour:blend just in case. Also for the next build I've included the redistributable (I tried using WIN32_REDIST before but it kept on getting ignored, but has worked this time round). I just listed out all the flags in case anyone was curious. I've managed to compile with PGO fine so far, but I'm attemtping to use Intel's compiler so that I can use -O3 (or -fast) and -arch:SSE3 as well as PGO. But for some reason the ICC has problems with linking the libraries and it's bugging me. I've contacted Intel about it and they're still trying to see why. I can imagine a large speed boost with those improvements.

και καλησπέρα


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Thanks, I already use -O2 and specify -favour:blend just in case. Also for the next build I've included the redistributable (I tried using WIN32_REDIST before but it kept on getting ignored, but has worked this time round). I just listed out all the flags in case anyone was curious. I've managed to compile with PGO fine so far, but I'm attemtping to use Intel's compiler so that I can use -O3 (or -fast) and -arch:SSE3 as well as PGO. But for some reason the ICC has problems with linking the libraries and it's bugging me. I've contacted Intel about it and they're still trying to see why. I can imagine a large speed boost with those improvements.


Well, there is no just in case; the default switches are the default ones







Just saying, they are just useless.

As for ICL, I wouldn't suggest using it for Firefox yet. /O3 is a lot of times buggy so it needs a lot of testing. Also, you better use /Qax which shouldn't limit the CPUs the final executable can run on but should be faster on those CPUs which support that specific SIMD. Plus you can specify various /Qax and the compiler should generate a different codebase for each one. /Qipo is a neat option but compilation might fail since it has a couple of bugs even with 12.1.2.079. You might be interested in this.

Just keep using MSVC 2010 for the main build and play around with ICL. I have also started playing with ICL and Firefox, but there are so many problems. Next week or so Intel will release a new update for their compiler which should have a couple important fixes.

PS. Feel free to contact me, I have "some" experience with this stuff and I already build Firefox myself so two people should be better than one


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Thanks, I already use -O2 and specify -favour:blend just in case. Also for the next build I've included the redistributable (I tried using WIN32_REDIST before but it kept on getting ignored, but has worked this time round). I just listed out all the flags in case anyone was curious. I've managed to compile with PGO fine so far, but I'm attemtping to use Intel's compiler so that I can use -O3 (or -fast) and -arch:SSE3 as well as PGO. But for some reason the ICC has problems with linking the libraries and it's bugging me. I've contacted Intel about it and they're still trying to see why. I can imagine a large speed boost with those improvements.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, there is no just in case; the default switches are the default ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just saying, they are just useless.
> 
> As for ICL, I wouldn't suggest using it for Firefox yet. /O3 is a lot of times buggy so it needs a lot of testing. Also, you better use /Qax which shouldn't limit the CPUs the final executable can run on but should be faster on those CPUs which support that specific SIMD. Plus you can specify various /Qax and the compiler should generate a different codebase for each one. /Qipo is a neat option but compilation might fail since it has a couple of bugs even with 12.1.2.079. You might be interested in this.
> 
> Just keep using MSVC 2010 for the main build and play around with ICL. I have also started playing with ICL and Firefox, but there are so many problems. Next week or so Intel will release a new update for their compiler which should have a couple important fixes.
> 
> PS. Feel free to contact me, I have "some" experience with this stuff and I already build Firefox myself so two people should be better than one
Click to expand...

Fair enough but I'm always paranoid that some things won't happen unless I specifically imply them, such as I always check if I've typed a command correct letter by letter







and I'm very wary about using /Qax because it provides no benefit at all to AMD users. Although the AMD base is small I'd still like to cater for them. The next build will probably be MSVC unless the ICC works, and works better. After all the main point is to get the most performance possible







And I've looked at many different ways of compiling Firefox with ICC but still get the same LNK errors.

And I definitely won't hesitate to contact you, thank you. Might contact you in this thread just in case people are interested to know what's going on









Edit:

I'm not the only one that does it







:

http://pcxfirefox.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mozconfig/x64/firefox/.mozconfig

ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O2 -Ot -Oi -Ob2 -Oy -GT -Gy -GF -GL *-favor:blend*"


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Fair enough but I'm always paranoid that some things won't happen unless I specifically imply them, such as I always check if I've typed a command correct letter by letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'm very wary about using /Qax because it provides no benefit at all to AMD users. Although the AMD base is small I'd still like to cater for them. The next build will probably be MSVC unless the ICC works, and works better. After all the main point is to get the most performance possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've looked at many different ways of compiling Firefox with ICC but still get the same LNK errors.
> 
> And I definitely won't hesitate to contact you, thank you. Might contact you in this thread just in case people are interested to know what's going on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> I'm not the only one that does it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> http://pcxfirefox.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mozconfig/x64/firefox/.mozconfig
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O2 -Ot -Oi -Ob2 -Oy -GT -Gy -GF -GL [B]-favor:blend[/B]"


I know what you mean, I do it sometimes too, but it's better to keep things clean when possible









As for that link, as they say: "Η ημιμάθεια είναι χειρότερη της αμάθειας."









By default the Intel compiler's using /arch:SSE2 if /arch isn't specified, but this shouldn't matter in your case since all 64bit CPUs have SSE2 (and no I don't count some ancient AMD CPUs







)

/Qax isn't /Qx; it doesn't generate code for Intel CPUs only. That's what /Qx does.

http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studio/composer/en-us/2011/compiler_c/copts/common_options/option_ax_lcase.htm


----------



## djkilla

Test....


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Fair enough but I'm always paranoid that some things won't happen unless I specifically imply them, such as I always check if I've typed a command correct letter by letter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and I'm very wary about using /Qax because it provides no benefit at all to AMD users. Although the AMD base is small I'd still like to cater for them. The next build will probably be MSVC unless the ICC works, and works better. After all the main point is to get the most performance possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I've looked at many different ways of compiling Firefox with ICC but still get the same LNK errors.
> 
> And I definitely won't hesitate to contact you, thank you. Might contact you in this thread just in case people are interested to know what's going on
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit:
> I'm not the only one that does it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :
> http://pcxfirefox.googlecode.com/svn/trunk/mozconfig/x64/firefox/.mozconfig
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> ac_add_options --enable-optimize="-O2 -Ot -Oi -Ob2 -Oy -GT -Gy -GF -GL [B]-favor:blend[/B]"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know what you mean, I do it sometimes too, but it's better to keep things clean when possible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for that link, as they say: "Η ημιμάθεια είναι χειρότερη της αμάθειας."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> By default the Intel compiler's using /arch:SSE2 if /arch isn't specified, but this shouldn't matter in your case since all 64bit CPUs have SSE2 (and no I don't count some ancient AMD CPUs
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> /Qax isn't /Qx; it doesn't generate code for Intel CPUs only. That's what /Qx does.
> 
> http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studio/composer/en-us/2011/compiler_c/copts/common_options/option_ax_lcase.htm
Click to expand...

I always liked Greek sayings, they generally tend to be correct as well







Yeah, Microsoft's compiler includes SSE2 by default as well for 64-Bit builds.

I believe that for that to happen I need to specify both /Qax and /arch:

Quote:


> If you specify both the -ax and -m options (Linux) or the /Qax and /arch options (Windows), the baseline code will execute on non-Intel processors compatible with the processor type specified by the -m or /arch option.


Whereas if I don't specify /arch with /Qax:

Quote:


> Tells the compiler to generate multiple, processor-specific auto-dispatch code paths for Intel processors if there is a performance benefit.


Which I assume will do nothing for AMD processors?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Mr Alex - Don't know if this will help but I believe the builder of PCXFirefox and other builders of optimized Firefox discuss different techniques and share info using TeTe's message board. Check it out and go through some of the topics. I suggest asking any questions you may have. Everyone seems to be very friendly and knowledgeable on building optimized versions of Firefox. Hope this helps you!
> 
> TeTe's message board:
> http://cgi38.plala.or.jp/tete009/board.cgi


Thanks for that link, I've asked about my problem and maybe they might be able to help me out!


----------



## LordKitsuna

sadly it would seem that WaterFox is slower on my computer then Mozilla's own X64 nightly, keep up the work i'll keep my eye on it


----------



## Lord Venom

I hope you know Nightly is newer than the current Waterfox build. For a valid test, test Waterfox against the latest stable version of Firefox (currently Firefox 9).


----------



## LordKitsuna

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I hope you know Nightly is newer than the current Waterfox build. For a valid test, test Waterfox against the latest stable version of Firefox (currently Firefox 9).


yea that is true, but i use nightly as my main browser (have for over a year with no issues







) so if i am going to look at a replacement i will naturally compare it to what i am currently using


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I always liked Greek sayings, they generally tend to be correct as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, Microsoft's compiler includes SSE2 by default as well for 64-Bit builds.
> 
> I believe that for that to happen I need to specify both /Qax and /arch:
> 
> Whereas if I don't specify /arch with /Qax:
> 
> Which I assume will do nothing for AMD processors?
> 
> Thanks for that link, I've asked about my problem and maybe they might be able to help me out!


/arch:SSE2 is the default for any x64 compiler and specifically for Intel compiler for 32bit builds too. So you only need to specify /QaxXXXX if you want to generate additional code for a specific architecture which will run on any CPU (intel and AMD).


----------



## Drag0nR3b0rn

I have two problems with Waterfox I hope you can assist with:

I'm unable to update 9.0 to 9.0.1 - the Help-> about dialog says that Waterfox is up to date, and the update wizard that is launched on Waterfox start errors with "no update found" message.
The Evernote web clipper addon doesn't work with Waterfox (I understand that this is probably an issue with the addon and x64, as this happens on Pale Moon x64 as well, but this is a deal breaker for me - and I'd be glad to be able to have it solved so I can enjoy using Waterfox, which is great except this issue. I've send a ticket about it to Evernote as well).
Keep the great job, and thanks for the help =)


----------



## medievil

addon's have to be fixed by the addon maker.. (probably recompiled for 64bit) most likely...


----------



## Lord Venom

It can't be solved by anyone except the creator of the plugin - they'd need to release a x64 browser compatible version for it to work otherwise you'd probably be better off sticking with 32-bit Firefox.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medievil*
> 
> addon's have to be fixed by the addon maker.. (probably recompiled for 64bit) most likely...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> It can't be solved by anyone except the creator of the plugin - they'd need to release a x64 browser compatible version for it to work otherwise you'd probably be better off sticking with 32-bit Firefox.


y'all must get your terminology correct.

*addons (extensions)*are bit-independent. java code. they do have to be written to be compatible with the new functionality of the current versions of firefox, to use the new functions and internal coding calls. they work with either 32 or 64 bit. they also may need bug fixing.

*plug-ins* are bit dependent dynamic link libraries and 32 bit versions will not work in 64 bit and visa versa. plug-ins, like flash, must be rewritten and recompiled for either the 64 or 32 bit versions of firefox.


----------



## Lord Venom

My terminology was correct in this instance.


----------



## Novae

Hey, I have a major issue with waterfox - the google talk plugin doesn't seem to work with it? So I cant use it to chat with my mates


----------



## MrAlex

Does anyone know of any 3rd party updater applications I could integrate into Waterfox? The new performance enhancements aren't compatible with Firefox's internal update service.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drag0nR3b0rn*
> 
> I have two problems with Waterfox I hope you can assist with:
> 
> I'm unable to update 9.0 to 9.0.1 - the Help-> about dialog says that Waterfox is up to date, and the update wizard that is launched on Waterfox start errors with "no update found" message.
> The Evernote web clipper addon doesn't work with Waterfox (I understand that this is probably an issue with the addon and x64, as this happens on Pale Moon x64 as well, but this is a deal breaker for me - and I'd be glad to be able to have it solved so I can enjoy using Waterfox, which is great except this issue. I've send a ticket about it to Evernote as well).
> Keep the great job, and thanks for the help =)


I've removed the update to 9.0.1 for now, since Waterfox 10 is being released today.

And I don't see why Evernote doesn't work..it should since Waterfox is mostly the same as Firefox.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novae*
> 
> Hey, I have a major issue with waterfox - the google talk plugin doesn't seem to work with it? So I cant use it to chat with my mates


Since it's a plugin, unless it has 64-Bit support it won't work.

Have you tried this extension?

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/yoono-twitter-facebook-linkedi/?src=search


----------



## xd_1771

Time for Waterfox 10--Oh, I see you already are planning the release


----------



## Grath

Oh I just downloaded Waterfox 9 and now 10 is coming out like real soon already! So far, I'm impressed.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novae*
> 
> Hey, I have a major issue with waterfox - the google talk plugin doesn't seem to work with it? So I cant use it to chat with my mates


sigh - read my post #1612 just above yours. and the other ones nearby. you need a 64 bit version of the PLUGIN in order to run it in a 64 bit browser. if it is in fact an add-on it may or may not work depending on compatibility with v9 of waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

It's taken me weeks, but I finally did it!

Quote:


> *Waterfox 10 Available Tomorrow*
> 
> Tomorrow will see the launch of Waterfox 10, based on the stable Firefox 10 release code.
> 
> What's new in Firefox 10?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *The forward button is now hidden until you navigate back*
> 
> 
> 
> *Anti-Aliasing for WebGL is now implemented (see bug 615976)*
> 
> 
> 
> *Full Screen APIs allow you to build a web application that runs full screen (see the feature page)*
> 
> 
> 
> *CSS3 3D-Transforms are now supported (see bug 505115)*
> 
> 
> 
> *New element for bi-directional text isolation, along with supporting CSS properties (see bugs 613149 and 662288)*
> 
> 
> 
> *Inspect tool with content highlighting, includes new CSS Style Inspector*
> 
> 
> 
> *We've added IndexedDB APIs to more closely match the specification*
> 
> 
> 
> *Some users may experience a crash when moving bookmarks (681795)*
> 
> 
> What's new in Waterfox 10?
> 
> 
> Implementation of SSE3 for all base processors.
> Implementation of SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX and AVX2 for processor that support it.
> So far in preliminary benchmarks a performance increase of up to 20%.


----------



## djkilla

Wow! Firefox/Waterfox is going to be HOT with this version. Lots of cool features/additions. The Waterfox features definitely caught my attention:

What's new in Waterfox 10?

Implementation of SSE3 for all base processors.
Implementation of SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX and AVX2 for processor that support it.
So far in preliminary benchmarks a performance increase of up to 20%.

MrAlex - I'm guessing you got the issues you were having resolved with the help of chm44 with the exception of the auto update.


----------



## djkilla

Firefox 10 download:
http://download02.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/10.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2010.0.exe

http://www.mozilla.org/products/download.html?product=firefox-10.0&os=win&lang=en-US

Edit: Updated link to directly download Firefox 10.0


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> What's new in Waterfox 10?
> 
> 
> Implementation of SSE3 for all base processors.
> Implementation of SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX and AVX2 for processor that support it.
> So far in preliminary benchmarks a performance increase of up to 20%.


OMG YES

Is SSE4a (i.e. Phenom II rev of SSE4) on the horizon at all though?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Wow! Firefox/Waterfox is going to be HOT with this version. Lots of cool features/additions. The Waterfox features definitely caught my attention:
> 
> What's new in Waterfox 10?
> 
> Implementation of SSE3 for all base processors.
> Implementation of SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX and AVX2 for processor that support it.
> So far in preliminary benchmarks a performance increase of up to 20%.
> 
> MrAlex - I'm guessing you got the issues you were having resolved with the help of chm44 with the exception of the auto update.


Well I managed to figure it out myself, but chm44 definitely helped and the links provided were useful. I kept on getting errors on bsdiff.c. Bsdiff stands for Binary Difference, i.e. to do with updates. So I had to disable auto-updates and voila it compiled .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> What's new in Waterfox 10?
> 
> 
> Implementation of SSE3 for all base processors.
> Implementation of SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2, AVX and AVX2 for processor that support it.
> So far in preliminary benchmarks a performance increase of up to 20%.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OMG YES
> 
> Is SSE4a (i.e. Phenom II rev of SSE4) on the horizon at all though?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately no, not unless Intel decide to add support for it in their compiler. The good news is the new version of the Intel compiler doesn't generate code that doesn't provide performance benefits to AMD processors unless specifically implied.


----------



## chm44

Hi, MrAlex. Good to hear that you got everything sorted. Is there any chance that you share a build before you release to test it? So you still used the Intel compiler for v10? If yes, is it possible that you provide an MSVC 2010 build too, which is know to work fine? Unfortunately the Intel compiler even if it's faster, it's still very buggy in a lot of cases, while MSVC 2010 is way more stable.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> Hi, MrAlex. Good to hear that you got everything sorted. Is there any chance that you share a build before you release to test it? So you still used the Intel compiler for v10? If yes, is it possible that you provide an MSVC 2010 build too, which is know to work fine? Unfortunately the Intel compiler even if it's faster, it's still very buggy in a lot of cases, while MSVC 2010 is way more stable.
> 
> Thanks in advance.


I have access to an AMD system to test as well. So I'll run tests and benchmarks to see how it runs, but from the look of things it's just as stable and I haven't noticed any bugs. If necessary I'll make a MSVC build but for now I won't, because I don't have the time to. Even my current rig takes a while to compile Firefox.


----------



## chm44

I don't really care about AMD, I mostly care about regressions due to the Intel compiler. Like I said, it's very buggy especially with high optimization levels. That's why I ask for an MSVC 2010 build too, cause we know it produces stable code.


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Hey all ...

I paged through a couple random pages here ... honestly I didn't read all 163 pages ...







... ... but I was just curious ... is this mostly bug free ?? ... how is it running ... I am very interested and would like to know if it is stable or as stable as possible ... lol


----------



## cryohellinc

why not download and TEST it? ..... lol


----------



## Emissary of Pain

I have a bad history with the whole ... whats the worst that can happen ... hahaha ... I have terrible luck !! ...

Also ... I am not home yet







... sending this via my Galaxy S2 ...

will probably install it when I get home ...

What's the worst that can happen ... Right ??


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> I don't really care about AMD, I mostly care about regressions due to the Intel compiler. Like I said, it's very buggy especially with high optimization levels. That's why I ask for an MSVC 2010 build too, cause we know it produces stable code.


I've used -O2, -fprecise, -Qax, -arch, -Qparallel and -Qprec-div. I didn't use -O3 because it tends to cause the most instability. I'll test it, have some of my friends test it locally and then maybe an hour before release on the website I'll put it here so you can test it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emissary of Pain*
> 
> I have a bad history with the whole ... whats the worst that can happen ... hahaha ... I have terrible luck !! ...
> 
> Also ... I am not home yet
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ... sending this via my Galaxy S2 ...
> 
> will probably install it when I get home ...
> 
> What's the worst that can happen ... Right ??


Download it, and before you launch it the first time, change the profile Waterfox uses by following these instructions:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Managing-profile

Test and see if you like, and if it works you can make Waterfox use your Firefox profile, if you use Firefox that is. If you uninstall Waterfox make sure you DON'T tick the remove personal data so you don't remove your old Firefox profile!


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Download it, and before you launch it the first time, change the profile Waterfox uses by following these instructions: http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Managing-profile
> Test and see if you like, and if it works you can make Waterfox use your Firefox profile, if you use Firefox that is. If you uninstall Waterfox make sure you DON'T tick the remove personal data so you don't remove your old Firefox profile!


Brilliant ... I will do that ... and yes ... I have been a loyal Firefox user for ages ... hehe ... I convert the ppl around me as well ... guess I will now convert them into waterfox uses ... hehe

:: Edit ... Mozilla page not found ...









:: Edit :: Edit :: Think I just found my new browser ... lol


----------



## Truffel71

Can't wait to download waterfox 10!!








It's a brilliant browser.







and fast too








Compliments for the maker(s)


----------



## demoneye

just wounder , hows waterfox different from palemoon in the compile matter ?


----------



## DRock6032

Thanks for all your hard work Mr. Alex. I have been using Waterfox for about a month and love it, I can't wait for Waterfox 10!


----------



## markgbe

cool, cant wait for v10 to be available. Thanks for your work.


----------



## MrAlex

I need someone with an Intel build and an AMD build to test out the build attached.

*WHEN TESTING THE BUILD BELOW, MAKE SURE YOU INSTALL IN A DIFFERENT INSTALL DIRECTORY AND USE A SEPARATE PROFILE. I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BUILD BELOW.*

I'm currently using this build and it works just fine but I'd like to see how it behaves on other systems before I release it. So far I don't think it works on AMD systems...so I'd like to see someone with an AMD system test it!

http://www.mediafire.com/?le2c5cc46ps7a5s

Password: mralex


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I need someone with an Intel build and an AMD build to test out the build attached.
> 
> *WHEN TESTING THE BUILD BELOW, MAKE SURE YOU INSTALL IN A DIFFERENT INSTALL DIRECTORY AND USE A SEPARATE PROFILE. I TAKE NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE BUILD BELOW.*
> 
> I'm currently using this build and it works just fine but I'd like to see how it behaves on other systems before I release it. So far I don't think it works on AMD systems...so I'd like to see someone with an AMD system test it!
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?le2c5cc46ps7a5s
> Password: mralex


I will ask my friend to run it on his system ... the only AMD system I have is a 3000+ ... haha ...


----------



## donbt09

Mr. Alex this testing build doesn't work on my AMD System I get the following System Error (The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem. )


----------



## djkilla

I'll install it and see how it runs in about 30 minutes (3pm EST now). Running the following hardware:

Windows 7 64bit
CPU: Intel i7 920 overclocked to 3.6 (LGA 1366)
Motherboard: EVGA X58 SLI (LGA 1366)
Hard Drive: Intel G2 SSD
RAM: 12GB Mushkin Redline (1600mhz)
Graphics: XFX ATI Radeon HD 5870

EDIT: I see others reporting issues so I'll hold off on installing Waterfox until another build.


----------



## Deathstryker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *donbt09*
> 
> Mr. Alex this testing build doesn't work on my AMD System I get the following System Error (The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem. )


I get the same error on my Intel Core 2 Duo P8600. Windows 7 x64.


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, I tried it on my sig rig. Got the error about libiomp5md.dll being missing so I found it via Google and added it to the test directory and tried to start Waterfox 10...


----------



## coffeejunky

Same error Win7 x64, sigrig.

EDIT: Fixed by downloading and installing the following package - http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/redistributable-libraries-for-the-intel-parallel-composer-2011/

Testing now, no immediate showstopper bugs yet.


----------



## Lord Venom

Good find, it's working for me now, however I get this cmd box when opening it...


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

coffee which one i am on AMD Win 7 x64 ultimate


----------



## wirefox

Thought it read Wirefox ... and got all excited


----------



## Lord Venom

Since everyone running Waterfox has 64-bit Windows, then this one: http://registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2439/composer_2011_update8_redist_intel64.msi


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

thanks lord didnt wanna download the wrong one


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

im on AMD processer though


----------



## C853

It starts after installing composer_2011_update8_redist_intel64.msi but Waterfox crashes when running peacekeeper. i7-920


----------



## Lord Venom

Anyone else get the command box I posted above with that error about the affinity not being supported?


----------



## apocope

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Anyone else get the command box I posted above with that error about the affinity not being supported?


Yes, I do.

Also, when I was doing a benchmark at Peacekeeper, the browser crashed when the 3D test started with a window that read something along the lines of "-APPVERSION has crashed".

I have an AMD Phenom II X4 955.


----------



## Lord Venom

Confirmed, crashes on Peacekeeper when the 3D test runs. So that's two issues thus far.


----------



## MrAlex

http://waterfoxproject.org/news/28/15/Waterfox-10-Delay.html


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://waterfoxproject.org/news/28/15/Waterfox-10-Delay.html


No problem! Sometimes it takes time to build a better stronger Waterfox. I hope everyone else understands that and has a little patience. 'Good things come to those who wait!'.


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've used -O2, -fprecise, -Qax, -arch, -Qparallel and -Qprec-div. I didn't use -O3 because it tends to cause the most instability. I'll test it, have some of my friends test it locally and then maybe an hour before release on the website I'll put it here so you can test it.


The error with libiomp5md.dll is caused by the -parallel switch as you probably musty have found by now. I'm not sure Firefox even needs OMP but if that's the case just staticaly link libiomp5md.dll or distribute it with the installer. I'd do the former.

MSVC 2010 FTW if you want stable code and no problems, ICL 12 if you feel like going on an adventure


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've used -O2, -fprecise, -Qax, -arch, -Qparallel and -Qprec-div. I didn't use -O3 because it tends to cause the most instability. I'll test it, have some of my friends test it locally and then maybe an hour before release on the website I'll put it here so you can test it.
> 
> 
> 
> The error with libiomp5md.dll is caused by the -parallel switch as you probably musty have found by now. I'm not sure Firefox even needs OMP but if that's the case just staticaly link libiomp5md.dll or distribute it with the installer. I'd do the former.
> 
> MSVC 2010 FTW if you want stable code and no problems, ICL 12 if you feel like going on an adventure
Click to expand...

I know, but so close, so close! It looks like the instability happened with 3D rendering. I'll see what I can do *sigh*. Also thanks for the help  I might end up going with MSVC.


----------



## XSAlliN

Keep testing Nightly builds and sometimes i find one which is really fast... and if you updated it the next one is really messed-up in terms of speed... sometimes works better other times worst..

Here's an example: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2012-01-01-03-10-15-mozilla-central/firefox-12.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe (1 January 2012)

- the ones coming after that end-up being slower and more unstable... can you find something specific about it that makes it so fast?!









...with few about:config tweaks all page open almost instantly (definitely not intended for slow machines)...

(maybe you could improve Waterfox - with certain changes based on that).


----------



## marknu1

Just curious; are there any known issues running on an AMD platform? I ask because I am running Waterfox on two computers; one at work, and one at home. The work machine has an Intel i7-2600 and the home machine has an AMD Phenom II 955. Waterfox runs without issue on my work computer, but on the home computer I have problems. Initially I made a backup copy of my Firefox profile and used Waterfox as my browser. After some period of time (day or two) of the browser running, it would start to have a hard time loading some pages; there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the pages it wouldn't load. if I launched another browser (Chrome or IE) and tried to bring up a page that Waterfox was having a problem with, the other browser would successfully bring up the page. If I relaunched Waterfox, the problem would go away for a while, and then reappear.

Eventually I decided to start fresh and use a new profile for Waterfox. Seemed to perform well...for a while. Eventually I started seeing the same behavior, and would occasionally get encoding errors (a firefox message). Again, relaunching temporarily "fixed" the problem. Most recently Waterfox basically stopped working; it would open some pages when launched, but most would give the busy-spin and never load. I went back to Firefox (9.0.1) and had no issues; and this was using the same profile that waterfox had failed on.

I tend to leave tabs open that hold my interest, and the number of them builds up over time; I don't know whether this has anything to do with it, as at work I have maybe 100+ tabs open, and at home I had less than half that amount.

I use only two extensions: AdBlock Plus and Session Manager. I use the same on both computers.

No overclock on either home or work computers.

Any ideas? Thanks for any help.


----------



## djkilla

marknu1 - If you're using Waterfox 9.0, wait for Waterfox 10 then check to see if you have the same issues. If you downloaded the test Waterfox 10, wait for the re-release of Waterfox 10 in the next few days then check to see if you have the same issues. Currently Waterfox 10 is undergoing testing to remove bugs and adding performance enhancements for Intel and AMD systems.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marknu1*
> 
> Just curious; are there any known issues running on an AMD platform? I ask because I am running Waterfox on two computers; one at work, and one at home. The work machine has an Intel i7-2600 and the home machine has an AMD Phenom II 955. Waterfox runs without issue on my work computer, but on the home computer I have problems. Initially I made a backup copy of my Firefox profile and used Waterfox as my browser. After some period of time (day or two) of the browser running, it would start to have a hard time loading some pages; there didn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to the pages it wouldn't load. if I launched another browser (Chrome or IE) and tried to bring up a page that Waterfox was having a problem with, the other browser would successfully bring up the page. If I relaunched Waterfox, the problem would go away for a while, and then reappear.
> 
> Eventually I decided to start fresh and use a new profile for Waterfox. Seemed to perform well...for a while. Eventually I started seeing the same behavior, and would occasionally get encoding errors (a firefox message). Again, relaunching temporarily "fixed" the problem. Most recently Waterfox basically stopped working; it would open some pages when launched, but most would give the busy-spin and never load. I went back to Firefox (9.0.1) and had no issues; and this was using the same profile that waterfox had failed on.
> 
> I tend to leave tabs open that hold my interest, and the number of them builds up over time; I don't know whether this has anything to do with it, as at work I have maybe 100+ tabs open, and at home I had less than half that amount.
> 
> I use only two extensions: AdBlock Plus and Session Manager. I use the same on both computers.
> 
> No overclock on either home or work computers.
> 
> Any ideas? Thanks for any help.


There shouldn't be any differences as to what platform it is, Microsoft's compiler doesn't discriminate against platforms. The worst that MSVC can do is used libraries that perform better on AMD or Intel systems, but that has to be applied implicitly which it isn't on Waterfox. Hmm curious that that happens. I'll look into it and see if I can find anything.


----------



## xd_1771

Check the stability of both your CPU and GPU (as WF/FF is GPU accelerated).


----------



## marknu1

I probably will wait until 10 comes out to try again as my main browser.

MrAlex, please let me know if there's anything you'd like me to try. I have no problem making a duplicate of my profile and launching Waterfox using the copied profile.

xd_1771, can you give me some idea of how to check the stability of my CPU and GPU? My system is seemingly very stable; it games, runs multiple VMs when needed, and does the occasional code compilation, among other things. The only instability I've experienced of late was while running Waterfox. And as mentioned, if I use the same profile only with Firefox, I have no problems at all.


----------



## mikeynavy1976

Any status on when Waterfox 10 will be released? The note on the Waterfox site mentioned the delay and that the fixed product would be available by the end of the week. Is that still the case or are the issues still unresolved?


----------



## redsunx

This fixed my "you have been disconnected from EA online issue" and the memory usage goes down when I launch a 3D app. I don't know if it's Windows or the Waterfox. Either way this thing is hax.


----------



## Deinsleaf

Waterfox keeps lowering my RAM after I use it. For example, When I boot up I have 2.9 gb of RAM. After I close it, I only have 2.1 RAM even though it doesn't appear in the Process Explorer. I open it again and when I close it, I have only 1.7 gb of RAM. Any one experienced this?


----------



## mkauto

Where is Waterfox 10? Tomorrow?


----------



## virtualguy

Well, it is beginning to look like Firefox/Waterfox is not ready for prime time 64-bit conversion. No browser update, progress update... If this goes on, Firefox 11 will be out before Waterfox 10 is ready. I'm just sayin'...


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Well, it is beginning to look like Firefox/Waterfox is not ready for prime time 64-bit conversion. No browser update, progress update... If this goes on, Firefox 11 will be out before Waterfox 10 is ready. I'm just sayin'...



Its been like 4 days. Waterfox's release cycle is positively snappy compared to Palemoon. I think MrAlex is trying to get the kinks ironed out with the Intel compiler, if he can't I doubt it will take long before he will compile a MSVC build instead. Firefox is fairly ready for x64 IMO, its just MrAlex (rightly) wants to push the performance boundaries some more, with this comes the risk that there may be delays.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, there was some performance issues with a test Waterfox 10 build for users with AMD processors and a 3D rendering crash issue.


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 10 is now available, get it while it's hot









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deinsleaf*
> 
> Waterfox keeps lowering my RAM after I use it. For example, When I boot up I have 2.9 gb of RAM. After I close it, I only have 2.1 RAM even though it doesn't appear in the Process Explorer. I open it again and when I close it, I have only 1.7 gb of RAM. Any one experienced this?


That doesn't make any sense...where are you getting your RAM availability from?


----------



## chm44

* firefox.exe version is shown as "-APPVERSION" (in fact that's shown in every Firefox file version)
* you already know this, but the msvc runtime still isn't included

I don't see why -GS- and -GR- are used. Do you have any reason for disabling -GA and -GS which are on by default for a reason (search msdn). Also -GA shouldn't be used on DLL files.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox 10 is now available, get it while it's hot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense...where are you getting your RAM availability from?


Shouldn't the title say feb the 4th 20*12*?


----------



## virtualguy

Thanks for the update, MrAlex! Your work is appreciated.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> * firefox.exe version is shown as "-APPVERSION" (in fact that's shown in every Firefox file version)
> * you already know this, but the msvc runtime still isn't included
> 
> I don't see why -GS- and -GR- are used. Do you have any reason for disabling -GA and -GS which are on by default for a reason (search msdn). Also -GA shouldn't be used on DLL files.


-GS is disabled because there is no need for buffer security checks, since the source comes straight from Mozilla. -GA isn't disabled, it's been enabled and it pretty much speaks for itself: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/yetwazx6.aspx (it's not on by default?) I was testing the use of -GR- and must have left it in by accident, seems to be the cause of -APPVERSION. I've taken down Waterfox 10 and am re-uploading it as we speak to fix the error.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nvidiaftw12*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox 10 is now available, get it while it's hot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't make any sense...where are you getting your RAM availability from?
> 
> 
> 
> Shouldn't the title say feb the 4th 20*12*?
Click to expand...

Fixed

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Thanks for the update, MrAlex! Your work is appreciated.


You're welcome.


----------



## demoneye

cant download new water fox 10 , server says file is missing ...


----------



## ChaosBlades

Still says it is missing here also. Don't think it takes 30min to upload 17mbs. Or are you still uploading?


----------



## MrAlex

It's now re-available.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Still says...
Quote:


> Unable to find any mirror information for the "/waterfox-10.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe" file. Please select another file.


----------



## chilinmichael

"Unable to find any mirror information for the "/waterfox-10.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe" file. Please select another file."

1:51pm EST 2/4/2012.


----------



## MrAlex

It's out my hands. For some reason it still says that it's pending. That's a problem with SourceForge not me. I'll see what I can do about it.

EDIT:

It's on 14 mirrors but SF hasn't put the file through, but it can still be downloaded directly:

http://garr.dl.sourceforge.net/project/waterfoxproj/Waterfox%20Setup%2010.0.exe


----------



## chilinmichael

We're all just so eager! Waterfox changed my life as far as browsing


----------



## xd_1771

AMD Core Math Library?! Excellent!!! I'm thinking this will mean some good performance on AMD setups









For some reason I can't download the file either..... perhaps try something with auto-update? Or does that also take the file off SourceForge servers?

The link above doesn't work either.

Perhaps try another temporary mirror such as Mediafire?


----------



## Brenda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> Perhaps try another temporary mirror such as Mediafire?


Or MegaUpload!


----------



## charlir

Well cant use megaupload that got caught up in the whole mess .. and sorry MrAlex same thing even on your direct link says cant find a 10 version.. am I missing something here this whole thing is getting frustrating there is one labeled update.. with a date of 2012-01-05 but when you click on it .. it shows this waterfox-9.0.1.en-US.win64-x86_64.complete.mar

please just the whole thing.. the whole mar thing confused most

Sorry the main site just got updated with the mediafire link ..


----------



## MrAlex

Argh! Why did it have to mess up at such a critical time?! Hopefully it resolves soon! In the meanwhile:

http://www.mediafire.com/?7dibhsgikgu3qtq


----------



## xd_1771

I use MediaFire quite a lot for things like these, I love its simplicity.


----------



## charlir

Thanks got it and updated .. and it even says version 10 in about lol.. thanks for your work .. many thanks

Charles


----------



## xd_1771

Well the first thing I noticed is that RAM usage seems way, way down!


----------



## Brenda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Well cant use megaupload that got caught up in the whole mess ..


I meant that as a joke!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Argh! Why did it have to mess up at such a critical time?! Hopefully it resolves soon! In the meanwhile:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?7dibhsgikgu3qtq


I'm downloading it now! Thanks a lot!


----------



## C853

So, does waterfox 10.0 final public does or does not have SS3 SSE4 optimizations?


----------



## hclarkjr

i just downloaded it and installed it. i ran http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action with firefox 10 and got score of 564,835. i then uninstalled it and installed waterfox 10 and ran it again with score of 585,409 so it is faster in my case.


----------



## Czarnodziej

It is WAY faster than Waterfox 9. Pages load so fast, its incredible


----------



## hclarkjr

one thing i have noticed is that the memory use is the same as firefox 10 for me with 1 less extension too.


----------



## Deinsleaf

I monitor my RAM availability using RAM Rush, Task Manager, AIDA 64 and gadgets from my rainmeter.


----------



## Truffel71

Works great, even made it in my own(Dutch) language:thumb:


----------



## superhead91

Hmm... When I try to download it it's saying there aren't any mirror information...


----------



## Deinsleaf

I monitor my RAM availability using RAM Rush, Task Manager, AIDA 64 and gadgets from my rainmeter.


----------



## stalker7d7

Download link doesn't work. :/

Try this link: http://www.mediafire.com/?7dibhsgikgu3qtq


----------



## xd_1771

Looks like this might be the fastest, most efficient, lower RAM usage verison of Waterfox ever!!!


----------



## stalker7d7

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> Looks like this might be the fastest, most efficient, lower RAM usage verison of Waterfox ever!!!


Definately. In version 9 I was consistently using 600-700M +, now I'm down to just 400-500M.


----------



## C853

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C853*
> 
> So, does waterfox 10.0 final public does or does not have SS3 SSE4 optimizations?


Also, i noticed when googling address bar changes from org.mozilla:en-USfficial to org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial. Are we cutting mozilla money source using waterfox? or does mozilla still gets revenue?


----------



## L D4WG

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deinsleaf*
> 
> I monitor my RAM availability using RAM Rush, Task Manager, AIDA 64 and gadgets from my rainmeter.


Good for you, do you need to tell everyone twice?

OT: The download buttton does nothing and if you go into the archive and fine the 10.0 installer link, it says it cant find it.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C853*
> 
> So, does waterfox 10.0 final public does or does not have SS3 SSE4 optimizations?


I was thinking the same thing. MrAlex, does Waterfox 10 have these optimizations?


----------



## safari801

Anybody had problems installing waterfox 10? Get a message "can not open output file" when trying to install.


----------



## Brenda

I get some messages on websites like this on picasa:
"You are using a browser that is not fully supported. Some features may not work too well, but you are welcome to have a look around."

Did you change the useragent? Because this kind of things didn't show up with Firefox or Waterfox 9.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *C853*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *C853*
> 
> So, does waterfox 10.0 final public does or does not have SS3 SSE4 optimizations?
> 
> 
> 
> Also, i noticed when googling address bar changes from org.mozilla:en-USfficial to org.mozilla:en-US:unofficial. Are we cutting mozilla money source using waterfox? or does mozilla still gets revenue?
Click to expand...

Mozilla have a fixed contract with Google, i.e they already have the $1 billion or will get it. And it has always appeared as unofficial.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *L D4WG*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Deinsleaf*
> 
> I monitor my RAM availability using RAM Rush, Task Manager, AIDA 64 and gadgets from my rainmeter.
> 
> 
> 
> Good for you, do you need to tell everyone twice?
> 
> OT: The download buttton does nothing and if you go into the archive and fine the 10.0 installer link, it says it cant find it.
Click to expand...

It's on the front page.....

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *C853*
> 
> So, does waterfox 10.0 final public does or does not have SS3 SSE4 optimizations?
> 
> 
> 
> I was thinking the same thing. MrAlex, does Waterfox 10 have these optimizations?
Click to expand...

No it does not. The builds were too unstable.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Anybody had problems installing waterfox 10? Get a message "can not open output file" when trying to install.


When during the installation does this error occur?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Brenda*
> 
> I get some messages on websites like this on picasa:
> "You are using a browser that is not fully supported. Some features may not work too well, but you are welcome to have a look around."
> 
> Did you change the useragent? Because this kind of things didn't show up with Firefox or Waterfox 9.


No I haven't, but either way it should run it just as well. Waterfox is no different from Firefox code wise.


----------



## safari801

Looks like my security suite (comodo) was the problem. Opened the install in the sandbox and voila'. Faster than 9! So far no issues.


----------



## sandythedog

Please can you tell me if I'll notice a performance difference on my:

Laptop: Dual core, 2GB DDR2, HDD
Desktop: Quad core, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz, SSD + HDD

Thank you.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yeah, I had to snag WF 10 from here:

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/

If you go here: http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads it will take you to a sourceforge page that's still not got the latest.


----------



## falcon26

Without searching threw this huge thread, does waterfox work with BF3 and its browser?


----------



## LBear

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *falcon26*
> 
> Without searching threw this huge thread, does waterfox work with BF3 and its browser?


Battlelog doesn't support 64 bit browsers


----------



## falcon26

Dam it


----------



## JWvanLohuizen

I am getting this message when trying to update:
"Update XML file malformed (200)"

Also the download site cannot find the version 10 file.

Unable to find any mirror information for the "/waterfox-10.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe" file. Please select another file.
http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/latest/download?source=files
"Whoops, we can't find that page."

Any ideas?

Thank You


----------



## Ceadderman

Yeah um nope.
















Neither of the linkies are workin. *sigh*

~Ceadder


----------



## demoneye

*serious question
*
i test firefox 10 and waterfox 10 in this site

http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action

sometime when i test them waterfox score more and sometime firefox score more ( i re run test couple of time)

is that mean i don't need to use waterfox 10 since firefox 10 deliver *same* speed??


----------



## LukaTCE

Thx for this it work much faster then firefox
Some download mirrors use RapidShare,GameFront for fastest download speed
http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/1XP5CV6T/waterfox-10.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


----------



## Pierre771

Hi

I installed Waterfox 10 which is now available by downloading it from the temporary mirror.

Thks to the team.

Maybe slightly faster than regular FF 32 bits, that's right.

Caution don't launch the program at the end of the installation as suggested (unselect it) if you have separate profile, otherwise it will use the default profile.

Will the future updates be automatic and background as announced in FF 10 ?

Thks


----------



## LukaTCE

Waterfox crashed at 1 min of ussage and there were no flash on site. Does program send crash file to u ?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Looks like my security suite (comodo) was the problem. Opened the install in the sandbox and voila'. Faster than 9! So far no issues.


Good to hear it's resolved!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sandythedog*
> 
> Please can you tell me if I'll notice a performance difference on my:
> 
> Laptop: Dual core, 2GB DDR2, HDD
> Desktop: Quad core, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz, SSD + HDD
> 
> Thank you.


It's up to you to see if you'll notice a difference. On the Laptop I think you would, but the only way to know for sure is for you to test it out.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Yeah, I had to snag WF 10 from here:
> 
> http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/
> 
> If you go here: http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads it will take you to a sourceforge page that's still not got the latest.


It's now been resolved.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JWvanLohuizen*
> 
> I am getting this message when trying to update:
> "Update XML file malformed (200)"
> 
> Also the download site cannot find the version 10 file.
> 
> Unable to find any mirror information for the "/waterfox-10.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe" file. Please select another file.
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/latest/download?source=files
> "Whoops, we can't find that page."
> 
> Any ideas?
> 
> Thank You


There is a news page on the website for a reason, as for the Update XML file malformed that's an error on your settings:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/AUS%20Update%20XML%20File%20Malformed%20200

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> *serious question*
> 
> i test firefox 10 and waterfox 10 in this site
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action
> 
> sometime when i test them waterfox score more and sometime firefox score more ( i re run test couple of time)
> 
> is that mean i don't need to use waterfox 10 since firefox 10 deliver *same* speed??


When were you running the tests?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LukaTCE*
> 
> Thx for this it work much faster then firefox
> Some download mirrors use RapidShare,GameFront for fastest download speed
> http://www.mirrorcreator.com/files/1XP5CV6T/waterfox-10.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


Please don't mirror the downloads. It's just for safety reasons and I don't want downloads that I am unaware of floating around. I realise your intention is good, but please don't do it in the future.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> Hi
> 
> I installed Waterfox 10 which is now available by downloading it from the temporary mirror.
> 
> Thks to the team.
> 
> Maybe slightly faster than regular FF 32 bits, that's right.
> 
> Caution don't launch the program at the end of the installation as suggested (unselect it) if you have separate profile, otherwise it will use the default profile.
> 
> Will the future updates be automatic and background as announced in FF 10 ?
> 
> Thks


I'm still trying to fix that, I have no idea why it's still not working properly though, but I'll try my best.


----------



## sandythedog

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *sandythedog*
> 
> Please can you tell me if I'll notice a performance difference on my:
> 
> Laptop: Dual core, 2GB DDR2, HDD
> Desktop: Quad core, 8GB DDR3 1600Mhz, SSD + HDD
> 
> Thank you.
> 
> 
> 
> It's up to you to see if you'll notice a difference. On the Laptop I think you would, but the only way to know for sure is for you to test it out.
Click to expand...

Thanks, I'll give it a try and report back.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Good to hear it's resolved!
> 
> It's up to you to see if you'll notice a difference. On the Laptop I think you would, but the only way to know for sure is for you to test it out.
> 
> It's now been resolved.
> 
> There is a news page on the website for a reason, as for the Update XML file malformed that's an error on your settings:
> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/AUS%20Update%20XML%20File%20Malformed%20200
> 
> When were you running the tests?
> 
> Please don't mirror the downloads. It's just for safety reasons and I don't want downloads that I am unaware of floating around. I realise your intention is good, but please don't do it in the future.
> 
> I'm still trying to fix that, I have no idea why it's still not working properly though, but I'll try my best.


i run the tests on firefox 10 and waterfox 10 .... when some pages were open...


----------



## mafutha

I found that half of the plugins I have installed under firefox 10 aren't found by waterfox (Includes Microsoft media player) Is there a reason. I have all the 64bit versions installed but still not working.


----------



## demoneye

for me firefox10 RSS build in doesn't works ...


----------



## XSAlliN

It's slower and more unstable (certain bugs still not fixed - like those related to animated gifs) than Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe - wile the so called stable/final FF build is pure crap compared to this ones... so much irony in this... a nightly build which is suppose to be more unstable being the most stable build at this moment and also the fastest.


----------



## Mr_Torch

"Waterfox was compiled with SSE, SSE2, x64 favoring and the following optimisation flags: /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy"

SSE & SSE2 should inherently be used by the x64 compiler. In fact, you cannot select SSE or SSE2 as specific optimizations on any platform but x86, so it's a bag of hot air to even mention http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7t5yh4fd.aspx

x64 favoring - checking the build flags showed me -favor:blend which is the default setting; it only allows you to favor a specific architecture (Intel or AMD), where "blend" means no favoring. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173505.aspx

/Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy equals /O2 (optimize for speed), it's just written out in what /O2 stands for in the compiler. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f8h5cxt.aspx


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XSAlliN*
> 
> It's slower and more unstable (certain bugs still not fixed - like those related to animated gifs) than Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe - wile the so called stable/final FF build is pure crap compared to this ones... so much irony in this... a nightly build which is suppose to be more unstable being the most stable build at this moment and also the fastest.


If Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit is so fast, I wonder what settings are being used to make it so fast. I might download it and give it a try and see how it works with my extensions and plug-ins. I love my Waterfox though! What if Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit was optimized like Waterfox, that would be interesting.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> for me firefox10 RSS build in doesn't works ...


What is that exactly? Are RSS feeds not working?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XSAlliN*
> 
> It's slower and more unstable (certain bugs still not fixed - like those related to animated gifs) than Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe - wile the so called stable/final FF build is pure crap compared to this ones... so much irony in this... a nightly build which is suppose to be more unstable being the most stable build at this moment and also the fastest.


How is it unstable? And it will be faster because it most likely has upgraded component such as an improved JS library.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr_Torch*
> 
> "Waterfox was compiled with SSE, SSE2, x64 favoring and the following optimisation flags: /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy"
> 
> SSE & SSE2 should inherently be used by the x64 compiler. In fact, you cannot select SSE or SSE2 as specific optimizations on any platform but x86, so it's a bag of hot air to even mention http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/7t5yh4fd.aspx
> 
> x64 favoring - checking the build flags showed me -favor:blend which is the default setting; it only allows you to favor a specific architecture (Intel or AMD), where "blend" means no favoring. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms173505.aspx
> 
> /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy equals /O2 (optimize for speed), it's just written out in what /O2 stands for in the compiler. http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f8h5cxt.aspx


That's amazing. I know that but other people don't. People kept on asking if it was compiled with SSE2, so saying it helps answer their question. And I listed out every flag so everyone knows what is being used. And if you read the UPDATED FAQ:

Quote:


> Yes, Waterfox was compiled with SSE2, the AMD Core Math Library and the following optimisation flags: /O2 /GS- /GA


Would taking a minute to think and look around be that difficult for you?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *XSAlliN*
> 
> It's slower and more unstable (certain bugs still not fixed - like those related to animated gifs) than Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit: http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe - wile the so called stable/final FF build is pure crap compared to this ones... so much irony in this... a nightly build which is suppose to be more unstable being the most stable build at this moment and also the fastest.
> 
> 
> 
> If Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit is so fast, I wonder what settings are being used to make it so fast. I might download it and give it a try and see how it works with my extensions and plug-ins. I love my Waterfox though! What if Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit was optimized like Waterfox, that would be interesting.
Click to expand...

Read above answer....


----------



## djkilla

It didn't even occur to me that Firefox Nightly 13.0a1 64 bit would be using a different JS library. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure my add-ons would work with an alpha version with-out at least a compatibility tweak. I'll stick with my favorite Waterfox!


----------



## fullmoon

After watching your build, jemalloc is enable or no?

Otherwise apart from the improvement Math for AMD, this build is a simple compilation x64?

Good job


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> After watching your build, jemalloc is enable or no?
> 
> Otherwise apart from the improvement Math for AMD, this build is a simple compilation x64?
> 
> Good job


Yes, jemalloc is enabled.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What is that exactly? Are RSS feeds not working?


the build in RSS feeder in firefox


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What is that exactly? Are RSS feeds not working?
> 
> 
> 
> the build in RSS feeder in firefox
Click to expand...

It works for me?


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It works for me?


ok , i will re check it 10x ...

what about my first issue ?

*serious question

i test firefox 10 and waterfox 10 in this site

http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action

sometime when i test them waterfox score more and sometime firefox score more ( i re run test couple of time)

is that mean i don't need to use waterfox 10 since firefox 10 deliver same speed??*


----------



## rlesko

Can you please tell me how to get Adobe Acrobat X Pro to work with Waterfox 10? When I try to open a PDF, it downloads it and opens it in separate Acrobat Pro Window instead of opening that PDF inside browser, meaning the plugin isn't working right.

I also have Firefox 10 installed and it works fine there. Don't get it, why are all the addons from Firefox normally imported to Waterfox but the Acrobat Pro isn't working. I tried installing Acrobat Reader X as well but it didn't help either.

Thanks!


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rlesko*
> 
> Can you please tell me how to get Adobe Acrobat X Pro to work with Waterfox 10? When I try to open a PDF, it downloads it and opens it in separate Acrobat Pro Window instead of opening that PDF inside browser, meaning the plugin isn't working right.
> I also have Firefox 10 installed and it works fine there. Don't get it, why are all the addons from Firefox normally imported to Waterfox but the Acrobat Pro isn't working. I tried installing Acrobat Reader X as well but it didn't help either.
> Thanks!


Not sure Adobe Reader is available for 64bit apps so that's why it doesn't work with Waterfox since Waterfox is an 64bit application and needs 64bit plugins.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It works for me?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ok , i will re check it 10x ...
> 
> what about my first issue ?
> 
> *serious question
> 
> i test firefox 10 and waterfox 10 in this site
> 
> http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action
> 
> sometime when i test them waterfox score more and sometime firefox score more ( i re run test couple of time)
> 
> is that mean i don't need to use waterfox 10 since firefox 10 deliver same speed??*
Click to expand...

I say use whatever best suits you. Some people require the extra benefits who browse process heavy websites. If you don't then Firefox will suit you just fine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rlesko*
> 
> Can you please tell me how to get Adobe Acrobat X Pro to work with Waterfox 10? When I try to open a PDF, it downloads it and opens it in separate Acrobat Pro Window instead of opening that PDF inside browser, meaning the plugin isn't working right.
> 
> I also have Firefox 10 installed and it works fine there. Don't get it, why are all the addons from Firefox normally imported to Waterfox but the Acrobat Pro isn't working. I tried installing Acrobat Reader X as well but it didn't help either.
> 
> Thanks!


Don't triple post. And use this:

http://www.tracker-software.com/product/pdf-xchange-viewer (Select EXE installer).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chm44*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *rlesko*
> 
> Can you please tell me how to get Adobe Acrobat X Pro to work with Waterfox 10? When I try to open a PDF, it downloads it and opens it in separate Acrobat Pro Window instead of opening that PDF inside browser, meaning the plugin isn't working right.
> I also have Firefox 10 installed and it works fine there. Don't get it, why are all the addons from Firefox normally imported to Waterfox but the Acrobat Pro isn't working. I tried installing Acrobat Reader X as well but it didn't help either.
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> Not sure Adobe Reader is available for 64bit apps so that's why it doesn't work with Waterfox since Waterfox is an 64bit application and needs 64bit plugins.
Click to expand...

Correct.


----------



## Lord Venom

There's no 64-bit PDF plugin from Adobe for 64-bit browsers.


----------



## rlesko

Sorry for triple post, it wasn't intentional...
Thanks for the link...


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rlesko*
> 
> OK, and how do you use it then (if you're even using Adobe Acrobat)? Do you also have to download each PDF first?


I don't use it. I use SumatraPDF x64 which is open source.


----------



## TwoXfour

You guys do know there is a Firefox addon from Mozilla for pdf reading?
works fine in Waterfox

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdfjs/


----------



## Ceadderman

Yaaaaaaaaay









...







Is there a two part process to the installation? I just had the installation window pop up again after install. I think it had to do with the window being open when having to close the original window but since I cannot be sure w/o asking...









In any case...























~Ceadder


----------



## rlesko

Awesome, TwoXfour, thank you! Simple and elegant.

Pardon my lack of knowledge but addons don't have different versions for 32 and 64 but plugins do? How come?


----------



## TwoXfour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rlesko*
> 
> Awesome, TwoXfour, thank you! Simple and elegant.
> Pardon my lack of knowledge but addons don't have different versions for 32 and 64 but plugins do? How come?


Its not a binary file as such, just a bit of Javascript.


----------



## SFaznSpEEdSTeR

Just wanted to provide some feedback that my "Check for Updates" button under "About Waterfox" also does not work properly. This happened in Waterfox v9.0 and did not update to either version 9.0.1 when it was released or version 10.

Also, I tried searching for the answer but there doesn't seem to be much posted.
- What is the proper way to update Waterfox if the automatic updates function does not work? Should you manually uninstall the old version first? Or can you just install the new version on top of the current version in the same directory?
- Are there any side effects if I just install the new version into the directory of the old version?


----------



## Deo Domuique

Any chance to start compiling the beta channel? I use as default browser the Fx beta ( currently 11 b1 ) and would be great if I had the same Wx's version.

P.S. From Cyprus? A fellow Greek? A strong reason to trust Wx :S


----------



## vriez

You can also use this 64bit build of sumatraPDF
Works great


----------



## charlir

Ok this just in case anyone runs into it.. I had a page with the select all .. coded.. this is the link to page

http://rainmeter.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=11118&sid=ac9a9bb1bc128309bf71016314700a6c

and Waterfox freezes and cant copy even if you select it manually you cant copy it.. .. so I went to IE and did it.. and it worked.. . then just to make sure i brought up Firefox and it has the same issue also

Not sure if its some plugin I am using or just a bug in FIrefox..


----------



## XSAlliN

Quote:


> How is it unstable? And it will be faster because it most likely has upgraded component such as an improved JS library.


..still lags on sites with lots of .gif animations - yet, that was fixed in Nightly since build 10.0a1.... surprisingly - that fix wasn't implemented with FF10 final release and since same bugs from final version are present in Waterfox - both are unstable from this point of view.

Check this site: http://www.laymark.com/ in FF/Waterfox 10 and Nightly .... from what i was told on OS X and Linux and certain systems this bug is not present... but on Windows and certain systems (mine being among those...) this bug is present... test it - and you'll know if it's same for u... the difference is "obvious" - on Nightly works perfectly - wile on the other two...







. Don't have this problem with IE or Opera either...

You're probably right about that...
Quote:


> And it will be faster because it most likely has upgraded component such as an improved JS library.


...but was using Waterfox cause it's faster than FF final builds...and Nightly build is even faster and more stable cause of bugs fixed that are still problematic with so called "stable releases".


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SFaznSpEEdSTeR*
> 
> Just wanted to provide some feedback that my "Check for Updates" button under "About Waterfox" also does not work properly. This happened in Waterfox v9.0 and did not update to either version 9.0.1 when it was released or version 10.
> 
> Also, I tried searching for the answer but there doesn't seem to be much posted.
> - What is the proper way to update Waterfox if the automatic updates function does not work? Should you manually uninstall the old version first? Or can you just install the new version on top of the current version in the same directory?
> - Are there any side effects if I just install the new version into the directory of the old version?


The installer has an upgrade function and will do all the work for you. I don't know why the issues are happening though and I'm looking into it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deo Domuique*
> 
> Any chance to start compiling the beta channel? I use as default browser the Fx beta ( currently 11 b1 ) and would be great if I had the same Wx's version.
> 
> P.S. From Cyprus? A fellow Greek? A strong reason to trust Wx :S


I would, but I don't have time to do so anymore.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Ok this just in case anyone runs into it.. I had a page with the select all .. coded.. this is the link to page
> 
> and Waterfox freezes and cant copy even if you select it manually you cant copy it.. .. so I went to IE and did it.. and it worked.. . then just to make sure i brought up Firefox and it has the same issue also
> 
> Not sure if its some plugin I am using or just a bug in FIrefox..


Could you explain a bit better, I'm not quite sure what exactly the error is.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XSAlliN*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it unstable? And it will be faster because it most likely has upgraded component such as an improved JS library.
> 
> 
> 
> ..still lags on sites with lots of .gif animations - yet, that was fixed in Nightly since build 10.0a1.... surprisingly - that fix wasn't implemented with FF10 final release and since same bugs from final version are present in Waterfox - both are unstable from this point of view.
> 
> Check this site: http://www.laymark.com/ in FF/Waterfox 10 and Nightly .... from what i was told on OS X and Linux and certain systems this bug is not present... but on Windows and certain systems (mine being among those...) this bug is present... test it - and you'll know if it's same for u... the difference is "obvious" - on Nightly works perfectly - wile on the other two...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Don't have this problem with IE or Opera either...
> 
> You're probably right about that...
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> And it will be faster because it most likely has upgraded component such as an improved JS library.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ...but was using Waterfox cause it's faster than FF final builds...and Nightly build is even faster and more stable cause of bugs fixed that are still problematic with so called "stable releases".
Click to expand...

That website loads perfectly fine for me. So you're saying it has problems with both FF and WF for you?


----------



## XSAlliN

Quote:


> That website loads perfectly fine for me. So you're saying it has problems with both FF and WF for you?


Yes. At least with Firefox 10 (so Waterfox 10 as well) - with Nightly and any-other browser works perfectly... it's not that it doesn't load - that's not the problem, loads all .gifs and they're animated - but it lags...right-clicking on a gif and selecting image info takes extra time and the animations are rendered slower... try the same on Nightly (or Opera, IE) and all animations are rendered at correct speed and if you right click on image to select info - that loads "instantly (no delay).


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *XSAlliN*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> That website loads perfectly fine for me. So you're saying it has problems with both FF and WF for you?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. At least with Firefox 10 (so Waterfox 10 as well) - with Nightly and any-other browser works perfectly... it's not that it doesn't load - that's not the problem, loads all .gifs and they're animated - but it lags...right-clicking on a gif and selecting image info takes extra time and the animations are rendered slower... try the same on Nightly (or Opera, IE) and all animations are rendered at correct speed and if you right click on image to select info - that loads "instantly (no delay).
Click to expand...

Works fine for me too. Have you tried making a new temporary profile (run waterfox -p)?
I know old or corrupted profiles can do some very strange things.


----------



## XSAlliN

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> Works fine for me too. Have you tried making a new temporary profile (run waterfox -p)?
> I know old or corrupted profiles can do some very strange things.


Nightly uses the same profile and also tried Portable FF10 with new profile and it's the same.


----------



## Czarnodziej

Im not experiencing lag, but it is interesting that the page u mentioned generate significantly more cpu usage on Waterfox 10 than on nightly.


----------



## medievil

going to that site waterfox (10) went to 25% cpu usage...exiting it cpu usage went back to 0%-1%

wondering if it is GPU related...possibly the stuff is hardware accelerated ??..


----------



## momoko

Any chance for a Fx 11 beta build? Even the official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momoko*
> 
> Any chance for a Fx 11 beta build? Even the official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10.












Not having a single issue with 10. Being that WF takes over the user profile, I'm having a hard time buying your take on how the "official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10" as you say it does.

Don't worry Mr. Alex, I got yer back bruh.









~Ceadder


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momoko*
> 
> Any chance for a Fx 11 beta build? Even the official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10.


I'm running my own custom compile of FF11 with AVX and similar optimisations as MrAlex (sadly lacking PGO at the moment due to a bug in mozilla code), and waterfox seems to be pretty close to it from my testing (considering SSE2 vs AVX thats pretty good going). The only significant performance enhancement in FF11 is implementation of SPDY, which is not something that will help much on most sites.


----------



## kronckew

waterfox 10 (build 20120204180658), autoupdate is telling me that there is an update available on the release channel, it'll download a 19.9mb file, then tell me that it could not verify the download integrity & fail, telling me to d/l it from your site. i'm guessing that there is no new build since the 4th...

have turned off auto-update.


----------



## Frapple

Hi there - thanks for this.

Installed it on my laptop & desktop but don't appear to have jump list functionality on my desktop (laptop is ok) Firefox jump lists are working fine.


----------



## Ceadderman

Just to clear up this CPU usage blarney...



... I've JUST opened the browser and my processes were already fluctuating beforehand but looking directly after opening the browser one would expect that any browser that "uses gobs of CPU" would use more than the 5% shown and that it would actually spike wildly. I actually had to pause my [email protected] client to get the actual result.









I call shenanigans.









~Ceadder


----------



## vadimpl

Password Manager (from Kaspersky Crystal) is not working.


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

Stupid question, if I install this, will firefox still work?

BTW, please see my thread on my strange FF 10 issue here, i have yet to hear a reply and have no idea how to fix my problem.
http://www.overclock.net/t/1211444/very-strange-things-happening-in-ff-10/0_30


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SOCOM_HERO*
> 
> Stupid question, if I install this, will firefox still work?
> 
> BTW, please see my thread on my strange FF 10 issue here, i have yet to hear a reply and have no idea how to fix my problem.
> http://www.overclock.net/t/1211444/very-strange-things-happening-in-ff-10/0_30


You have to set up another profile to get both to work separately of each other. If you follow this thread you'll find the information you're looking for. Since I have no need for a separate FFox over my WFox, I haven't done it myself. Otherwise I'd walk you through it.









~Ceadder


----------



## charlir

MrAlex its not just WF its the current version of FF thus where WF came from.. and when you go to that page and click 'Select All' to copy the lua code .. it highlights it but then you cant right click copy or do in my case a ctrl-c .. it just freezes the browser for a bit .. I just posted saying its not WF .. its FF

thanks for all your work
Charles


----------



## charlir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having a single issue with 10. Being that WF takes over the user profile, I'm having a hard time buying your take on how the "official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10" as you say it does.
> Don't worry Mr. Alex, I got yer back bruh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


Not for me WF comes up fast like a 64bit should FF still chuggs getting ready.. and sort of a pain leaving it on just to avoid this .. so WF .. all the way for me


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having a single issue with 10. Being that WF takes over the user profile, I'm having a hard time buying your take on how the "official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10" as you say it does.
> Don't worry Mr. Alex, I got yer back bruh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not for me WF comes up fast like a 64bit should FF still chuggs getting ready.. and sort of a pain leaving it on just to avoid this .. so WF .. all the way for me
Click to expand...

Okay now, wait a minnit...

Is it WFox that is acting up

OR

Is it FFox?










~Ceadder


----------



## evildust

I have a big bug that I have not in Firefox Nightly, maybe caused by Flash Player. With your Waterfox 10, go to this web page http://www.hardcandymusic.com/2012/01/m83-midnight-city-fixyn-remix.html and put your mouse cursor on the cover (to the left of the player). If you see the animation, it's ok, but here, Waterfox crash and close.


----------



## TwoXfour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *evildust*
> 
> I have a big bug that I have not in Firefox Nightly, maybe caused by Flash Player. With your Waterfox 10, go to this web page http://www.hardcandymusic.com/2012/01/m83-midnight-city-fixyn-remix.html and put your mouse cursor on the cover (to the left of the player). If you see the animation, it's ok, but here, Waterfox crash and close.


Works fine for me.


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

Installed and wow is this noticeably faster than FF 10. Uses way less CPU on my C2Duo Laptop.
FF 10 with three tabs (one YT video)= 20% CPU and 400 MB ram

WF 10 with three tabs (one YT video)= 5% CPU and 300 MB ram


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vadimpl*
> 
> Password Manager (from Kaspersky Crystal) is not working.


I'm going to guess here since I don't use Kaspersky, but chances are Kaspersky's Password Manager is a 32-bit browser plugin that doesn't work for 64-bit browsers unless they released an 64-bit version of the plugin.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *vadimpl*
> 
> Password Manager (from Kaspersky Crystal) is not working.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm going to guess here since I don't use Kaspersky, but chances are Kaspersky's Password Manager is a 32-bit browser plugin that doesn't work for 64-bit browsers unless they released an 64-bit version of the plugin.
Click to expand...

That's what I'm thinking is the problem with that Crystal app. Either that or it's not compatible with FFox to begin with. Which is hard to believe I know but I've run into websites that don't cater to the Fox.









~Ceadder


----------



## tek2005

Is there a reason to why i keep getting random freezes with waterfox, tends to be random. I'm also getting this error http://i.imgur.com/sRzG7.png as well as a compatibility check everytime i launch waterfox. First time joining the forums and first time posting here, i had these issues before waterfox/firefox 10 came out after 8.0.1 came out i believe it was, just never bothered to get it fixed, now it's kind of annoying because everytime the compatibility check happens my adblockplus keeps reverting back to its default settings pretty much. (checks "allow intrusive ads" and resets my filter list to allow ads on certain sites of my choice. the blocking filter list still remains though.)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *momoko*
> 
> Any chance for a Fx 11 beta build? Even the official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not having a single issue with 10. Being that WF takes over the user profile, I'm having a hard time buying your take on how the "official 32-bit release works noticeably faster than Waterfox 10" as you say it does.
> 
> Don't worry Mr. Alex, I got yer back bruh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
Click to expand...

Thanks









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> waterfox 10 (build 20120204180658), autoupdate is telling me that there is an update available on the release channel, it'll download a 19.9mb file, then tell me that it could not verify the download integrity & fail, telling me to d/l it from your site. i'm guessing that there is no new build since the 4th...
> 
> have turned off auto-update.


Yeah there's an issue with auto-update. Sorry about that 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Frapple*
> 
> Hi there - thanks for this.
> 
> Installed it on my laptop & desktop but don't appear to have jump list functionality on my desktop (laptop is ok) Firefox jump lists are working fine.


Hmm works for me. Is it pinned to the taskbar correctly?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SOCOM_HERO*
> 
> Installed and wow is this noticeably faster than FF 10. Uses way less CPU on my C2Duo Laptop.
> FF 10 with three tabs (one YT video)= 20% CPU and 400 MB ram
> 
> WF 10 with three tabs (one YT video)= 5% CPU and 300 MB ram


Great to hear!









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Is there a reason to why i keep getting random freezes with waterfox, tends to be random. I'm also getting this error http://i.imgur.com/sRzG7.png as well as a compatibility check everytime i launch waterfox. First time joining the forums and first time posting here, i had these issues before waterfox/firefox 10 came out after 8.0.1 came out i believe it was, just never bothered to get it fixed, now it's kind of annoying because everytime the compatibility check happens my adblockplus keeps reverting back to its default settings pretty much. (checks "allow intrusive ads" and resets my filter list to allow ads on certain sites of my choice. the blocking filter list still remains though.)


Hmm, that's odd. Don't know why that's happening. Have you tried this? https://martintjandra.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/mozilla-firefox-how-to-disable-add-on-compatibility-checking/


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *evildust*
> 
> I have a big bug that I have not in Firefox Nightly, maybe caused by Flash Player. With your Waterfox 10, go to this web page http://www.hardcandymusic.com/2012/01/m83-midnight-city-fixyn-remix.html and put your mouse cursor on the cover (to the left of the player). If you see the animation, it's ok, but here, Waterfox crash and close.


Confirmed. Though I get the same issue on my optimised FF11 build, so it is a Mozilla rather than waterfox specific bug. Happens on a clean profile too.


----------



## abu46

I have WF9 installed, now when i am executing the WF10 exe it doesnt show any option for upgrade as it used to, it only says install.

will it erase my WF9 profile and addons if i click on install??


----------



## berryracer

I have a problem which is making me want to switch back to Firefox although I love Waterfox.

I have the IETAB2 add-on installed, and I have the Adobe Flash Player for IE (x64) installed. I usually play games on MSN Games such as *Spades* it works great on Firefox + IETAB2 but now in Waterfox as soon as I launch this page >>> http://zone.msn.com/en/spades/default.htm I get an error message saying:



the IETAB2 Add-on IS installed but it seems that Waterfox is not compatible with it (whereas all the other add-ons are working seemlessly)

Please help me


----------



## Czarnodziej

IEtab and similiar programs are not compatible with x64 versions of firefox.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Installed and wow is this noticeably faster than FF 10. Uses way less CPU on my C2Duo Laptop.
> FF 10 with three tabs (one YT video)= 20% CPU and 400 MB ram
> 
> WF 10 with three tabs (one YT video)= 5% CPU and 300 MB ram


If only my school computers ran a 64-bit OS and portable Waterfox existed (any plans, MrAlex?







) I would be using Waterfox here too

Better performance with less CPU and RAM!? Highly optimized for the win!


----------



## mafutha

I finally know why videos won't play after reading some posts. The profile is bad. (Reading does a mind good). I decided to delete the profile and start fresh. All is wonderful now.


----------



## Aeonized

I'm surprised if someone hasn't mentioned this yet. I recently did a build of ff 9, labeled as aurora but it was stuck with the release sources so I don't know what's up with that. Anyway!









I've heard compiling firefox with -Os optimization gives a boost as firefox benefits from using less memory at runtime. Also -Os implies -O2 and should prove just as stable. I use my -Os Aurora 9.0.1 build now for linux and will continue to do so for a while. It's 32 bit, but I guess the Waterfox builds could benefit from this. Is there a reason like compromised stability for not using -Os over -O2?

and also, I seem to remember some older builds with speed in mind like this one. Hasn't there been some other project like waterfox, and was it perhaps named something like "Sunfox" or anything?


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aeonized*
> 
> I'm surprised if someone hasn't mentioned this yet. I recently did a build of ff 9, labeled as aurora but it was stuck with the release sources so I don't know what's up with that. Anyway!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've heard compiling firefox with -Os optimization gives a boost as firefox benefits from using less memory at runtime. Also -Os implies -O2 and should prove just as stable. I use my -Os Aurora 9.0.1 build now for linux and will continue to do so for a while. It's 32 bit, but I guess the Waterfox builds could benefit from this. Is there a reason like compromised stability for not using -Os over -O2?
> and also, I seem to remember some older builds with speed in mind like this one. Hasn't there been some other project like waterfox, and was it perhaps named something like "Sunfox" or anything?


/Os doesn't mean /O2. /O2 means /Og /Oi /Ot /Oy /Ob2 /Gs /GF /Gy. (reference http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f8h5cxt.aspx)

And unless you've done some real benchmarks, then the placebo effect is on. I've done hundreds of benchmarks with tenths of programs and various compiler settings and /O2 is the fastest in 99% of the cases, even compared to /Ox (another wrong decision some people make because they "think" it is faster, let alone the stupidest of all which is /Ox /Os)

Feel free to create a couple of builds with various compiler settings and test the speed doing numerous benchmarks. Let us know of the results.


----------



## coffeejunky

chm, I agree, I have also tested with Os vs O2 and found O2 felt and benched faster. How about /GL? I've tested with that and it showed a 2% improvement on most synthetic benches for me. I think mozilla compile official builds with GL. Might be something to look into MrAlex


----------



## virtualguy

I am building a WordPress website. The theme template I'm working with has a theme options page to adjust some of page settings. When I click to the theme options page, the buttons to access the various settings don't work. But, if I log in with Chrome, the buttons work just fine and I can access the page settings. Anyone else experience this, or have an idea why I can't access the page settings in Waterfox?

Strangely, I can't view any videos at metacafe.com, either, but I can view videos on youtube... they're both Flash. Something weird going on...


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I am building a WordPress website. The theme template I'm working with has a theme options page to adjust some of page settings. When I click to the theme options page, the buttons to access the various settings don't work. But, if I log in with Chrome, the buttons work just fine and I can access the page settings. Anyone else experience this, or have an idea why I can't access the page settings in Waterfox?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> VG


Probably only accessible by a 32bit Browser. Do you have another 64bit Browser to test WordPress with. I belong to WordPress but I'm not building a page with them so I'm no expert on what is or is not accessible there with WF. Apologies.









~Ceadder


----------



## xd_1771

I've never had a problem with Waterfox and Wordpress; clean your profile (see "Optimizing Firefox" link in sig)


----------



## abu46

why am i still seeing the back button on the new tab page with WF 10????????


----------



## djkilla

Looks like Firefox 10.0.1 is out.

Changelog:
· A top startup crash (bug is security locked because it's a crash)
· Java applets cause text areas to hang (bug 718939)

Download links:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-10.0.1&os=win&lang=en-US

http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/10.0.1/win32/en-US/

http://www.filehippo.com/download_firefox/comments/11616/


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46*
> 
> why am i still seeing the back button on the new tab page with WF 10????????


Because it's still part of the page. You just won't go anywhere clicking on it until you've started at least one page and gone forward one.









~Ceadder


----------



## arrow0309

Hi, already installed the waterfox too and I'm pretty satisfied of its features, I even found it better than my 32bit Cool Nova (form. ChromePlus) I'm giving up for a while. I still have one request (complain) only and it's something that's bothering me with all Firefox versions:
Every time I open a new session with multiple tabs (mostly various forum pages) they're all loading at the very moment I left them, without being updated.








I have to manually reload every page (every tab) to go on. Did I miss any (advanced) setting?
Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, already installed the waterfox [snip]
> Every time I open a new session with multiple tabs (mostly various forum pages) they're all loading at the very moment I left them, without being updated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to manually reload every page (every tab) to go on. Did I miss any (advanced) setting?
> Any help would be appreciated!


You might try setting the privacy options to delete the cache every time you close the browser. Then, when you open the browser, it can't load the pages from cache and has to load the pages from the server. I haven't tested this theory, but, I think that's the way it works. Won't take much to find out.

VG


----------



## djkilla

Looks like the Firefox 10.0.1 update is important after all according to Mozilla.

Mozilla Patches 'Critical' Firefox Security Hole:
If you are running Firefox 10, you need to download an 'urgent' security update to prevent hacker attacks. Mozilla seems to be on a mission here to get the word out because the browser is vulnerable to attack from just normal browsing.

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/mozilla-patches-critical-firefox-security-hole/10270


----------



## [email protected]

Downloading. Thanks for the info! REP!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Looks like the Firefox 10.0.1 update is important after all according to Mozilla.
> 
> Mozilla Patches 'Critical' Firefox Security Hole:
> If you are running Firefox 10, you need to download an 'urgent' security update to prevent hacker attacks. Mozilla seems to be on a mission here to get the word out because the browser is vulnerable to attack from just normal browsing.
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/mozilla-patches-critical-firefox-security-hole/10270


I'm on it.


----------



## Aeonized

I heard firefox at least used to benefit from -Os because of high memory usage, but that might have been the case with 3.6. Newer releases might not benefit from this.


----------



## FortFun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Because it's still part of the page. You just won't go anywhere clicking on it until you've started at least one page and gone forward one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


I think abu46 was asking why is the forward button still visible in WF10 but in FF10 it doesn't appear until there is a page to go forward to. I have this (minor) question also.


----------



## rdfloyd

Any particular reason Waterfox can't import bookmarks and some settings from Google Chrome? The only option I get is to get bookmarks from IE.


----------



## Lord Venom

Because it's not an official feature yet in Firefox itself. It'll be in Firefox 11 as you can read here - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Features/Chrome_migration - you can export your bookmarks from Chrome and import them as HTML in Firefox though.


----------



## gk67

*Hi!*









I installed it recently and I'm impressed.








Just 2 comments to add:

1) Update check, seems not to working properly.


2) According to Waterfox support:
There is only this thread for getting support and SF.NET author's mail.

This one gigantic thread is somewhat chaotic.
Please open SF.NET forums too (or the tracker maybe), so it will be easier to navigate and post about specific issues.
This "one post to handle them all" is hard to search.


----------



## gk67

*Hi!*









I installed it recently and I'm impressed.








Just 2 comments to add:

1) Update check, seems not to working properly.


2) According to Waterfox support:
There is only this thread for getting support and SF.NET author's mail.

This one gigantic thread is somewhat chaotic.
Please open SF.NET forums too (or the tracker maybe), so it will be easier to navigate and post about specific issues.
This "one post to handle them all" is hard to search.


----------



## rdfloyd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Because it's not an official feature yet in Firefox itself. It'll be in Firefox 11 as you can read here - https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Features/Chrome_migration - you can export your bookmarks from Chrome and import them as HTML in Firefox though.


Thanks for the info. I figured that it would have been in Firefox. +REP.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Hi, already installed the waterfox [snip]
> Every time I open a new session with multiple tabs (mostly various forum pages) they're all loading at the very moment I left them, without being updated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to manually reload every page (every tab) to go on. Did I miss any (advanced) setting?
> Any help would be appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might try setting the privacy options to delete the cache every time you close the browser. Then, when you open the browser, it can't load the pages from cache and has to load the pages from the server. I haven't tested this theory, but, I think that's the way it works. Won't take much to find out.
> 
> VG
Click to expand...

Did that thing and it works, it took me a while to figure that I had to enable first "Clear history when waterfox closes" and only then (under the Settings) you can enable the cache clear only.








Thanks for the tip!
+Rep

Btw: I set manually the cache size to 128mb (gonna avoid unnecessary cache stuff writings on my ssd), what do you think?


----------



## chm44

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> chm, I agree, I have also tested with Os vs O2 and found O2 felt and benched faster. How about /GL? I've tested with that and it showed a 2% improvement on most synthetic benches for me. I think mozilla compile official builds with GL. Might be something to look into MrAlex


/GL and /LTCG doesn't improve things as much as PGO (still, it's better than without them) but there is a bug in MSVC 2010 x64 when using PGO. A workaround is to use the x86_64 compiler, but it requires playing with the mozillabuild batch files. The official Firefox builds are using PGO already.


----------



## Pierre771

Thks for 10.0.1


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Did that thing and it works...
> Btw: I set manually the cache size to 128mb (gonna avoid unnecessary cache stuff writings on my ssd), what do you think?


I keep my cache set a lot lower than that. I think 50MB is plenty.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

I'm tempted to try this, but I'm also afraid I'll mess something up.


----------



## arrow0309

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Did that thing and it works...
> Btw: I set manually the cache size to 128mb (gonna avoid unnecessary cache stuff writings on my ssd), what do you think?
> 
> 
> 
> I keep my cache set a lot lower than that. I think 50MB is plenty.
Click to expand...

Ok, you're right! I'm lowering the cache to 64 mb (max.) then. Currently using 36,6mb.


----------



## Gilly10

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *abu46*
> 
> why am i still seeing the back button on the new tab page with WF 10????????


It's because you've got an additional button between the forward button & the URL bar, for it to seamlessly disappear no button should be in between the two







see:

Nothing inbetween = A hiding Fwd button


(Home) button inbetween = An always showing Fwd button:


Also by the looks of it that button you've got has made the icons bigger which won't help either, I had that problem once with the LastPass Add-on, the devs solved it though I think by making the button smaller.


----------



## abu46

thanks Gilly, now its ok


----------



## cabaflo

Quote:


> Hi! smile.gif
> 
> I installed it recently and I'm impressed. thumb.gif
> Just 2 comments to add:
> 
> 1) Update check, seems not to working properly.


For me also, update check don't work ! Will It be a solution ?


----------



## Pierre771

Hello

that's right, update, manual or automatic, seems not working. I downloaded 10.0.1 to install it.

A question : when official Firefox 64 bits exists within some months, do you have the intention to continue Waterfox ?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> Hello
> that's right, update, manual or automatic, seems not working. I downloaded 10.0.1 to install it.
> A question : when official Firefox 64 bits exists within some months, do you have the intention to continue Waterfox ?


Waterfox will probably continue because it's optimized to be faster than Firefox.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Waterfox will probably continue because it's optimized to be faster than Firefox.


settings -O2 not use by officiel firefox for exemple


----------



## animal0307

Water fox froze on me today. Watching videos on Hulu and the whole browser froze. Started up task manager to kill it and noticed water fox is using ~2gigs of ram and Flash plugin using about 350mbs...







Only have 10~15 tabs open and two windows, one for browsing and the other Hulu. Something doesn't seem right.


----------



## Stilez

Just switched from Firefox to Waterfox. Firefox was freezing/crashing. Wonder if this miiight be why?



Look at the CPU time - this isn't session startup, this is stable mid-session, and doing nothing but browsing, no apps, no video. (Before you ask, about 3/4 of my tabs are hibernated under TGM - these 260 are the ones I'm using right now







) No wonder Firefox 32 was crashing out, really. One small memory leak or request and splat. And the PF delta says it would about die on traditional HDs. The switch was incredibly easy - remove \Firefox and replace with \core. Restarted in x64 like a dream, no issues, everything just as it was. See if this fixes the freeze issues.

This is why some of us _really_ appreciate the work that goes into an x64 version









Thanks everyone who helped make Firefox x64 a reality!


----------



## The Harlequin

I just upgraded from Office 2007 32bit to Office2010 64bit. Now when I click on a email hyperlink in WF 10.1 nothing happens. No error, no pop up, nothing. As if I am clicking regular text. I checked and Outlook 2010 is set as my default email client with the proper associations. Any help in fixing this I would really appreciate it. Thank you!


----------



## djkilla

Hate to bring the bad news but there's a Firefox update coming out tomorrow. I'm still waiting for details and links to the latest version. All I know is it's a security issue that affects ALL Firefox and Thunderbird latest versions.

**Firefox 10.0.2, Firefox ESR 10.0.2, Firefox 3.6.27, beta builds & mobile builds to be released Friday. Also Thunderbird 10.0.2.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *The Harlequin*
> 
> I just upgraded from Office 2007 32bit to Office2010 64bit. Now when I click on a email hyperlink in WF 10.1 nothing happens. No error, no pop up, nothing. As if I am clicking regular text. I checked and Outlook 2010 is set as my default email client with the proper associations. Any help in fixing this I would really appreciate it. Thank you!


Have you changed of profile when you installed waterfox?
Otherwise look into options, application section, normally it is "mailto" that handles this.


----------



## evildust

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/10.0.2/win32/en-US/Firefox Setup 10.0.2.exe


----------



## djkilla

Still waiting on a change log to post on the the security issue fixed in the latest version.

Firefox 10.0.2 Download links:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-10.0.2&os=win&lang=en-US

http://download02.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/10.0.2/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2010.0.2.exe

http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/10.0.2/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2010.0.2.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/10.0.2/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2010.0.2.exe


----------



## raps1

Hi, I have a problem with this adapted version of Firefox. It does not support the FlashGot Addon.
Is there any chance it will be supported? Thanks


----------



## arrow0309

Are we supposed to install this version of Firefox 10.0.2 over the Waterfox (still 10.0) in order to update or what?


----------



## zomgiwin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *arrow0309*
> 
> Are we supposed to install this version of Firefox 10.0.2 over the Waterfox (still 10.0) in order to update or what?


you wait. MrAlex is no slouch, at most, i'd expect a few days.


----------



## charlir

ok and thanks MrALex but im a bit confused Firefox update it 10.0.2 and this one on Feb 13th is 10.0.01 is it the same thing? and at least mine update I have it set to manual still does not work.. says IM up to date on version 10

thanks again

Charles


----------



## charlir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gilly10*
> 
> It's because you've got an additional button between the forward button & the URL bar, for it to seamlessly disappear no button should be in between the two
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> see:
> Nothing inbetween = A hiding Fwd button
> 
> (Home) button inbetween = An always showing Fwd button:
> 
> Also by the looks of it that button you've got has made the icons bigger which won't help either, I had that problem once with the LastPass Add-on, the devs solved it though I think by making the button smaller.


I might add that some of the skins will prevent that also .. guess there not updated yet I use the Noia 4 one doesnt work on it a few others i have it doenst also but small price to pay if you like your skin


----------



## Stilez

Two minor errors in Waterfox's autoupdate:

I installed Waterfox by replacing the /Firefox folder with the unpacked /core folder. Waterfox worked, autoupdate didn't. The autoupdate FAQ says to create and set *app.update.url.override* to *waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml*.

When I did this, I noticed the default config entry *app.update.url* had been changed by Waterfox from when I was on Firefox x32, so obviously Waterfox was trying to make Autoupdate work. The reason it was failing was the value Waterfox was setting was incorrect. Waterfox had changed it on first run, but to waterfoxproject.org/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml Changing the domain to waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net fixed it.

Once that was fixed, Waterfox said there's a new version and do I want to update, although I'm on 10.0.1.4225 and the updated version was also 10.0.1.4225. Even after 'updating' to 10.0.1.4225 it's still saying there's a new version 10.0.1 and asking if I want to update. Not sure why


----------



## djkilla

To answer some questions about Firefox 10.0.2. This is a new version released today and includes a lot of fixes and *NEW* features.

Additional info:
http://boorow.com/Story/13171/Mozilla_Firefox_1002,_Thunderbird_1002_Released#

* *FIXED*
- Security fixes.
- Java applets sometimes caused text input to become unresponsive
- Mac OS X only - after installing the latest Java release from Apple, Firefox may crash when closing a tab with a Java applet installed
- Some users may experience a crash when moving bookmarks
- Silverlight video may not play on some Macintosh hardware

* *NEW*
- Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default
- The forward button is now hidden until you navigate back
- Anti-Aliasing for WebGL is now implemented
- CSS3 3D-Transforms are now supported

* *HTML5*
- New element for bi-directional text isolation, along with supporting CSS properties
- Full Screen APIs allow you to build a web application that runs full screen

* *DEVELOPER*
- We've added IndexedDB APIs to more closely match the specification
- Inspect tool with content highlighting, includes new CSS Style Inspector


----------



## Czarnodziej

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> * *NEW*
> - Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default


If that is what im thinking it is, its HUGE.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> If that is what im thinking it is, its HUGE.


gotta remember thats for the 32 bit version, not the 64 bit builds...


----------



## Lord Venom

Addons (meaning extensions)? Yes, that applies to 64-bit Firefox as well. Plugins on the other hand...


----------



## toyotabedzrock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> To answer some questions about Firefox 10.0.2. This is a new version released today and includes a lot of fixes and *NEW* features.
> Additional info:
> http://boorow.com/Story/13171/Mozilla_Firefox_1002,_Thunderbird_1002_Released#
> * *FIXED*
> - Security fixes.
> - Java applets sometimes caused text input to become unresponsive
> - Mac OS X only - after installing the latest Java release from Apple, Firefox may crash when closing a tab with a Java applet installed
> - Some users may experience a crash when moving bookmarks
> - Silverlight video may not play on some Macintosh hardware
> * *NEW*
> - Most add-ons are now compatible with new versions of Firefox by default
> - The forward button is now hidden until you navigate back
> - Anti-Aliasing for WebGL is now implemented
> - CSS3 3D-Transforms are now supported
> * *HTML5*
> - New element for bi-directional text isolation, along with supporting CSS properties
> - Full Screen APIs allow you to build a web application that runs full screen
> * *DEVELOPER*
> - We've added IndexedDB APIs to more closely match the specification
> - Inspect tool with content highlighting, includes new CSS Style Inspector


Most of that is from the FF10 release.

The update is due to a integer overflow in libpng https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html.
It also affected Google Chrome http://googlechromereleases.blogspot.com/2012/02/chrome-stable-update.html


----------



## Daveski

I've been running Waterfox 10.0.1 for about three days now & I am very impressed.
















Firefox has recently had a security update (10.0.2) is anything like that planned for Waterfox?


----------



## MrAlex

Hey everyone, sorry I haven't replied in a few days, I've had a lot of work to do especially since I have exams soon. I should finish all my work by today and I'll reply to everyone after that.

Thanks,

MrAlex


----------



## Disturbed117

Keep up the good work.


----------



## djkilla

I know making these builds are extremely time consuming. Just wanted to say thank you Mr Alex for the work involved. Too bad Mozilla is releaseing a lot of fixed builds lately. I think we're all going nuts just trying to keep up! Especially you using another day to build the latest Waterfox. Anyway, thanks again and your work is greatly appreciated.


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, those builds are to fix serious bugs and vulnerabilities.


----------



## MrAlex

Well Waterfox 10.0.2 is ready, but SourceForge is having those stupid issues with uploads again and I'm just waiting for it to be sorted. *Sigh*


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

mediafire temp until fix ?


----------



## cryohellinc

Quote:


> mediafire temp until fix ?


This.


----------



## The_Rocker

Been using this for over a week now. Excellent browser!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hi!









About to install this cleanly onto a new Win7 box. Do I still need the VC++ 64bit runtime?


----------



## Levingston

yep


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levingston*
> 
> yep


Huh, weird - I tried installing it anyway, and it worked fine. I guess Win7 SP1 has the VC++ 2010 runtimes in it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levingston*
> 
> yep


Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Hi!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> About to install this cleanly onto a new Win7 box. Do I still need the VC++ 64bit runtime?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Levingston*
> 
> yep
> 
> 
> 
> Huh, weird - I tried installing it anyway, and it worked fine. I guess Win7 SP1 has the VC++ 2010 runtimes in it.
Click to expand...

Nope, Waterfox 10 includes the necessary redistributables with it.


----------



## Levingston

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Nope, Waterfox 10 includes the necessary redistributables with it.


I apologize, i thought you still had to use it lol


----------



## Stilez

Well, 5 days on and I'm 100% happy. Waterfox has solved all of Firefox's stability issues for me, and since the only difference is x64/x32, it probably highlights that Firefox's memory bounds checking is inadequate.

Task manager shows 6.5 GB of memory use and 18.5 hours processor time, and all's good. No crashes and still plenty responsive. The conclusions are 1) Well done Alex and everyone, thank you so much, 2) 4GB bounds need checking more carefully in the Firefox code, and 3) I have wayyyyyy too many tabs open!!


----------



## anitac

How many tabs are open? On a computer with 1GB RAM and some assigned to the integrated graphics, I have had over 600 tabs open at once (Firefox 3).


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anitac*
> 
> How many tabs are open? On a computer with 1GB RAM and some assigned to the integrated graphics, I have had over 600 tabs open at once (Firefox 3).


About 350 tabs right now, mostly ebay pages, amazon, forums, news, product reviews, reference information, how-to's, etc. I thought several GB was normal for that.


----------



## anitac

On my system, it probably used more GBs but as virtual memory. It would not have been nearly as responsive as yours but it remained stable.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Nope, Waterfox 10 includes the necessary redistributables with it.


Thank you most kindly!









Incidentally on the clean install, 64bit Java and 64bit Flash now work just swimmingly.







NoScript and the Switch to Tab Blacklister work without issue, as well.









I need to remember to donate again


----------



## coffeejunky

You guys need to use the 'Don't load tabs until selected' in General Firefox options.


----------



## Daveski

I have a question. I have checked & set Waterfox to auto-update from the advice here & I am waiting for the 10.0.2 update. I am actually running Firefox as well (although I don't open them at the same time). Do I need to uninstall Firefox, or can I effectively run both with no conflicts like IE 9 32/64 bit?

BTW, I think Waterfox is brilliant.


----------



## cryohellinc

I have both and no issues here. Haven't opened Firefox for ages thou.


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cryohellinc*
> 
> I have both and no issues here. Haven't opened Firefox for ages thou.


OK thanks for the reply. In fact, I have Waterfox as my default browser! I haven't opened Firefox much in the past few days either.


----------



## charlir

No its fine .. I dont think you can run both at the same time however if you look .. at least in windows at tasks it says firefox then in description on the far right it says WaterFox. So one or the other.. I open up FF off and on see if anything new but I am a devoted fan of WaterFox..


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> No its fine .. I dont think you can run both at the same time however if you look .. at least in windows at tasks it says firefox then in description on the far right it says WaterFox. So one or the other.. I open up FF off and on see if anything new but I am a devoted fan of WaterFox..


OK thanks, I thought as much. I think Waterfox is pretty cool as well. It's so nice not to have to use IE 9 if I want to surf in 64 bit mode.


----------



## Levingston

I hate to sound impatient but how much longer do we have to wait for 10.0.2? By the time it comes out firefox will probaly have 10.0.3. lol jk jk jk..I do understand about the up;oad servers being down...


----------



## kronckew

could be uploaded to majorgeeks?


----------



## sabidabi

I read that the 10.0.2 is a critical vulnerability fix:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/security/mozilla-firefox-can-be-hacked-via-booby-trapped-images/10406


----------



## mzhg

Hi,

Since version 10.0.0, I have random WaterFox crash and/or bluescreen, mostly while not using the computer, just having WaterFox running with few tabs, minimized or not.

I am using:
Microsoft Windows 7 Professionnel (French)
6.1.7601 Service Pack 1 version 7601

Edit: no pb using last Firefox official (10.0.2)

Here some reports from the windows "Application log": (not really helpful)

Nom de l'application défaillante firefox.exe, version : 10.0.0.4417, horodatage : 0x4f2d784e
Nom du module défaillant : mozjs.dll, version : 0.0.0.0, horodatage : 0x4f2d7402
Code d'exception : 0xc0000005
Décalage d'erreur : 0x0000000000047956
ID du processus défaillant : 0x109c
Heure de début de l'application défaillante : 0x01cceff00d97842e
Chemin d'accès de l'application défaillante : C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe
Chemin d'accès du module défaillant: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\mozjs.dll
ID de rapport : e0cad9c2-5c37-11e1-a3e8-1c6f653ec292

a BlueScreen log:

Récipient d'erreurs X64_0x34_nt!CcSetValidData+11b, type 0
Nom d'événement : BlueScreen
Réponse : http://wer.microsoft.com/responses/resredir.aspx?sid=10&Bucket=X64_0x34_nt!CcSetValidData+11b&ID=d447957e-005f-4249-9500-b72d9d6bf12a
ID de CAB : 0

Signature du problème :
P1 :
P2 :
P3 :
P4 :
P5 :
P6 :
P7 :
P8 :
P9 :
P10 :

Symbole d'analyse : X64_0x34_nt!CcSetValidData+11b
Nouvelle recherche de la solution : 0
ID de rapport : 022112-11497-01
Statut du rapport : 0

A another one :

Nom de l'application défaillante firefox.exe, version : 10.0.0.4417, horodatage : 0x4f2d784e
Nom du module défaillant : ntdll.dll, version : 6.1.7601.17725, horodatage : 0x4ec4aa8e
Code d'exception : 0xc0000005
Décalage d'erreur : 0x00000000000532d0
ID du processus défaillant : 0x10e8
Heure de début de l'application défaillante : 0x01ccef5461befe97
Chemin d'accès de l'application défaillante : C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe
Chemin d'accès du module défaillant: C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll
ID de rapport : a0f914d2-5bb0-11e1-90db-1c6f653ec292


----------



## mzhg

I have just install the lastest Waterfox (10.0.2). I'll tell you if I still get BSOD









EDIT: so far so good, no more bsod with lastest waterfox (10.0.2) \o/


----------



## GangStalking

Would it be possible to add a MD5 or SHA on the main page so that we could verify the file?


----------



## Ceadderman

Well now that makes a little more sense. My AVG has been working overtime this past week or so after upgrading to 10.0.1. I kept looking at it with a jaundiced eye sayin to myself that I didn't do anything different than I always do and that my surfing hasn't taken me anywhere that could jack me up. But I guess just browsing was enough to expose my system.









So updating to 10.0.2 now. Thank you MrAlex.









~Ceadder


----------



## Daveski

I have downloaded the 10.0.2 from the Waterfox homepage. I found that I couldn't auto update. Although I have ~

String: app.update.url.override;http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml

in about:config.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daveski*
> 
> I have downloaded the 10.0.2 from the Waterfox homepage. I found that I couldn't auto update. Although I have ~
> 
> String: app.update.url.override;http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml
> 
> in about:config.


Auto-update doesn't work with me, I've done everything I should have but it's still broken









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raps1*
> 
> Hi, I have a problem with this adapted version of Firefox. It does not support the FlashGot Addon.
> Is there any chance it will be supported? Thanks


It's up to the add-on developer.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mzhg*
> 
> I have just install the lastest Waterfox (10.0.2). I'll tell you if I still get BSOD


Okay









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GangStalking*
> 
> Would it be possible to add a MD5 or SHA on the main page so that we could verify the file?


https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/ and click on the "i", it'll show you the SHA1 and MD5 of the file.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Well now that makes a little more sense. My AVG has been working overtime this past week or so after upgrading to 10.0.1. I kept looking at it with a jaundiced eye sayin to myself that I didn't do anything different than I always do and that my surfing hasn't taken me anywhere that could jack me up. But I guess just browsing was enough to expose my system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So updating to 10.0.2 now. Thank you MrAlex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


No problem


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Auto-update doesn't work with me, I've done everything I should have but it's still broken


It's OK, I often prefer to use the installer anyway. 10.0.2 is working great.


----------



## Derko1

I am having a problem with waterfox... When I watch flash videos on full screen... it does not disable the screen saver. So the screen saver kicks in when watching the videos. I would say about 9/10 times it will do it... but some times it doesn't. Any fix?


----------



## cryohellinc

Quote:


> I am having a problem with waterfox... When I watch flash videos on full screen... it does not disable the screen saver. So the screen saver kicks in when watching the videos. I would say about 9/10 times it will do it... but some times it doesn't. Any fix?


Not exactly a Waterfox problem. Turning off Screen Saver should fix it.


----------



## fullmoon

look here for settings compiler -O2
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/8f8h5cxt.aspx


----------



## Derko1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cryohellinc*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I am having a problem with waterfox... When I watch flash videos on full screen... it does not disable the screen saver. So the screen saver kicks in when watching the videos. I would say about 9/10 times it will do it... but some times it doesn't. Any fix?
> 
> 
> 
> Not exactly a Waterfox problem. Turning off Screen Saver should fix it.
Click to expand...

It is when it worked fine for the last, whatever amount of years, flash videos have existed and it started the minute I installed Waterfox.... disabling the screen saver isn't a solution to the obvious problem being the browser...

Not sure if serious.


----------



## Amo

MrAlex the updater works just fine for me. Just used it to get 10.0.2! Keep up the fine work!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Not sure if this is due to the compiler or not, but Waterfox's latest incarnation seems to be very good at releasing memory! I got an AVG warning about WF using 460 mb of RAM - killed a bunch of tabs etc and usage eventually dropped to 220 megs w/ Youtube running.


----------



## xd_1771

Heya...... MrAlex.... YOU'RE ON ASKVG


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

That's how I felt after I downloaded Waterfox. It's fast. Just replace game with browser. I think.


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amo*
> 
> MrAlex the updater works just fine for me. Just used it to get 10.0.2! Keep up the fine work!


I re-installed 10.0.1 to see if I could auto-update to 10.0.2 & it wouldn't. I checked the URL in the string ~ String: app.update.url.override;http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/...ON%/update.xml
& I got a page with the 400 error below. It hasn't always done this however & has previously taken me to the Waterfox updating page at SourceForge (even though I couldn't auto-upgrade). This may explain why some people can upgrade & some can't.

*An error has been encountered in accessing this page.

1. Server: waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net
2. URL path: /update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml
3. Error notes: NONE
4. Error type: 400
5. Request method: GET
6. Request query string: NONE
7. Time: 2012-02-24 11:56:26 UTC (1330084586)

Reporting this problem: The problem you have encountered is with a project web site hosted by SourceForge.net. This issue should be reported to the SourceForge.net-hosted project (not to SourceForge.net).

If this is a severe or recurring/persistent problem, please do one of the following, and provide the error text (numbered 1 through 7, above):

Contact the project via their designated support resources.
Contact the project administrators of this project via email (see the upper right-hand corner of the Project Summary page for their usernames) at [email protected]

If you are a maintainer of this web content, please refer to the Site Documentation regarding web services for further assistance.

NOTE: As of 2008-10-23 directory index display has been disabled by default. This option may be re-enabled by the project by placing a file with the name ".htaccess" with this line:

Options +Indexes*


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daveski*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Amo*
> 
> MrAlex the updater works just fine for me. Just used it to get 10.0.2! Keep up the fine work!
> 
> 
> 
> I re-installed 10.0.1 to see if I could auto-update to 10.0.2 & it wouldn't. I checked the URL in the string ~ String: app.update.url.override;http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/...ON%/update.xml
> & I got a page with the 400 error below. It hasn't always done this however & has previously taken me to the Waterfox updating page at SourceForge (even though I couldn't auto-upgrade). This may explain why some people can upgrade & some can't.
> 
> *An error has been encountered in accessing this page.
> 
> 1. Server: waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net
> 2. URL path: /update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml
> 3. Error notes: NONE
> 4. Error type: 400
> 5. Request method: GET
> 6. Request query string: NONE
> 7. Time: 2012-02-24 11:56:26 UTC (1330084586)
> 
> Reporting this problem: The problem you have encountered is with a project web site hosted by SourceForge.net. This issue should be reported to the SourceForge.net-hosted project (not to SourceForge.net).
> 
> If this is a severe or recurring/persistent problem, please do one of the following, and provide the error text (numbered 1 through 7, above):
> 
> Contact the project via their designated support resources.
> Contact the project administrators of this project via email (see the upper right-hand corner of the Project Summary page for their usernames) at [email protected]
> 
> If you are a maintainer of this web content, please refer to the Site Documentation regarding web services for further assistance.
> 
> NOTE: As of 2008-10-23 directory index display has been disabled by default. This option may be re-enabled by the project by placing a file with the name ".htaccess" with this line:
> 
> Options +Indexes*
Click to expand...

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml is not an actual URL. Firefox puts in the channel, i.e release or beta and then the version that it is, i.e 10.0.1 and looks for update.xml containing the details of the next update. It checks every now and then.

For example the URL would be:

http://waterfoxproj.sourceforge.net/update/release/10.0.1/update.xml

Or

http://waterfoxproject.org/update/release/10.0.1/update.xml


----------



## Quantum Reality

If you could fix this up for 10.0.3 that would be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic.









(and make it so the installer for 10.0.3 patches an existing install so it correctly updates?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> If you could fix this up for 10.0.3 that would be faaaaaaaaaaaaaaantastic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (and make it so the installer for 10.0.3 patches an existing install so it correctly updates?


Fix up what? The updater seems to working properly now. At first I wasn't sure if it was fixed, but people have reported to have updated without any problem


----------



## Daveski

OK thanks for the explanation MrAlex. I just tried the auto-update & the throbber (Help - About Waterfox) on the pop-up seems to indicate I am indeed up to date. Previously the throbber would not show. So it's fixed for me as well.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Fix up what? The updater seems to working properly now. At first I wasn't sure if it was fixed, but people have reported to have updated without any problem


Don't know about anyone else, but I had to update manually. It was still saying 10.0.1 was up to date.


----------



## Disturbed117

Strange. Updater not working for me.


----------



## mhowie

Anyone else experiencing periodic freezes/not responding/crashes with eBay tabs open? I don't believe this is confined to Waterfox as I've experienced the same with the FF 64-bit nightlies. I do not see the crashes with 32-bit FF.

Thoughts?


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *disturbed117*
> 
> Strange. Updater not working for me.


I think it's a periodic thing for many people. Sometimes when you check the updater pop-up you can actually see the (Firefox-style) circular throbber as it checks for updates. Mine's working now, & it worked when I first downloaded Wx, but for the past few days it hasn't seemed to be working.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Auto-update doesn't work with me, I've done everything I should have but it's still broken


app.update.url.override didn't exist for me...once created update started working... perhaps thats the issue some people do not have it or have it looking at the.org site...since it is a separate settings file, maybe you should throw in a batch file in the installer to run and make the change manually


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Fix up what? The updater seems to working properly now. At first I wasn't sure if it was fixed, but people have reported to have updated without any problem


My 10.0.1 had to be manually upgraded.


----------



## abu46

even i had to update to 10.0.2 manually


----------



## Levingston

I apologize for my earlier post and i won't post something like that again...I went and downloaded Waterfox from the website that you uploaded it too soon after my last poat lol..again i apologize..I have a question, I've been thinking about downloading Firefox 11.04 beta..will this mess up Waterfox in any way?


----------



## mktwo

Is there a way to prevent above dialogue to show up?
I've already been using the latest version and still get this dialogue every a few days.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is there a way to prevent above dialogue to show up?
> I've already been using the latest version and still get this dialogue every a few days.


desable auto-update waterfox for test.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Wait.
How do I update to 10.0.2? @[email protected]


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> desable auto-update waterfox for test.


Thanks.
Why didn't I think of this before... I feel so stupid now.


----------



## antiheroe

I'm using Windows XP 64 bits.

I tried to install Waterfox, but nothing happened.
By using WinRar I extracted the setup file and core folder, then tried to install and nothing happened.

Later, I used Application Verifier (x64) to try to cheat the installer and the setup program started to claim that it only works on Windows Vista 64 or newer.

I just run Firefox.exe from the core folder, and voila, right now I'm typing from my Waterfox 10.0.2.

Any advice? Should I keep on using this browser or get back to Firefox 32 bits?
If using Waterfox, should I make some other changes?

Thanks in advance
antiheroe


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *antiheroe*
> 
> I'm using Windows XP 64 bits.
> 
> I tried to install Waterfox, but nothing happened.
> By using WinRar I extracted the setup file and core folder, then tried to install and nothing happened.
> 
> Later, I used Application Verifier (x64) to try to cheat the installer and the setup program started to claim that it only works on Windows Vista 64 or newer.
> 
> I just run Firefox.exe from the core folder, and voila, right now I'm typing from my Waterfox 10.0.2.
> 
> Any advice? Should I keep on using this browser or get back to Firefox 32 bits?
> If using Waterfox, should I make some other changes?
> 
> Thanks in advance
> antiheroe


Visual Studio is at fault here. If you want you could run Waterfox like a portable program, and create a shortcut to your desktop. Otherwise there's nothing else you can do


----------



## Levingston

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levingston*
> 
> I apologize for my earlier post and i won't post something like that again...I went and downloaded Waterfox from the website that you uploaded it too soon after my last poat lol..again i apologize..I have a question, I've been thinking about downloading Firefox 11.04 beta..will this mess up Waterfox in any way?


Well i downloaded Firefox Beta and there doesn't seem to be any kind of a conflict between it and Waterfox (i mainly use Waterfox)...thanks for helping lol...


----------



## Taoism

Hi all, I did a search on this thread and didn't see this raised as a question before. Has anyone looked into doing a Portable Apps release of Waterfox?


----------



## HepCatChris

The link from the Waterfox download page (http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/) is not working. I was able to find the current version (10.0.2) searching for it on sourceforge, but the download page link should be fixed. The other links (flash, java, silverlight) seem to work fine.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HepCatChris*
> 
> The link from the Waterfox download page (http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/) is not working. I was able to find the current version (10.0.2) searching for it on sourceforge, but the download page link should be fixed. The other links (flash, java, silverlight) seem to work fine.


Huh, strange - I just tested and it was OK for me. MrAlex has said Sourceforge has given him problems before, though.


----------



## ykatch

I had problems with auto update from 10.0.1 so I manually installed 10.02.
Now whenever I start Waterfox it thinks it still needs to complete the update and it runs the add ons check.
Is there a switch I can flip to change this?


----------



## MrAlex

Can't wait to test out Visual Studio 11 tomorrow









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ykatch*
> 
> I had problems with auto update from 10.0.1 so I manually installed 10.02.
> Now whenever I start Waterfox it thinks it still needs to complete the update and it runs the add ons check.
> Is there a switch I can flip to change this?


Try these:

http://www.ghacks.net/2011/12/28/firefox-checking-update-compatibly-every-time-try-this-fix/

https://martintjandra.wordpress.com/2011/03/23/mozilla-firefox-how-to-disable-add-on-compatibility-checking/


----------



## Lord Venom

Going to try the Windows 8 Customer Preview too?


----------



## uncholowapo

Is it me or do I smell a memory leak? And this is with only 6 tabs open


----------



## mzhg

Hi again,

my bsod are now gone with WaterFox 10.0.2, but I still have random crash ( "program has stop working" windows error box) while keeping it open for a long time. (few hours)

I often keep WaterFox open with 5-10 tabs then go do something else, and find it crashed when I come back.



Spoiler: Error Info (Fr)



Nom du journal :Application
Source : Application Error
Date : 29/02/2012 11:19:11
ID de l'événement :1000
Catégorie de la tâche 100)
Niveau : Erreur
Mots clés : Classique
Utilisateur : N/A
Ordinateur : gamma
Description :
Nom de l'application défaillante firefox.exe, version : 10.0.2.4432, horodatage : 0x4f413fce
Nom du module défaillant : xul.dll, version : 10.0.2.4432, horodatage : 0x4f413f97
Code d'exception : 0xc0000005
Décalage d'erreur : 0x0000000000bd1dd1
ID du processus défaillant : 0x734
Heure de début de l'application défaillante : 0x01ccf6bd14d11b50
Chemin d'accès de l'application défaillante : C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe
Chemin d'accès du module défaillant: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\xul.dll
ID de rapport : d1bf38d8-62be-11e1-9a4a-1c6f653ec292
XML de l'événement :

Code:



Code:


<Event xmlns="http://schemas.microsoft.com/win/2004/08/events/event">
  <System>
    <Provider Name="Application Error" />
    <EventID Qualifiers="0">1000</EventID>
    <Level>2</Level>
    <Task>100</Task>
    <Keywords>0x80000000000000</Keywords>
    <TimeCreated SystemTime="2012-02-29T10:19:11.000000000Z" />
    <EventRecordID>8230</EventRecordID>
    <Channel>Application</Channel>
    <Computer>gamma</Computer>
    <Security />
  </System>
  <EventData>
    firefox.exe
    10.0.2.4432
    4f413fce
    xul.dll
    10.0.2.4432
    4f413f97
    c0000005
    0000000000bd1dd1
    734
    01ccf6bd14d11b50
    C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe
    C:\Program Files\Waterfox\xul.dll
    d1bf38d8-62be-11e1-9a4a-1c6f653ec292
  </EventData>
</Event>





Thanks.


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uncholowapo*
> 
> Is it me or do I smell a memory leak? And this is with only 6 tabs open


My guess is that you probably were viewing image heavy webpages. I'm not a tech savvy but, iirc, web browsers have to decompress images before showing them on screen.
So, if there are many images on webpages, Firefox have to use more memory to store decompressed version of them.

Try checking 'about:memory' to see what use up the most memory space.


----------



## medievil

JS is the culprit for me

705.33 MB (47.08%) -- js

loading a page with JS, afterwards it doesn't seem to release the memory so it accumulates


----------



## Derko1

I am still having problems with youtube videos staying full screen... they work fine with ie... I guess I will have to end up going back to plain firefox.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derko1*
> 
> I am still having problems with youtube videos staying full screen... they work fine with ie... I guess I will have to end up going back to plain firefox.


please read the recommendations for use waterfox, no issue has been noticed in waterfox. works for me.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derko1*
> 
> I am still having problems with youtube videos staying full screen... they work fine with ie... I guess I will have to end up going back to plain firefox.


I believe youtube has switched to HTML 5 and that's why you can't see videos full screen. The full screen feature is scheduled for Firefox 12.

Full screen feature info:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Features/Media_Controls_Refresh

Firefox goodies planned for future releases:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> I believe youtube has switched to HTML 5 and that's why you can't see videos full screen. The full screen feature is scheduled for Firefox 12.
> Full screen feature info:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Features/Media_Controls_Refresh
> Firefox goodies planned for future releases:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox/Roadmap


One thign I noticed is that when you zoom them? They don't zoom as big anymore. That's really annoying, youtube should allow custom zoom sizes.


----------



## MrAlex

What do you guys think about switching to the Firefox UX theme? https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-ux/


----------



## Cozmoz

I prefer the current theme. Might work on Windows 8 though.


----------



## coffeejunky

Thats just a mockup though, the real UX that you can download now has a more normal UI, only difference is an inline download box instead of a popup and a new-tab page like chrome, except thats pretty badly done and ugly. Unless you eman switching to a default theme that looks like the mockups?
Forgive me if I'm wrong here but thats what I saw.


----------



## Nemesis158

Id like to report that Waterfox works on Windows 8 consumer preview, however i have encountered an issue.
If i Play BF3 i cannot get Waterfox to launch afterwards unless i restart the computer. i click on the icon, it lights up, then dissapears again. any ideas?
firefox will still launch but when you then try to launch waterfox it opens another FF window


----------



## Quantum Reality

I like the slightly modified Firefox theme.


----------



## quick death

i love waterfox so far i moved over to it from Firefox 3 weeks ago so far so good


----------



## Daveski

As for the Firefox UX theme, It looks nice but I wonder about compatibility with various extensions. Some themes can be problematical in that way. I think Waterfox is just about perfect as it is.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Clarification: I don't like the UX.


----------



## Jollyriffic

if ux was designed a bit different then yes. anything closer to chrome would be nice. i dont like the opera layout.
heres a small issue with the waterfox, abp no longer blocks ads after updating.


----------



## MrAlex

Yeah, no UX then









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jollyriffic*
> 
> if ux was designed a bit different then yes. anything closer to chrome would be nice. i dont like the opera layout.
> heres a small issue with the waterfox, abp no longer blocks ads after updating.


Erm, that's ABP not Waterfox. And it was updated to only block intrusive ad's now.


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Erm, that's ABP not Waterfox. And it was updated to only block intrusive ad's now.


ABP seems to be working fine for me with Waterfox. Mr Palant has made it so you can allow non-intrusive ads if you wish, but you can opt out of that if you want to as well.


----------



## shattered.likeness

I am having some issues that some photos are not showing up, but they show when using IE or Google Chrome.

Post from Bundymania:



Same Post in Google Chrome:


----------



## djkilla

It's that time again for the latest and the greatest Firefox 11.0!

See post #1930


----------



## Lord Venom

Yep, Firefox 11's out.


----------



## MrAlex

Mozilla, WHY YOU LIE?

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Firefox_11


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Mozilla, WHY YOU LIE?
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases#Firefox_11


Lol! The official release date is March 13 but the official final version is available now on their servers. I always keep a lookout for the final version to show up and share the info.


----------



## Gilly10

Mozilla released Firefox 11 Beta 8 on March 10th (Build 1 in the 11.0 Candidate folder is dated March 9th), so Mozilla may push out Build 2 before the official March 13th release, just because they put 1 build in the Candidate folder doesn't mean it's going to be the final version, it's rare for them to do another build in Candidate folder but still could happen, or maybe Beta 8 will turn into the eventual Firefox 11.0.1


----------



## djkilla

You are correct. It's very unusual to see the final version (on there servers but not officially released) change. I've only seen it happen probably 1-2 times in over a year. In this case, that's what happened which is why I removed the links from my previous post for Firefox 11.0. Currently there's an issue with Firefox 11.0 crashing at startup which appears to be related to some code on handeling graphics cards. There's some other coding stuff as well but all of it is being sorted out now and another final version will probably show up at some point today.


----------



## Lord Venom

Looks like they're doing a respin. Best not build Waterfox off FF11 yet!


----------



## djkilla

Thought I'd post a quick update on Firefox 11.0. It's still scheduled for release March 13 but that could change. There's a chance Firefox 11.0 could be delayed due to a few problems.

Here's how it would go if it does get released March 13. Chances are there would be a quick update/release again by Thursday or Friday to fix some problems. So by the end of the week there could be Firefox 11.0.1. Maybe even a Firefox 11.0.2 by next week or the week after.

For a little more info, click the link:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Firefox-11-Release-May-Be-Delayed-258109.shtml


----------



## Gilly10

Just seen they put up build 2 in the 11.0-candidates folder, hopefully they fixed the issues people were having, not sure if this new build plugs the vulnerability that was found though?


----------



## djkilla

The final official build will be showing up very soon today. I saw the following posted this morning:

Alex Keybl [:akeybl] 2012-03-13 06:27:16 PDT
Verified fixed in Firefox 11 (build#2) using the STR in comment #95.

This refers to the graphics bug that was causing Firefox 11.0 to crash on startup. Comment #95 is how the code was changed in detail to fix the bug.


----------



## Kaeth

Hello all!

I recently heard about WaterFox and am debating installing it when I nuke my computer tonight and reinstall everything. (Was getting a bit too liberal on installing apps, need to use Virtualization Software in the future....)

If someone could be so kind, and, additionally, objective, could one of you outline what you feel are the practical advantages of WaterFox over Chrome? I've been using Chrome for quite a while, but I feel it has a few key drawbacks. (Also, please, please, please, Chrome Fanboys, stay away, this isn't a thread for hyping chrome, I'm here to get convinced to switch to WaterFox.)

What *I* Feel Chrome is Good At:

Speedy
Slick'N'Clean
Minimalistic

What I feel Chrome is bad at:
Poor Privacy Controls (I would like it to be easier to erase cookies regarding financial transactions. Click'N'Clean works on Windows, but not on Ubuntu, automatically.)
Very few customization options. (Not sure if Greasemonkey still exists, but I have no desire to go that in depth to customize a browser.)

I know that Firefox has a better interface simply by use - it's customization is great. You can automate privacy natively, which is also handy. My biggest problems are that I have run into rendering issues on Firefox many a time. (Though admittedly this may be due to my workplace still being on 3.5.xx). The one thing holding me back is that I want a browser that loads tabs swiftly, and I imagine a 64 bit version would do that magnificently. (Though admittedly, nowadays, Chrome is only very marginally faster than Firefox x86)


----------



## djkilla

Official final Firefox 11.0 released:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-11.0&os=win&lang=en-US

http://download02.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/11.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2011.0.exe

http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/11.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2011.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/11.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2011.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/11.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2011.0.exe

Release Notes:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/11.0/releasenotes/


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joavery*
> 
> The one thing holding me back is that I want a browser that loads tabs swiftly, and I imagine a 64 bit version would do that magnificently.


Firefox (and thus Waterfox) doesn't have the tab performance that'd make it as fast as Chrome is right now for tab opening/closing/switching. For example, if you open a few tabs, Firefox/Waterfox will start to get sluggish with each additional tab opening and when tab switching. It's a Firefox performance issue and the only hope is if Mozilla's devs try to increase tab performance as part of project snappy.


----------



## alienstorexxx

hi to everyone! my question is if is any way to use a spanish localization on it
excelent work btw, it performs perfectly!


----------



## djkilla

Just installed Waterfox 11.0 and was messing around with some of the new stuff. Has anyone tried the new 3D Inspector yet? I'm absolutely freaking out with this new feature. I have no idea what it's for but it's cool!

1) Hit Ctrl+Shift+I and at the bottom select 3D

2) Click on the screen and drag the page around. Use the mouse wheel to zoom in and out.

3) Hit ESC key to exit.


----------



## spice003

^^ pretty neat lol, thanx for the update OP


----------



## xljbit

The "Test Pilot" addon was installed and the default release channel is set to beta in v11. Is this accurate? Since that never happened before.

--enable-application=browser --enable-application=browser --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --disable-auto-deps --disable-debug --disable-tests --disable-debug-symbols --disable-ipdl-tests --enable-installer --with-branding=browser/branding/waterfox --enable-extensions=default --enable-strip --enable-install-strip '--enable-optimize=-Og -Oi- -Ot -Oy -Ob2 -Gs -GF -Gy -GS- -GA -w' --enable-update-channel=beta --enable-update-packaging --disable-crashreporter --enable-jemalloc --enable-shared-js --enable-debugger-info-modules=no --disable-debugger-info-modules --disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting --enable-crypto --enable-image-decoders=icon,png,gif,jpeg,bmp --disable-mochitest --disable-mochitests --disable-accessibility --disable-parental-controls --disable-windows-mobile-components --with-windows-version=601


----------



## tyrannor

Has Firefox 64 bit been released yet? If so, how does it compare with Waterfox?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xljbit*
> 
> The "Test Pilot" addon was installed and the default release channel is set to beta in v11. Is this accurate? Since that never happened before.
> --enable-application=browser --enable-application=browser --target=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --host=x86_64-pc-mingw32 --disable-auto-deps --disable-debug --disable-tests --disable-debug-symbols --disable-ipdl-tests --enable-installer --with-branding=browser/branding/waterfox --enable-extensions=default --enable-strip --enable-install-strip '--enable-optimize=-Og -Oi- -Ot -Oy -Ob2 -Gs -GF -Gy -GS- -GA -w' --enable-update-channel=beta --enable-update-packaging --disable-crashreporter --enable-jemalloc --enable-shared-js --enable-debugger-info-modules=no --disable-debugger-info-modules --disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting --enable-crypto --enable-image-decoders=icon,png,gif,jpeg,bmp --disable-mochitest --disable-mochitests --disable-accessibility --disable-parental-controls --disable-windows-mobile-components --with-windows-version=601


desable test pilot and change beta to release in config. (me, always release).

Alex, you have to check if there is a difference.


----------



## xljbit

That's from about:buildconfig. I didn't compile it.


----------



## djkilla

xljbit - I had to read your post closely but I'll try to give an answer. Firefox 11.0 was extremely close at being released on time March 13. They had a build 2 which became the final official build. Either Waterfox was built using the build 2 or the final official version was rushed out and the 'Test Pilot' addon and 'Beta Channel' was left in. Either way, Waterfox 11.0 is the final official version and there's no difference from the final official release of Firefox 11.0. Confused yet? So simply remove or disable the 'Test Pilot' addon and change the beta channel to release.

Change from beta channel to release channel:
http://www.twistermc.com/36415/disable-firefox-beta-update/


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xljbit*
> 
> That's from about:buildconfig. I didn't compile it.


yeah







I'm not a good english, sorry.


----------



## 0chilly

so...i installed waterfox to a directory other than where firefox was installed. decided to uninstall waterfox and apparently doing so has nuked my firefox installation back to default. there is no profile, no addons, no bookmarks, nothing.

wish i would have known it was gonna do that :| bleh


----------



## RagingLoon

@MrAlex, I'm surprised I missed this...
Quote:


> If you aren't getting notifications for automatic updates then do the follow steps:
> 
> Enter about:config in the address bar
> Search for app.update.url.override (if it does not exist, Right Click > New > String)
> Modify its value to http://waterfoxproject.org/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml


Anyhow, thanks! Waterfox is finally updating on its own for me.


----------



## Ceadderman

11.0 sucks Mr. Alex.









This is the 4th time in the last hour my Browser has crashed. I'm pretty sure there is a memory leak someplace. Probably wouldn't have found it if I didn't have so many tabs open at once, but in 10.0.2 I didn't have a single crash with so many(35 tabs) open. System was only using 4.12 of 8Gigs which seems like a lot until you factor in the AV progs. I'm not mad, WF is still a great Browser. But this memory leak should probably be sourced out and dealt with.









~Ceadder


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *0chilly*
> 
> so...i installed waterfox to a directory other than where firefox was installed. decided to uninstall waterfox and apparently doing so has nuked my firefox installation back to default. there is no profile, no addons, no bookmarks, nothing.
> wish i would have known it was gonna do that :| bleh


Well the Waterfox download page does warn you about that. It specifically says not to select the option to remove your data files when uninstalling, if you're planning on going back to Firefox.


----------



## abu46

one word for WF11

"****IN FAST"

oops thats 2


----------



## MrAlex

Uh-oh, seems I was testing Beta builds and left the channel to beta. Hopefully Mozilla release a Firefox 11.0.1 so I can fix the issue









Guys I'll reply to everyone soon. My final exam tomorrow but I'll be all ears after that.


----------



## jonbly

Poking around in the FF11 notes, there's a comment that the SPDY protocol has been disabled because "SPDY is not at fault, it's a 'libxul is now too large for MSVC2005 to link on a 32bit OS, even with the 3GB flag' issue".

But... presumably Waterfox won't have that issue.

To turn SPDY on, you'll need to set network.http.spdy.enabled to true in about:config

There's also this li'l fella if you want to see when SPDY's in the mix...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/spdy-indicator/

(...though it doesn't actually seem to work, for me at least)


----------



## xljbit

So they just gotta use 64-bit Windows? Or trim some fat. I know they have enough money to give their builders a copy of 7 64-bit. I heard about that before on /., a search shows up on a bug report/discussion they are considering MSVC 2010. That will for sure lock out Windows 2000 users though since using 2010 would require at least XP SP2.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Uh-oh, seems I was testing Beta builds and left the channel to beta. Hopefully Mozilla release a Firefox 11.0.1 so I can fix the issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys I'll reply to everyone soon. My final exam tomorrow but I'll be all ears after that.


Just new here btw =) and found out this. Maybe it will help you guys that are still displaying the beta channel. And Gud

from mozillazine:
Quote:


> Note: that you cannot change channel using about:config. Instead, you can use the Update Channel Changer extension (go to Help -> Check for Updates -> Change Update Channel). Alternatively, you can edit the channel-prefs.js file with a text editor.
> 
> If you tried to change the channel by editing channel-prefs.js and there is no app.update.channel pref in about:config, or it has not changed, then the channel-prefs.js file needs fixing. Either install the Update Channel Changer, or open \defaults\pref\channel-prefs.js in a text editor like Notepad, making sure that it has two lines like this (for the nightly channel):
> 
> //@line 2 "c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release\browser\app\profile\channel-prefs.js"
> pref("app.update.channel", "beta");


just change to "beta" into release then save the file and you'll be set to release channel


----------



## petestrash

Got a popup message that Waterfox 10.0.2 could not determine if an update was available.

So manually downloaded Waterfox 11 and installed.

The installer found my existing installation and updated it.

When Waterfox restarted it found an incompatible add-on, and asked if I wanted to find an update which it did.

Waterfox restarted again successfully, but to my horror my 30+ tabs were all missing.

I tried using sessionstore.bak, but unfortunately due to the extra restart it too was empty









So just a warning to others, maybe backup sessionstore.js before updating to V11.

Pete.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *petestrash*
> 
> Got a popup message that Waterfox 10.0.2 could not determine if an update was available.
> 
> So manually downloaded Waterfox 11 and installed.
> 
> The installer found my existing installation and updated it.
> 
> When Waterfox restarted it found an incompatible add-on, and asked if I wanted to find an update which it did.
> 
> Waterfox restarted again successfully, but to my horror my 30+ tabs were all missing.
> 
> I tried using sessionstore.bak, but unfortunately due to the extra restart it too was empty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just a warning to others, maybe backup sessionstore.js before updating to V11.
> 
> Pete.


I went and updated Firefox first and then updated Waterfox. I didn't get that problem


----------



## Ceadderman

I updated WF only and my session restored no problem using History > Restore Previous Session.

If you close the session before you close the DL menu, your session is cleared.









~Ceadder


----------



## virtualdub

This newly released waterfox 11.0 beta version ,might be significantly slower than the lastest release version 10.0.2 acccording to the SunSpider JavaScript Benchmark results dropping from 170ms to 220ms。Did this issue related to the waterfox modification or just mozilla's change?
Test Environment：Windows 8 CP Build 8250 x64， i7 [email protected]/16GB DDR3/256G SSD/GTX570

my regards


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *petestrash*
> 
> Got a popup message that Waterfox 10.0.2 could not determine if an update was available.
> 
> So manually downloaded Waterfox 11 and installed.
> 
> The installer found my existing installation and updated it.
> 
> When Waterfox restarted it found an incompatible add-on, and asked if I wanted to find an update which it did.
> 
> Waterfox restarted again successfully, but to my horror my 30+ tabs were all missing.
> 
> I tried using sessionstore.bak, but unfortunately due to the extra restart it too was empty
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So just a warning to others, maybe backup sessionstore.js before updating to V11.
> 
> Pete.


Use Session Manager in future. In these occurrences there is always a backup session from not too long ago to save your session


----------



## Daveski

I thought everything was basically a beta anyway! LOL


----------



## charlir

thanks for the update on 11 and the instructions for auto update worked great


----------



## LR148

Waterfox 11.0 Compatible with Win XP x64?

Waterfox installer will not work with XP x64 system. Error message states that Vista 64-bit is required. Is there a separate installer for XP x64? Thanks.


----------



## atomicscissors

I just installed Waterfox, and I'm loving it.

Since I plan on using Waterfox from now on, can I (should I) uninstall Firefox?


----------



## Pierre771

Hello

In Opera 12 Labs OOP 64 bits Windows (cf download link in this page ) I installed and tried yesterday,

all 32 bits plugins run perfectly with an out-of-process technology.









ex : Google talk, Google earth, Sumatra.

Caution it is a dev build and it often crashes...

Program and profile are entirely separated from the stable version (other folders).


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *atomicscissors*
> 
> I just installed Waterfox, and I'm loving it.
> Since I plan on using Waterfox from now on, can I (should I) uninstall Firefox?


If you do it, it is under your responsability !

I would not do it if I were you, for several reasons : Imagine you need to execute a 32 bits plugin ?

Another reason : There will be an official 64 bits Firefox and maybe you will be interested in it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LR148*
> 
> Waterfox 11.0 Compatible with Win XP x64?
> Waterfox installer will not work with XP x64 system. Error message states that Vista 64-bit is required. Is there a separate installer for XP x64? Thanks.


Waterfox needs Vista, W7 or further and is not compatible with XP, as many other modern programs. Maybe future 64 bits Firefox will be but I'm not sure.


----------



## tyrannor

Wasnt Firefox 11 supposed to be the first version with 64 bit?
Has something changed or are they going to take time to release the 64bit version?


----------



## chilinmichael

Taking their time. Same story with flash support on Firefox mobile.

Sent from my Evo 3D using Tapatalk


----------



## TwistedMind

Hey Alex, with xfire opened, I went to check out gaming screenshots under xfire, double clicked any of them, _which would launch your default browser, xfire launches & crashes Waterfox. With xfire just running then if you try to launch Waterfox, Waterfox will result in a crash.

I have many mozilla based browsers, I've tested on all of them and it is only Waterfox that crashes while xfire is running.

Could you or anyone else confirm this?

Edit:
xfire.exe application itself running, forces Waterfox to crash._


----------



## ihatelolcats

can you fix the "view image" behavior?


----------



## chilinmichael

I am having an issue with Adobe Flash crashing at random times.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Uh-oh, seems I was testing Beta builds and left the channel to beta. Hopefully Mozilla release a Firefox 11.0.1 so I can fix the issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guys I'll reply to everyone soon. My final exam tomorrow but I'll be all ears after that.


And this can't be manually fixed at user-end because?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> If you aren't getting notifications for automatic updates then do the follow steps:
> 
> Enter about:config in the address bar
> Search for app.update.url.override (if it does not exist, Right Click > New > String)
> Modify its value to http://waterfoxproject.org/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml


I had Waterfox 10, tried this --

It did not find the update, I had to do it manually. What gives?


----------



## djkilla

Waterfox 11.0 is running fast without problems for me.

TwistedMind - I went to the Xfire website and clicked 'Screenshots' on top and could view all of them without problems and in fullscreen also.

chilinmichael - No problems with Adobe Flash. Did you upgrade to the latest version 11.1.102.63 that came out a few days ago?

ihatelolcats - Mozilla changed the way images are viewed starting with version 11. When you view an image, it's now centered with a dark background.

tyrannor - Firefox 64bit won't be released until early 2013. For more info, you can read the report by clicking the following link: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.planning/HMg_Cef17-M/cXxjNmb6euwJ


----------



## nimd4

Spam reply, in order to subscribe to this thread; "Subscribe" isn't working for me :f Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120319 Firefox/14.0a1


----------



## DoomerDGR8

Hi! I recently upgraded from v10 to v11 and I'm facing a strange issue here. After a while of usage, the windows and the text within Waterfox degrades. It becomes impossible to make out words sometimes. I have a screen shot attached for clarification.



I'm wondering if this is only Waterfox or its also happening to Firefox users as well?

Thanks and keep up the good work.

*EDIT*
Forgot to mention that all other windows are normal. Also, My laptop, Sony VAIO VPCSB28GA, has two GFX: Intel and AMD. The smudged Waterfox is on AMD GFX card only.


----------



## ihatelolcats

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DoomerDGR8*
> 
> Hi! I recently upgraded from v10 to v11 and I'm facing a strange issue here. After a while of usage, the windows and the text within Waterfox degrades. It becomes impossible to make out words sometimes. I have a screen shot attached for clarification.
> 
> I'm wondering if this is only Waterfox or its also happening to Firefox users as well?
> Thanks and keep up the good work.


you might try disabling hardware acceleration as a temporary fix


----------



## coffeejunky

Looks like you have Morphological Filtering enabled in your GPU drivers and that is somehow treating Firefox as a 3D program. I highly recommend turning morphological filtering off, you games will look so much crisper, game text will be easier to read. Terrible default option in AMD's CCC IMO.


----------



## DoomerDGR8

That fixed it. Thanks.


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> TwistedMind - I went to the Xfire website and clicked 'Screenshots' on top and could view all of them without problems and in fullscreen also.


I should have said the xfire.exe application itself running, forces Waterfox to crash.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*
> 
> I should have said the xfire.exe application itself running, forces Waterfox to crash.


Is it a plugin in 64 bit? If plugin in 32 bit, this isn't works.


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Is it a plugin in 64 bit? If plugin in 32 bit, this isn't works.


Plugin?

I'll say it again







Xfire and Waterfox do not commit together. If xfire is running, then launch Waterfox, Waterfox crashes, on my side







. I'll wait for others as well.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*
> 
> Plugin?
> I'll say it again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Xfire and Waterfox do not commit together. If xfire is running, then launch Waterfox, Waterfox crashes, on my side
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . I'll wait for others as well.


I read the XFire FAQ and it mentions Firefox and Chrome. Both of those browsers are 32bit. You mentioned that the XFire addon works in other browsers. Which browsers have you tried that are 64bit that works with XFire? When you click 'Extensions' or 'Plugins' in Waterfox does XFire show it's enabled? It may be XFire is not compatible with a 64bit browser.

Try reading through the XFire FAQ for tips and fixes for issues:
http://beta.xfire.com/faq


----------



## LordDeath

Is there a possibility to see regular Waterfox builds based on the latest Beta or Aurora builds?


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> I read the XFire FAQ and it mentions Firefox and Chrome. Both of those browsers are 32bit. You mentioned that the XFire addon works in other browsers. Which browsers have you tried that are 64bit that works with XFire? When you click 'Extensions' or 'Plugins' in Waterfox does XFire show it's enabled? It may be XFire is not compatible with a 64bit browser.
> Try reading through the XFire FAQ for tips and fixes for issues:
> http://beta.xfire.com/faq


Nope, I had never mentioned anything about any addon or plugin. Just xfire client running and then launch Waterfox, Waterfox crashes..

Yea, I've tested it on Palemoon x64, works just fine.

Edit:

Code:



Code:


[error]
Problem signature:
  Problem Event Name:   APPCRASH
  Application Name:     firefox.exe
  Application Version:  11.0.0.4455
  Application Timestamp:        4f5f9198
  Fault Module Name:    kernel32.dll
  Fault Module Version: 6.1.7601.17651
  Fault Module Timestamp:       4e21213b
  Exception Code:       c0000005
  Exception Offset:     0000000000016f85

SS.


----------



## chilinmichael

DJKilla - Yes, Adobe flash is fully updated.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> DJKilla - Yes, Adobe flash is fully updated.


Try reinstalling Adobe Flash by doing the following:

1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/uninstall_flash_player_64bit.exe

2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed

**If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.

3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player:
For Internet Explorer - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_64bit.exe

For Waterfox and other browsers - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin_64bit.exe

**You can install both. That's what I do.

4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy. Hopefully this will fix any issues you have with flash content.


----------



## djkilla

TwistedMind - I installed XFire, opened Waterfox and went to the XFire website and clicked 'Screenshots' on top and didn't have any problems. Did you install the latest version 1.148 that came out February 29 and install the latest Xfire XO Toolbar 3.10.0.1 ( http://media.xfire.com/xfire/readme.html )?


----------



## TwistedMind

Thnx man







. Um, no, never any toolbars. Xfire has auto updates imbedded, so when ever an update happens, xfire gets it.

I am guessing there is something up with my Win7 x64. Appreciate the help bro.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*
> 
> Thnx man
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Um, no, never any toolbars. Xfire has auto updates imbedded, so when ever an update happens, xfire gets it.
> I am guessing there is something up with my Win7 x64. Appreciate the help bro.


No problem! A couple of other things it could be is if you have Waterfox sandboxed using software like Sandboxie or even Avast Anti-virus with a built-in sandbox for web browsers. It could also be Windows built-in firewall that's preventing updates or connections. Kinda hard to pin-point exactly what it may be but I'm trying to throw out some ideas for you to check on.


----------



## medievil

dunno what it is about rapidshare, but cpu usage jump waaay up when you go there...and drops back to almost nothing once you close the window


----------



## mkauto

why waterfox 11 in beta channel?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mkauto*
> 
> why waterfox 11 in beta channel?


Answer: http://waterfoxproject.org/


----------



## chilinmichael

DJKILLA - Thank you, this seems to have fixed the issue.


----------



## Taylorsci

It still will not auto update for me, I've had the proper configuration for several months now and I always get a little popup that says it can't update.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Is there a way to view PDF's in the browser? I thought I could do it before....


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> Is there a way to view PDF's in the browser? I thought I could do it before....


Yes, here's three different ways to view PDF's within Waterfox:

PDF-XChange Viewer
http://waterfoxproject.org/news/32/15/Need-a-64-Bit-PDF-Reader.html

PDF.js
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdfjs/

Sumatra PDF
http://xhmikosr.1f0.de/sumatrapdf/SumatraPDF-2.1-x64-install.exe


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> Looks like you have Morphological Filtering enabled in your GPU drivers and that is somehow treating Firefox as a 3D program. I highly recommend turning morphological filtering off, you games will look so much crisper, game text will be easier to read. Terrible default option in AMD's CCC IMO.


Strange that that happens - I just installed my 6950 and Morphological Filtering is off by default in the latest catalysts. I wonder if an application profile enables it and Catalyst doesn't know to disable it when the application is finished.

More general stuff:

Clean installed WF 11.0, everything is flawless as usual with NoScript + Switch to tab blacklist rockin' in the house.









Also, re PDFs? I personally dislike that feature because in the past I've found PDF readers to be kind of flaky, especially when loading a large PDF. Then both the browser AND the PDF reader seize up, and that's always fun times to recover from.


----------



## trunks01

I've tried almost every 64-bit browser in existence and Waterfox is by far the best! I just have one suggestion to help make it better, could you add a way to close the last tab (and the browser) to the last tab? We can click the x to close subsequent tabs, but when it comes to the last tab we can only close the browser. I know that it is menial, however, it should make for more streamlined operation considering things in our culture are situated to the left and going far right takes you out of the way. Also, might you consider adding the ability to duplicate a tab? Maybe adding "Duplicate" to the right-click menu. Thank you.


----------



## ihatelolcats

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trunks01*
> 
> I've tried almost every 64-bit browser in existence and Waterfox is by far the best! I just have one suggestion to help make it better, could you add a way to close the last tab (and the browser) to the last tab? We can click the x to close subsequent tabs, but when it comes to the last tab we can only close the browser. I know that it is menial, however, it should make for more streamlined operation considering things in our culture are situated to the left and going far right takes you out of the way. Also, might you consider adding the ability to duplicate a tab? Maybe adding "Duplicate" to the right-click menu. Thank you.


i believe tab mix plus addon can change the tab/window close behavior
for duplicating tabs, you can hold ctrl+left mouse and drag a tab over to clone it


----------



## Leftyb

I just installed the Waterfox 11 update on my existing Waterfox install and the menus have disappeared. I tried uninstalling and r-installing 11 also without success. Has this issue appeared at all with others? I did a search and couldn't find anything. the drop down menus like the "Get notified when others reply?" one below don't work either.

Thanks,
Bryce


----------



## Leftyb

I tried uninstalling and reinstaling v-10& 10.5 without success


----------



## drbaltazar

To use it right now you'll need to set network.http.spdy.enabled to true in about:config
this is one big reason to try it!


----------



## Leftyb

I can get the About menu to pop up using the keyboard, Alt then H then A but the window is blank, like it isn't loading the contents. It doesn't freeze Waterfox, just nothing displays.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leftyb*
> 
> I can get the About menu to pop up using the keyboard, Alt then H then A but the window is blank, like it isn't loading the contents. It doesn't freeze Waterfox, just nothing displays.


Could you possibly upload a screenshot?


----------



## Leftyb

Here's a screenshot of my issue, you can see that the outline of the menu appears but there is nothing in it. The commands in the menu are still active, the menu just doesn't display. I have tried versions 10 and above after 11 caused the problem without success and when removing each version, I have removed personanl information also. If I select Alt then F then X on the keyboard, Waaterfox exits like I selected File then Exit with the mouse.

Thanks,
Bryce

Waterfox error.jpg 126k .jpg file


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leftyb*
> 
> Here's a screenshot of my issue, you can see that the outline of the menu appears but there is nothing in it. The commands in the menu are still active, the menu just doesn't display. I have tried versions 10 and above after 11 caused the problem without success and when removing each version, I have removed personanl information also. If I select Alt then F then X on the keyboard, Waaterfox exits like I selected File then Exit with the mouse.
> Thanks,
> Bryce
> 
> Waterfox error.jpg 126k .jpg file


Sounds like you have a corrupt toolbar. Follow the steps on the second half of the page titled 'Corrupt toolbars and controls':

Corrupt toolbars and controls
http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Menu%20bar%20is%20missing


----------



## Leftyb

Just tried it, didnt work. Any other ideas?


----------



## Leftyb

Ok, I got it to start with menus and all in safe mode. Any idead how I can diagnose what is causing this?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leftyb*
> 
> Ok, I got it to start with menus and all in safe mode. Any idead how I can diagnose what is causing this?


So it's working now or just in safe mode? What could cause this is when updating to a newer version over an already installed older version, some of the files left from the older version could conflict with the updated files of the newer version. I personally uninstall older versions and delete any folders/files left behind then do a fresh clean install. I never have problems doing it this way and found that most problems are caused from updating a newer version over an already installed older version.

Now that Firefox/Waterfox 11.0 has sync for extensions/add-ons, this makes it a very quick process to uninstall and install the latest version.


----------



## Leftyb

Its working in safe mode only. I have been uninstalling and re-installing, but not manually removing folders. I'll try that


----------



## Leftyb

I uninstalled Waterfox, manually removed folders in "Program Files" and Users then installed v-11 again. When it starts, what I see the title bar at the top of the screen and the outline of the window, but what is shown inside is whatever the background is before I switch to that window. It is as if the display is not refreshing for the window. If I maximize the window, the display refreshes, but the menys still do not work. Menus work in other programs, but an interesting thing I just noticed is that the pull down menus here on this page won't pull down (like the one about notification below). I can click in the menu and scroll through the options with the arrow keys but not pull them down. This all happened after I removed my original Waterfox and reinstalled 11 the 1st time.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Leftyb*
> 
> Its working in safe mode only.


I think I may know what's causing the problem. Possibly an extension/add-on. Try this:



1) Press the SHIFT key and click the Waterfox icon.

2) Choose 'Disable all add-ons'

3) Click 'Make Changes and Restart' at the bottom.

This will start Waterfox in regular normal mode but without add-ons. If your menu works, then it's one of your add-ons. Restart Waterfox again and click 'Add-ons' in the Waterfox drop-down menu. Select Extensions and starting with the first one, click 'Disable' and restart Waterfox. Check to see if your menu works. If not, go back and reenable the add-on and disable the next add-on and restart Waterfox. Repeat this process until you find which add-on is causing the problem.


----------



## Leftyb

That wasn't it. I restarted that way and the menus are still not there. I have selected all the items in the restart in safe mode without success. This is a clean install of v-11


----------



## djkilla

Leftyb - Which operating system are you using?


----------



## Leftyb

I'm running Win 7 64 bit


----------



## djkilla

Leftyb - Hate to do this to you but I want to make sure you do/did a complete uninstall. First, uninstall Waterfox then do the following:

1) Open Windows Explorer and click your c: drive to highlight it.



2) Click Organize in the top left corner and select 'Folder and search options'



3) Click the View tab on top and select 'Show hidden files, folders and drives'

4) Click 'Apply to folders' on top and then 'Apply' at the bottom. Now you should be able to see all the folders and files that need to be deleted for a clean install.



5) Open Program Files and look for a folder that says Waterfox or Mozilla Firefox. If you see them, delete the folders.

6) Open Program Files (x86) and look for a folder that says Waterfox or Mozilla Firefox. If you see them, delete the folders.

7) Open Users folder and click your account/user name (For me it's Rockin' Jerry in the pic above).

8) Open Appdata then Local and look for a folder that says Waterfox, Mozilla Firefox or Mozilla. If you see them, delete the folders.

9) Repeat step 8 for LocalLow and Roaming.

10) Now you have completely uninstalled and cleaned out everything left behind by Waterfox/Firefox. Try Installing Waterfox 11.0 and see if the menu works properly. If not, then let me know.

P.S. When Waterfox/Firefox is open you can hit the ALT key to show and hide the menu.


----------



## Leftyb

It's ok to ask the question. Yes, I did a complete remove of the program and users folders without success. Alt is what I have been using, I am very familiar with keyboard control.


----------



## djkilla

Strange. Looks like everything has been tried so far without success. Have you tried going to options, selecting Advanced on top and click the General tab then clicking the 'Use hardware acceleration when available' and restarting Waterfox? Try it with it on and off. I can't think what else to try. It's not the add-ons, a clean install should have fixed it but didn't. If the 'hardware acceleration' setting doesn't fix it there's really nothing left. This only happens with Waterfox 11.0, right? Did you also try disabling any anti-virus or malware programs that may be running to see if that may be it?


----------



## Leftyb

Hardware accelleration was it! It was enabled, with it off, the menus work fine. What a mess! Thanks for the help. Have to make sure that one gets logged in the right place as I'm sure it will come up again.

Thanks,
Bryce


----------



## djkilla

That's great! I'm glad I was able to help. So simple but yet one of those things that took a while to find out that was the problem.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> Waterfox needs Vista, W7 or further and is not compatible with XP, as many other modern programs. Maybe future 64 bits Firefox will be but I'm not sure.


Waterfox is full of crap.

Copied the program directory of Waterfox 11 from my Server 2008 R2 install into only my XP x64 install and the browser works flawlessly.

Just another case of an arbitrary limitation with the installer.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Might I suggest an installer option that says "You are attempting to install this on XP 64-bit. While this is an unsupported operating system, you may install it at your own risk" and then OK / CANCEL.

So that way if XP64 users want they can use Waterfox, if they don't then the installer will abort and they can use MSIE 64-bit or just use 32-bit Firefox.


----------



## MrAlex

Visual Studio doesn't allow the installer to target 64-Bit Windows XP. You can still run the program though if you find out where the installer extracts the files.


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*
> 
> Nope, I had never mentioned anything about any addon or plugin. Just xfire client running and then launch Waterfox, Waterfox crashes..


I would like to confirm that. While *xfire* is running launching Waterfox is impossible - ends up with an error in kernel32.dll (Exception: 0xc0000005). *It's NOT a matter of any xfire addon/plugin!* I guess it's some kind of memory access thing (exception 0xc0000005 indicates that) between xfire, which "monitors" any launched/running applications and Waterfox itself.

*Edit*

Same thing happens with alpha _firefox-14.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64_ from Mozilla.


----------



## Viski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grocal*
> 
> I would like to confirm that. While *xfire* is running launching Waterfox is impossible - ends up with an error in kernel32.dll (Exception: 0xc0000005). *It's NOT a matter of any xfire addon/plugin!* I guess it's some kind of memory access thing (exception 0xc0000005 indicates that) between xfire, which "monitors" any launched/running applications and Waterfox itself.
> *Edit*
> Same thing happens with alpha _firefox-14.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64_ from Mozilla.


I have Xfire (1.149) on and Waterfox works just fine. Did I miss something... or?


----------



## djkilla

I confirmed Xfire works without problems in post #1982. Check your firewall and make sure there's an exception for Xfire. This will allow Xfire to communicate back to it's servers. Also make sure you have the latest version installed which fixes the following:

Added ability to broadcast on Twitch.TV (replacing LiveStream)
Adjusted Options menu tabs accordingly for Twitch.TV implementation
Fixed crashing when navigating to Tools -> Options if using XSplit, ManyCam, and other webcam software
Fixed some IME and XInput issues
Fixed more bleed-through issues
Minor changes


----------



## anitac

An upcoming version of Firefox will include an optional service for updating. Will Waterfox include this too?


----------



## godly967

I have a problem, Unity does not seem to want to work with Waterfox 11, although it works fine with firefox 11


----------



## chilinmichael

I was wrong...Flash problems still exist on my computer with Waterfox 11 and the latest Adobe Flash. Once in a blue moon it hangs...I can either wait it out 2 minutes or so and Waterfox comes back to life complaining the Flash plugin crashed, or I can manually kill firefox under the process list and restart it.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Try killing plugin-container instead.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *godly967*
> 
> I have a problem, Unity does not seem to want to work with Waterfox 11, although it works fine with firefox 11


Firefox 11 is 32 bit. Waterfox 11 is 64bit. Unity may not be compatible with 64bit browsers.


----------



## djkilla

*chilinmichael* - Have you updated to the latest version of Adobe Flash 11.2.202.228 that *came out 4 days ago*? This may fix the issues you're having.

Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.2.202.228: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

Try reinstalling Adobe Flash by doing the following:

1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/uninstall_flash_player_64bit.exe

2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed

**If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.

3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player 64bit:
For Internet Explorer 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_64bit.exe

For Waterfox and other browsers 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin_64bit.exe

**You can install both 64bit. That's what I do. I don't use 32bit browsers but if you do, continue installing the 32bit versions.

If you want to also install Flash 32bit:
For Internet Explorer 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_32bit.exe

For Firefox and other browsers 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_10_plugin.exe

4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy. Hopefully this will fix any issues you have with flash content.


----------



## chilinmichael

Yes, I did.


----------



## Schmuckley

I'm using 11..no problems thus far!


----------



## djkilla

*chilinmichael* - Let's try something different. There's two different settings I want you to mess with. First is the 'Hardware Acceleration' for Adobe Flash.

1) Go to the web site that has the video/flash that's giving you problems and right-click on it. You should see the following pop-up menu:



2) Click 'Settings'

3) Click the box 'Enable Hardware Acceleration' to clear it then click 'Close'.



4) Restart Waterfox and see if this fixes the problem. If not, go to step 5.

5) It didn't work! Let's try disabling 'Hardware Acceleration' for Waterfox. Go to your options menu in Waterfox and click 'Use hardware acceleration when available' to clear the box then click 'Ok' at the bottom.



6) Restart Waterfox and see if this fixes the problem.

Adobe Flash FAQ:

What are display settings?
Display settings allow you to use hardware-accelerated scaling to improve the speed of playback in Flash Player.

What happens if I do nothing?
By default, Enable Hardware Acceleration is selected to improve the quality of playback in Flash Player, particularly the performance of full-screen playback.

What is hardware-accelerated scaling?
Although Flash Player can display high-quality video and images by itself, hardware-accelerated scaling uses the video or graphics card on your computer to display images and video more clearly and quickly than Flash Player can on its own.

Will hardware-accelerated scaling work on all computers?
For hardware-accelerated scaling to work, you need Microsoft DirectX 9 with VRAM 128MB for Windows and OpenGL for Apple Macintosh, Mac OS X v10.2 or higher. There might be compatibility issues with older hardware and drivers. (See Flash Player system requirements.) With older versions of Flash Player, you should not see dramatic changes as the player reverts from hardware-accelerated scaling back to software scaling.

If I have display problems with Flash Player, what should I do?
If you have display problems with Flash Player, such as poor picture quality or slow display times, deselect Enable Hardware Acceleration in the Display panel. This should eliminate hardware or driver compatibility problems with Flash Player. Flash Player then uses software to scale and display the content.

Waterfox/Firefox:

*Use hardware acceleration when available*: Firefox can use your computer's graphics processor to display some pages with video and animation. This makes Firefox faster since your computer's graphics processor is much better than your computer's main processor at displaying these types of things. This box is checked by default but the feature isn't available for all graphics processors. Firefox will enable it when possible. If you change this setting you must restart Firefox.


----------



## LionFreak

I'm having an issue after installing this change for automatic updates where I get a pop up that states WaterFox was unable to find any updates and it freezes the browser!








I'm probably going to just disable this and update manually.


----------



## AvalPlaza

My Waterfox is working perfect. Thanks to the compiler of Waterfox for the provided 64-bit links, they have proven of great help during my latest install.

I have one question, although not directly related to Waterfox I hope it is ok to ask: If I am running a 64-bit Windows on a 64-bit architecure PC and running a 64-bit application such as Waterfox, why would I need the x86 versions of various applications? I am thinking of i.e. the adobe flash installer, which is both x86 and x64, and dotNetFx40_Full_x86_x64.

What do I need the x86 bits for?
Should I pursue the road of tampering with the installers to get a custom and clean 64-bit experience ?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LionFreak*
> 
> I'm having an issue after installing this change for automatic updates where I get a pop up that states WaterFox was unable to find any updates and it freezes the browser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm probably going to just disable this and update manually.


MrAlex has provided how to enable automatic update instructions on his home page. This is still a work in progress to get newer versions of Waterfox so if it doesn't work, I'm sure he'll tweak the instructions when the next version is released.

How to enable automatic updates?

If you aren't getting notifications for automatic updates then do the follow steps:

1) Enter about:config in the address bar
2) Search for app.update.url.override (if it does not exist, Right Click > New > String)
3) Modify its value to http://waterfoxproject.org/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvalPlaza*
> 
> I have one question, although not directly related to Waterfox I hope it is ok to ask: If I am running a 64-bit Windows on a 64-bit architecure PC and running a 64-bit application such as Waterfox, why would I need the x86 versions of various applications? I am thinking of i.e. the adobe flash installer, which is both x86 and x64, and dotNetFx40_Full_x86_x64.
> What do I need the x86 bits for?
> Should I pursue the road of tampering with the installers to get a custom and clean 64-bit experience ?


If you're running Windows 64bit, then only get 64bit programs/software if available. If 64bit programs/software of what you want aren't available, then get the 32bit version. 64bit versions will run smoother and faster in Windows 64bit. Don't tamper or try to force a 32bit program into a 64bit program. It won't work. The code of these programs have to be compiled with proper software and settings to make it 64bit. Hope this helps!


----------



## AvalPlaza

Oi! That was one fast response time, djkilla!









What I meant:

Those installers I mentioned install BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Can I isolate the 64-bit parts (.msi) inside the .exe and only install these packages, or do I need the 32-bit packages as well?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AvalPlaza*
> 
> Oi! That was one fast response time, djkilla!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I meant:
> Those installers I mentioned install BOTH 32-bit and 64-bit versions. Can I isolate the 64-bit parts (.msi) inside the .exe and only install these packages, or do I need the 32-bit packages as well?


Short answer, no.

When installing software with both 32bit and 64bit built into the installer, the software detects if you have Windows 64bit and automatically installs just the 64bit version. Not both the 32bit and 64bit version unless you have 32bit and 64bit software that needs both versions installed. For example, you have Firefox which is 32bit and Waterfox which is 64bit installed. Then if you go to Adobe's web site to install flash which contains both 32bit and 64bit in one installer, both will be installed (32bit Flash for Firefox and 64bit Flash for Waterfox). If you only have Waterfox, then only the 64bit Flash would be installed. Same thing for Internet Explorer 32bit and Internet Explorer 64bit.

Some installers will be seperated. In the case of Adobe Flash, I don't use the installer which contains both the 32bit and 64bit. I only get the 64bit installer which is available but hard to find on Adobe's web site. See my post #2027.

If the installer contains both, I don't think you can seperate them. If you want to try, Winrar and similar programs won't work but ISOBuster might.


----------



## MrAlex

@djkilla thank you very much for replying to all the users! It's a great help.

Anyway, I'm thinking of switching memory allocators. I'm sure we can squeeze some more performance from a better malloc. I'd be curious to see how much of an improvement tcmalloc would bring, but I'm getting conflicting opinions on it. Some state it's a bad general allocator because it retains the memory that it fills, but others say that it's good for when threads are created/destroyed.

I guess the only way is to test it out


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> @djkilla thank you very much for replying to all the users! It's a great help.
> 
> Anyway, I'm thinking of switching memory allocators
> 
> I guess the only way is to test it out


I'm happy to help. I know you've been busy with school and other stuff so I decided to jump in and offer my help. I'm with you on testing new settings and ideas to improve Waterfox. Right now, Waterfox is the best 64bit browser to get. I definitley give it the kick-ass award!


----------



## LukaTCE

I installed 11.0 and it won't open waterfox at open as firefox.exe and in discription write it's waterfox but then process close itself


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LukaTCE*
> 
> I installed 11.0 and it won't open waterfox at open as firefox.exe and in discription write it's waterfox but then process close itself


Make sure you have the Visual C++ Redistributable file installed.

Visual C++ Redistributable file:
http://www.microsoft.com/download/en/details.aspx?id=14632

If you have a blurry font, type about:config in the address bar. In the filter at the top type gfx.direct2d.disabled. Change it from false to true.

If you still have problems, are you using an Intel or AMD processor? Are you using Windows 64bit? Are you getting any error messages? Do you have a firewall installed (not including the windows built-in one)?


----------



## LukaTCE

It said i allready have newer C++ installed i disabled comodo,kaspersky and still won't open it i don't know why it opened waterfox before 2 months


----------



## jaz

When will there be an update to 11.1?
Edit...nm...it seems to be only Palemoon did an update to 11.1. FF is still on 11.0.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, there's no Firefox 11.0.1 update yet.


----------



## WeissJT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grocal*
> 
> I would like to confirm that. While *xfire* is running launching Waterfox is impossible - ends up with an error in kernel32.dll (Exception: 0xc0000005). *It's NOT a matter of any xfire addon/plugin!* I guess it's some kind of memory access thing (exception 0xc0000005 indicates that) between xfire, which "monitors" any launched/running applications and Waterfox itself.
> *Edit*
> Same thing happens with alpha _firefox-14.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64_ from Mozilla.


Same problem here...
Last version of Xfire. Windows 7 X64 SP1.


----------



## LukaTCE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WeissJT*
> 
> Same problem here...
> Last version of Xfire. Windows 7 X64 SP1.


Thx it lunch without xfire


----------



## Ferrari353

How do I join the beta? Is the beta super buggy or is it like most betas where you can barely tell the difference?

Also, every once in a while Waterfox will tell me that the check for an update failed and I should manually check. I followed the instructions on the website for setting up automatic update checks but it still does it.


----------



## Samueru

Hello,

Could someone help me? I tried setting string and it's value as instructed, but I still get notification about not being able to update automaticly. Is there any way to fix this?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samueru*
> 
> Hello,
> Could someone help me? I tried setting string and it's value as instructed, but I still get notification about not being able to update automaticly. Is there any way to fix this?


I've tried it myself and it doesn't seem to work. I just manually update by downloading the full WF exe from MrAlex's site.


----------



## Lord Venom

Just update manually, less of a headache that way.


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

Is anyone else having issues with youtube's newer video formats where you can speed up and slow down the video in realtime? I think this is an HTML5 issue, but I only have the problem of not being able to speed up or slow down the video in WF11. I also am having video resizing issues as well as some loading problems when moving from 480p to 720p ect... again, it works in Chrome, but not WF11 or FF11.

Whats the deal here? Here is an example video to try out and compare with the "normal" youtube video player...

NEW (problem): 



 (try settings and upscale it to HD or try to slow down the video)
Old:


----------



## Lord Venom

That's one reason why I use Chrome with YouTube, honestly.


----------



## fullmoon

Since upgrading to wf11, I suffered multiple freeze.







After a while, I retested Palemoon, and to my surprise, it seemed faster, and only the usual freeze (caused when an open tab with heavy script and / or flash) are remained. So I uninstalled WF, damage the logo is really beautiful.









I return if the next version is convincing.


----------



## Lord Venom

No freezes here. Do a new clean profile for Firefox/Waterfox.

I'm starting to think Waterfox should have and use its own independent profile by like Pale Moon does (in %APPDATA%\Waterfox). Thoughts?


----------



## djkilla

*Waterfox speed tweaks*:
Do you want Waterfox to scream with speed! Here's my favorite about:config settings to tweak Waterfox!

*NOTE*:
The settings within Firefox by default is to be used with ALL types of OS's and CPU's. My settings are best with newer hardware (last few years) and a speedy broadband connection. If you have older hardware or slower internet connection, then you can experience lag because your hardware and browser won't be able to handle the amount of data being received. So the browser will bottleneck the data. It's best to use the default settings if using a slower internet or older hardware (mainly CPU).

*Reduce the amount of RAM Waterfox uses for its cache feature*
1. Type "about:config" (no quotes) in the adress bar in the browser.
2. Find "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers"
3. Set it's value to "-1"

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [Integer] - This option determines how many pages to store in memory to speed up the back and forward buttons in Firefox. The default of -1 automatically determines the amount based on your system RAM, and is generally recommended. At 512MB of RAM, 5 pages are held in memory, while 1GB or more of RAM holds 8 pages. You can set this value to 0 to hold no pages in RAM (only recommended for very low RAM or troubleshooting purposes), or increase the value if you often use the back and forward functions for more than 8 pages.

additional info: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers

*Increase the Speed at Which Waterfox loads pages*
1. Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit Enter.
(Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds up page loading.)

2. Alter the entries as follows:
Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"
Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"
Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to "8". (This means it will make 8 requests at once.)
Set "network.http.max-connections" to "256"
Set "network.http.max-connections-per-server" to "24"
Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" to "8"
Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" to "8"
Set "network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" to "true" (new boolean value) (This was an earlier setting but may no longer be needed in recent versions of Firefox but no harm is done by including it)

Set "network.http.spdy.enabled" to "true" (This is a new setting in Firefox 11 and will be on (true) by default starting with Firefox 13 or 14. It speeds up the loading of web sites if they code their web site to use this feature. It was originally created by Google and is quickly being adopted by all web browsers and the internet. Google is working to make this standardized with all browsers and the internet. The default is false but I have it set to true. Not all web sites include this but a handful like Google, Twitter, Facebook and a few others include this.)

3. Lastly, right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer. Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "25". ((Default is 250 but my setting of 25 is perfect for a high speed broadband connection. Otherwise 125-200 is fine)

This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on information it receives. If you're using a broadband connection you'll load pages faster now.
Optionally (for even faster web browsing) here are some more options for your about:config (you might have to create some of these entries by Right Click -> New- > Interger or Boolean

"network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false"
"content.notify.backoffcount": set "5"
"plugin.expose_full_path": set "true".
"ui.submenuDelay": set "0

*Security Tweaks*
1) Set "network.prefetch-next" to "false" (If set to 'True' then it will prefetch files like Chrome does so when you click a link, the page opens faster. I have this set to 'False' so files won't be prefetched until you choose to click the link and open the page (Also to prevent malware, adware, etc. that could also be prefetched). The default is 'True' to speed up web browsing. User can decide what's best for them.)

*Spell Checking*
1) Set "layout.spellcheckDefault" to "2" (Will determine which text will be checked using the spell checker. The default is 1, which means only some areas will be examined. If you'd like Firefox to perform spell check on all text, change the value to 2)

*Waterfox about:config*
For those wanting to understand exactly what you're tweaking and additional info, read the section 'Preference Format' on page 10-11 at this location:

http://www.tweakguides.com/Firefox_1.html

Ever wonder what are those Waterfox settings in about:config and what they do? In addition to the last link, there's also an add-on for Waterfox!

http://lifehacker.com/5326224/prefse...onfig-settings

*Is Waterfox crashing? A lot of the time it's due to the Adobe Flash plug-in.*

Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.2.202.233: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

Try reinstalling Adobe Flash by doing the following:

1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/uninstall_flash_player_64bit.exe

2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed

**If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.

3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player 64bit:
For Internet Explorer 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_64bit.exe

For Waterfox and other browsers 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin_64bit.exe

**You can install both 64bit. That's what I do. I don't use 32bit browsers but if you do, continue installing the 32bit versions.

If you want to also install Flash 32bit:
For Internet Explorer 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_32bit.exe

For Firefox and other browsers 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_10_plugin.exe

4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy. Hopefully this will fix any issues you have with flash content.

*Clearing Waterfox favicons (bookmark icons)*
Ever open up your list of bookmarks and wish you could reset/clear/delete those icons (favicons) beside the bookmarks and start over? Well now you can:

Install 'Delete Bookmark Icons' addon http://www.sephiroth-j.de/1/mozilla/index_en.php

None of your bookmarks will be touched; they will all still be there. Each time you visit one of your bookmarks, an icon (favicon) will be added next to the bookmark.

With Delete Bookmark Icons you are able to delete the icon of just one or all of your bookmarks. Right click on the bookmark with the icon to be deleted and select Delete Site Icon(s). To delete the icons of all of your bookmarks, select Bookmarks at the top of the Firefox browser and select Organize Bookmarks. Select the folder/location of your bookmarks and in the right side window, right click and choose Delete All Site Icons from the pop-up menu.

*Looking for a FAST DNS?* (Advance users)
There's lots of free public DNS severs such as Google DNS, Open DNS, Ultra DNS and many more. Picking the right DNS can speed up your connection by more than 50%. Keep in mind that DNS servers DO NOT filter internet content unless you choose too with various levels of filtering on the DNS servers website.

How do you know what's the fastest DNS server to use? There's two programs (probably more) that can determine the best DNS server for you. I prefer the following which always gives accurate detection:

DNS Benchmark
http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm

Another program which has made the scene, is the following program. Unlike the DNS Benchmark program, this one gives the best recommendations on the first run. I find it to be a little less accurate but some people prefer this one:

Namebench
http://code.google.com/p/namebench/

Namebench instructions:
http://code.google.com/p/namebench/wiki/UsingNameBench

As a tech tip, I always recommend for best results you enter/run the cmd prompt. Once at the cmd prompt, type and run the following before running the above programs --> ipconfig /flushdns


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> No freezes here. Do a new clean profile for Firefox/Waterfox.
> I'm starting to think Waterfox should have and use its own independent profile by like Pale Moon does (in %APPDATA%\Waterfox). Thoughts?


I have a low PC (dual core 1.7Ghz, 2500Mo/s speed RAM)







with MSE. So, at the least overconsumption freeze it, when I get a file freeze it (suspect MSE), opening a site heavy or badly encoded... but youtube and dailymotion OK. Since I am under palemoon, freeze it shorter, so he could get nearly a minute in WF11!!!









Palemoon use by default one other profil (and folder).


----------



## djkilla

Adobe Flash Player 11.2.202.233 has been released today (April 13). See my last post #2057 for updated links and instructions to properly update Adobe Flash to the latest version.

Adobe Flash *11.2.202.233* release notes:
**Fixed Issues**
Printing to local printer generates unusably large print jobs(3158836)

**Known Issues**
Flash Player Desktop
Long animation pauses when a mouse or keyboard is used with Steam overlay(3089755)
MouseLock and FullscreenSourceRect does not update the display when in fullscreen(3006724)

Adobe Flash *11.2.202.228* release notes:
**What's NEW**
Flash Player Desktop
Multi-threaded video decoding
Background Updater (Windows)
Mouse relative offset position + lock
Driver gating hardware accelaration relaxed to 2008
New throttling event

**Security Enhancements**
This update resolves a memory corruption vulnerability related to URL security domain checking that could lead to code execution (ActiveX, Windows 7 or Vista only) (CVE-2012-0772).
This update resolves a memory corruption vulnerability in the NetStream class that could lead to code execution (CVE-2012-0773).

**Fixed Issues**
Netstream API briefly returns wrong value when video buffer is drained(2737056)

**Known Issues**
Flash Player Desktop
Long animation pauses when a mouse or keyboard is used with Steam overlay(3089755)
MouseLock and FullscreenSourceRect does not update the display when in fullscreen(3006724)


----------



## FortFun

djkilla -

Thank you so much for the speed tweaks and the work that went into discovering, documenting and sharing them!

Question: If I incorporate them what happens when I upgrade to the next version of Waterfox? Do I have to re-enter the tweaks?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FortFun*
> 
> djkilla -
> Thank you so much for the speed tweaks and the work that went into discovering, documenting and sharing them!
> Question: If I incorporate them what happens when I upgrade to the next version of Waterfox? Do I have to re-enter the tweaks?


You're welcome! I've been using these tweaks for a few years now and love the speed I get. I've changed the tweaks a little to match the latest version of Firefox/Waterfox. As far as I know, I believe the tweaks remain if you do an upgrade. The easiest way to find out is to check on one of the tweaks and see if it's still there after an upgrade. If it's there, then all the tweaks are there. I personally do a fresh install with each version of Firefox/Waterfox and re-apply everything.

**To everyone reading this, the latest version of Firefox/Waterfox now synches your add-ons. Be sure to check your synch settings to make sure you have add-ons included. Also the latest Adobe Flash now upgrades itself.


----------



## VIKINGS

Please is there any way to change my tabs bar location? I want to drag it down, make it look like in the second picture. I tried by going to view>toolbars>customize, and tried to move them around but it doesnt work. Pretty please, is there anything I can do?!


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Please is there any way to change my tabs bar location? I want to drag it down, make it look like in the second picture. I tried by going to view>toolbars>customize, and tried to move them around but it doesnt work. Pretty please, is there anything I can do?


Your wish has come true! Uncheck 'Tabs on Top' and it will instantly be moved to the bottom.


----------



## VIKINGS

Omg, I am such a idiot....







Can't believe I missed that one.








Thank you mate, love you.








Btw, I tried some of your speed tweaks, but I can't be totaly sure they did anything to improve speed... I'm sure the answer to my next question may be obvious, but, do those tweaks help at all if the site is slower because of a problem on their end? Olso about the pipeline thing, is there any danger I might be labeled/banned/suspected/whatever of trying to ddos if my browser sends so many requests at once?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Omg, I am such a idiot....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe I missed that one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you mate, love you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw, I tried some of your speed tweaks, but I can't be totaly sure they did anything to improve speed... I'm sure the answer to my next question may be obvious, but, do those tweaks help at all if the site is slower because of a problem on their end? Olso about the pipeline thing, is there any danger I might be labeled/banned/suspected/whatever of trying to ddos if my browser sends so many requests at once?


Three things affect the speed. Your end, their end and browser settings. Let's say I have a 40mbps connection and they have a 10mbps connection. Then the overall speed between both of us will be 10mbps (whoever has the slowest speed). Now let's say both of us have a 40mbps connection. Then you're only limited by how much data your web browser can push through, making the web browser the weak link. By tweaking the browser you can in fact speed up how much data gets pushed through the browser.

All of my speed tweaks do work and are on the safe side. So you don't have to worry about being banned or accused of a DDOS attack.


----------



## VIKINGS

Ok, thank you once again. I did actually read up on those changes thanks to the links you provided, but even so I understood like only 70% of what's going on.







That is why I asked.
LE: Would it be too much to ask for some explenations for these as well please? They werent included in those lists so I havent used them yet. In lame terms if you please.







For example wasnt IPv6 supposed to be a good thing, why disable it, and how do i know which of them I make integer and which boolean?
"network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false"
"content.notify.backoffcount": set "5"
"plugin.expose_full_path": set "true".
"ui.submenuDelay": set "0


----------



## djkilla

"network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false" (This is disabled for now because it's not fully being used yet on the internet. It's a great thing and I heard it will be fully supported later this year.)

"content.notify.backoffcount": set "5" (Rather than wait until a page has completely downloaded to display it to the user, Mozilla applications will periodically render what has been received to that point. Because reflowing the page every time additional data is received greatly slows down total page load time, a timer was added so that the page would not reflow too often. This preference controls the maximum number of times the content will do timer-based reflows. After this number has been reached, the page will only reflow once it is finished downloading.)

"plugin.expose_full_path": set "true". (This isn't really necessary but I like to have it. Basicly what it does is show the full path to the plugin instead of just the file name when using aboutlugins)

"ui.submenuDelay": set "0" (Determines the delay in milliseconds between hovering over a menu option with a submenu and the submenu appearing. If this preference is not set, the OS's value is used.)

Hope this helps! All the number settings are in milliseconds. Everything is for speed. If the settings aren't in about:config then you have to manually enter the setting. Right-click, enter the string (For example: ui.submenuDelay), choose integer if it's a number or boolean for true/false.


----------



## VIKINGS

Great, thank you.


----------



## demoneye

hi

i got some issue with waterfox , and all this x64 firefox based browser.
i cant run those same like sites which uses windows media player

http://www.rlive.co.il/

there are many like it , anyway i can run them ?

BTW

its ask for installing plugin (media player) in which coz nothing to play them
in firefox 11 (x32) same like sites run smooth with no problem .

10x


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> hi
> i got some issue with waterfox , and all this x64 firefox based browser.
> i cant run those same like sites which uses windows media player
> http://www.rlive.co.il/


There is no 64bit plugin for Microsoft Windows Media Player BUT you can contact the web site owner and request they change from Media Player Plugin to Silverlight ( http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/ ). The Media Player Plugin is being phased out and replaced with Silverlight which does the same thing as the Media Player Plugin. It shouldn't be much trouble for them to switch over. Once they have changed, then you can simply download Silverlight to install the plugin into Waterfox and everything will work perfectly.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> There is no 64bit plugin for Microsoft Windows Media Player BUT *you can contact the web site owne*r and request they change from Media Player Plugin to Silverlight ( http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/ ). .


this is the hard part , since to many same like this site use it ...

BTW

djkilla , did u feel / see any speed improvement using waterfox OVER FF x32 ? if so can u write which?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> BTW
> djkilla , did u feel / see any speed improvement using waterfox OVER FF x32 ? if so can u write which?


64bit apps will always run faster and smoother on a 64bit OS (Operating System). Using 32bit apps on a 64bit OS will still work but 64bit apps are native and will have access to all the system memory (RAM) and use it more efficiently. 32bit apps have a limit of 3gigs or memory and can't use more than that. So Waterfox technically will always be faster since it's a 64bit web browser on a 64bit OS.

Keep in mind, lots of open tabs and lots of add-ons/plugins use more resources and memory. This can slow down the browser and OS but if you have plenty of memory (RAM), then this won't be an issue. That's why you always hear, the best and cheapest way to speed up a computer is by adding memory. More memory, more apps you can run at the same time without slow downs or crashes.


----------



## demoneye

@ djkilla

all of this i know mate , my question was if waterfox run faster than ff 11 and u can notice the speed or its just a waste of time and more like a show off running x64 browser....


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> @ djkilla
> all of this i know mate , my question was if waterfox run faster than ff 11 and u can notice the speed or its just a waste of time and more like a show off running x64 browser....


I definitely notice the speed. Waterfox is very fast especially if you use my tweaks (See post #2057).

If you would like to check your browser speed or compare the speed of two browsers, you can use the following speed tests:

BrowserMark
http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/index.action

Peacekeeper
http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/

Dromaeo
http://dromaeo.com/

Here's my Waterfox results if you would like to compare:

BrowserMark
http://browsermark.rightware.com/browsermark/result.action?key=1hTu

Peacekeeper
http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5HAe&resultId=2331105

Dromaeo (Using 'Run All Tests') (Using 'Run Recommended Tests' my total score at the top is 472.77)
http://dromaeo.com/?id=168811


----------



## Ceadderman

I never realized just how fast WF was til I was down for a few days and relying on my Brother's system to access the net. He's on FF and isn't looking to go with WF. I got on to play one of my FB games and wow that thing just took forever to load it. He's on the same bandwidth that I am so I know for a fact that it's not the connection speed. Great job Mr Alex.









~Ceadder


----------



## demoneye

@ djkilla

10x for the test links bro , in some measurements FF 11 x32 over come WaterFox 11 and some WF . very hard for me to decide "yes WF ownz FF11"









btw

in both i use the same tweaks like yours which i use some years back.


----------



## demoneye

anyone try this software over firefox ?

http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Other-Internet-Related/Firefox-Plumber.shtml

and also a software called "speedfox" .

does above software does what it claims?

10x


----------



## RamGuy

Why doesn't Mozilla offer a native 64-bit version of Firefox themselves? They have done this for Linux for quite some time now, but still nothing for either Windows nor OS X as of yet. I guess we can't really complain as barely anyone else offers it either, like there is no native 64-bit version of Google Chrome or Chromium, there is no native 64-bit version of Opera etc.. The only browsers available in native 64-bit is either Internet Explorer or Safari (OS X version only) and that's pretty much it. Either way it's still disappointing, especially when Mozilla have had a native 64-bit version for Linux for all this time. One would think that in 2012, when even the cheapest of computers normally comes with at least 4GiB of RAM and 64-bit operating system that web-browser developers would have greater focus on native 64-bit support. But I guess not.

The only grip I've got with Waterfox is the lack of BETA / Aurora channels, I love to be "on the ball" and test out new features but as you manually comply each version of Waterfox (?) I guess following the BETA channel with weekly releases and the Aurora channel with daily releases would be little too much to keep up with. I would also love to see a Waterfox version for Mac OS X as I use web-browser across Windows, OS X and Linux platforms and would love to be able to utilise a native 64-bit FireFox on all of them and not just Windows and Linux.

One would think that Mozilla could be able to have a unstable "use it at your own risk" Aurora 64-bit channel for all operating systems, it's not like it would take them forever to comply each release in both 32-bit and 64-bit and just keep a "this software might not be stable" sticker on the 64-bit releases and name them all Aurora 64-bit so one get the idea if you get any problems with these releases your on your own.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> anyone try this software over firefox ?
> http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Other-Internet-Related/Firefox-Plumber.shtml
> and also a software called "speedfox" .
> does above software does what it claims?
> 10x


The more extensions you have, the more resources it takes up. If you're concerned with memory, try the following tweaks:

*Reduce the amount of RAM Firefox uses for its cache feature*:
1. Type "about:config" (no quotes) in the adress bar in the browser.
2. Find "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer"
3. Set it's value to "0"

*Reduce RAM usage to 10MB when Firefox is minimized*:
1. Open Firefox and go to the Address Bar. Type in about:config and then press Enter.
2. Right Click in the page and select New -> Boolean.
3. In the box that pops up enter "config.trim_on_minimize". Press Enter.
4. Now select True and then press Enter.
5. Restart Firefox.

As for add-ons like Speedfox, it's up to you to try it. I've heard these type of add-ons can cause compatibility problems. Here's a couple of comments I read:

earthdog1965
All the config changes you can do yourself in under 5 minutes. The Facebook re-direct was bad enough but when I discovered what little changes it made, I just went to About Config and set up my own settings which result in a damn faster Firefox than this terrible extension. Remove all the Facebook garbage and be honest about the config changes it makes and it might be at least decent but even then, it is still totally and completely unnecessary.

Chris Reid
This thing slowed down FF so much for me that I was about to re-install an older version of the browser, thinking that was the problem. Luckily, I remembered I had recently installed this add-on. Sure enough, I disabled it and everything went back to normal.


----------



## djkilla

*RamGuy* - Mozilla will release Firefox 64bit but not until early 2013. Until then, Firefox 64bit nightly will continue to be updated throughout the year until Mozilla is ready and has the resources to make it an official release. For more info, click the link below:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/mozilla.dev.planning/HMg_Cef17-M/cXxjNmb6euwJ

You're right about not having Beta/Aurora Waterfox releases. This would be very time consuming and they do have bugs that need to be fixed before releasing an official stable version. So Waterfox will only be released as an official stable version. The good news is Firefox/Waterfox 12 will be out next week!

Chrome doesn't have a 64bit build but Opera is working on a 64bit version which you can try today (*AT YOUR OWN RISK*) but it still has lots of bugs that need to be worked out. For more info and download links, click the following:

http://my.opera.com/desktopteam/blog/2012/03/26/html5-css-64bit


----------



## kevindd992002

Can WF considered to be the best 64-bit browser as of now?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Can WF considered to be the best 64-bit browser as of now?


Absolutely! Waterfox is the greatest thing since sliced bread or the invention of the wheel!









Seriously, Waterfox is based directly from the Firefox code but includes additional optimizations for better performance. There may be other 64bit browsers but Waterfox is great because it's identical to Firefox which makes it very stable and reliable. Mr Alex, has posted the following on the main page and FAQ about the optimizations included:

FAQ
Waterfox was compiled with SSE2, the AMD Core Math Library and the following optimisation flags: /O2 /GR- /GS- /GA

Main page version 11.0
Switched from the ACML to AMD LibM.
Compiled with the following flags: -Og -Oi- -Ot -Oy -Ob2 -Gs -GF -Gy -GS- -GA -w


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Absolutely! Waterfox is the greatest thing since sliced bread or the invention of the wheel!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, Waterfox is based directly from the Firefox code but includes additional optimizations for better performance. There may be other 64bit browsers but Waterfox is great because it's identical to Firefox which makes it very stable and reliable. Mr Alex, has posted the following on the main page and FAQ about the optimizations included:
> FAQ
> Waterfox was compiled with SSE2, the AMD Core Math Library and the following optimisation flags: /O2 /GR- /GS- /GA
> Main page version 11.0
> Switched from the ACML to AMD LibM.
> Compiled with the following flags: -Og -Oi- -Ot -Oy -Ob2 -Gs -GF -Gy -GS- -GA -w


Thanks for the confirmation







I'm excited in using this browser. One thing though, so after I install this I just follow your optimizations and I'm done?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks for the confirmation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm excited in using this browser. One thing though, so after I install this I just follow your optimizations and I'm done?


Waterfox already comes optimized and ready to go but you can add my tweaks from post #2057 if you want to maximize Waterfox for all the speed you can get.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Waterfox already comes optimized and ready to go but you can add my tweaks from post #2057 if you want to maximize Waterfox for all the speed you can get.


Ok







Is it normal for other plugins not to be compatible with Waterfox 11? This just means that there isn't a 64-bit version of the plugin available yet right? Example is NVIDIA 3D vision. I can see it installed in Firefox 11 (32-bit) but it is nowhere to be found in Waterfox 11.

One more thing, is it normal to experience lag issues when playing Youtube videos with Waterfox 11? I have the latest version of Adobe flash player, I already did your optimizations including reinstalling flash player but still the video lags randomly while playing videos. The lag is intermittent but obvious. I don't experience this with IE9 (32-bit and 64-bit) and Firefox 11 (32-bit).


----------



## evildust

Firefox 12 final is out ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/


----------



## cryohellinc

Hopefully WF 12 Will be soon after.


----------



## djkilla

*kevindd992002* - Almost all of the add-ons/extensions you shouldn't have a problem but the plugins have to be 64bit. You can get Adobe Flash, Java and Silverlight (All 64bit) from the download page ( http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/ ). You can also get a 64bit plugin to view PDF files within the browser (Let me know if you need this and I'll post some links for you). Anything else you need, you have to check the company's web site like NVidia to see if there's a 64bit plugin or software available. There may not be a 64bit plugin or software available.

I haven't had a problem with videos but you can try the steps in post #2030. This can make a big difference in how videos are viewed.


----------



## djkilla

evildust - You beat me to it! Thanks for the heads up!

Official final Firefox 12.0 released:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-12.0&os=win&lang=en-US

http://download02.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

Release Notes:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/12.0/releasenotes/


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> *kevindd992002* - Almost all of the add-ons/extensions you shouldn't have a problem but the plugins have to be 64bit. You can get Adobe Flash, Java and Silverlight (All 64bit) from the download page ( http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/ ). You can also get a 64bit plugin to view PDF files within the browser (Let me know if you need this and I'll post some links for you). Anything else you need, you have to check the company's web site like NVidia to see if there's a 64bit plugin or software available. There may not be a 64bit plugin or software available.
> I haven't had a problem with videos but you can try the steps in post #2030. This can make a big difference in how videos are viewed.


But why does WF11 not show Java Console under Extensions but it shows it in FF11? Also, when I open FF after using WF, the Java console always prompts to be installed every time?

Ok, but I want to use hardware-acceleration, is there no way to keep that enabled without experiencing lag issues? Personally, do you have it turned on?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> evildust - You beat me to it! Thanks for the heads up!
> Official final Firefox 12.0 released:
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-12.0&os=win&lang=en-US
> http://download02.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe
> http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe
> Release Notes:
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/12.0/releasenotes/


Why is auto-update in FF not picking up that there's a newer version already?


----------



## djkilla

*kevindd992002* - It seems your Firefox and Waterfox are sharing the same folders. I've seen this before when switching browsers. Assuming you installed Java 64bit, what's probably happening is when you switch from Waterfox to Firefox, it has to switch to the 32bit version and prompts for a reinstall because your profile says 64bit Java but the browser is 32bit so it's getting confused. Since Waterfox and Firefox use the same code and folders, it's best to just have one or the other installed only. You can try installing Waterfox and choosing a different install location to see if that helps.

Firefox doesn't show a new version in auto-update because it's not officially available. The official release date is Tuesday April 24. But the official version is available if you know where to look. So basicly the tech heads found it and what you see are the links to get the official Firefox 12 before anyone else before the official release date. Sneaky isn't it! Enjoy!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> *kevindd992002* - It seems your Firefox and Waterfox are sharing the same folders. I've seen this before when switching browsers. Assuming you installed Java 64bit, what's probably happening is when you switch from Waterfox to Firefox, it has to switch to the 32bit version and prompts for a reinstall because your profile says 64bit Java but the browser is 32bit so it's getting confused. Since Waterfox and Firefox use the same code and folders, it's best to just have one or the other installed only. You can try installing Waterfox and choosing a different install location to see if that helps.
> Firefox doesn't show a new version in auto-update because it's not officially available. The official release date is Tuesday April 24. But the official version is available if you know where to look. So basicly the tech heads found it and what you see are the links to get the official Firefox 12 before anyone else before the official release date. Sneaky isn't it! Enjoy!


Oh ok. I just tried the steps in your #2030 post and the same thing happens with 



 video. Would you mind trying that video for me and see if it does the same problem for you? It's happening near the beginning where FloRida is riding the helicopter.


----------



## djkilla

*kevindd992002* - It paused to buffer. It has nothing to do with Waterfox. In this case it's how fast your internet connection is and the time of day you're watching the video. There's probably a lot of people watching the video right now so it's not streaming very quickly. The only way to view this without it stopping to buffer is by lowering the quality of the video. The higher the resolution, the more data it has to stream and it'll stop to buffer. The lower the resolution the faster it can stream.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> *kevindd992002* - It paused to buffer. It has nothing to do with Waterfox. In this case it's how fast your internet connection is and the time of day you're watching the video. There's probably a lot of people watching the video right now so it's not streaming very quickly. The only way to view this without it stopping to buffer is by lowering the quality of the video. The higher the resolution, the more data it has to stream and it'll stop to buffer. The lower the resolution the faster it can stream.


No, you seem to misunderstood my issue. It is not buffering when the lag issue is happening. I have a very fast Internet connection which loads the whole video for seconds only. As I've said earlier, I do not have any problems when playing this video with *IE9 (32-bit and 64-bit) and FF11 (32-bit)*. With that in mind, the only variable left for consideration is using WF11 (64-bit). So it's got to be this browser that's causing the problem, yes?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> No, you seem to misunderstood my issue. It is not buffering when the lag issue is happening. I have a very fast Internet connection which loads the whole video for seconds only. As I've said earlier, I do not have any problems when playing this video with *IE9 (32-bit and 64-bit) and FF11 (32-bit)*. With that in mind, the only variable left for consideration is using WF11 (64-bit). So it's got to be this browser that's causing the problem, yes?


I played the entire video and it was perfect. No problems at all. I would really recommend uninstalling Firefox and Waterfox then reinstall Waterfox only. Check to make sure you have Adobe Flash 64bit. This way we can find out if Firefox and Waterfox sharing files was the problem. Keep in mind Waterfox 12 is coming out soon which will include lots of bug fixes and new features. This may solve the problem also.

**Anyone else experiencing lag (not buffering) with this video?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> I played the entire video and it was perfect. No problems at all. I would really recommend uninstalling Firefox and Waterfox then reinstall Waterfox only. Check to make sure you have Adobe Flash 64bit. This way we can find out if Firefox and Waterfox sharing files was the problem. Keep in mind Waterfox 12 is coming out soon which will include lots of bug fixes and new features. This may solve the problem also.
> **Anyone else experiencing lag (not buffering) with this video?


Ok. I did not do that in the first place because, as I've said, there were some plugins that are in FF11 and not in WF11. Yup I have Adobe Flash 64 bit.

Usually, how long after the release of FF12 will WF12 be released?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok. I did not do that in the first place because, as I've said, there were some plugins that are in FF11 and not in WF11. Yup I have Adobe Flash 64 bit.
> Usually, how long after the release of FF12 will WF12 be released?


Usually anywhere between 1-4 days.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Usually anywhere between 1-4 days.


Ok. Others also have problems with youtube videos, right?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok. Others also have problems with youtube videos, right?


Nope. You're the only one. That's why I asked if others are having the same issue. There's no lag for me. It only stops to buffer the video and continues playing but that's normal with all browsers. Everything is in synch. I've been thinking if there's anything left for you to try but there isn't. You already tried turning off hardware acceleration for both Adobe and Firefox. This should have made a difference but it didn't. To explain what the settings do I included a FAQ at the bottom of that post. You made sure you have the latest version of Adobe Flash 64bit and that didn't work. You told me you have a fast internet connection so that's not it. When Waterfox 12 comes out, uninstall Firefox and Waterfox then follow the instructions in post #2011. This will completely remove Firefox and Waterfox so you can install a clean copy of Waterfox 12. Hopefully this will solve the problem. Another thing that could be causing it is any anti-virus running on your computer. Everything you do the anti-virus checks the data so streaming the video is both trying to play and get checked at the same time. If that doesn't work, I'll try to think of something else.

When the video slows down, does the audio slow down also? Are they both in synch?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Nope. You're the only one. That's why I asked if others are having the same issue. There's no lag for me. It only stops to buffer the video and continues playing but that's normal with all browsers. Everything is in synch. I've been thinking if there's anything left for you to try but there isn't. You already tried turning off hardware acceleration for both Adobe and Firefox. This should have made a difference but it didn't. To explain what the settings do I included a FAQ at the bottom of that post. You made sure you have the latest version of Adobe Flash 64bit and that didn't work. You told me you have a fast internet connection so that's not it. When Waterfox 12 comes out, uninstall Firefox and Waterfox then follow the instructions in post #2011. This will completely remove Firefox and Waterfox so you can install a clean copy of Waterfox 12. Hopefully this will solve the problem. Another thing that could be causing it is any anti-virus running on your computer. Everything you do the anti-virus checks the data so streaming the video is both trying to play and get checked at the same time. If that doesn't work, I'll try to think of something else.
> When the video slows down, does the audio slow down also? Are they both in synch?


Thank you very much for your help. My anti-virus is Microsoft Security Essentials and is known to produce no problems for most people. If the AV is causing the problems, it should've made videos in FF11 and IE9 also stutter a bit but it doesn't.

Yes both audio and video are in sync. The slow down is actually a very little stutter and the video continues and then after a few seconds it stutters again. The stutter is there if you inspect the video very carefully.


----------



## TheHunter

lol cool official page brought me here









*eagerly awaits WF 12*, keep up the good work


----------



## djkilla

Added another link from FileHippo and an important message for some users at the bottom.

Official final Firefox 12.0 released:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-12.0&os=win&lang=en-US

http://download02.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe

http://www.filehippo.com/download_firefox/

Release Notes:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/12.0/releasenotes/

*IMPORTANT*:
Just in case there are those still using Windows 2000, Windows XP RTM or XP Service Pack 1, Firefox 12 will be the last version of the browser from Mozilla to officially support those operating systems. Windows XP SP2 and above will ONLY be supported in the next version of Firefox.


----------



## DM2-Inc

Is there a way, possibly in the about:config, that will force the find menu at the bottom of WaterFox to always appear when ever it's initially opened?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DM2-Inc*
> 
> Is there a way, possibly in the about:config, that will force the find menu at the bottom of WaterFox to always appear when ever it's initially opened?


There is no about:config tweak that will do this BUT there are two ways to have it done. The easiest way is to install the 'Find Toolbar Tweaks' add-on. You can get it at the following location: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/find-toolbar-tweaks/

The other way is to edit the UserChrome.css file and add the commands necessary manually. I definitely recommend the add-on over this method.

If you don't mind turning this on manually, you can always use CTRL+F on your keyboard each time Waterfox starts. The add-on seems to be best for you though.


----------



## azheem

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Usually anywhere between 1-4 days.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Others also have problems with youtube videos, right?
Click to expand...

I have exactly the same problem with you dude, my friends too. When i open flv/html5 video from youtube, dailymotion or any other video streaming site with waterfox, the video somewhat played with some lag even when it's finished buffering (so it's not internet connection problem). But when i use firefox (32-bit) or chrome (32-bit) it plays smoothly, i tried to unistall firefox and waterfox and re-install waterfox again, but it still the same laggy video. I don't know, maybe the problem is either in waterfox or the flash-player (64-bit).


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *azheem*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Usually anywhere between 1-4 days.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. Others also have problems with youtube videos, right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have exactly the same problem with you dude, my friends too. When i open flv/html5 video from youtube, dailymotion or any other video streaming site with waterfox, the video somewhat played with some lag even when it's finished buffering (so it's not internet connection problem). But when i use firefox (32-bit) or chrome (32-bit) it plays smoothly, i tried to unistall firefox and waterfox and re-install waterfox again, but it still the same laggy video. I don't know, maybe the problem is either in waterfox or the flash-player (64-bit).
Click to expand...

I been having problems with YT loading anything for the longest time. It might be WF or 64bit FP I'm not sure. But I do have Safari onboard so I can check with that to see if it's related to my 64bit browser....

Yeah nope, still have the same issue in my 32bit browser that I have with watching with my 64bit. Imho, it's YouTube. Quality feeds are gone and now you're lucky to get a vid to upload on the first take without refreshing it at least 3 times in order to get the whole thing to buffer. FailTube is pissin me off to no end. It's not my system, it's not my connection speed. It's FailTube.









~Ceadder


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> I been having problems with YT loading anything for the longest time. It might be WF or 64bit FP I'm not sure. But I do have Safari onboard so I can check with that to see if it's related to my 64bit browser....
> Yeah nope, still have the same issue in my 32bit browser that I have with watching with my 64bit. Imho, it's YouTube. Quality feeds are gone and now you're lucky to get a vid to upload on the first take without refreshing it at least 3 times in order to get the whole thing to buffer. FailTube is pissin me off to no end. It's not my system, it's not my connection speed. It's FailTube.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


HI

i am glade i saw this posts and now i can comment , as far it concern me , i also got long time issue with YT playing clips , its run very jitter especially when moving the mouse pointer around the screen fast (in any direction).

this problem exist in ALL firefox based engine (ff11 x32 , palemoon x32+x64 , waterfox x32+x64) , the only browser that this issue gone is CHROME + OPERA .

i of course disable "hardware acceleration " which reduce the "bad running " a little bit ....i think its related to flash player combine with firefox .


----------



## djkilla

Well I'm glad to see there's others having the same issue with all Firebox based browsers. I did some checking and saw that Mozilla has been making changes with the way media is handled and updating their media controls. Here's what I found:

Feature overview

Our HTML5 media controls have changed very little since they were introduced in Firefox 3.5 -- mostly just bug fixed and keeping them working as the spec evolves. HTML5 media is an area we've made serious investment in, and it's time to make sure our default controls show it.

This project is primarily a collection of bug-fixes, updated design work, and small-scope featurettes; all building on top of the existing implementation.

This feature falls primarily in the Experience category (from the "Discover, Experience, and Connect" vision statement.)

Features:

(fixed, FF8) bug 518008 - click on video to pause/play
(fixed, FF9) bug 472942 - Make viewing a video directly look nice.
(fixed, FF10) bug 669260 - add "Show Video Info" context menu (overlay)
(fixed, FF10) bug 681550 - Context menu for Save Video As Image
(fixed, FF10) bug 675899 - HTML5 video player should show controls when video ends (if controls attribute is present)
(fixed, FF11) bug 513405 - Add text to videocontrols to describe the cause of errors.
(fixed, FF11) bug 537718 - Video should scale for a small window.
(fixed, FF11) bug 470628 - Provide a Full Screen button (or Full Tab?)
(fixed, FF12) bug 681548 - Visual refresh of controls
(fixed, FF12) bug 666306 - Video content should become large play button when video is not autoplay and with controls enabled

Significant bugfixes:

(fixed, FF8) bug 481082 - Video controls should listen for "stalled" event
(fixed, FF8) bug 669217 - remove nsISecurityCheckedComponent goop
(fixed, FF8) bug 669616 - Time in media rounded incorrectly
(fixed, FF10) bug 556563 - Remove "View Video" context menu when you're already viewing the video

Smaller bugfixes:

(fixed, FF9) bug 462117 - Add specialized video controls for small-dimension media.
(fixed, FF10) bug 513758 - Pressing Pos1/End key while video is in ended state sets status to play
(fixed, FF11) bug 699719 - Fade out video controls if no mouse movement for > n seconds

So as you can see, work is being done to improve media controls and the way media plays. Some other changes is Mozilla will change to VC2010 to build Firefox after Firefox 13 and they are changing out their code to an improved better code. So lots of changes are being made which will improve Firefox in all areas. By the way, YouTube has recently changed from Flash based videos to HTML 5. This could be what's causing the problems. Take a look at the following link for more info:

http://chrismorris.co/2012/02/08/why-youtubes-html5-player-sucks/

I think the problem is YouTube. Google owns both Chrome and YouTube so that's why the video plays perfectly on their browsers. They decided to change from Flash to HTML 5 suddenly and in the process, lots of other browsers are having these issues. Thanks again Google for making your browser look good and screwing everyone else! Anyway, give it a little time and other browsers will completely switch to what Google wants and all video will play smooth again.


----------



## virtualguy

*Review: Firefox's unofficial 64-bit variant Waterfox*

"Takeaway: The Waterfox project attempts to take advantage of 64-bit processing power for web browsing. TechRepublic's Matt Nawrocki uncovers a problem with that premise."

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/review-firefoxs-unofficial-64-bit-variant-waterfox/6034?tag=nl.e064

Any discussion?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> *Review: Firefox's unofficial 64-bit variant Waterfox*
> "Takeaway: The Waterfox project attempts to take advantage of 64-bit processing power for web browsing. TechRepublic's Matt Nawrocki uncovers a problem with that premise."
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/review-firefoxs-unofficial-64-bit-variant-waterfox/6034?tag=nl.e064
> Any discussion?


Well, a challenge! I read the article and laughed at the results. Why you ask? There are different scenarios as to how Firefox 32bit and Waterfox 64bit will run on a machine. Hardware being one, settings being another, the amount of addons and extensions, etc.. Lets take a look at his scores using Peacekeeper. My score is 2078. I clearly have a very fast Waterfox browser but how? Well, let's take a look at what I've got. I'm using Waterfox on a SSD drive. I'm also using the speed tweaks in my post #2057. I also only have one plugin, Adobe Flash. I only have ten addons/extensions. Here they are:



There's more to consider but with what I've got and how it's setup, I'm getting great scores. Using Dromaeo to speed test, I even did better than all the browsers tested by a member who uses Pale Moon 64bit. I scored 472.77. Here are their results:

Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit)
http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542

Take a look at the Total Score at top of each browser. Like I said, my score is 472.77. So a lot of factors are involved when it comes to how well Waterfox 64bit performs. My suggestion, if you're comparing browsers, don't have any addons/extensions or plugins in both browsers. Then run the tests yourself. You can use the speed tests located in my post #2074 and see my results at the bottom of that post.

Waterfox #1


----------



## demoneye

*djkilla* good finding !!!! that explain everything









further more , I dump firefox for some weeks coz of that and move to the "perfect" google chrome , recently I back to using firefox which i used for ages


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Well I'm glad to see there's others having the same issue with all Firebox based browsers. I did some checking and saw that Mozilla has been making changes with the way media is handled and updating their media controls. Here's what I found:
> Feature overview
> Our HTML5 media controls have changed very little since they were introduced in Firefox 3.5 -- mostly just bug fixed and keeping them working as the spec evolves. HTML5 media is an area we've made serious investment in, and it's time to make sure our default controls show it.
> This project is primarily a collection of bug-fixes, updated design work, and small-scope featurettes; all building on top of the existing implementation.
> This feature falls primarily in the Experience category (from the "Discover, Experience, and Connect" vision statement.)
> 
> Features:
> (fixed, FF8) bug 518008 - click on video to pause/play
> (fixed, FF9) bug 472942 - Make viewing a video directly look nice.
> (fixed, FF10) bug 669260 - add "Show Video Info" context menu (overlay)
> (fixed, FF10) bug 681550 - Context menu for Save Video As Image
> (fixed, FF10) bug 675899 - HTML5 video player should show controls when video ends (if controls attribute is present)
> (fixed, FF11) bug 513405 - Add text to videocontrols to describe the cause of errors.
> (fixed, FF11) bug 537718 - Video should scale for a small window.
> (fixed, FF11) bug 470628 - Provide a Full Screen button (or Full Tab?)
> (fixed, FF12) bug 681548 - Visual refresh of controls
> (fixed, FF12) bug 666306 - Video content should become large play button when video is not autoplay and with controls enabled
> Significant bugfixes:
> (fixed, FF8) bug 481082 - Video controls should listen for "stalled" event
> (fixed, FF8) bug 669217 - remove nsISecurityCheckedComponent goop
> (fixed, FF8) bug 669616 - Time in media rounded incorrectly
> (fixed, FF10) bug 556563 - Remove "View Video" context menu when you're already viewing the video
> Smaller bugfixes:
> (fixed, FF9) bug 462117 - Add specialized video controls for small-dimension media.
> (fixed, FF10) bug 513758 - Pressing Pos1/End key while video is in ended state sets status to play
> (fixed, FF11) bug 699719 - Fade out video controls if no mouse movement for > n seconds
> 
> So as you can see, work is being done to improve media controls and the way media plays. Some other changes is Mozilla will change to VC2010 to build Firefox after Firefox 13 and they are changing out their code to an improved better code. So lots of changes are being made which will improve Firefox in all areas. By the way, YouTube has recently changed from Flash based videos to HTML 5. This could be what's causing the problems. Take a look at the following link for more info:
> http://chrismorris.co/2012/02/08/why-youtubes-html5-player-sucks/
> I think the problem is YouTube. Google owns both Chrome and YouTube so that's why the video plays perfectly on their browsers. They decided to change from Flash to HTML 5 suddenly and in the process, lots of other browsers are having these issues. Thanks again Google for making your browser look good and screwing everyone else! Anyway, give it a little time and other browsers will completely switch to what Google wants and all video will play smooth again.


Which means what we are experiencing is probably normal? The thing is that for me I don't experience the same problem with FF11 (32-bit)? It's working flawlessly with that browser.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> *Review: Firefox's unofficial 64-bit variant Waterfox*
> "Takeaway: The Waterfox project attempts to take advantage of 64-bit processing power for web browsing. TechRepublic's Matt Nawrocki uncovers a problem with that premise."
> http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/window-on-windows/review-firefoxs-unofficial-64-bit-variant-waterfox/6034?tag=nl.e064
> Any discussion?


i test both x32 and x64 based firefox with peacekeeper , i see no BIG (if any) differents between them .









PS

they were fully tweaked ...


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> *djkilla* good finding !!!! that explain everything
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> further more , I dump firefox for some weeks coz of that and move to the "perfect" google chrome , recently I back to using firefox which i used for ages


No problem! I like to make sure everyone has ALL the info they need in fixing, tweaking or comparing browsers. It takes me a little time to get all the info together but I hope to help everyone who needs it!


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Which means what we are experiencing is probably normal? The thing is that for me I don't experience the same problem with FF11 (32-bit)? It's working flawlessly with that browser.


Different people have different settings and setups. That's why some people are having issues with all Firefox based browsers and others aren't. Waterfox 12 could resolve these issues depending on what Mozilla has changed in their code. If Google didn't decide to change YouTube videos to the new HTML 5 we may not be having these issues but Google wants to kill off Adobe Flash for playing videos. HTML 5 is fairly new so all browsers have to adapt to the new code.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Different people have different settings and setups. That's why some people are having issues with all Firefox based browsers and others aren't. Waterfox 12 could resolve these issues depending on what Mozilla has changed in their code. If Google didn't decide to change YouTube videos to the new HTML 5 we may not be having these issues but Google wants to kill off Adobe Flash for playing videos. HTML 5 is fairly new so all browsers have to adapt to the new code.


Ok, thanks for the info.

By the way, is there a compilation of all your posts that contains guides/tweaks/and what not for WF?


----------



## FTBBTF

I've registered mainly to thank Alex for the work on Firefox and to be able to provide feedback.

However, I have to point a few things out relating to the "tweaking" guide. I have a few problems with it, so here goes:

*"network.http.max-connections" - 256 is so by default*, it's the standard value for Waterfox
*"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" - 8 is, again, by default*
*"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" - 8 is, same, default value*
*"network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" does not do anything, because that is no longer implemented in Firefox* since a few years ago. All documentation on this is obsolete and dates to 2004
*"nglayout.initialpaint.delay" should not be set to 0*, if anyone is wondering, as it will not provide with the best outcome. Recommendations are provided by Mozilla, can be under the default value of 250
*"network.prefetch-next" should be kept the way it is*, but *setting it to true will not harm the computer*. It's a gimmick saying you will get viruses from having it enabled, as if there is malware the browser, security software, etc will block it before it will affect the computer. If you want it enabled, keep it so.

The rest of the tweaks are OK, you may apply them, especially the pipelining ones. Those are the ones to use.

Also, use this one, it's new and Chrome already uses it:
*
"network.http.spdy.enabled" - TRUE*

Also, consider that every time you modify a default Firefox value the result may vary, depending on the connection speed as well as lag. If you will hammer a server with many simultaneous connections and the internet speed is not so high (think high ping and low speed, such as 10 Mbps or 20 Mbps; ping can give you a hint on how fast a server responds) you will have mixed results or worse all the time.
Consider the fact that Mozilla already has people more competent than a lot of the "tweakers" which post online guides on how to make Firefox faster. I am not undermining the research one has done to find ways to improve upon the product, but I am saying that the viewer should take it with a big grain of salt. The best products are the ones that find a good balance between functionality and speed. Firefox is very well balanced already.
Mozilla developers do have Internet and they do read the guides. If those solutions one provides are better, they are implemented. However, they test everything and under every possible scenario in order to provide the best experience and messing with that balance and optimization doesn't always make it better.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> I've registered mainly to thank Alex for the work on Firefox and to be able to provide feedback.
> However, I have to point a few things out relating to the "tweaking" guide. I have a few problems with it, so here goes:
> *"network.http.max-connections" - 256 is so by default*, it's the standard value for Waterfox
> *"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" - 8 is, again, by default*
> *"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" - 8 is, same, default value*
> *"network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" does not do anything, because that is no longer implemented in Firefox* since a few years ago. All documentation on this is obsolete and dates to 2004
> *"nglayout.initialpaint.delay" should not be set to 0*, if anyone is wondering, as it will not provide with the best outcome. Recommendations are provided by Mozilla, can be under the default value of 250
> *"network.prefetch-next" should be kept the way it is*, but *setting it to true will not harm the computer*. It's a gimmick saying you will get viruses from having it enabled, as if there is malware the browser, security software, etc will block it before it will affect the computer. If you want it enabled, keep it so.
> The rest of the tweaks are OK, you may apply them, especially the pipelining ones. Those are the ones to use.
> Also, use this one, it's new and Chrome already uses it:
> *
> "network.http.spdy.enabled" - TRUE*


*network.http.max-connections* - 256 (This was recently changed to 256 from Mozilla within the last two versions. I read there was a reason why so I posted it for anyone who may have earlier versions of Firefox)

*network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy* - 8 (This is the default. Some people have been using a higher setting of 16 but the default is fine the way it is so I posted it to bring the setting to it's default value)

*network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server* - 8 (The default is actually 6. Bumped this up because there's a speed increase by changing it to 8)

*network.http.pipelining.firstrequest* (This was an earlier setting but may no longer be needed in recent versions of Firefox but no harm is done by including it)

*nglayout.initialpaint.delay* (Default is 250 but my setting of 25 is perfect for a high speed broadband connection. Otherwise 125-200 is fine)

*network.prefetch-next* (I probably should have detailed this better. This tweak (default is true) speeds up the browser by prefetching data from links on the page your viewing. So when you click a link, the data is presented immediately. Google Chrome has the same setting for speeding up their browser. I have this set to false because if the prefetched page includes malware, it will be downloaded so setting this to false will stop prefetching. User can decide what's best for them.)

*network.http.spdy.enabled* - TRUE (This is a new setting in Firefox 11 and will be on (true) by default starting with Firefox 13 or 14. It speeds up the loading of web sites if they code their web site to use this feature. It was originally created by Google and is quickly being adopted by all web browsers and the internet. Google is working to make this standardized with all browsers and the internet. The default is false but I have it set to true. Not all web sites include this but a handful like Google, Twitter, Facebook and a few others include this.)

The settings within Firefox by default is to be used with ALL types of OS's and CPU's. My settings are best with newer hardware (last few years) and a speedy broadband connection. If you have older hardware or slower internet connection, then you can experience lag because your hardware and browser won't be able to handle the amount of data being received. So the browser will bottleneck the data. It's best to use the default settings if using a slower internet or older hardware (mainly CPU).

Thanks to FTBBTF for bringing up these settings. I'll make some changes to better inform the user.

*UPDATE*: I've updated the 'Speed Tweaks' info in my original post #2057.


----------



## virtualguy

I ran both FF 32-bit and WF 64-bit through the paces with the Peacekeeper benchmark at futuremark.com, using the Test profile for each browser. There was a moderate, but significant, difference in the scores. FF 32-bit scored at 2370 while WF 64-bit managed a 2020. HTML Capabilities was 5/7 for both browsers. I will test again after some modest speed tweaking.


----------



## demoneye

IMO all of this kind of tests are kinda useless or maybe can be used by vendors to promote their software , i think its better to test ANY browsers using user experience in his system , trying any browser he likes and make the individual compare


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Well, a challenge! I read the article and laughed at the results. Why you ask? There are different scenarios as to how Firefox 32bit and Waterfox 64bit will run on a machine. *Hardware being one*, settings being another, the amount of addons and extensions, etc.. Lets take a look at his scores using Peacekeeper. My score is 2078. I clearly have a very fast Waterfox browser but how? Well, let's take a look at what I've got. I'm using Waterfox on a SSD drive. I'm also using the speed tweaks in my post #2057. I also only have one plugin, Adobe Flash. I only have ten addons/extensions.
> There's more to consider but with what I've got and how it's setup, I'm getting great scores. Using Dromaeo to speed test, I even did better than all the browsers *tested by a member* who uses Pale Moon 64bit. I scored 472.77. Here are their results:
> Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit)
> http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542
> Take a look at the Total Score at top of each browser. Like I said, my score is 472.77. So a lot of factors are involved when it comes to how well Waterfox 64bit performs. My suggestion, if you're comparing browsers, don't have any addons/extensions or plugins in both browsers. Then run the tests yourself. You can use the speed tests located in my post #2074 and see my results at the bottom of that post.


Maybe you'd do better to do what I do and rule as many of the variables as you can: test each browser from a new profile, no extensions or plugins, no browser tweaks, no active background tasks, on the same hardware.

Here are *my results* from a little over a month ago: Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit): http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542

Comparing results from one computer to another is futile, any difference in hardware *will* make a difference.

Let's see *your* results, djkilla?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> Maybe you'd do better to do what I do and rule as many of the variables as you can: test each browser from a new profile, no extensions or plugins, no browser tweaks, no active background tasks, on the same hardware.


I agree. this is the proper way to do it and what I suggested for others to do when testing. Sooner or later I'll do a proper test and post my results but at the moment I'm swamped with computers that need to be fixed and I've got to get everything done and back to their customers.
Quote:


> Here are *my results* from a little over a month ago: Lineup from left to right: Firefox 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11 (32-bit), Pale Moon 11-x64 (64-bit), Waterfox 11 (64-bit): http://dromaeo.com/?id=166535,166530,166540,166542


Ahhhh, so you're the one that did the test. I'm hoping to do the same if the time allows. I know Waterfox is constantly being improved and would like to see a good test to see how it compares to other similar browsers.
Quote:


> Comparing results from one computer to another is futile, any difference in hardware *will* make a difference.
> Let's see *your* results, djkilla?


You're correct. Comparing results from one computer to another is not accurate because of the different setups of each one. Based on the results I've seen, ALL the browsers are very close in performance. The slowest to the fastest is only a couple of seconds difference. It's like comparing the top of the line CPU to the last top of the line CPU. The difference is so minor but if you want bragging rights even if encoding a video is only 10 seconds faster, then you get the latest CPU. Personally, the browser that makes you happy is what you should stick with.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> You're correct. Comparing results from one computer to another is not accurate because of the different setups of each one. Based on the results I've seen, ALL the browsers are very close in performance. The slowest to the fastest is only a couple of seconds difference. It's like comparing the top of the line CPU to the last top of the line CPU. The difference is so minor but if you want bragging rights even if encoding a video is only 10 seconds faster, then you get the latest CPU. Personally, the browser that makes you happy is what you should stick with.


So you mean WF is not much faster than FF?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So you mean WF is not much faster than FF?


Every version of the different browsers could be slower or faster based on the code and how the browser was built. For example, Firefox is being built using VC2005. Soon that will switch to VC2010. I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox. Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things. Speed wise, sometimes Waterfox is the fastest and sometimes it's not. Each version and build changes. I've seen each of the browsers at some point be the fastest and by the next version it's not. But keep in mind that overall the speed difference is by seconds between browsers. You probably won't even see it. I prefer Waterfox because it's a 64bit browser that's identical to Firefox and can handle memory better so you can have lots of tabs open, etc., compared to regular Firefox. That doesn't make it faster but more efficient in memory use. You may use it for a different reason. If you want the fastest, then you need to speed test all the browsers when a new version comes out. Firefox may be faster with version 11, Waterfox may be faster with version 12, maybe another browser will be faster with the next version. It's up to you to find out which is the fastest of them all when each version is released. For me, the best of everything is Waterfox. It's a fantastic build and it runs perfectly and suits my needs nicely.


----------



## demoneye

just my logic opinion on the YouTube laggy playing ....

as we all Know , google chrome uses flash player BUILD IN in order to play any youtube clips ( or any clips).
firefox uses same player BUT it isnt a build in version , its just installed over windows.

now , i just do a quick test , using COMDO DRAGON and SrWare Iron , both chromium based browsers which uses flash player in the way FireFox does , the one installed in windows ( NOT a build in like google chrome).

i just run any youtube clips and results were perfect like in google chrome.

Conclusion

the problem is IN firefox engine / coding or integration with adobe flsah .


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> ... I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. *I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox.* Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things.


*No*, Waterfox *is not* 1:1 with Firefox code and hasn't been since sometime last year. Input *about:buildconfig* into the URL bar and checkout the differences (and similarities) between the *Configure arguments* sections of the different browsers.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> *No*, Waterfox *is not* 1:1 with Firefox code and hasn't been since sometime last year. Input *about:buildconfig* into the URL bar and checkout the differences (and similarities) between the *Configure arguments* sections of the different browsers.


Ok. Waterfox and Firefox are the same 1:1 code except Waterfox is compiled into 64bit with optimizations. When you look at about:buildconfig they will be different. Firefox is made to run on basicly everything with any type of hardware. Waterfox has SSE2 and other optimizations for newer hardware. They will be slightly different but the same 1:1 code. For example, lets say I add some tweaks to the settings in Waterfox but not in Waterfox on another computer, or change the settings in Firefox but not in Firefox on another computer, or change the settings in Waterfox but not in Firefox. Does that make them different? No. Because you only changed the settings and not the code. So the code is 1:1.

Read the last sentence in the second paragraph:
http://betanews.com/2012/02/07/waterfox-10-64-bit-browsing-for-your-windows-pc/

Read the description for Waterfox:
http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Waterfox.shtml

Like I said before, I'm happy there's other browsers to choose from. Each one has its pros and cons. I respect all the creators who put the time and effort to bring us an alternative browser and hope others have the same respect. It's not a competition to see who's better but what works best for you.


----------



## FTBBTF

"network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server - 8 (The default is actually 6. Bumped this up because there's a speed increase by changing it to 8)"

I have looked into it and you're right. 6 is default, yet I already had it at 8.

"network.prefetch-next" should be left alone and I rationalize it like this: prefetching links doesn't feed you malware, as by common sense if you visit a website with malware the malware will get to you everywhere and by not prefetching a link you are still unsafe.

Mozilla quotes this:
"Link prefetching is when a webpage hints to the browser that certain pages are likely to be visited, so the browser downloads them immediately so they can be displayed immediately when the user requests it. This preference controls whether link prefetching is enabled. "

Also, prefetching the next link will speed up the browsing speed, especially if you are on high speed Internet. Otherwise you might want to disable it, but disabling it with a very fast Internet connection is sort of pointless as today's anti-malware fighters are mostly redundant: Windows Defender, Anti-Virus, Website blocker in the browser. The amount of security layers these days are incredible, so it's best to not go "IP Tables" style.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey guys sorry I haven't been replying much, djkilla seems to be doing a good job of that







(highly appreciated). I've been working hard trying to implement lockless malloc, and have been hitting some bumps on the road. Hopefully tomorrow or Thursday WF12 will be available.


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Ok. Waterfox and Firefox are the same 1:1 code except Waterfox is compiled into 64bit with optimizations. When you look at about:buildconfig they will be different. Firefox is made to run on basicly everything with any type of hardware. Waterfox has SSE2 and other optimizations for newer hardware. They will be slightly different but the same 1:1 code. For example, lets say I add some tweaks to the settings in Waterfox but not in Waterfox on another computer, or change the settings in Firefox but not in Firefox on another computer, or change the settings in Waterfox but not in Firefox. Does that make them different? No. Because you only changed the settings and not the code. So the code is 1:1.
> Read the last sentence in the second paragraph:
> http://betanews.com/2012/02/07/waterfox-10-64-bit-browsing-for-your-windows-pc/
> Read the description for Waterfox:
> http://www.softpedia.com/get/Internet/Browsers/Waterfox.shtml


Please don't point me to links that are incorrect and missing important information - like how much of Firefox code is *disabled* during the compilation of Waterfox. "Waterfox is basically a 64-Bit version of Firefox" < misleading statement.

I'll repeat with some extra emphasis addeed:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> ... I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. *I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox.* Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things.
> 
> 
> 
> *No*, Waterfox *is not* 1:1 with Firefox code and hasn't been since sometime last year. Input *about:buildconfig* into the URL bar and checkout the differences (and similarities) between the *Configure arguments* sections of the different browsers.
Click to expand...

Look for the parts of Firefox code that are *disabled* during compilation. Compare for yourself please.


----------



## djkilla

*cymroly* - Is there a point to this? This info doesn't help anyone. At this point, I'll agree with you. It's not the same. None of the browsers are the same. And that's great! If they were all the same, then why make different browsers, right? So lets agree that innovation is a good thing and everything is different.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys sorry I haven't been replying much, djkilla seems to be doing a good job of that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (highly appreciated). I've been working hard trying to implement lockless malloc, and have been hitting some bumps on the road. Hopefully tomorrow or Thursday WF12 will be available.


Thanks Mr Alex! This forum will keep you busy but there's some good questions to be answered. Always happy to help out when needed. Looking forward to Waterfox 12!


----------



## satrow

The point is - *clarity*. The info will help anyone who's _willing_ to check it for themselves.

You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to _yourself_, that's fine - just try not to put _your_ spin on it when someone asks a question.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> The point is - *clarity*. The info will help anyone who's _willing_ to check it for themselves.
> You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to _yourself_, that's fine - just try not to put _your_ spin on it when someone asks a question.


I was using what you did as an example. I also explained that there's different factors when testing and invited everyone to test the various browsers themselves on their own computers. I probably should have noted your results are different from mine because of different hardware but I stand by the info I gave in that post. I also posted that each version is different and to test with each version. If anything, I wasn't trying to put a spin on it but simply made a mistake by not noting more clearly that your results are on your hardware only. My apology! Between fixing customers computers and making quick posts, sometimes I may miss to note something. Anyway, I DO want to see the results (or prove it to myself like you said) by testing each browser fairly. I just have to find the time. As always, if asked a question, I try to answer as honestly and help others as others have helped me at times.


----------



## Xenthos

Dromaeo - Recommended tests

Palemoon x64 - stock - no addons
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169623
Waterfox x64 - stock - no addons
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169628
Firefox 12.0 x86 - stock - with adblock plus, sorry
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169565

Comparison
http://dromaeo.com/?id=169623,169628,169565

On a side note, Palemoon did not automatically integrate my bookmarks.

Surprisingly standard Firefox 12.0 x86 destroyed both (considering it is only x86).


----------



## cyclistefou

Hi MrAlex,

first, thanks for your excellent work on Waterfox. Just registered to post this and the below.

Now, in reaction to your post that you're trying to switch Waterfox to the Lockless memory allocator, I was just curious to check what that is and found that it is licensed under GPLv3. Just wanted to ask you what it means to Waterfox license, I haven't seen (ok I didn't look very far) a mention of LGPLv3, that means that the whole binary being linked with Lockless memory allocator would be put at risk to be made GPLv3, which is incompatible with FF/WF license? IANAL nor do I have any stakes in either product, but just curious, and looking to point it as it may be relevant.

Also, just a suggestion, I perfectly agree that you don't owe your users anything; indeed, we users owe you thanks, praise and whatnot, for making Waterfox. Let me nevertheless kindly and respectfully suggest that maybe you don't delay WF releases (vs the official FF counterpart) for implementing something (like the above example about Lockless malloc). The reason is that with each new FF release there may be security fixes, and with the product being OpenSource releasing a fix means also exposing the flaw (in the diff) and therefore makes especially easy to write exploits that would work on those machines that haven't been patched already to the latest version. Therefore, the strength of OpenSource is in this case, also some drawback; you're better off updating very quickly. So delaying WF after FF puts that risk slightly higher for WF users.

Again, you don't owe us anything and I repeat my thanks for your work on WF and your helpful presence on the forum. This is just a friendly post with questions/suggestions from a thankful newly registered user.

Thanks!


----------



## MrAlex

EDIT: Could anyone test this Waterfox I've attached. Lockless wasn't working, so I'm using tcmalloc (Google Performance Tools). There should be better performance at the cost of increased memory usage. I'd like to see what other people make of it.

http://www.mediafire.com/?ykuzshd8s3637fc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> The point is - *clarity*. The info will help anyone who's _willing_ to check it for themselves.
> 
> You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to _yourself_, that's fine - just try not to put _your_ spin on it when someone asks a question.


Waterfox was released back when the 64-Bit version gave quite a performance lead. I never intended for Waterfox to get so big, I just imagined it where me and a few core users would find the benefits (such as media heavy websites). With every new release of Firefox, the performance gap has been pretty much closed. There are only a few things that will give Waterfox better performance as a program, such as a better malloc and a better compiler.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cyclistefou*
> 
> Hi MrAlex,
> 
> first, thanks for your excellent work on Waterfox. Just registered to post this and the below.
> 
> Now, in reaction to your post that you're trying to switch Waterfox to the Lockless memory allocator, I was just curious to check what that is and found that it is licensed under GPLv3. Just wanted to ask you what it means to Waterfox license, I haven't seen (ok I didn't look very far) a mention of LGPLv3, that means that the whole binary being linked with Lockless memory allocator would be put at risk to be made GPLv3, which is incompatible with FF/WF license? IANAL nor do I have any stakes in either product, but just curious, and looking to point it as it may be relevant.
> 
> Also, just a suggestion, I perfectly agree that you don't owe your users anything; indeed, we users owe you thanks, praise and whatnot, for making Waterfox. Let me nevertheless kindly and respectfully suggest that maybe you don't delay WF releases (vs the official FF counterpart) for implementing something (like the above example about Lockless malloc). The reason is that with each new FF release there may be security fixes, and with the product being OpenSource releasing a fix means also exposing the flaw (in the diff) and therefore makes especially easy to write exploits that would work on those machines that haven't been patched already to the latest version. Therefore, the strength of OpenSource is in this case, also some drawback; you're better off updating very quickly. So delaying WF after FF puts that risk slightly higher for WF users.
> 
> Again, you don't owe us anything and I repeat my thanks for your work on WF and your helpful presence on the forum. This is just a friendly post with questions/suggestions from a thankful newly registered user.
> 
> Thanks!


Well Waterfox is a free program, and I'm not selling it neither am I redistributing the malloc or modifying it. And I only ever delay a maximum of 1 or 2 days. Otherwise, I release it immediately.


----------



## cyclistefou

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well Waterfox is a free program, and I'm not selling it neither am I redistributing the malloc or modifying it. And I only ever delay a maximum of 1 or 2 days. Otherwise, I release it immediately.


Ok, good to know. Thanks for the answer.

Best regards,
Sébastien


----------



## SlimDan22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> The point is - *clarity*. The info will help anyone who's _willing_ to check it for themselves.
> You brought me into the thread by using my data that was published on another forum; I'm trying to show you that some of what you have been claiming in the last several months is no longer true. You don't want to prove it to _yourself_, that's fine - just try not to put _your_ spin on it when someone asks a question.







By The Way Thanks for all the work you do MrAlex!!!


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox was released back when the 64-Bit version gave quite a performance lead. I never intended for Waterfox to get so big, I just imagined it where me and a few core users would find the benefits (such as media heavy websites). With every new release of Firefox, the performance gap has been pretty much closed. There are only a few things that will give Waterfox better performance as a program, such as a better malloc and a better compiler.


Whilst your comments appear to be accurate, they're pretty vague







Would it be too much to ask for a clear response to the specific issues mentioned in my 3rd post?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox was released back when the 64-Bit version gave quite a performance lead. I never intended for Waterfox to get so big, I just imagined it where me and a few core users would find the benefits (such as media heavy websites). With every new release of Firefox, the performance gap has been pretty much closed. There are only a few things that will give Waterfox better performance as a program, such as a better malloc and a better compiler.
> 
> 
> 
> Whilst your comments appear to be accurate, they're pretty vague
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would it be too much to ask for a clear response to the specific issues mentioned in my 3rd post?
Click to expand...

about:buildconfig lists everything I have disabled and enabled. I mostly disabled things which have no use to a 3rd party build - such as debugging tests and the crash reporter. That's about it. Otherwise everything else remains the same.


----------



## demoneye

i find a way to kill this youtube lagging issue . its work for me maybe it will work for *you*.

i download "greasemonkey" add on , install " Yousable youtube fix" script from http://userscripts.org , in the software i check "related video selection" and youtube is playing SMOOTH AGAIN LIKE GOOGLE CHROME..

you may try it and report if this help you ppl


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Every version of the different browsers could be slower or faster based on the code and how the browser was built. For example, Firefox is being built using VC2005. Soon that will switch to VC2010. I'm not sure how Waterfox is built or how Pale Moon is built. I do know that Waterfox is 1:1 in code when compared to Firefox. Pale Moon actually isn't 1:1 and deactivates/removes features such as Accessibility and some other things. Speed wise, sometimes Waterfox is the fastest and sometimes it's not. Each version and build changes. I've seen each of the browsers at some point be the fastest and by the next version it's not. But keep in mind that overall the speed difference is by seconds between browsers. You probably won't even see it. I prefer Waterfox because it's a 64bit browser that's identical to Firefox and can handle memory better so you can have lots of tabs open, etc., compared to regular Firefox. That doesn't make it faster but more efficient in memory use. You may use it for a different reason. If you want the fastest, then you need to speed test all the browsers when a new version comes out. Firefox may be faster with version 11, Waterfox may be faster with version 12, maybe another browser will be faster with the next version. It's up to you to find out which is the fastest of them all when each version is released. For me, the best of everything is Waterfox. It's a fantastic build and it runs perfectly and suits my needs nicely.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> i find a way to kill this youtube lagging issue . its work for me maybe it will work for *you*.
> i download "greasemonkey" add on , install " Yousable youtube fix" script from http://userscripts.org , in the software i check "related video selection" and youtube is playing SMOOTH AGAIN LIKE GOOGLE CHROME..
> you may try it and report if this help you ppl


Will try that, thanks for the heads up!









What does greasemonkey do though?


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> about:buildconfig lists everything I have disabled and enabled. I mostly disabled things which have no use to a 3rd party build - such as debugging tests and the crash reporter. That's about it. Otherwise everything else remains the same.


So the commonly repeated "Waterfox is basically a 64-Bit version of Firefox", which was probably true up to and including version 8 of Waterfox, is now a misleading statement, as since v9 *Waterfox does disable a number of Firefox features during the compile*, yes?

Perhaps you should make it clear which of the Firefox features are disabled in Waterfox so that users and potential users can tell by reading the OP what Waterfox is and what it isn't?


----------



## SlimDan22

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> EDIT: Could anyone test this Waterfox I've attached. Lockless wasn't working, so I'm using tcmalloc (Google Performance Tools). There should be better performance at the cost of increased memory usage. I'd like to see what other people make of it.
> http://www.mediafire.com/?ykuzshd8s3637fc


Here are my benchmarks.

Disabled All Addons and Plugins, and cleared Caches , Cookies, and etc before each test and also VACUUME'd SQlite Databases before each test after cleaning.

Waterfox 11
*Peacekeeper:*http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5KQ5&resultId=2355629
*SunSpider:*


Spoiler: Sunspider Results



============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 210.7ms +/- 0.9%

3d: 35.0ms +/- 1.7%
cube: 14.4ms +/- 2.6%
morph: 7.4ms +/- 5.0%
raytrace: 13.2ms +/- 2.3%

access: 17.9ms +/- 5.1%
binary-trees: 2.5ms +/- 15.1%
fannkuch: 7.9ms +/- 2.9%
nbody: 3.8ms +/- 7.9%
nsieve: 3.7ms +/- 9.3%

bitops: 11.9ms +/- 3.4%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 0.9ms +/- 25.1%
bits-in-byte: 4.7ms +/- 7.3%
bitwise-and: 3.2ms +/- 9.4%
nsieve-bits: 3.1ms +/- 7.3%

controlflow: 2.4ms +/- 15.4%
recursive: 2.4ms +/- 15.4%

crypto: 17.9ms +/- 2.3%
aes: 9.4ms +/- 3.9%
md5: 5.0ms +/- 0.0%
sha1: 3.5ms +/- 10.8%

date: 35.9ms +/- 2.0%
format-tofte: 18.1ms +/- 2.2%
format-xparb: 17.8ms +/- 2.5%

math: 15.7ms +/- 3.7%
cordic: 3.3ms +/- 10.5%
partial-sums: 9.8ms +/- 3.1%
spectral-norm: 2.6ms +/- 14.2%

regexp: 11.0ms +/- 3.1%
dna: 11.0ms +/- 3.1%

string: 63.0ms +/- 0.8%
base64: 5.2ms +/- 5.8%
fasta: 7.2ms +/- 4.2%
tagcloud: 20.2ms +/- 1.5%
unpack-code: 23.2ms +/- 1.3%
validate-input: 7.2ms +/- 4.2%



Waterfox 12 (MediaFire Mirror)
*Peacekeeper:*http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5KR5&resultId=2355738
*SunSpider:*


Spoiler: Sunspider Results



============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 201.5ms +/- 0.7%

3d: 34.9ms +/- 1.5%
cube: 14.0ms +/- 0.0%
morph: 6.5ms +/- 5.8%
raytrace: 14.4ms +/- 2.6%

access: 17.1ms +/- 3.7%
binary-trees: 2.5ms +/- 15.1%
fannkuch: 7.4ms +/- 5.0%
nbody: 3.7ms +/- 9.3%
nsieve: 3.5ms +/- 10.8%

bitops: 11.9ms +/- 5.3%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 1.0ms +/- 0.0%
bits-in-byte: 4.6ms +/- 8.0%
bitwise-and: 3.3ms +/- 10.5%
nsieve-bits: 3.0ms +/- 0.0%

controlflow: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%
recursive: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%

crypto: 18.3ms +/- 1.9%
aes: 9.7ms +/- 3.6%
md5: 4.8ms +/- 6.3%
sha1: 3.8ms +/- 7.9%

date: 34.3ms +/- 2.0%
format-tofte: 17.9ms +/- 2.3%
format-xparb: 16.4ms +/- 3.0%

math: 15.1ms +/- 4.1%
cordic: 3.4ms +/- 10.9%
partial-sums: 9.2ms +/- 3.3%
spectral-norm: 2.5ms +/- 15.1%

regexp: 10.7ms +/- 4.5%
dna: 10.7ms +/- 4.5%

string: 57.0ms +/- 1.8%
base64: 4.7ms +/- 10.3%
fasta: 6.6ms +/- 5.6%
tagcloud: 18.4ms +/- 2.0%
unpack-code: 20.8ms +/- 1.4%
validate-input: 6.5ms +/- 5.8%



Firefox 12

*Peacekeeper:* http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5KQp&resultId=2355713
*SunSpider:*


Spoiler: Sunspider Results



============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 205.2ms +/- 4.8%

3d: 32.5ms +/- 1.9%
cube: 12.0ms +/- 2.8%
morph: 6.6ms +/- 5.6%
raytrace: 13.9ms +/- 1.6%

access: 16.3ms +/- 4.6%
binary-trees: 2.3ms +/- 15.0%
fannkuch: 7.2ms +/- 4.2%
nbody: 3.5ms +/- 10.8%
nsieve: 3.3ms +/- 10.5%

bitops: 10.9ms +/- 3.7%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 0.9ms +/- 25.1%
bits-in-byte: 4.1ms +/- 5.5%
bitwise-and: 2.9ms +/- 7.8%
nsieve-bits: 3.0ms +/- 0.0%

controlflow: 2.4ms +/- 15.4%
recursive: 2.4ms +/- 15.4%

crypto: 18.3ms +/- 3.7%
aes: 8.5ms +/- 4.4%
md5: 6.6ms +/- 5.6%
sha1: 3.2ms +/- 9.4%

date: 32.0ms +/- 1.8%
format-tofte: 14.9ms +/- 2.7%
format-xparb: 17.1ms +/- 2.4%

math: 17.9ms +/- 7.2%
cordic: 2.9ms +/- 7.8%
partial-sums: 12.4ms +/- 9.5%
spectral-norm: 2.6ms +/- 14.2%

regexp: 11.1ms +/- 2.0%
dna: 11.1ms +/- 2.0%

string: 63.8ms +/- 16.6%
base64: 4.5ms +/- 8.4%
fasta: 6.1ms +/- 3.7%
tagcloud: 18.9ms +/- 2.1%
unpack-code: 21.9ms +/- 1.0%
validate-input: 12.4ms +/- 88.3%



*Done Editing lol

Note:
Didn't realize how addons slow down Firefox, way faster after disabling all addons ( i have 10) i need to take a look at which addon's are slowing everything down =P


----------



## demoneye

greasemonkey is a scripter activator , i t uses a scripts code to make some changes in page


----------



## djkilla

*SlimDan22* - Good tests! I noticed Waterfox 12 scored higher compared to 11. I'm thinking about installing just the browsers (no addons, etc.) clearing the caches and cookies then testing them in safe mode so I have the bare minimum of services running. Each browser will probably be tested twice.

You're right about the addons. They can slow you down. I know Mozilla was working on making the addons use less resources. Hope the addon creators and Mozilla can make this happen to make Firefox speedier.


----------



## demoneye

*just a little remark , disabling "hardware acceleration" and running peacekeeper test will results half score ....*


----------



## Xenthos

These are my results:

*Sunspider :*

FF 12 x86
206.7ms +/- 0.8%


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



,%223d-morph%22:[6,7,6,7,7,7,7,7,6,7],%223d-raytrace%22:[16,16,16,15,16,16,17,17,16,16],%22access-binary-trees%22:[3,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2],%22access-fannkuch%22:[7,7,7,7,7,6,7,7,7,7],%22access-nbody%22:[4,3,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,4],%22access-nsieve%22:[4,4,4,3,3,4,4,3,4,4],%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:[1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1],%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:[3,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,3,3],%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:[3,3,3,3,3,2,3,3,3,3],%22controlflow-recursive%22:[2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2],%22crypto-aes%22:[9,8,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9],%22crypto-md5%22:[7,7,7,7,6,7,7,7,7,7],%22crypto-sha1%22:[4,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,3,3],%22date-format-tofte%22:[16,15,15,16,16,16,16,15,16,15],%22date-format-xparb%22:[14,14,14,14,14,14,13,13,15,16],%22math-cordic%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,3],%22math-partial-sums%22:[14,17,14,14,14,18,16,17,17,14],%22math-spectral-norm%22:[3,3,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22regexp-dna%22:[11,11,11,12,11,11,11,12,12,11],%22string-base64%22:[4,5,5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5],%22string-fasta%22:[6,6,6,7,6,7,6,6,6,6],%22string-tagcloud%22:[19,18,19,18,20,18,18,19,20,18],%22string-unpack-code%22:[24,24,22,23,23,24,23,23,23,25],%22string-validate-input%22:[8,8,8,9,8,8,9,8,8,8]http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?{%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:[12,13,13,13,13,13,13,14,12,13],%223d-morph%22:[6,7,6,7,7,7,7,7,6,7],%223d-raytrace%22:[16,16,16,15,16,16,17,17,16,16],%22access-binary-trees%22:[3,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2],%22access-fannkuch%22:[7,7,7,7,7,6,7,7,7,7],%22access-nbody%22:[4,3,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,4],%22access-nsieve%22:[4,4,4,3,3,4,4,3,4,4],%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:[1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1,0,1],%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:[3,2,3,3,3,3,3,4,3,3],%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:[3,3,3,3,3,2,3,3,3,3],%22controlflow-recursive%22:[2,2,2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2],%22crypto-aes%22:[9,8,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9],%22crypto-md5%22:[7,7,7,7,6,7,7,7,7,7],%22crypto-sha1%22:[4,3,3,3,3,3,4,4,3,3],%22date-format-tofte%22:[16,15,15,16,16,16,16,15,16,15],%22date-format-xparb%22:[14,14,14,14,14,14,13,13,15,16],%22math-cordic%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,3],%22math-partial-sums%22:[14,17,14,14,14,18,16,17,17,14],%22math-spectral-norm%22:[3,3,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22regexp-dna%22:[11,11,11,12,11,11,11,12,12,11],%22string-base64%22:[4,5,5,4,5,5,5,5,5,5],%22string-fasta%22:[6,6,6,7,6,7,6,6,6,6],%22string-tagcloud%22:[19,18,19,18,20,18,18,19,20,18],%22string-unpack-code%22:[24,24,22,23,23,24,23,23,23,25],%22string-validate-input%22:[8,8,8,9,8,8,9,8,8,8]}



Waterfox 11 x64
215.8ms +/- 0.7%


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



,%223d-morph%22:[7,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,7,7],%223d-raytrace%22:[14,14,14,14,15,14,14,14,14,14],%22access-binary-trees%22:[3,2,3,3,2,3,3,3,2,2],%22access-fannkuch%22:[7,8,8,8,8,8,8,7,8,8],%22access-nbody%22:[4,4,3,3,4,4,3,3,4,3],%22access-nsieve%22:[4,3,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,4],%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:[3,3,3,3,5,4,4,4,4,3],%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,3],%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:[4,3,3,3,4,3,4,3,4,3],%22controlflow-recursive%22:[2,2,3,3,2,2,2,3,2,3],%22crypto-aes%22:[11,11,10,11,11,10,10,10,10,11],%22crypto-md5%22:[6,6,5,6,5,6,5,5,5,6],%22crypto-sha1%22:[3,4,4,4,3,4,4,4,3,3],%22date-format-tofte%22:[20,19,20,20,19,19,18,19,19,19],%22date-format-xparb%22:[17,16,16,16,17,17,16,17,18,17],%22math-cordic%22:[3,3,4,3,3,3,3,4,3,4],%22math-partial-sums%22:[8,8,9,8,9,8,9,9,9,8],%22math-spectral-norm%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22regexp-dna%22:[11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,12,11],%22string-base64%22:[6,6,6,5,5,6,5,6,6,6],%22string-fasta%22:[8,8,7,8,8,7,7,7,8,8],%22string-tagcloud%22:[21,22,20,20,19,21,20,20,22,20],%22string-unpack-code%22:[24,26,24,24,26,23,25,25,26,24],%22string-validate-input%22:[8,8,8,7,8,8,8,9,8,7]http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?{%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:[16,15,15,16,15,16,16,16,15,15],%223d-morph%22:[7,7,8,7,8,7,8,7,7,7],%223d-raytrace%22:[14,14,14,14,15,14,14,14,14,14],%22access-binary-trees%22:[3,2,3,3,2,3,3,3,2,2],%22access-fannkuch%22:[7,8,8,8,8,8,8,7,8,8],%22access-nbody%22:[4,4,3,3,4,4,3,3,4,3],%22access-nsieve%22:[4,3,4,4,4,4,4,3,3,4],%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:[1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1],%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:[3,3,3,3,5,4,4,4,4,3],%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,4,3],%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:[4,3,3,3,4,3,4,3,4,3],%22controlflow-recursive%22:[2,2,3,3,2,2,2,3,2,3],%22crypto-aes%22:[11,11,10,11,11,10,10,10,10,11],%22crypto-md5%22:[6,6,5,6,5,6,5,5,5,6],%22crypto-sha1%22:[3,4,4,4,3,4,4,4,3,3],%22date-format-tofte%22:[20,19,20,20,19,19,18,19,19,19],%22date-format-xparb%22:[17,16,16,16,17,17,16,17,18,17],%22math-cordic%22:[3,3,4,3,3,3,3,4,3,4],%22math-partial-sums%22:[8,8,9,8,9,8,9,9,9,8],%22math-spectral-norm%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22regexp-dna%22:[11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,12,11],%22string-base64%22:[6,6,6,5,5,6,5,6,6,6],%22string-fasta%22:[8,8,7,8,8,7,7,7,8,8],%22string-tagcloud%22:[21,22,20,20,19,21,20,20,22,20],%22string-unpack-code%22:[24,26,24,24,26,23,25,25,26,24],%22string-validate-input%22:[8,8,8,7,8,8,8,9,8,7]}



Waterfox 12 x64
197.9ms +/- 0.7%


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



,%223d-morph%22:[6,6,7,6,6,6,6,7,6,6],%223d-raytrace%22:[13,13,13,13,13,13,13,12,13,13],%22access-binary-trees%22:[3,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,3],%22access-fannkuch%22:[8,8,8,8,7,8,8,8,8,7],%22access-nbody%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22access-nsieve%22:[4,4,4,3,4,4,3,4,4,4],%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:[1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1],%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:[3,4,4,4,4,4,3,4,3,3],%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:[4,4,3,4,4,3,4,4,3,3],%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:[4,3,4,4,3,3,3,3,4,4],%22controlflow-recursive%22:[2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,3],%22crypto-aes%22:[11,10,10,10,10,9,9,9,10,10],%22crypto-md5%22:[6,5,5,5,5,5,5,4,5,5],%22crypto-sha1%22:[4,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4],%22date-format-tofte%22:[18,17,17,18,16,17,16,18,18,16],%22date-format-xparb%22:[16,16,16,16,15,15,16,17,15,16],%22math-cordic%22:[3,3,3,3,4,4,3,3,3,4],%22math-partial-sums%22:[8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8],%22math-spectral-norm%22:[2,3,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22regexp-dna%22:[11,11,11,11,10,11,11,11,11,11],%22string-base64%22:[5,5,5,4,4,5,5,5,5,4],%22string-fasta%22:[7,6,7,6,7,7,6,6,7,6],%22string-tagcloud%22:[17,18,17,17,18,17,18,19,18,18],%22string-unpack-code%22:[21,21,22,21,21,22,22,20,21,22],%22string-validate-input%22:[7,7,7,6,6,7,7,7,7,7]http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?{%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:[15,14,14,13,15,14,14,14,14,14],%223d-morph%22:[6,6,7,6,6,6,6,7,6,6],%223d-raytrace%22:[13,13,13,13,13,13,13,12,13,13],%22access-binary-trees%22:[3,2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,3],%22access-fannkuch%22:[8,8,8,8,7,8,8,8,8,7],%22access-nbody%22:[3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22access-nsieve%22:[4,4,4,3,4,4,3,4,4,4],%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:[1,1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,1],%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:[3,4,4,4,4,4,3,4,3,3],%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:[4,4,3,4,4,3,4,4,3,3],%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:[4,3,4,4,3,3,3,3,4,4],%22controlflow-recursive%22:[2,2,2,2,3,2,2,2,2,3],%22crypto-aes%22:[11,10,10,10,10,9,9,9,10,10],%22crypto-md5%22:[6,5,5,5,5,5,5,4,5,5],%22crypto-sha1%22:[4,3,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4],%22date-format-tofte%22:[18,17,17,18,16,17,16,18,18,16],%22date-format-xparb%22:[16,16,16,16,15,15,16,17,15,16],%22math-cordic%22:[3,3,3,3,4,4,3,3,3,4],%22math-partial-sums%22:[8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8],%22math-spectral-norm%22:[2,3,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3],%22regexp-dna%22:[11,11,11,11,10,11,11,11,11,11],%22string-base64%22:[5,5,5,4,4,5,5,5,5,4],%22string-fasta%22:[7,6,7,6,7,7,6,6,7,6],%22string-tagcloud%22:[17,18,17,17,18,17,18,19,18,18],%22string-unpack-code%22:[21,21,22,21,21,22,22,20,21,22],%22string-validate-input%22:[7,7,7,6,6,7,7,7,7,7]}



*Dromaeo* comparison : left to right

FF12x86 - WF11x64 - WF12x64

538.38runs/s ±1.68% - 470.93runs/s ±1.54% - 524.92runs/s ±1.41%

http://dromaeo.com/?id=169713,169628,169711


----------



## MrAlex

Good news and bad news. Good news is: tcmalloc wasn't implemented properly before, but now it is and on browsermark my score went from 322K to 460K (testing on both versions of WF12)! The bad news is that the installer isn't working.


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Good news and bad news. Good news is: tcmalloc wasn't implemented properly before, but now it is and on browsermark my score went from 322K to 460K (testing on both versions of WF12)! The bad news is that the installer isn't working.


Wow ! Nice









I'm sure you'll be able to fix that, otherwise... feel free to put it in the download section anyway


----------



## Disturbed117

*Updating Now!*


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Good news and bad news. Good news is: tcmalloc wasn't implemented properly before, but now it is and on browsermark my score went from 322K to 460K (testing on both versions of WF12)! The bad news is that the installer isn't working.


Lol! The joy of building! Fix one thing and break another. Thanks for all the work and aggravation you go through Mr Alex!


----------



## MrAlex

Well, hopefully it is a problem with pymake. I'm going to try building with gmake (which takes around double the time to build). There was an issue previously with pymake and jemalloc, so hopefully it's similar to that and gmake doesn't affect it. Fingers crossed!

Edit:

Same problem, and I'm not sure what to do


----------



## Quantum Reality

About this whole "Firefox features are turned off in Waterfox" - wouldn't you expect to have 32bit specific stuff removed to avoid causing Windows to run Waterfox in 32-bit mode?


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> About this whole "Firefox features are turned off in Waterfox" - wouldn't you expect to have 32bit specific stuff removed to avoid causing Windows to run Waterfox in 32-bit mode?


AFAIK x86 was extended with the x64 instruction set, creating x86-64. So, I suppose the program needs the 32bit instructions too.

Just my


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> So the commonly repeated "Waterfox is basically a 64-Bit version of Firefox", which was probably true up to and including version 8 of Waterfox, is now a misleading statement, as since v9 *Waterfox does disable a number of Firefox features during the compile*, yes?
> Perhaps you should make it clear which of the Firefox features are disabled in Waterfox so that users and potential users can tell by reading the OP what Waterfox is and what it isn't?


wow... anal much???someone disagrees with your published results and all of a sudden you have a bug up your btut wanting to disprove them, discredit waterfox and make wild claims that Mr Alex is misleading people??..lol
do you not understand the term BASICALLY it does not mean EXACTLY...a statement that waterfox is basically a 64 bit version of firefox is 100% correct..it basically is.. the differences are completely unimportant and not noticeable by anyone unless you are anal enough to nit pick...
I think your time would be better spent going back and writing your misleading and inaccurate test results...lol


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medievil*
> 
> wow... anal much???someone disagrees with your published results and all of a sudden you have a bug up your btut wanting to disprove them, discredit waterfox and make wild claims that Mr Alex is misleading people??..lol
> do you not understand the term BASICALLY it does not mean EXACTLY...a statement that waterfox is basically a 64 bit version of firefox is 100% correct..it basically is.. the differences are completely unimportant and not noticeable by anyone unless you are anal enough to nit pick...
> I think your time would be better spent going back and writing your misleading and inaccurate test results...lol


Here here ! Whoever cymroly is, I've been surprised by the tone of their last few posts. They seem to be going out of their way to be deliberately provocative.


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well, hopefully it is a problem with pymake. I'm going to try building with gmake (which takes around double the time to build). There was an issue previously with pymake and jemalloc, so hopefully it's similar to that and gmake doesn't affect it. Fingers crossed!
> 
> Edit:
> Same problem, and I'm not sure what to do


Make it work, with all the performance benefits. People can wait an extra day or two for a fast build, or the fastest build.


----------



## MrAlex

Everyone, I've linked the version of Waterfox with tcmalloc below. Some personal things have come up, and I'm trying to deal with them best I can. If anyway knows how to use NSIS though, that would be a great help. But at the moment I'll have to leave you with this, "portable" version of Waterfox.

http://www.mediafire.com/?3iaw6wiv306jm8l

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cymroly*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> about:buildconfig lists everything I have disabled and enabled. I mostly disabled things which have no use to a 3rd party build - such as debugging tests and the crash reporter. That's about it. Otherwise everything else remains the same.
> 
> 
> 
> So the commonly repeated "Waterfox is basically a 64-Bit version of Firefox", which was probably true up to and including version 8 of Waterfox, is now a misleading statement, as since v9 *Waterfox does disable a number of Firefox features during the compile*, yes?
> 
> Perhaps you should make it clear which of the Firefox features are disabled in Waterfox so that users and potential users can tell by reading the OP what Waterfox is and what it isn't?
Click to expand...

Do you know what debugging is?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Everyone, I've linked the version of Waterfox with tcmalloc below. Some personal things have come up, and I'm trying to deal with them best I can. If anyway knows how to use NSIS though, that would be a great help. But at the moment I'll have to leave you with this, "portable" version of Waterfox.
> http://www.mediafire.com/?3iaw6wiv306jm8l
> 
> Do you know what debugging is?


When will you be back to release the final WF12 version?


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

ty mr alex would we be putting this folder into the waterfox folder under program files correct ?


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> ty mr alex would we be putting this folder into the waterfox folder under program files correct ?


It functions as a portable program, so you can basically put it anywhere you like. I put it on my RAMdisk.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

ty xen i totally didn't even realize lol


----------



## demoneye

give alex as much time he needed to rap this 3h1t up , its just a version change not the all story









go go alex


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> give alex as much time he needed to rap this 3h1t up , its just a version change not the all story
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go go alex


Lol! I agree. Mr Alex has some other matters to attend to and will come back to making another version soon. This version has very minor changes so I'm not too concerned about it. Firefox 13 though is another story.. Lots of changes with that one. I'll have to post a quick update on what it will contain. Anyway,







to all the great people we have here!


----------



## biatche

so no chance of this getting released within the next 24h?

ive been waiting since 2 days ago to install waterfox and tweak it once off.. since i just formatted.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> so no chance of this getting released within the next 24h?
> ive been waiting since 2 days ago to install waterfox and tweak it once off.. since i just formatted.


That's up to Mr Alex. I know he's got his hands full and has been having some problems with the installer that needs to be resolved. Until then, there's only the portable version (no installer) that he's released of Waterfox 12. You can get it at the following location:

http://www.mediafire.com/?3iaw6wiv306jm8l


----------



## biatche

care to comment if this portable version utilizes %appdata%\mozilla because if it does that does the job for me. i wouldn't mind copying the files inside, and actually that is my preference over an installer.


----------



## medievil

I did just that and it wouldn't run... the firefox exe would close as soon as it opened (Task manager showed it)

extracted it to a different folder and it ran and picked up my profile and settings.....


----------



## Quantum Reality

I'm in no rush, will wait till WF 12 gets out as an installer.


----------



## biatche

Would be good if waterfox can be released in two formats: installer and zip.


----------



## Xenthos

Strangely I prefer the zip file.

It might not look so good but once it's up there's like... no difference


----------



## Swag

Can someone link me to the Waterfox 12 download? It seems like it's not available on this site yet.


----------



## passlogin

The same here, I also prefer the .zip to the installer.
In fact, I am using Windows XP x64, so the installer does not work for me, I have to unpack the files and copy them manually.


----------



## FTBBTF

The installer is better for most people and that's what we should get.


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Can someone link me to the Waterfox 12 download? It seems like it's not available on this site yet.


http://www.mediafire.com/?3iaw6wiv306jm8l
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *passlogin*
> 
> The same here, I also prefer the .zip to the installer.
> In fact, I am using Windows XP x64, so the installer does not work for me, I have to unpack the files and copy them manually.


Yeah it's so easy







doesn't look as good but I don't care








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> The installer is better for most people and that's what we should get.


Why's that ?


----------



## Kwgagel

How do I use the lansweeper plugin with waterfox? I can't find the waterfox plugin directory...


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kwgagel*
> 
> How do I use the lansweeper plugin with waterfox? I can't find the waterfox plugin directory...


Chances are you probably can't due to the lack of a 64-bit plugin for 64-bit browsers. Of course, I didn't actually look so this *may* not be the case but chances are it is.


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 12 is available (without tcmalloc) on SF.net and through the download page. Will post a news article in a bit.


----------



## Ceadderman

Nice. Thanks Mr. Alex. I been sittin up in the cheap seats biting my tongue(out of necessity) and biding my time being patient for the Installer. I could do either but I rather like Installer.









~Ceadder


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xenthos*
> 
> Why's that ?


Because it's the de facto way. Put it simply, even though portable versions work, an installer is what people expect to get in a high end product.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox 12 is available (without tcmalloc) on SF.net and through the download page. Will post a news article in a bit.


Is there any difference in performance between tcmalloc on vs off?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Xenthos*
> 
> Why's that ?
> 
> 
> 
> Because it's the de facto way. Put it simply, even though portable versions work, an installer is what people expect to get in a high end product.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox 12 is available (without tcmalloc) on SF.net and through the download page. Will post a news article in a bit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Is there any difference in performance between tcmalloc on vs off?
Click to expand...

A very large one that actually made a difference. With tcmalloc off I get around 220K points, with it I get around 460K. Unfortunately it does something that the installer doesn't like, and I'm not sure what, since no errors come up, the shlibsign.exe just crashes.


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> Because it's the de facto way. Put it simply, even though portable versions work, an installer is what people expect to get in a high end product.
> Is there any difference in performance between tcmalloc on vs off?


I understand your reasoning. A lot of people would like an installer I guess. But it isn't a high end product... mr.Alex does what he can and if he can make an installer for it, great ! But please don't compare a single user's efforts with an open-source project supported by Mozilla.


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> A very large one that actually made a difference. With tcmalloc off I get around 220K points, with it I get around 460K. Unfortunately it does something that the installer doesn't like, and I'm not sure what, since no errors come up, the shlibsign.exe just crashes.


So by your reasoning, wouldn't it be worth a shot to ask the developers of the installer or change the installer?


----------



## Lord Venom

Easier just to make a custom installer for Waterfox. Probably something like Inno Setup would be nice to use.


----------



## FTBBTF

My point exactly. Even though that may be a problem with updates and familiarity. First step would be to look into the problem with the developer of the installer.


----------



## biatche

if you're going to use a new installer, please make sure we can perform silent installation (via silent switches).


----------



## Quantum Reality

PS?

"--disable-activex --disable-activex-scripting"

Nice security patch there. I always did dislike the whole "ActiveX" idea in MSIE.


----------



## biatche

something isn't playing well with waterfox 12. im getting a lot of "stuck" connections. i have 140 tabs (yes, i have 16gb ram) and that used to play fine with waterfox 10.. and now a jump to waterfox 11.

so i'd do a google search via search bar top right and it'd say transferring data from google.com... and it no longer moves. opening google.com manually = same thing.
i need to restart waterfox to get things back to normal.

could be one of my addons but i doubt it. same addons that i used in waterfox 11 and are up to date.


----------



## Swag

Do I have to have Sun Java plug-in running for me to experience 100% of the 64-bit browser? If I don't need it, I want to disable it until I need it for a program or something to that extent.


----------



## alienstorexxx

hi, sorry, i'm unexperienced.

i've just installed waterfox 12. but i see this "tcmalloc", and the "bin" file to download.

does this "bin" file has "tcmalloc" included?? how do i run/plac the "bin" folder so that it replaces my waterfox installation?

thx! love this browser.


----------



## FTBBTF

The installer doesn't have it. Get either, they do the same thing, but tcmalloc version should be faster.

Here are my results for Waterfox 12 (Installer). Link.

Adblock Plus + Flash + Tweaks

Score: 4866 on Google v8

tcmalloc version

Score: 4863 on Google v8

Here is the link for Dromaeo. Link.

Both do the same for me. No real difference between them.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> The installer doesn't have it. Get either, they do the same thing, but tcmalloc version should be faster.
> 
> Here are my results for Waterfox 12 (Installer). Link.
> 
> Adblock Plus + Flash + Tweaks
> 
> Score: 4866 on Google v8
> 
> tcmalloc version
> 
> Score: 4863 on Google v8
> 
> Here is the link for Dromaeo. Link.
> 
> Both do the same for me. No real difference between them.


I don't think it will affect JavaScript benchmarks very much. Have you tried Browsermark or peacekeeper?

Edit:

Now that I'm running benchmarks today, the scores seem to be even. I'm wondering why when I first tested them I got such different scores in the benchmarks.


----------



## psxlover

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't think it will affect JavaScript benchmarks very much. Have you tried Browsermark or peacekeeper?
> Edit:
> Now that I'm running benchmarks today, the scores seem to be even. I'm wondering why when I first tested them I got such different scores in the benchmarks.


Why are you using browsermark? :S It's for mobile phone's browsers and it's completely unreliable.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *psxlover*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't think it will affect JavaScript benchmarks very much. Have you tried Browsermark or peacekeeper?
> Edit:
> Now that I'm running benchmarks today, the scores seem to be even. I'm wondering why when I first tested them I got such different scores in the benchmarks.
> 
> 
> 
> Why are you using browsermark? :S It's for mobile phone's browsers and it's completely unreliable.
Click to expand...

Probably cause that's all there is and it's a reasonable benchmark for baseline comparisons? Maybe? Why, you got something better?









~Ceadder


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't think it will affect JavaScript benchmarks very much. Have you tried Browsermark or peacekeeper?
> Edit:
> Now that I'm running benchmarks today, the scores seem to be even. I'm wondering why when I first tested them I got such different scores in the benchmarks.


I haven't tried them, but since you've tried Dromaeo I wanted to offer my feedback on both and I've ran Google v8 since it's a known test.
Honestly I see too many variations with browsers these days and the scores people post on the Internet are just out of my reach 100% of the time, unless they have a slower computer (I still have a Core 2 Duo T9300 @ 2.5Ghz and 4GB of RAM with Windows 7 Enterprise SP1 x64, so I'm on a pretty fast computer for 90% of the tasks).

I have noticed something though and it's a bit interesting: in Dromaeo I, by habit, minimized the browser, as to not bother me. The result: CPU usage went down from ~50% to ~35%. I had to redo the test, just to not have variations.

Either way, if you look at the Dromaeo results you will see that for each test they provide a margin of error. If you look at my tests, the results for tcmalloc version have a higher degree of error (+/- 25% in some cases), while for the installer version the degree of error is smaller -> more consistent results.

In the end, what really matters is the rendering speed for me. The times it takes to press the button -> page finished loading. All browsers are very fast and the differences are minimal these days. Even IE9 is plenty fast nowadays for what most people need. It's weird that Firefox 12 is not really faster than Firefox 10 even 9, while Chrome improved a little. It's time for a redesigned browser and x64 support from Mozilla, as to improve from an already optimized base.


----------



## Xenthos

I've got some results :

*Peacekeeper*

Firefox 12 stock : 1947 http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5LT7

Waterfox 12 w/o tcmalloc : 2035 http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5LTa

Waterfox 12 w/ tcmalloc : 2199 http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5LTL

*SunSpider*

Firefox 12 stock : 228ms

Waterfox 12 w/o tcmalloc : 218ms

Waterfox 12 w/ tcmalloc : 207ms


----------



## biatche

i have some weird stuff going on with waterfox 12 auto triggering ctrl key when pages load (usually).

not sure if thats because i came from a waterfox 10 profile... (with nearly 150 tabs)

has anyone had similar experience?


----------



## stefan1610

Congratulations and many thanks for your nice project.

Does WF12 support background (silent) updates w/o UAC? I miss the checkbox "Use background service to install updates" in Tools/Options/Advanced/Update. Did I anything wrong during installation?


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xenthos*
> 
> I've got some results :
> *Peacekeeper*
> Firefox 12 stock : 1947 http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5LT7
> Waterfox 12 w/o tcmalloc : 2035 http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5LTa
> Waterfox 12 w/ tcmalloc : 2199 http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/results?key=5LTL
> *SunSpider*
> Firefox 12 stock : 228ms
> Waterfox 12 w/o tcmalloc : 218ms
> Waterfox 12 w/ tcmalloc : 207ms


Try quoting yourself. You've got quite some long links there, lol...

Have you tried to redo the tests? For SunSpider the difference is not really real, minimal at best. But there is a difference which is more substantial between them in Peacekeeper. Interesting...


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> Try quoting yourself. You've got quite some long links there, lol...
> Have you tried to redo the tests? For SunSpider the difference is not really real, minimal at best. But there is a difference which is more substantial between them in Peacekeeper. Interesting...


yeah, those SunSpider links are horrible, tried to cover them up with hyper-links.

I used SunSpider because I'm too inpatient to wait for a lengthy benchmark.









Peacekeeper results are interesting indeed, although from real world experience I thought that waterfox w/o tcmalloc "felt" smoother.


----------



## IlPapu

I have been having an issue with waterfox on one of my computer where I end up with over 100 instances of firefox.exe (waterfox actually). I have tried to uninstall reboot then reinstall, but the issue still occurs. It only happens if I have waterfox running. I have also set IE as my default browser, but no extra instances of iexplore.exe show up.

Any thoughts on what I can do? All the processes really slow down computing and browsing experience.

Thanks!


----------



## demoneye

hi

its me a gain , i think i found something interesting which resolved the bad playing in youtube.
i found another script that can be added to greasemonkey , to fix this issue up.

maybe someone can understand what this script CLEAR out from the youtube page who screw youtube playing using firefox
*in google chrome this issue doesn't exist ...*

direct link to script

http://userscripts.org/scripts/show/74961

*this is the source code*

// ==UserScript==
// @name remove Youtube adds
// @namespace youtubetads
// @version 1.1
// @author FDisk
// @description Remove youtube ads from the right side of the screen and from the embeded video
// @include http://*.youtube.com/watch?*
// @include http://youtube.com/watch?*
// @require http://ajax.googleapis.com/ajax/libs/jquery/1.3.2/jquery.min.js
// @require http://jquery.lukelutman.com/plugins/flash/jquery.flash.js
// @require http://usocheckup.redirectme.net/74961.js
// ==/UserScript==

//Check for updates

$('#homepage-sidebar-ads').remove();

$('#google_companion_ad_div, #watch-channel-brand-div, #watch-channel-brand-div').remove();
var video = 'https://www.youtube-nocookie.com/v/'+$('#watch-mfu-button').attr('data-video-id');
$('#watch-player').empty().flash(
{
height: 1280,
width: 720,
src : video+'?version=1&autoplay=0&fs=1&hd=1'
}
);


----------



## tridc

Quote:


> Enter about:config in the address bar
> Search for app.update.url.override (if it does not exist, Right Click > New > String)
> Modify its value to http://waterfoxproject.org/update/%CHANNEL%/%VERSION%/update.xml


I have turned on automatic updates but not see any notifications about Waterfox 12 ? Any changes?


----------



## bleiburg

Firefox x86 12.0 Final -> 2009 (HTML5 Capabilities 6/7)
Waterfox x64 12.0 -> 2143 (HTML5 Capabilities 6/7)


----------



## Lord Venom

People worrying about synthetic benchmarks when they probably won't notice any real world difference.


----------



## slackerdude

how does one use 32 bit and 64 bit water fox at the same time? i thought this was an install in it's own directory. then i come to find it does not ;/ can i use 32x and 64x at the same time side by side?


----------



## Lord Venom

Different profiles using command switches.


----------



## Xenthos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> People worrying about synthetic benchmarks when they probably won't notice any real world difference.


The reason we use these benchmarks is because we no longer notice the difference... not the other way around.

Every browser these days is "fast" so pick whatever you want.


----------



## PrototypeT800

How long will it take waterfox 11 to autoupdate?


----------



## slackerdude

so to use 32x and 64 i have to install waterfox in a different directory and make a new profile with the command switch, right?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrototypeT800*
> 
> How long will it take waterfox 11 to autoupdate?


You're better off manually updating.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PrototypeT800*
> 
> How long will it take waterfox 11 to autoupdate?


I believe the update feature may still be broken in Waterfox. Meanwhile, you should do a manual update. Just download the installer and execute it.


----------



## Ispep

Just installed it on my Lenovo X300 - 4GB RAM, 256 GB SSD with Windows 7 Pro x64.









Noticeables:


Setup/Installation was very quick
Browsing is noticeably faster! (* SAWEET *)
All of the add-on and extensions that were in FF appear to work just fine with this current build.
Still early so I'm holding off from really celebrating but for now it looks great! Nice work!!


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Viski*
> 
> I have Xfire (1.149) on and Waterfox works just fine. Did I miss something... or?


I've decided to give Waterfox 12.0 a try again on my Win7 64-bit SP1 machine and XFire problem still persists. I've narrowed it down to _xfire64.exe_ process which XFire (32-bit application) starts after a while. I've tested it on brand new installment of XFire.

Code:



Code:


Xfire Copyright (C) 2003-2012
Version 1.148 Build 45392
Apr 16 2012 at 21:52:15

If there's no _xfire64.exe_ process in memory then Waterfox runs just fine. If there is - Waterfox crashes (if it was running) or crashes on start up (if it wasn't running and user tries to start it). ESET Antivirus and Comodo Firewall were disabled at this time and most of applications were shut down during my tests.

According to google, _xfire64.exe_ monitors 64-bit version of games. My temporary solution for xfire to cope with Waterfox is for a time being... deleting _xfire64.exe_ from XFire folder. No file in folder - nothing to run for XFire and nothing to interfere with Waterfox. Small price for Waterfox to ride along XFire. But still, problem persists and it could be XFire fault all the way. Who knows...


----------



## virtualguy

Start MSCONFIG from the Run command and check the Startup tab to see where xfire64.exe is being loaded from. Then, navigate to that location and remove the startup entry. That way, you don't have to delete the file. Sounds like xfire is not compatible with a 64-bit browser.


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Start MSCONFIG from the Run command and check the Startup tab to see where xfire64.exe is being loaded from.


_xfire64.exe_ is not run from autoruns of any type (services, registry autorun or menu start autorun). It's a subprocess started by main, 32-bit application _xfire.exe_ on demand. I can assume that in 32-bit environments starting _xfire64.exe_ fails or doesn't happen at all and in 64-bit succeeds and then this process can detect 64-bit games.
Quote:


> Source: http://media.xfire.com/xfire/technotes.html
> 
> _Technical Notes for Release 1.91
> 
> Even though Xfire is a 32-bit process, on 64-bit operating systems (Windows XP 64 and Windows Vista 64) we run a second process as well, xfire64.exe, which detects 64-bit games._


So far getting rid of this exe prevents XFire from running it and that's fine with me - XFire works, Waterfox works. I hope I don't have many 64-bit games to monitor by XFire







I guess though that next XFire update will restore/recreate _xfire64.exe_.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Sounds like xfire is not compatible with a 64-bit browser.


I couldn't agree more.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hmm - have other people noticed WF behaving sluggishly on their system? I've noticed this starting to happen recently.


----------



## leo27

I've been using Waterfox since v9 and love it, however could someone tell me the link to the tcmalloc version of Waterfox 12 that people have been using in the last page or so to do benches.

Cheers


----------



## Quantum Reality

Adobe no longer issues a flash 64-bit compatible under Vista. Does anyone have a link to an older version which still works? *a little cheesed off*


----------



## YangerD

Just installed it and using it now. Can't say I honestly can tell the difference between this and firefox.


----------



## satwien

Waterfox 11.0 was fine but I have a problem with 12.0 : when I open a new webpage (or just refresh it - F5) is going directly to the bottom of page instead of remaining at the top. This is not happen for all the sites, for example nba.com is working fine but I have troubles on sites like businessinsider.com. I think this is a bug and I didn't find where to report it.
Do you have the same problem?


----------



## Lord Venom

Does it happen in Firefox 12 too?


----------



## xd_1771

Now using V12. It just keeps geting faster and faster......


----------



## slackerdude

so as long as waterfox has a different profile i can install flash64 and java64 on that profile and use 32 and 64 @ the same time with profile switches, am i right?


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *satwien*
> 
> Waterfox 11.0 was fine but I have a problem with 12.0 : when I open a new webpage (or just refresh it - F5) is going directly to the bottom of page instead of remaining at the top. This is not happen for all the sites, for example nba.com is working fine but I have troubles on sites like businessinsider.com. I think this is a bug and I didn't find where to report it.
> Do you have the same problem?


That's always happen to me (even before version 12) and I have never thought of it as a problem, nor I see it as a bug. You can press 'control+F5' to completely reload a webpage. It will start at the top of a webpage after reload.


----------



## kevindd992002

Is it normal for Waterfox 11 to significantly use more RAM resources than Firefox 12? This is my observation.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it normal for Waterfox 11 to significantly use more RAM resources than Firefox 12? This is my observation.


Firefox 12 is a newer, so it makes sense that the older version of something uses more RAM (since it's not steam lined and refined).
Waterfox 12 is out right now. I'm not sure why they haven't updated that on the original post, by the way.

EDIT:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Yes, it's normal for 64-bit browsers to use more RAM than their 32-bit counterparts.


Also that ^ v I have the dumb.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yes, it's normal for 64-bit browsers to use more RAM than their 32-bit counterparts.


----------



## kevindd992002

But sometimes my Waterfox 11 seems to run slow for no reason at all. I need to restart the browser to get it back in shape. Is this normal too? I don't experience this with Firefox 12.

WF12 is not yet, so to say, "complete" and this is the reason why it isn't in the OP yet.


----------



## adrianmak

How could I use google+ hangout on waterfox ?

google+ hangout seems could not recognize the plugin i installed


----------



## charlir

Is anyone else having issues with WF 12 .. ever since I put it in all the others worked fine.. it hangs and I get not responding very often 2 or 3 times a day..

thanks
Charles


----------



## djkilla

What's up party people! Sorry I disappeared for a while. I've been testing another Firefox 64bit browser and made a discovery that may interest some of you. It's a memory limitation but I'm not sure if it's restricted to Firefox 32bit browsers only or if it also affects 64bit builds. Anyway, I'm testing another Firefox 64bit build and noticed after having it run for a while after leaving the house then closing it when I got back, I got a blue screen with an access memory error.

I never received an error like this ever but it happened after running another Firefox 64bit build only. So I decided to check around and see if there may be a problem. I came across an interesting post at Pale Moon's site relating to this issue ( Here's the post: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=736 ). It seems a lot of the new features and added code to Firefox is creating a memory issue causing Firefox to slow down, freeze or crash. It's considered a serious bug that needs to be addressed/fixed and they're trying to resolve it. ( Memory bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=709480 )

So I wanted to pass this along for anyone who may be experiencing some issues with Firefox builds. Like I said, I'm not sure if this affects 64bit builds but I have experienced a crash using the latest version which has never happened before relating to the memory issue. Maybe someone can jump in with a little more knowledge and clarify exactly how this affects us.


----------



## virtualguy

I have also noticed that new tabs opened in Waterfox, spawned from clicking a hyperlink on another web page, open with the focus scrolled to the bottom of the page, as opposed to the normal behavior of opening with the focus at the beginning of the page. Very odd. Not terribly annoying, but, odd nonetheless. I would rather it didn't do that.

VG


----------



## Derko1

I am having issues with Youtube being really slow to load videos. It's fine on chrome and ie. On waterfox they take like 15secs to start and then they'll stop to buffer every 5 secs... What could be wrong?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *adrianmak*
> 
> How could I use google+ hangout on waterfox ?
> 
> google+ hangout seems could not recognize the plugin i installed


Well, chances are the plugin is for 32-bit browsers only, not 64-bit browsers.


----------



## biatche

yeah, i use waterfox with about 100-150 tabs and i get a lot of funny behavior. im still wondering if its one of my addons (i'd hate to disable them since they are "core addons" for me).

strangiest behavior is the ctrl key getting stuck.

so i'd type "t" and a new tab is made. or mouse scroll would resize the page. (ctrl-mw up/down)

This did not occur in previous versions.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> yeah, i use waterfox with about 100-150 tabs and i get a lot of funny behavior. im still wondering if its one of my addons (i'd hate to disable them since they are "core addons" for me).
> 
> strangiest behavior is the ctrl key getting stuck.
> 
> so i'd type "t" and a new tab is made. or mouse scroll would resize the page. (ctrl-mw up/down)
> 
> This did not occur in previous versions.


If you have a fast-ish internet connection and don't use some of those tabs all the time, go to Options>General and tick 'Don't load tabs until selected', it should really help performance. Sounds like your issue could be profile/addon related, try starting a new profile and see if that fixes your issue.


----------



## EliasAlucard

Great browser, MrAlex! I would like to recommend you though, to modify the user agent string so that it specifically shows up as Waterfox and not as Firefox. That way, I can add support for it in my OS/Browser postbit plugin I'm working on. It will also help identifying your browser and make it grow.


----------



## fullmoon

I wanted to change the look of firefox and tried stylish with script. Strangely, I find myself with firefox a more responsive!!!








link:
Stylish
Aerofox Transparent +

For those like me who have problems of freeze, try to see if they make the same positive effect.


----------



## GoneTomorrow

First time Waterfox user here. I understand that version 12 is still very new, but is it supposed to use tons of memory? With FF12 using my usual session (two windows 10 tabs) it would hover around 500MB or so, but the same session on WF12 uses right around 1 GB.


----------



## chrischoi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*
> 
> First time Waterfox user here. I understand that version 12 is still very new, but is it supposed to use tons of memory? With FF12 using my usual session (two windows 10 tabs) it would hover around 500MB or so, but the same session on WF12 uses right around 1 GB.


Mine jumps all over. I think it's in it's nature.


----------



## Benygh

Hello,
Thanks for the Great Software.
I've been using Waterfox for few weeks now, it's Great.
I've been facing a problem and tried to fix it by myself but i couldn't so i decided to get a consult from you guys.
i use Farsi keyboard and I have modified the keyboard layout and changed a few thing in it. it's working fine on Firefox, MS Office Series, Y!M, everything ... but this layout doesn't apply in Waterfox and i have problem typing in Farsi as long as I'm addicetd to the modified layout.
Any Ideas on how to fix this issue ?

Thank You


----------



## charlir

This not responding thing is annoying .. and it happens a lot ever since version 12.. Alex you have any ideas?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Great browser, MrAlex! I would like to recommend you though, to modify the user agent string so that it specifically shows up as Waterfox and not as Firefox. That way, I can add support for it in my OS/Browser postbit plugin I'm working on. It will also help identifying your browser and make it grow.


The user agent string currently works like this: *Mozilla/5.0 (platform; rv:geckoversion) Gecko/geckotrail* *appname/appversion*

Wouldn't it be best to keep it like that? (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1, rv:12.0) Gecko/12.0 Waterfox/12.0)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> I wanted to change the look of firefox and tried stylish with script. Strangely, I find myself with firefox a more responsive!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> link:
> Stylish
> Aerofox Transparent +
> 
> For those like me who have problems of freeze, try to see if they make the same positive effect.


Hmm, I'm not sure why that is happening. Could be an issue with 64-Bit browsers. Have you tried other browsers such as Palemoon? Does the same issue occur?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoneTomorrow*
> 
> First time Waterfox user here. I understand that version 12 is still very new, but is it supposed to use tons of memory? With FF12 using my usual session (two windows 10 tabs) it would hover around 500MB or so, but the same session on WF12 uses right around 1 GB.


Yes, it will use more memory.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Benygh*
> 
> Hello,
> Thanks for the Great Software.
> I've been using Waterfox for few weeks now, it's Great.
> I've been facing a problem and tried to fix it by myself but i couldn't so i decided to get a consult from you guys.
> i use Farsi keyboard and I have modified the keyboard layout and changed a few thing in it. it's working fine on Firefox, MS Office Series, Y!M, everything ... but this layout doesn't apply in Waterfox and i have problem typing in Farsi as long as I'm addicetd to the modified layout.
> Any Ideas on how to fix this issue ?
> 
> Thank You


Hmm, have you done the same things you've done to your other programs on Waterfox?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> This not responding thing is annoying .. and it happens a lot ever since version 12.. Alex you have any ideas?


I'm not sure. Are you using the tcmalloc version of Waterfox or the standard version?


----------



## safari801

I downloaded from the sourcefoege site. Which version comes from there? And if standard, where is the tcmalloc version? Appreciate all the work you put into this Mr Alex. Great browser.


----------



## LMProductions

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> This not responding thing is annoying .. and it happens a lot ever since version 12.. Alex you have any ideas?


I am having the same problem. It mostly happens on Flash websites but specifically on YouTube or other video streaming sites. Latest version of Waterfox downloaded from the Waterfox website so I am guessing it is the standard version. Every three minutes or so WF stops responding and then starts responding again up to a minute later. Tried creating a fresh profile but that did not fix anything. I have the latest 64-bit Flash installed.


----------



## Benygh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm, have you done the same things you've done to your other programs on Waterfox?


Hi,
Actually it was an application which i run at startup and it changes the layout without any need to manual change, and it works fine on every other software but on Waterfox, it doesn't work.
any ideas ?


----------



## kevindd992002

I don't understand why after quite some time (no particular span of time), my FF12 and WF11 start to get laggy and I have to close and then open back for it to be snappy again. Is this a known problem?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I don't understand why after quite some time (no particular span of time), my FF12 and WF11 start to get laggy and I have to close and then open back for it to be snappy again. Is this a known problem?


That's exactly the problem Mozilla is having. Read my last post #2234 for information.


----------



## djkilla

I'm seeing a lot of people reporting issues playing videos on YouTube, as well as, other issues. It's kind of hard to determine if any issues are a Waterfox problem or not. I would recommend trying other 64bit builds to see if any of these issues still happen on other browsers. It's unfair to think it's just a Waterfox problem, so to help and narrow the issues down, check to see if the issues happen on other 64bit builds.

Pale Moon 64bit build
http://www.palemoon.org/

Htguard 64bit build (I'm currently testing this one)
http://htguard.island.ac/
http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/

I'm fairly certain some of these issues will happen in all 64bit browsers. I do know Mozilla Firefox 32bit has some issues also but what may work with 32bit may not necessarily be compatible/crossover to a 64bit. Anyway, hope this helps everyone and helps to narrow the issues down to either Waterfox or all 64bit browsers.

Waterfox 'The fastest 64-Bit variant of Firefox!'


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> That's exactly the problem Mozilla is having. Read my last post #2234 for information.


Ok, sorry I forgot. I guess this is affecting all Firefox/Waterfox users as of now. Does Mozilla know about his already?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok, sorry I forgot. I guess this is affecting all Firefox/Waterfox users as of now. Does Mozilla know about his already?


Believe it or not, Mozilla has known and had this issue for the last few versions. This is why there's freezes, slow downs and crashes. It would help if a lot of the add-on developers made better use of the memory needed. They are working to resolve this issue though. In my opinion, they should release an official 64bit Firefox.


----------



## Thundermitty

Is Waterfox 12.0 fully compatible with Windows 8: Consumer Preview (64 bit)?

When I launch Waterfox, the navigation toolbar is corrupted.

Here is a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/LonZQ.png

When I try to use Waterfox, the tabs & Waterfox icon take on strange colors & often become corrupted.

Here is a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/NsepM.png

When will these bugs be fixed in Waterfox?


----------



## Lord Venom

Looks like draw issues, actually. Try getting the latest drivers for your graphics. Waterfox looks fine on my Windows 8 Consumer Preview with the AMD Win8 preview drivers.


----------



## Thundermitty

I have all the updates from Windows Update installed.

I'm using the latest graphics driver for my video card: Nvidia GeForce 296.17 Driver for Windows 8: Consumer Preview (64 bit)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thundermitty*
> 
> I have all the updates from Windows Update installed.
> 
> I'm using the latest graphics driver for my video card: Nvidia GeForce 296.17 Driver for Windows 8: Consumer Preview (64 bit)


The page rendering isn't corrupted but the rendering of the actual program is. That's interesting. Is there a difference with Aero on/off?


----------



## Thundermitty

It does not seem to make a difference whether Windows Aero is enabled or disabled.

Screenshot with Windows Aero disabled: http://i.imgur.com/0kDqt.png


----------



## Lord Venom

Still think it's a drivers issue. I'd wait for better Windows 8 drivers hopefully when the release preview's out.


----------



## Thundermitty

I am having similar problems with Firefox 12.0 & Pale Moon 12.0 x64.

Here is a screenshot of Pale Moon 12.0 x64: http://i.imgur.com/RyCZf.png

Notice the corruption in the tabs & Pale Moon menu tab at the top of the screen.

Screenshot of Firefox 12.0: http://i.imgur.com/KtTj2.png

Notice the corruption in some of the tabs & on the new tab button.

Corruption also occurs when you switch from one tab to another.

Screenshot of corruption in Firefox 12.0 when switching between tabs:
http://i.imgur.com/NlVA2.png

I posted about this issue in the Nvidia driver forum.

Here's the link if you're interested:
http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=224078&view=findpost&p=1407590


----------



## safari801

Funny but Pale Moon 12 x64 works flawlessly and waterfox 12 sometimes has overlapping images or text.


----------



## Thundermitty

Could you post screenshots to prove your point?


----------



## EliasAlucard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The user agent string currently works like this: *Mozilla/5.0 (platform; rv:geckoversion) Gecko/geckotrail* *appname/appversion*
> Wouldn't it be best to keep it like that? (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1, rv:12.0) Gecko/12.0 Waterfox/12.0)


What I'm saying is that you should set the user agent string so that it shows specifically Waterfox and not Firefox.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1, rv:12.0) Gecko/12.0 Waterfox/12.0

^^ Yeah, that's how it's supposed to be, but it wasn't like that when I last downloaded it. Have you changed anything since my last post?

I think you should remove anything Firefox from your compiled version and work on it from there, as a fork, much like Debian did with Iceweasel. And keep Waterfox as strictly and exclusively x86-64 just to show Mozilla that mainstream is now AMD64. But you can only do that with a specific Waterfox UA string that doesn't show Firefox. That way, Waterfox will be competing with Firefox for market dominance.

I've added support for Waterfox in my OS/Browser postbit plugin (it's only for vBulletin though), and so I'm waiting for you to fix the UA string so that more people can learn about Waterfox through the exposure your browser will get through the forum postbits.


----------



## djkilla

*Firefox 13 June 5 release (Waterfox 13 tentative)*

Everyone knows Firefox/Waterfox 12 was released with no new features. But Firefox/Waterfox 13 will be a major release in many ways with lots of new stuff. I wanted to take a moment to highlight what you can expect in the next version.

*Ability to clean up user profile*
There are a number of serious Firefox issues (not starting, crashing, unexpected behavior, lost toolbars and more) that can be solved by creating a new profile. The problem is, creating a new profile (which is an incredibly difficult task) is not enough. A user will almost always want to also migrate their data to the new profile which is another difficult task.

Many users try to reinstall Firefox to solve these issues but reinstallation doesn't do anything to the profile folder. Providing this option upon reinstallation and, in addition, offering this after consecutive start-up crashes and on the Troubleshooting Information page will make this feature both intuitive and discoverable.

Example 1:
A user determines that "something" is wrong with Firefox, so they attempt to fix it by reinstalling. When the installer detects that the same version of Firefox already exists on the computer it will offer the option to repair Firefox by resetting it to its default state. That intent can be passed on to Firefox and the reset process will be started the next time Firefox starts.

Example 2:
After a third consecutive start-up crash, Firefox will offer to either start in safe mode so diagnosis can be done or to reset Firefox to it's default state.

Example 3:
A SUMO article or helper can direct a user to a simple method for repairing Firefox by accessing the Troubleshooting Information page and clicking the Reset Firefox button.

*Firefox Home Tab*
Firefox Home Tab is a small pinned tab placed at the far left of the tab strip that will serve as the user's home on the Web. The plan is for this interface to be locally hosted, customizable, and personalized to the needs of each individual user.

With the introduction of Apps and Identity into Firefox, a user's Home Tab will be the central location where users can access some of their most valuable content. Firefox will offer easy access to things users are familiar with today (Bookmarks, History, Settings, Downloads) as well as introduce the Apps Marketplace -- a great place to discover exciting new content on the Web.

As the content on the Home Tab evolves, we believe this page should be completely for the user. The goal is to make this page as customizable as possible, and offer valuable modules that really enhance the Firefox experience.

*Cycle Collector Perf improvements*
The cycle collector can cause unpleasant pause times, especially when things get leaky. We should attempt to both reduce the length of those pauses (by improving cycle collector performance and investigating incremental approaches), and make them less annoying by being smarter about when and if we schedule the cycle collector to run.

*Enable Smooth scrolling*
Smooth scrolling is the animated sliding effect when you roll the scrollwheel. Without it, the page jumps one or several lines at a time when scrolled. It's a subtle effect, but it makes it easier to follow content as it moves and is a more enjoyable effect. It also compares more closely to touch-based scrolling and so increases consistency across PCs and touch-based devices.

*Automatic Session Restore with Tabs on Demand*
Most users prefer starting the browser right where they left off. Firefox is moving to a model that restores all tabs when a user starts up the browser but delays the loading of background tabs until they are needed. This will improve the performance and usability of Firefox just after launch.

*New Tab Page*
Whenever Firefox users open a new tab, their goal is to use it to navigate somewhere. Firefox currently displays a blank page when Firefox users open a new page. This is guaranteed to not help them perform their next task.

We'd like to implement a page which displays on new tabs and helps users complete their next task. This will likely include offering options that are most likely to include the user's next task so that valuable time and steps are saved.

Such a page must meet certain requirements:
- Load instantly
- Not be so distracting as to take users mentally away from their intended task and into an unintended one
- Be useful without any configuration, yet can be easily configured and disabled
- Does not embarrass the user
- Making navigation to a site the user has been to before faster

*SPDY (This will be ON by default starting with version 13)*
Users of high latency environments such as mobile should be improved page load times for pages with many resources.

Casual browsing will be more secure with respect to eavesdropping.

Servers should see reduced load.

Independent low latency traffic should see reduced queuing delays.

*NPAPI AsyncDrawing specification and implementation*
This feature allows plugins to asynchronously draw to surfaces. These surfaces may be located in video memory, and so this allows hardware accelerated plugin drawing.


----------



## HepCatChris

Does anyone else see the error on the website www.SeattleSwing.com ?

I do NOT see this problem with the Pale Moon 64-bit browser, or in Chrome, IE, Firefox on another computer, or on my android phone, etc. Specifically On my computer with Waterfox 12.0 (reinstalled & rebooted), the website is missing the navigation on the left side, with the main content shifted over to the left. Do you see this same problem? Is it unique to Waterfox 12.0 as it seems? Is this a build error in Waterfox that will be fixed, or an error with the website?

-- Chris


----------



## Futzy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thundermitty*
> 
> I am having similar problems with Firefox 12.0 & Pale Moon 12.0 x64.
> Here is a screenshot of Pale Moon 12.0 x64: http://i.imgur.com/RyCZf.png
> Notice the corruption in the tabs & Pale Moon menu tab at the top of the screen.
> Screenshot of Firefox 12.0: http://i.imgur.com/KtTj2.png
> Notice the corruption in some of the tabs & on the new tab button.
> Corruption also occurs when you switch from one tab to another.
> Screenshot of corruption in Firefox 12.0 when switching between tabs:
> http://i.imgur.com/NlVA2.png
> I posted about this issue in the Nvidia driver forum.
> Here's the link if you're interested:
> http://forums.nvidia.com/index.php?showtopic=224078&view=findpost&p=1407590


Disable hardware acceleration.


----------



## kevindd992002

Right now, is Waterfox 12 already a "complete build" ?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Right now, is Waterfox 12 already a "complete build" ?


I think it's a complete build but the way the code was compiled may be different from other 64bit browsers. Only Mr. Alex can answer/explain this build. I haven't tried this version yet since I'm testing another build but I'm definitely interested in the rendering of web pages as reported by a few people here. Seems like a hardware acceleration issue but I'm not sure since I can't test it until I install Waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Right now, is Waterfox 12 already a "complete build" ?
> 
> 
> 
> I think it's a complete build but the way the code was compiled may be different from other 64bit browsers. Only Mr. Alex can answer/explain this build. I haven't tried this version yet since I'm testing another build but I'm definitely interested in the rendering of web pages as reported by a few people here. Seems like a hardware acceleration issue but I'm not sure since I can't test it until I install Waterfox.
Click to expand...

Well Waterfox 12 was just compiled with MSVC. Something changed and I kept on getting errors compiling the usual way.

I wanted Waterfox 13 to be big, and wanted to release it compiled by Intel's C++ Compiler but now there are errors that were never appearing before ever since FF13b2. (I was getting 10-20% improvements with ICC).

At the moment Waterfox 13 will be compiled with Intel's LibM (moved to from AMD's LibM), MSVC 10 and tcmalloc from Google's Performance tools.

Hopefully Mozilla fix whatever issue ICC is having or I'll have to try and fix it myself, something I'm not looking forward to due to the thousands of files that make up Firefox.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well Waterfox 12 was just compiled with MSVC. Something changed and I kept on getting errors compiling the usual way.
> I wanted Waterfox 13 to be big, and wanted to release it compiled by Intel's C++ Compiler but now there are errors that were never appearing before every since FF13b2. (I was getting 10-20% improvements with ICC).
> At the moment Waterfox 13 will be compiled with Intel's LibM (moved to from AMD's LibM), MSVC 10 and tcmalloc from Google's Performance tools.
> Hopefully Mozilla fix whatever issue ICC is having or I'll have to try and fix it myself, something I'm not looking forward to due to the thousands of files that make up Firefox.


Yeah, good luck


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Derko1*
> 
> I am having issues with Youtube being really slow to load videos. It's fine on chrome and ie. On waterfox they take like 15secs to start and then they'll stop to buffer every 5 secs... What could be wrong?


I've noticed slight choppiness in Youtube seems to happen when Noscript is ready to do an update and is waiting for you to restart the browser.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well Waterfox 12 was just compiled with MSVC. Something changed and I kept on getting errors compiling the usual way.
> I wanted Waterfox 13 to be big, and wanted to release it compiled by Intel's C++ Compiler but now there are errors that were never appearing before ever since FF13b2. (I was getting 10-20% improvements with ICC).
> At the moment Waterfox 13 will be compiled with Intel's LibM (moved to from AMD's LibM), MSVC 10 and tcmalloc from Google's Performance tools.
> Hopefully Mozilla fix whatever issue ICC is having or I'll have to try and fix it myself, something I'm not looking forward to due to the thousands of files that make up Firefox.


I have a few links for you to take a look at. All of this is greek to me but maybe it can help you. Definitely useful info:

This was an interesting post. Read all 4 pages! There's some good tips.
http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=622

Info on building.
http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/w/list

Additional different info which may be useful.
http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/w/list


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well Waterfox 12 was just compiled with MSVC. Something changed and I kept on getting errors compiling the usual way.
> I wanted Waterfox 13 to be big, and wanted to release it compiled by Intel's C++ Compiler but now there are errors that were never appearing before ever since FF13b2. (I was getting 10-20% improvements with ICC).
> At the moment Waterfox 13 will be compiled with Intel's LibM (moved to from AMD's LibM), MSVC 10 and tcmalloc from Google's Performance tools.
> Hopefully Mozilla fix whatever issue ICC is having or I'll have to try and fix it myself, something I'm not looking forward to due to the thousands of files that make up Firefox.


So that means WF13 will also not be considered a "complete build" when it is released because of the errors?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So that means WF13 will also not be considered a "complete build" when it is released because of the errors?


All the builds are complete. You don't seem to understand how the code is compiled. Good thing I'm here to explain it. When building Waterfox, there's lots of different tools needed and many ways to compile the code. Some tools will compile the program but can introduce errors because of the way the tools handle the code. There's also all the different configuring methods to choose from. It can really be very tedious and frustrating making these builds. A lot of people don't seem to know exactly how complicated the process can be. If something isn't right, it could take hours or days to debug and re-build again.

I would recommend clicking the following link to see what's needed to build Waterfox:
https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites

Here's some of the configuring that needs to be done to give you an idea on what's involved:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Configuring_Build_Options

There's actually lots more involved. Want to give it a try? Here's some info to get you started:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Build_Documentation

The links in my last post will also give you everything you need to make your own build. Once you give it a try, then you quickly realize it's not that easy and appreciate everything Mr Alex and others go through to give us a 64bit build. Hope this answers and helps you should you wish to make a build.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> All the builds are complete. You don't seem to understand how the code is compiled. Good thing I'm here to explain it. When building Waterfox, there's lots of different tools needed and many ways to compile the code. Some tools will compile the program but can introduce errors because of the way the tools handle the code. There's also all the different configuring methods to choose from. It can really be very tedious and frustrating making these builds. A lot of people don't seem to know exactly how complicated the process can be. If something isn't right, it could take hours or days to debug and re-build again.
> I would recommend clicking the following link to see what's needed to build Waterfox:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites
> Here's some of the configuring that needs to be done to give you an idea on what's involved:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Configuring_Build_Options
> There's actually lots more involved. Want to give it a try? Here's some info to get you started:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Build_Documentation
> The links in my last post will also give you everything you need to make your own build. Once you give it a try, then you quickly realize it's not that easy and appreciate everything Mr Alex and others go through to give us a 64bit build. Hope this answers and helps you should you wish to make a build.


Yeah I understand that compiling is very very hard. But there is supposedly a "preferred" compile tool by MrAlex that he thinks would produce the best results, right? In the case, WF13 won't be compiled using the best compiler because of the errors he is encountering, yes?


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> All the builds are complete. You don't seem to understand how the code is compiled. Good thing I'm here to explain it. When building Waterfox, there's lots of different tools needed and many ways to compile the code. Some tools will compile the program but can introduce errors because of the way the tools handle the code. There's also all the different configuring methods to choose from. It can really be very tedious and frustrating making these builds. A lot of people don't seem to know exactly how complicated the process can be. If something isn't right, it could take hours or days to debug and re-build again.
> I would recommend clicking the following link to see what's needed to build Waterfox:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/En/Developer_Guide/Build_Instructions/Windows_Prerequisites
> Here's some of the configuring that needs to be done to give you an idea on what's involved:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Configuring_Build_Options
> There's actually lots more involved. Want to give it a try? Here's some info to get you started:
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Build_Documentation
> The links in my last post will also give you everything you need to make your own build. Once you give it a try, then you quickly realize it's not that easy and appreciate everything Mr Alex and others go through to give us a 64bit build. Hope this answers and helps you should you wish to make a build.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I understand that compiling is very very hard. But there is supposedly a "preferred" compile tool by MrAlex that he thinks would produce the best results, right? In the case, WF13 won't be compiled using the best compiler because of the errors he is encountering, yes?
Click to expand...

Correct. The Intel compiler can produce some impressive results, but as of yet not 100% stable waterfox code. Microsoft Visual Studio (the tool recommended and used by Mozilla) will generally create stable code (depending on the compile flags you set of course: I'm looking at you fp:fast) but not quite as fast as ICC. I highly recommend anyone who enjoys tinkering with things to try a Mozilla build, its good fun and you can totally tailor it to your needs (the build I am running now has a somewhat more aggressive strip and x64 AVX support).


----------



## Lord Venom

Has anyone attempted to compile a version using the Microsoft Visual Studio 11 beta yet?


----------



## djkilla

I'm almost tempted to make my own build. I've been looking over various mozconfig files for 64bit builds. Anyone know what are the complete options available to change and descriptions of each option? I tried searching for mozconfig options with descriptions and couldn't find any info.

Various mozconfig setups:
http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/source/browse/trunk/firefox/.mozconfig

http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/source/browse/trunk/mozconfig/x64/firefox/.mozconfig

http://code.google.com/p/lawlietfox/source/browse/trunk/.mozconfig/windows/.mozconfig


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Has anyone attempted to compile a version using the Microsoft Visual Studio 11 beta yet?


Yes, but it isn't used because there's a bug using MSVC11 with PGO. There isn't a very big performance benefit.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> I'm almost tempted to make my own build. I've been looking over various mozconfig files for 64bit builds. Anyone know what are the complete options available to change and descriptions of each option? I tried searching for mozconfig options with descriptions and couldn't find any info.
> 
> Various mozconfig setups:
> http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/source/browse/trunk/firefox/.mozconfig
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/source/browse/trunk/mozconfig/x64/firefox/.mozconfig
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/lawlietfox/source/browse/trunk/.mozconfig/windows/.mozconfig


Most of the options are in the js/src/configure file.


----------



## GT-R

Sorry if this has been mentioned, can't go through 228 pages.

After updating to the latest build, Waterfox start with my last opened tabs.

And bookmarks toolbar is gone. I'll have to go check View > Menubar and then it appears then I uncheck View > Menubar each time.

Other than that it's tip top, so thanks very much.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GT-R*
> 
> Sorry if this has been mentioned, can't go through 228 pages.
> After updating to the latest build, Waterfox start with my last opened tabs.


There's actually two settings which could be causing this. First go to your options menu and change Startup to 'Show my home page'. Everytime you start Waterfox it will always go to your home page now.



Second thing to change is also in options. Change 'When I open a link in a new tab, switch to it immediately'. Every time you visit a website that has a pop up which opens in a new tab, this setting will prevent it from switching to the tab automatically.


Quote:


> And bookmarks toolbar is gone. I'll have to go check View > Menubar and then it appears then I uncheck View > Menubar each time.
> Other than that it's tip top, so thanks very much.


Press ALT on your keyboard. This will bring up the menu bar at the top. Now click 'View', 'Toolbars' and click 'Bookmarks Toolbar'. Every time you start Waterfox, the bookmarks toolbar will be there.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Most of the options are in the js/src/configure file.


Thanks! I'll check it out. By the way, I've been following this thread that might interest you. It's a little hard to understand but interesting.

http://cgi38.plala.or.jp/tete009/board.cgi#T1337288517.69


----------



## GT-R

Thanks for your reply djkilla, I'm very sorry I meant to say Waterfox wouldn't start with my last opened tabs.
I have selected in Tools > Options > General for Waterfox to show last opened windows and tabs but it always starts blank. Thanks.

_*edit: Turns out it was the All-in-one-sidebar. I removed it and added it again and now everything is super! Thanks again.*_


----------



## Iain L

Hi,

I may be here under false pretenses, as my computer knowledge seems to be sadly lacking compared to all of you, but I was directed this way by someone on the Mozilla support forum..

Just the last couple of days now I have found when opening a session of Waterfox, that my cookies been cleared. I have checked the cookies.sqlite file, and on occasions when this has happened the file has gone reduced in size from 1024 KB, to 512KB. The cookies.sqlite.BAK file can be copied and renamed, which then returns my cookies to normal for a little while. Has anyone come across this behaviour before, and if so how can I solve it?

My settings, in particular History, have not changed at all.

Many thanks

Iain


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Iain L*
> 
> Hi,
> I may be here under false pretenses, as my computer knowledge seems to be sadly lacking compared to all of you, but I was directed this way by someone on the Mozilla support forum..
> Just the last couple of days now I have found when opening a session of Waterfox, that my cookies been cleared. I have checked the cookies.sqlite file, and on occasions when this has happened the file has gone reduced in size from 1024 KB, to 512KB. The cookies.sqlite.BAK file can be copied and renamed, which then returns my cookies to normal for a little while. Has anyone come across this behaviour before, and if so how can I solve it?
> My settings, in particular History, have not changed at all.
> Many thanks
> Iain


Could be your cookies are being cleared by using an add-on that clears your cookies like BetterPrivacy, Ghostery, etc. or a program like CCleaner. Just in case, make sure you have 'Accept cookies from sites' checked and 'Accept third-party cookies' checked. Also choose Keep until: 'They expire'.



If this doesn't work, you can try resetting the Waterfox settings. You can do this by pressing the SHIFT key on your keyboard and clicking the Waterfox icon/program to start Waterfox. Choose 'Reset all user preferences to.....'. You can also choose 'Reset toolbars and controls'.



If the above doesn't work, then your profile could be corrupt and you may need to create a new profile. You can do this by clicking the start icon at the bottom left in Windows and then typing Firefox.exe -P in the run/search box then choosing 'Create Profile'. Make sure you delete your old profile first. This will completely reset all your settings to the default and start Waterfox as if you just installed it.


----------



## Amongalen

"Sorry if this has been mentioned, can't go through 228 pages."
I have problem with Unity 3D plugin. It's used for some 3D web games. I've tried to install it several times but it still doesn't work. When I check tools -> add-ons -> plugins there isn't such plugin. Tried it with firefox and it worked fine.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amongalen*
> 
> "Sorry if this has been mentioned, can't go through 228 pages."
> I have problem with Unity 3D plugin. It's used for some 3D web games. I've tried to install it several times but it still doesn't work. When I check tools -> add-ons -> plugins there isn't such plugin. Tried it with firefox and it worked fine.


The Unity add-on isn't compatible with a 64bit browser like Waterfox so it will only work with a 32bit browser like Firefox.


----------



## passlogin

http://blogs.unity3d.com/2011/07/28/unity-3-4-web-player-for-64-bit-windows/ there's a 64bit experimental version...unfortunately not the latest (3.5.2) but the only one i know of...


----------



## opal

Might anyone know why stylish would not work on gmail in waterfox, when the same scripts work in chrome - with almost identical addons?
I really prefer mozilla over google products but am unable at adjust the UI in waterfox on just that site


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opal*
> 
> Might anyone know why stylish would not work on gmail in waterfox, when the same scripts work in chrome - with almost identical addons?
> I really prefer mozilla over google products but am unable at adjust the UI in waterfox on just that site


Can you post your stylish script?


----------



## MrAlex

Link available in post below.


----------



## Czarnodziej

"You need to be a premium member in order to download this file."


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> "You need to be a premium member in order to download this file."


Ugh, it was working fine before.

I'll try MediaFire again.

EDIT:

Here is a preview version of Waterfox 13 if anyone is interested (while I do deem this stable, use caution)

http://www.mediafire.com/?u5d1u17qlyuxn6t

If any AMD users could do some testing as well that would be great.


----------



## djkilla

I know there's people on the forum who never check the main page ( http://waterfoxproject.org/ ). So I posted a message from MrAlex about the next version of Waterfox below so everyone knows of the goodness to come! I'm quite excited about the direction Waterfox is going. Kick-ass!









*Changes that count*
May 23, 2012
Posted by: MrAlex

There are many things that can be done to a program to improve performance and quite a few can be done during compile time. In the next version of Waterfox, the following changes will be implemented:

Switching to Intel's LibM from AMD's LibM

This provides a very little performance increase, but it's still there due to Intel's more efficient use of math functions.

The implementation of a better memory allocator (tcmalloc)

Memory allocators have come a long way, especially since the implementation of jemalloc in Firefox 3. A well written malloc can provide some nice performance benefits. Low memory and better CPU scaling are some of the advantages of a well implemented malloc (but since the release of Windows 7 and it's own memory allocator this is less of an issue). To gain some more small performance improvements, I have implemented tcmalloc from Google's Performance tools (the same memory allocator used in Google Chrome).

More information about tcmalloc can be found here.

Compilation using Intel's C++ Compiler

There's no doubt about it that ICC is one of the best compilers out there. Just a simple recompile of a program can net huge performance improvements. While a stable program is hard to achieve, it is not impossible. Therefore the next version of Waterfox will include as much of the code being compiled by ICC as possible while keeping the program stable and usable.


----------



## Lord Venom

Gives off an error on start about libmmd.dll missing on this AMD machine. After adding the DLL to the directory, Waterfox crashes with a MSVCR100.dll error.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Gives off an error on start about libmmd.dll missing on this AMD machine. After adding the DLL to the directory, Waterfox crashes with a MSVCR100.dll error.


Oops, forgot to include the redistributables. You can find MSVCR100.dll in any other version of Waterfox, or just install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 redist.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> or just install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 redist.


Which I have, it's an APPCRASH.


----------



## kevindd992002

Is it normal for FF and WF to consume around 10% CPU (based on Task Manager) when opened with around 20~30 tabs? I have a 2670QM in my laptop which is more than enough for a CPU.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Audio has stopped working online (websites like YouTube) since I've gotten my new headset. Do my headset and Waterfox just not like each other? IE and all of my games work just fine, but the audio online doesn't.


----------



## Ryrynz

http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/ still only lists the release notes for 11.0.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it normal for FF and WF to consume around 10% CPU (based on Task Manager) when opened with around 20~30 tabs? I have a 2670QM in my laptop which is more than enough for a CPU.


Sounds normal to me. Considering what each web site is doing (animations, video, etc) in each tab, plus add-ons used for each tab, this will increase the CPU usage. Without the tabs and just having Waterfox/Firefox running, what's your CPU usage?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> Audio has stopped working online (websites like YouTube) since I've gotten my new headset. Do my headset and Waterfox just not like each other? IE and all of my games work just fine, but the audio online doesn't.


I noticed you said the audio stopped working after getting your new headset. What were you using before and did it work before getting the new headset? Is Waterfox sandboxed using Sandboxie (sandboxing is also included in newer versions of some anti-virus programs)? Click the speaker at the bottom right near the time and choose 'Open Volume Mixer'. Make sure the volume is up/loud and not muted for 'Plugin Container for Mozilla.....'.





There's actually many things that can affect the audio in Waterfox but I want to see if the above solved the problem.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*
> 
> http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/ still only lists the release notes for 11.0.


The release notes for version 12 in on the main page ( http://waterfoxproject.org/ ) but wasn't updated on the download page. Here's the release notes:

What's New in Firefox 12?

- Windows: Firefox is now easier to update with one less prompt (User Account Control)
- Page Source now has line numbers
- Line breaks are now supported in the title attribute
- Improvements to "Find in Page" to center search result
- URLs pasted into the download manager window are now automatically downloaded
- Support for the text-align-last CSS property has been added
- Various security fixes
- Some TinyMCE-based editors failed to load (739141)
- OS X: WebGL performance may be degraded on some hardware (713305)


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> or just install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 redist.
> 
> 
> 
> Which I have, it's an APPCRASH.
Click to expand...

Interestingly I just built Firefox Aurora x64 with the tcmalloc library. I, too, get the msvcr100.dll appcrash at startup.
Looks like it might be an incompatibility with tcmalloc :/
I could be wrong though.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> or just install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 redist.
> 
> 
> 
> Which I have, it's an APPCRASH.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Interestingly I just built Firefox Aurora x64 with the tcmalloc library. I, too, get the msvcr100.dll appcrash at startup.
> Looks like it might be an incompatibility with tcmalloc :/
> I could be wrong though.
Click to expand...

I'm running tcmalloc just fine. Hmm, do you have a screenshot of the crash?


----------



## sxp64

OK, so I just found out about your version of my favorite browser, only to end up with a silly message during installation saying it only supports Vista and up.
You do realize many Windows XP x64 Edition users would love to use Waterfox, which, by the way, could easily be made compatible with XP64, but hey, that's a few lines of extra work for the developers here.

So yeah, very much disappointed in that I'm afraid !
Especially since the other 64 bit versions of FF work very well in WinXP x64.

Back to Nightly again. Pity, this looks really promising otherwise!


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sxp64*
> 
> OK, so I just found out about your version of my favorite browser, only to end up with a silly message during installation saying it only supports Vista and up.


It works with XP 64bit I think. I'm pretty sure I saw someone post that they got it to work. Keep checking back and someone will jump in and let you know how to run Waterfox on XP.


----------



## coffeejunky

You can just extract the files from the installer with 7-zip and run Firefox.exe from that location (or copy it to /program files/ as you wish). It should be compatible with XP-x64, I think MrAlex said it was a limitation with the installer, or something.


----------



## bruflot

I honestly don't need a 64 bit browser. What's even the point?

Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bruflot*
> 
> I honestly don't need a 64 bit browser. What's even the point?
> 
> Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2


Its not _just_ a 64-bit browser. It also has some performance enhancements (hopefully especially so with WF13).


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

It was the volume mixer thing!









It worked with the headset I had before, but I'd had that before I started using Waterfox or Firefox. I guess it just freaked out at the new headset and turned everything down.









Thank you! <3

EDIT: It's still resetting itself, though. However, it's not going down _all_ the way. Weird.








Anyway to set it to a certain level and keep it there permanently?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Just installed Waterfox again......it doesn't use that new maintenance service does it?

Not a bad thing, just wondering.


----------



## sxp64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> You can just extract the files from the installer with 7-zip and run Firefox.exe from that location (or copy it to /program files/ as you wish). It should be compatible with XP-x64, I think MrAlex said it was a limitation with the installer, or something.


OK, I see.
It's just the installer, like it is with Nightly.
I was not aware it could be unpacked using 7zip. I'll try that later today, thanks!


----------



## Kaldari

I briefly tried Waterfox back when this thread was first made but was immediately turned off by the lack of addon support. Just took a crack at it again.. and this is my new browser of choice.









The snappiness over regular FF is quite noticeable, and apparently the difference is supposed to be even greater in 13. Can't wait, and keep up the good work.


----------



## Lord Venom

Just tried the WF13 build with this installed, working fine now.


----------



## bruflot

No thanks, I'll stick to Safari.

ohwait


----------



## Lord Venom

LOL, Safari.

Been testing the WF13 test build, so far so good. But is there a reason why the about dialog being smaller now? I kinda liked it bigger.


----------



## Whudunit

I am SO happy with this brower.

Thank You so much for making it. Can I notice a difference between this an 32bit I don't know I'm not smart enough but this is great and I'm pleased you decided to do it.

Firefox obviously isn't doing it. I think I hooked up with WF back at FF 9 I think.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Just tried the WF13 build with this installed, working fine now.


Which one is "this"?


----------



## sxp64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bruflot*
> 
> I honestly don't need a 64 bit browser. What's even the point?


You honestly don't need to overclock anything. You honestly don't need a faster computer. What's even the point?

Geez, what an idiot!


----------



## sxp64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here is a preview version of Waterfox 13 if anyone is interested (while I do deem this stable, use caution)
> http://www.mediafire.com/?u5d1u17qlyuxn6t


OK, unzipping this in my XP x64 install did not have the same result as when I do it with other 64 bit FF versions (like Nightly).
Turns out I needed to install vcredist_x64.exe to have MSVCP100.DLL working. After that I got a libmmd.dll missing warning. Apparently the guys at mozilla working on the 64 bit Nightly are good at making it compatible out of the box with XP64.

Can I remind you all that Win XP x64 Edition still runs a LOT faster on most CPU's than Windows 7 x64 ?
Most Intel network drivers aren't even working as stable as they should in Windows 7, which they are in Windows XP x64 Edition. XP64 is *still* a better working environment for me than Windows 7 x64.

I hope you start thinking about compatibility with XP64. Since the latest Firefox Nightly x64 can do it, I don't see why you can't.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sxp64*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here is a preview version of Waterfox 13 if anyone is interested (while I do deem this stable, use caution)
> http://www.mediafire.com/?u5d1u17qlyuxn6t
> 
> 
> 
> OK, unzipping this in my XP x64 install did not have the same result as when I do it with other 64 bit FF versions (like Nightly).
> Turns out I needed to install vcredist_x64.exe to have MSVCP100.DLL working. After that I got a libmmd.dll missing warning. Which made me give up. Apparently the guys at mozilla working on the 64 bit Nightly are good at making it compatible out of the box with XP64.
> 
> Can I remind you all that Win XP x64 Edition still runs a LOT faster on most CPU's than Windows 7 x64 ?
> Most Intel network drivers aren't even working stable in Windows 7, where they are in Windows XP x64 Edition. XP64 is *still* a better working environment for me than Windows 7 x64.
> 
> I hope you start thinking about compatibility with XP64. Since the latest Firefox Nightly x64 can do it, I don't see why you can't.
> 
> For now, all of you who are interested in running a 64 bit version of Firefox in Windows XP x64 Edition, try unzipping the latest firefox-*.en-US.win64-x86_64.zip from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/?C=N;O=D
> to *\Program files\firefox\ folder or something like that. It will run perfectly fine with your current Profile.
Click to expand...

Everyone has that issue with the mediafire build posted there, Alex said he forgot to install the redist files (it is only a demo build anyway, not for proper use yet). You can find them on the net or just use Waterfox 12, which was posted here.


----------



## sxp64

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coffeejunky*
> 
> Everyone has that issue with the mediafire build posted there, Alex said he forgot to install the redist files (it is only a demo build anyway, not for proper use yet). You can find them on the net or just use Waterfox 12, which was posted here.


OK, sorry again. Just did that, and indeed, I have Waterfox 12 running now! Either way, would be better if the installer just worked in XP64, but OK, I'm happy with it this way!

Thanks.


----------



## Lord Venom

Grab the Intel C++ Compiler for Windows 11.1 update 8 (Intel 64) from here and install it then try the Waterfox 13 preview build. I was having issues before installing this and now Waterfox 13 preview's working fine on this AMD machine.


----------



## fullmoon

WF13 works fine; good job








I reduced the freezes I had, I test more thoroughly ...









Is it possible to integrate the libraries required to install it?


----------



## Lord Venom

I'm thinking Waterfox really needs its own custom installer, honestly.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sxp64*
> 
> You honestly don't need to overclock anything. You honestly don't need a faster computer. What's even the point?
> Geez, what an idiot!


Lol, yeah he's an idiot indeed


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I'm thinking Waterfox really needs its own custom installer, honestly.


There is an installer available (Advanced Installer) that also includes the ability to have application updates (hence no need for the internal updater in Firefox)!

Also more good news, managed to compiler Waterfox completely with /O3, /Qvec and Qparallel!


----------



## Lord Venom

Do you need to do a test build for that to test AMD compatibility before Waterfox 13 final?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Do you need to do a test build for that to test AMD compatibility before Waterfox 13 final?


It would be a good idea and I shall, but the only time a problem will arise with AMD systems is if /Qax (http://software.intel.com/sites/products/documentation/studio/composer/en-us/2011/compiler_c/copts/common_options/option_ax_lcase.htm) is used. I'll upload the new build later tonight.


----------



## fullmoon

Back test:
- javascript is better, I use newsfox and on my laptop dual 1.7GHz is more respondent for example.








- better page load








- freeze sometimes on big page. (firefox issue)
- However, sometimes the process does not close after closing all windows (this problem is also present in nightly, So I do not know).
- after many tab and close, WF is to 600Mo







.But doesn't exceed 650Mo...

peacekeeper:
firefox 12 + of 900
palemoon 12 + of 970 (12.1: 700 O_O)
nightly 15 + 970
wf 13 + of 1000


----------



## djkilla

Wow! I've been busy and checked the forum to see MrAlex is on a roll to making Waterfox the best browser on the planet! Thanks to fullmoon for doing some testing. Looking forward to the speed, tweaks and optimaztions MrAlex is working on for Waterfox!


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Thanks to fullmoon for doing some testing.











yeah yeah yeah, thanks...


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys latest build of Waterfox:
http://www.mediafire.com/?rglize8pnmb06yd
Features:

Google's tcmalloc
Intel's LibM
SSE3 support for all processors, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 and AVX for processors that support it.
I'm really hoping this build works for AMD systems, so fingers crossed


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay guys latest build of Waterfox:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?rglize8pnmb06yd
> Features:
> 
> Google's tcmalloc
> Intel's LibM
> SSE3 support for all processors, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 and AVX for processors that support it.
> I'm really hoping this build works for AMD systems, so fingers crossed


So is this the final build for WF13?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay guys latest build of Waterfox:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?rglize8pnmb06yd
> Features:
> 
> Google's tcmalloc
> Intel's LibM
> SSE3 support for all processors, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 and AVX for processors that support it.
> I'm really hoping this build works for AMD systems, so fingers crossed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is this the final build for WF13?
Click to expand...

Not yet since Firefox 13 final source hasn't been released, but once it does get released it will be built the same way.


----------



## Kaldari

So do we just copy what's in the bin into the Waterfox folder?

Is this how updates are going to be done from now on, or is this being done just because it's pre-release?

*edit*

Well I went ahead and tried that, and I got the error:

Code:



Code:


The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.

I'm just I'm doing something nubbish, but I backed up my original directory cause I thought something like this may happen.


----------



## Kaldari

Anyone? I'd like to get 13 installed.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari*
> 
> Anyone? I'd like to get 13 installed.


Try installing registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2025/w_cproc_p_11.1.070_redist_intel64.exe
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay guys latest build of Waterfox:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?rglize8pnmb06yd
> Features:
> 
> Google's tcmalloc
> Intel's LibM
> SSE3 support for all processors, SSSE3, SSE4.1, SSE4.2 and AVX for processors that support it.
> I'm really hoping this build works for AMD systems, so fingers crossed


Yeah, its works. However still need the Intel C++ redist installed.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari*
> 
> So do we just copy what's in the bin into the Waterfox folder?
> Is this how updates are going to be done from now on, or is this being done just because it's pre-release?
> *edit*
> Well I went ahead and tried that, and I got the error:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
> 
> I'm just I'm doing something nubbish, but I backed up my original directory cause I thought something like this may happen.


Oh btw, no just extract the rar. and run the exe in the bin folder straight from there, no need to copy/move to anywhere.


----------



## VW_TDI_02

I actually had a few issues with Waterfox 12.0. I was on there multiple times and it was first sluggish and then would completely seize of and stop responding. This was happening on a daily basis and it got so bad I ended up switching to Chrome after about two years of using different versions of Waterfox.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Waterfox doesn't purge memory like firefox? Evident on both wf 12 and the latest build of wf 13.

Issue: I open 5 tabs memory goes up to 350mb, that's fine, however i close all and return to only start page and memory is still at 300mb even after 5 minutes. I then go on using the browser again and it just keeps getting higher.


----------



## Lord Venom

Latest test build works fine here too.


----------



## kevindd992002

When will Firefox release v13?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> When will Firefox release v13?


Scheduled for June 5.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Waterfox doesn't purge memory like firefox? Evident on both wf 12 and the latest build of wf 13.
> 
> Issue: I open 5 tabs memory goes up to 350mb, that's fine, however i close all and return to only start page and memory is still at 300mb even after 5 minutes. I then go on using the browser again and it just keeps getting higher.


IIRC TCMalloc does not return memory once allocated, as that is costly to performance. Firefox 12 and 13 also have a rather relaxed Garbage collection routine, this is tightened up in FF14 (though I just checked the developer page and it looks like it has been backed out _yet again_ to FF15, this is the second time t has been delayed) which should use Incrimental Garbage Collection (happens at smaller intervals rather than all at once).


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Try installing registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2025/w_cproc_p_11.1.070_redist_intel64.exe
> Yeah, its works. However still need the Intel C++ redist installed.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Oh btw, no just extract the rar. and run the exe in the bin folder straight from there, no need to copy/move to anywhere.


Thanks.









*edit*

Wow.. 13 is so good. Going from FF12 to WF12 and now to this.. I'm in browsing heaven.


----------



## Lord Venom

Using Advanced Installer it should be very easy to check whether or not the Intel C++ redist has been installed on the system and to prompt the user to install it if it's missing.


----------



## kevindd992002

Is the Intel C++ redist installed by default in Windows 7 x64?


----------



## Lord Venom

No, it isn't. You'll need it to run Waterfox 13.


----------



## EliasAlucard

avast notified me something about a virus last time I used Waterfox, probably a fake alarm or something, but has anyone here gotten any malware alarms in Waterfox? I can't remember what the virus was called, I've reinstalled Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04 now, but it seemed Waterfox specific because I didn't get it in any other browser, like Firefox or Firefox Nightlies.


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> avast notified me something about a virus last time I used Waterfox, probably a fake alarm or something, but has anyone here gotten any malware alarms in Waterfox? I can't remember what the virus was called, I've reinstalled Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04 now, but it seemed Waterfox specific because I didn't get it in any other browser, like Firefox or Firefox Nightlies.


All antiviruses are capable of producing false positives. If there was any malicious intent behind the release of WF, I'm pretty sure it would have been outed by now, well over a year after its first release.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> avast notified me something about a virus last time I used Waterfox, probably a fake alarm or something, but has anyone here gotten any malware alarms in Waterfox? I can't remember what the virus was called, I've reinstalled Windows 7 and Ubuntu 12.04 now, but it seemed Waterfox specific because I didn't get it in any other browser, like Firefox or Firefox Nightlies.


I got that from avast! as well. Might be because the .exe is named Firefox but the application name is Waterfox so it thinks it's a "fake" application.


----------



## fullmoon

For the last wf13:
- better page load
- with peacekeeper up to 1050









firefox bug doesn't help, as freeze or not responsive or use large memory.








wait and see but good job for this.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> No, it isn't. You'll need it to run Waterfox 13.


Why does WF12 not need the Intel redist then? Why only WF13?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> No, it isn't. You'll need it to run Waterfox 13.
> 
> 
> 
> Why does WF12 not need the Intel redist then? Why only WF13?
Click to expand...

Because WF12 was not compiled with Intel's C++ compiler.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Because WF12 was not compiled with Intel's C++ compiler.


Ok









How do you actually update from WF12 to WF13?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Because WF12 was not compiled with Intel's C++ compiler.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do you actually update from WF12 to WF13?
Click to expand...

It hasn't been released yet. When it has, you'll have to download the installer and install it (but uninstall the older version first).


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It hasn't been released yet. When it has, you'll have to download the installer and install it (but uninstall the older version first).


Oh ok.. Uninstally by simply uninstalling it from control panel?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It hasn't been released yet. When it has, you'll have to download the installer and install it (but uninstall the older version first).
> 
> 
> 
> Oh ok.. Uninstally by simply uninstalling it from control panel?
Click to expand...

Yep


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> *Waterfox speed tweaks*:
> Do you want Waterfox to scream with speed! Here's my favorite about:config settings to tweak Waterfox!
> *NOTE*:
> The settings within Firefox by default is to be used with ALL types of OS's and CPU's. My settings are best with newer hardware (last few years) and a speedy broadband connection. If you have older hardware or slower internet connection, then you can experience lag because your hardware and browser won't be able to handle the amount of data being received. So the browser will bottleneck the data. It's best to use the default settings if using a slower internet or older hardware (mainly CPU).
> *Reduce the amount of RAM Waterfox uses for its cache feature*
> 1. Type "about:config" (no quotes) in the adress bar in the browser.
> 2. Find "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer"
> 3. Set it's value to "0"
> *Increase the Speed at Which Waterfox loads pages*
> 1. Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit Enter.
> (Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds up page loading.)
> 2. Alter the entries as follows:
> Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"
> Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"
> Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to "8". (This means it will make 8 requests at once.)
> Set "network.http.max-connections" to "256"
> Set "network.http.max-connections-per-server" to "24"
> Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" to "8"
> Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" to "8"
> Set "network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" to "true" (new boolean value) (This was an earlier setting but may no longer be needed in recent versions of Firefox but no harm is done by including it)
> Set "network.http.spdy.enabled" to "true" (This is a new setting in Firefox 11 and will be on (true) by default starting with Firefox 13 or 14. It speeds up the loading of web sites if they code their web site to use this feature. It was originally created by Google and is quickly being adopted by all web browsers and the internet. Google is working to make this standardized with all browsers and the internet. The default is false but I have it set to true. Not all web sites include this but a handful like Google, Twitter, Facebook and a few others include this.)
> 3. Lastly, right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer. Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "25". ((Default is 250 but my setting of 25 is perfect for a high speed broadband connection. Otherwise 125-200 is fine)
> This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on information it receives. If you're using a broadband connection you'll load pages faster now.
> Optionally (for even faster web browsing) here are some more options for your about:config (you might have to create some of these entries by Right Click -> New- > Interger or Boolean
> "network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false"
> "content.notify.backoffcount": set "5"
> "plugin.expose_full_path": set "true".
> "ui.submenuDelay": set "0
> *Security Tweaks*
> 1) Set "network.prefetch-next" to "false" (This tweak (default is true) speeds up the browser by prefetching data from links on the page your viewing. So when you click a link, the data is presented immediately. Google Chrome has the same setting for speeding up their browser. I have this set to false because if the prefetched page includes malware, it will be downloaded so setting this to false will stop prefetching. User can decide what's best for them.)
> *Spell Checking*
> 1) Set "layout.spellcheckDefault" to "2" (Will determine which text will be checked using the spell checker. The default is 1, which means only some areas will be examined. If you'd like Firefox to perform spell check on all text, change the value to 2)
> 
> *Waterfox about:config*
> For those wanting to understand exactly what you're tweaking and additional info, read the section 'Preference Format' on page 10-11 at this location:
> http://www.tweakguides.com/Firefox_1.html
> Ever wonder what are those Waterfox settings in about:config and what they do? In addition to the last link, there's also an add-on for Waterfox!
> http://lifehacker.com/5326224/prefse...onfig-settings
> 
> *Is Waterfox crashing? A lot of the time it's due to the Adobe Flash plug-in.*
> Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.2.202.233: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
> Try reinstalling Adobe Flash by doing the following:
> 1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/uninstall_flash_player_64bit.exe
> 2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
> C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
> C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed
> **If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.
> 3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player 64bit:
> For Internet Explorer 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_64bit.exe
> For Waterfox and other browsers 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin_64bit.exe
> **You can install both 64bit. That's what I do. I don't use 32bit browsers but if you do, continue installing the 32bit versions.
> If you want to also install Flash 32bit:
> For Internet Explorer 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_32bit.exe
> For Firefox and other browsers 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_10_plugin.exe
> 4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy. Hopefully this will fix any issues you have with flash content.
> 
> *Clearing Waterfox favicons (bookmark icons)*
> Ever open up your list of bookmarks and wish you could reset/clear/delete those icons (favicons) beside the bookmarks and start over? Well now you can:
> Install 'Delete Bookmark Icons' addon http://www.sephiroth-j.de/1/mozilla/index_en.php
> None of your bookmarks will be touched; they will all still be there. Each time you visit one of your bookmarks, an icon (favicon) will be added next to the bookmark.
> With Delete Bookmark Icons you are able to delete the icon of just one or all of your bookmarks. Right click on the bookmark with the icon to be deleted and select Delete Site Icon(s). To delete the icons of all of your bookmarks, select Bookmarks at the top of the Firefox browser and select Organize Bookmarks. Select the folder/location of your bookmarks and in the right side window, right click and choose Delete All Site Icons from the pop-up menu.
> 
> *Looking for a FAST DNS?* (Advance users)
> There's lots of free public DNS severs such as Google DNS, Open DNS, Ultra DNS and many more. Picking the right DNS can speed up your connection by more than 50%. Keep in mind that DNS servers DO NOT filter internet content unless you choose too with various levels of filtering on the DNS servers website.
> How do you know what's the fastest DNS server to use? There's two programs (probably more) that can determine the best DNS server for you. I prefer the following which always gives accurate detection:
> DNS Benchmark
> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
> Another program which has made the scene, is the following program. Unlike the DNS Benchmark program, this one gives the best recommendations on the first run. I find it to be a little less accurate but some people prefer this one:
> Namebench
> http://code.google.com/p/namebench/
> Namebench instructions:
> http://code.google.com/p/namebench/wiki/UsingNameBench
> As a tech tip, I always recommend for best results you enter/run the cmd prompt. Once at the cmd prompt, type and run the following before running the above programs --> ipconfig /flushdns


By the way, I just want to comment on this paragraph:

(This tweak (default is true) speeds up the browser by prefetching data from links on the page your viewing. So when you click a link, the data is presented immediately. Google Chrome has the same setting for speeding up their browser. I have this set to false because if the prefetched page includes malware, it will be downloaded so setting this to false will stop prefetching. User can decide what's best for them.)

I think you mean "the default value of true speeds up the browser ........". In the original text, what I understood when I first read it is that "this tweak" (referring to the tweak value - being false) speeds up the browser which is kind of the other way around.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It hasn't been released yet. When it has, you'll have to download the installer and install it (but uninstall the older version first).


Do you have a working prototype of the new installer yet? I've been looking into Advanced Installer for awhile now and I really like it.







If you do have a working prototype of the installer, maybe it should be tested by a few of us before release?


----------



## fullmoon

Test on a second PC.
Strangely I have installed the "vcr++" for "WF13" in addition to Intel.
peacekeeper without plugin:
firefox12: 2027
WF13: 2427


----------



## Lord Venom

To kill some time, I decided to have a little fun and create my own custom Waterfox installer in Advanced Installer for the hell of it, minus the auto update stuff. It's looking pretty good but unfortunately it's done in Advanced Installer Professional so it won't build in the free versions. Other than that, everything's working including detection and downloading of the Intel C++ redist if it's not present (and the Visual C++ 2010 redist if it's not present).


----------



## TheHunter

Can you upload that installer somewhere?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> By the way, I just want to comment on this paragraph:
> 1) Set "network.prefetch-next" to "false" (This tweak (default is true) speeds up the browser by prefetching data from links on the page your viewing. So when you click a link, the data is presented immediately. Google Chrome has the same setting for speeding up their browser. I have this set to false because if the prefetched page includes malware, it may be downloaded so setting this to false will stop prefetching. User can decide what's best for them.)
> I think you mean "the default value of true speeds up the browser ........". In the original text, what I understood when I first read it is that "this tweak" (referring to the tweak value - being false) speeds up the browser which is kind of the other way around.


If set to 'True' then it will prefetch files like Chrome does so when you click a link, the page opens faster. I have this set to 'False' because I don't like data/pages downloaded unless I choose to click the link and open the page (Also to prevent malware, adware, etc. that could also be downloaded). It's up to the user to decide which setting to use. The default is 'True' to speed up web browsing.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> To kill some time, I decided to have a little fun and create my own custom Waterfox installer in Advanced Installer for the hell of it, minus the auto update stuff. It's looking pretty good but unfortunately it's done in Advanced Installer Professional so it won't build in the free versions. Other than that, everything's working including detection and downloading of the Intel C++ redist if it's not present (and the Visual C++ 2010 redist if it's not present).


Yep, it's a great piece of software. But please do not distribute any versions of Waterfox, just for the integrity of Waterfox.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> Can you upload that installer somewhere?


Sorry but please wait until I release the Waterfox installer. A week can't be that hard to wait


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yep, it's a great piece of software. But please do not distribute any versions of Waterfox, just for the integrity of Waterfox.
> 
> Sorry but please wait until I release the Waterfox installer. A week can't be that hard to wait


hehe nooo i want them nowz lol









yeah i'll wait and thanks for this browser


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> hehe nooo i want them nowz lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah i'll wait and thanks for this browser


You don't need a special installer or to do anything crazy.

*Step One*

Download and install this, as it was not included with the pre-release. It is required.

registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2025/w_cproc_p_11.1.070_redist_intel64.exe

*Step Two*

This is the link to WF 13 that Alex posted earlier. Unpack the bin and just run it from wherever you unpacked it (ie. no installation is required to run it) or just get rid of everything in your default Waterfox directory and copy these files straight into it. Either will work.

http://www.mediafire.com/?rglize8pnmb06yd

Simple, two-step process.


----------



## Lord Venom

Can't wait to see the next version's installer!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> If set to 'True' then it will prefetch files like Chrome does so when you click a link, the page opens faster. I have this set to 'False' because I don't like data/pages downloaded unless I choose to click the link and open the page (Also to prevent malware, adware, etc. that could also be downloaded). It's up to the user to decide which setting to use. The default is 'True' to speed up web browsing.


Yes, I completely understand that. I was just referring to the way you phrased that sentence. You specifically said that "this tweak" speeds up the browser. The tweaks basically is setting that value to false since the default value is true. So in essence, you were saying that "this tweak (meaning you disabled it) will speed up the browser" when in fact the default value of true is the one speeding up the browser. Sorry, I can't think of any other way to explain my point, lol


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yes, I completely understand that. I was just referring to the way you phrased that sentence. You specifically said that "this tweak" speeds up the browser. The tweaks basically is setting that value to false since the default value is true. So in essence, you were saying that "this tweak (meaning you disabled it) will speed up the browser" when in fact the default value of true is the one speeding up the browser. Sorry, I can't think of any other way to explain my point, lol


Thanks for clarifying. I went back and changed the description so everyone can better understand the setting.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Thanks for clarifying. I went back and changed the description so everyone can better understand the setting.


No problem, was just an FYI. Sorry if I didn't explain well.


----------



## gvvsss

I just installed Waterfox on Windows7 x64 and it is working fine.

I am unable to install any search engine in Waterfox, it is just showing a blank dialog.

I am trying to add duckduckgo.com or startpage.com as my main search engine and default.

Please help me resolve this issue.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gvvsss*
> 
> I just installed Waterfox on Windows7 x64 and it is working fine.
> I am unable to install any search engine in Waterfox, it is just showing a blank dialog.
> I am trying to add duckduckgo.com or startpage.com as my main search engine and default.
> Please help me resolve this issue.


There's two ways to add/change your search engine. The first is going to Firefox add-ons page ( https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/search-tools/ ) and entering 'duck' or 'startpage' in the search box then adding the search engine you prefer.

The second is actually going to the search page/site then clicking the little down arrow where your search box is and choosing 'Add (insert search engine)'.



You can also choose 'Manage Search Engines...' to add/remove/edit search engines.


----------



## gvvsss

I know that process, but, as I already mentioned. When I clicked "Add to Firefox", I am getting a blank box with no matter and "OK", "Cancel" buttons. Clicking on OK does not work.
I am adding the screenshots for clear understanding.


----------



## djkilla

*gvvsss* - Seems like your controls are corrupt and not working properly. There's actually two things to try to fix this. First go to options and select the 'Advanced' tab on top. Then deselect the 'Use hardware acceleration when available'. <-- Box should be empty. Restart Waterfox and see if that fixes it.



If that doesn't fix it, then exit/close Waterfox. Press the SHIFT key on your keyboard and left-click the Waterfox icon/program to start it. This will bring up the Safe Mode box. Select 'Reset toolbars and controls' then click 'Make Changes and Restart'. Hopefully this will fix it. If not, let me know.


----------



## gvvsss

Dear djkilla

Thanks a lot for the suggestions.

The Hardware acceleration thing did not fix the issue. But, the SAFE MODE trick worked.

I did not check the "Reset Toolbars" though, but still I could add the search engines in SAFE MODE.

I restarted Waterfox normally and now the search engines are added and working.

Thanks again for the immediate response.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gvvsss*
> 
> Dear djkilla
> 
> Thanks again for the immediate response.


No problem. I'm glad I was able to help.


----------



## gvvsss

By the way, can you tell me why PRINTING from firefox or waterfox is very slow and resource consuming compared to printing from IE or Chrome ?

I faced this issue many times...

My system configuration:

AMD Phenom II x4 955B 3.2 GHz, ASUS M5A, 8 GB RAM, Waterfox 12, Chrome19, IE9.
Printers used: PDF-XChange 4.0 and Canon iR 4570.

Printing a webpage of 500 A4 pages with images and text

in IE took just 15 seconds on my system with the PDF printer

in Chrome took 30 seconds

in Waterfox/firefox took 3 minutes (Failed thrice after rendering 180 pages at 52%, saying "printer error")

I am having to go to Chrome everytime I want to PRINT something...


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gvvsss*
> 
> By the way, can you tell me why PRINTING from firefox or waterfox is very slow and resource consuming compared to printing from IE or Chrome ?
> I faced this issue many times...
> My system configuration:
> AMD Phenom II x4 955B 3.2 GHz, ASUS M5A, 8 GB RAM, Waterfox 12, Chrome19, IE9.
> Printers used: PDF-XChange 4.0 and Canon iR 4570.
> Printing a webpage of 500 A4 pages with images and text
> in IE took just 15 seconds on my system with the PDF printer
> in Chrome took 30 seconds
> in Waterfox/firefox took 3 minutes (Failed thrice after rendering 180 pages at 52%, saying "printer error")
> I am having to go to Chrome everytime I want to PRINT something...


The only thing that caught my eye is it seems you're printing PDF files using 32bit PDF-XChange. In IE and Chrome, PDF files are more than likely rendered within the browser since both browsers are 32bit and PDF-XChange is also 32bit. In Waterfox, you have to use 64bit PDF software. Otherwise, the PDF file will start outside of Waterfox instead of whithin causing a delay. I would recommend using the following 64bit PDF programs with Waterfox:

PDF-XChange Viewer
http://waterfoxproject.org/news/32/15/Need-a-64-Bit-PDF-Reader.html

PDF.js
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdfjs/

Sumatra PDF
http://xhmikosr.1f0.de/sumatrapdf/

**I just noticed PDF-XChange has both 32 and 64bit combined into one installer now. Before, they were separate. If you installed an older PDF-XChange before installing Waterfox, then uninstall and reinstall PDF-XChange so the 64bit version gets installed to use with Waterfox.


----------



## Swag

I just downloaded WF13 and I love it, but every time I launch a new window, it tells me, Do you want to make Waterfox your main browser or something to that effect. How do I fix this? Other than disabling the check it every time you launch the program for main browser status.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> I just downloaded WF13 and I love it, but every time I launch a new window, it tells me, Do you want to make Waterfox your main browser or something to that effect. How do I fix this? Other than disabling the check it every time you launch the program for main browser status.


Go to options and select the advance tab on top then uncheck 'Always check to see if.... is the default browser on startup'.


----------



## TwistedMind

Few months ago, xfire and waterfox were conflicting for me. Found here

I've now got a brand new OS installed with my brand new hardware.

Watefox is crashing while xfire is running. Or waterfox crashes when launching xfire. either or.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TwistedMind*
> 
> Few months ago, xfire and waterfox were conflicting for me. Found here
> I've now got a brand new OS installed with my brand new hardware.
> Watefox is crashing while xfire is running. Or waterfox crashes when launching xfire. either or.


Just read their FAQ and they don't support any Windows 64bit. Here's what I found:

* Xfire In Game messaging does not work for me at all. Why?
There are a number of factors that allow Xfire to run along with your games and send and receive messages from within the game. Things to check on your system are as follows:

What OS? (Vista, XP, Windows 7, etc...) Is your OS 32bit or 64bit?
Xfire In-Game messaging is currently *only supported* on Windows Vista, XP and 2000. If you are running a 64-bit version of Windows Vista or XP, some games will run in 64-bit mode and Xfire will not be able to detect them at all.

So it looks like it's not compatible. If you want to make extra sure, try installing Pale Moon 64bit or HTGuard 64bit. They both offer 64bit versions of Firefox just like Waterfox. If XFire doesn't work with those either then you'll know 100% that it's not compatible. At that point, you can contact the creators of XFire and see if they have any plans to support 64bit.

Pale Moon 64bit
http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-x64.shtml

HTGuard 64bit
Version 12: http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/downloads/detail?name=firefox-12.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe&can=2&q=
Version 13 Beta 7: http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/downloads/detail?name=firefox-13.0b7.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe&can=2&q=


----------



## tek2005

Just felt like posting that im really loving waterfox, was having a issue with it awhile back but it seemed to be a issue with Firefox and Waterfox messing with each other, uninstalling firefox fixed the issue. Just wanted to point out that Firefox 13 just was released almost a hour ago on mozilla FTP.







so excited to see the release for Waterfox 13 coming soon







(optimized of course xD)


----------



## MrAlex

Just an update to everyone, since it's the Jubilee weekend I won't be back home until Monday (so really nothing changes







). So you'll all be getting WF13 on Monday night









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Just felt like posting that im really loving waterfox, was having a issue with it awhile back but it seemed to be a issue with Firefox and Waterfox messing with each other, uninstalling firefox fixed the issue. Just wanted to point out that Firefox 13 just was released almost a hour ago on mozilla FTP.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so excited to see the release for Waterfox 13 coming soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (optimized of course xD)


That's great to hear!

Also for anyone who want's a PDF viewer in Waterfox, I'd install any other programs they have and use the pdf.js extension from Mozilla. It's been updated recently and works amazingly


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Just felt like posting that im really loving waterfox, was having a issue with it awhile back but it seemed to be a issue with Firefox and Waterfox messing with each other, uninstalling firefox fixed the issue. *Just wanted to point out that Firefox 13 just was released almost a hour ago on mozilla FTP.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> so excited to see the release for Waterfox 13 coming soon
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (optimized of course xD)


Link?


----------



## evildust

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0/win32/


----------



## djkilla

Official final Firefox 13.0 released:

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/products/download.html?product=firefox-13.0&os=win&lang=en-US

http://pv-mirror01.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2013.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/13.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2013.0.exe

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2013.0.exe

Release Notes:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/13.0/releasenotes/


----------



## FTBBTF

Any word on Waterfox 13 so far? Any updates on the release date?


----------



## Lord Venom

If you do a little searching of the last few pages, he said possibly tonight.


----------



## Swift Castiel

Not sure if this is relevant as a bug, or whether it's already known, but Waterfox keeps telling me that it's unable to determine whether an update is available or not. This fixable? Or shall I just ignore it? Thanks!









And great work, Mr. Alex. Much joy from using WaterFox


----------



## FTBBTF

It's a problem with Waterfox. As far as I know it could never show anything but that error, nor it can update itself that way.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Just an update to everyone, since it's the Jubilee weekend I won't be back home until Monday (so really nothing changes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ). So you'll all be getting WF13 on Monday night


Cool, so tonight?


----------



## Kaldari

I've been loving it, save for a couple issues.

Every now and then a video's sound will continue playing even after I close the tab it was in. No matter what tabs I try to close and reopen after that, the sound won't stop until I close the browser. This doesn't happen often enough for it to be bothersome. With very heavy usage over this past week, I've had it happen 2 or 3 times.

Another one is that medals don't seem to want to register as being earned on Newgrounds half the time. It's very hit and miss. I've never had this problem until these later builds.

This doesn't have anything to do with NoScript or Ghostery blocking anything either. I can have the exact same things blocked in Chrome, and medals always register. Again, not a deal-breaker, as Chrome just doesn't have the functionality of FF (WF), but it's still a bit annoying to have to switch for these minor things that seem weird to even be issues.


----------



## xunxun1982

Hi, Alex

I have built some Firefox editions using Intel Compiler from Firefox 10.

At present, I think the build process, patches, and some bug workaround methods are very stable, so I have reconstructed my wiki.

Wiki English Edition :

http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/wiki/MozillaBuiltICC

Wiki Chinese Edition :

http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/wiki/MozillaBuiltICC?wl=zh-Hans

Hope this can be useful for the people interested in building Firefox using Intel Compiler on Windows.

Latest Firefox 13 x86 edition using ICC13 is here:

http://pcxfirefox.googlecode.com/files/Firefox-13.0-enUS-pcx-win32-120604-icc13-sse2-betterpgo.7z

I think the patches and bug workaround methods can be very useful for x64 build.

If you have some problems, you can discuss with me. I won't continue Firefox ICC edition building until I have a strong need because of very much time cost (IPO&PGO).

Thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaldari*
> 
> I've been loving it, save for a couple issues.
> 
> Every now and then a video's sound will continue playing even after I close the tab it was in. No matter what tabs I try to close and reopen after that, the sound won't stop until I close the browser. This doesn't happen often enough for it to be bothersome. With very heavy usage over this past week, I've had it happen 2 or 3 times.
> 
> Another one is that medals don't seem to want to register as being earned on Newgrounds half the time. It's very hit and miss. I've never had this problem until these later builds.
> 
> This doesn't have anything to do with NoScript or Ghostery blocking anything either. I can have the exact same things blocked in Chrome, and medals always register. Again, not a deal-breaker, as Chrome just doesn't have the functionality of FF (WF), but it's still a bit annoying to have to switch for these minor things that seem weird to even be issues.


Hopefully WF13 will fix those issues!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Hi, Alex
> 
> I have built some Firefox editions using Intel Compiler from Firefox 10.
> 
> At present, I think the build process, patches, and some bug workaround methods are very stable, so I have reconstructed my wiki.
> 
> Wiki English Edition :
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/wiki/MozillaBuiltICC
> 
> Wiki Chinese Edition :
> 
> http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/wiki/MozillaBuiltICC?wl=zh-Hans
> 
> Hope this can be useful for the people interested in building Firefox using Intel Compiler on Windows.
> 
> Latest Firefox 13 x86 edition using ICC13 is here:
> 
> http://pcxfirefox.googlecode.com/files/Firefox-13.0-enUS-pcx-win32-120604-icc13-sse2-betterpgo.7z
> 
> I think the patches and bug workaround methods can be very useful for x64 build.
> 
> If you have some problems, you can discuss with me. I won't continue Firefox ICC edition building until I have a strong need because of very much time cost (IPO&PGO).
> 
> Thanks.


Hi xunxun, I have managed to create a stable output without the need of patches, but it looks like you've done some good work there. I've reported the IPO bug to Intel but I can't build PGO at the moment because I haven't got enough RAM. (Had the same issue with MSVC).

EDIT:
Here is the new Waterfox installer file. I can't use the professional edition of the installer yet (too expensive at the moment):
http://www.mediafire.com/?qy2k8nv8tmy5qwu
Can someone please test it before I upload it to the website. (Note: Make sure you uninstall the old version of Waterfox first).


----------



## FTBBTF

What do you want to know about the build?


----------



## kennyparker1337

*Can't wait until Waterfox 13!*


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FTBBTF*
> 
> What do you want to know about the build?


Just to make sure everything and no missing items such as .dll's (Seems msvcr100.dll wasn't included, I'll fix it before the final upload).

Also is the installer simple enough to use? No major issues?


----------



## FTBBTF

Two problems with the installer.

1. The install directory is wrong. It should be C:\Program Files\Waterfox not C:\Program Files (x86)\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox. This is not a 32bit program.
2. The program doesn't install the right redistributable. I get the svml_dispmd.dll missing error.


----------



## Nikon112

yeah i got msvcr100.dll missing also but that was all


----------



## FTBBTF

I did not get that error, but I have quite a few Microsoft Redistributables installed. My error is with Intel C++ Redistributables, which I didn't have installed.

I think this installer is not quite the best for first time users and looks a bit off for new people wanting to try Waterfox. Having a different installer from Firefox and one that needs extras to work is a bit too much for some, at least from my point of view.

If you're going to keep this installer, make sure you fix those errors and also add an option to select whether one needs to have:

1. Desktop icon -> I don't
2. Pin icon on taskbar -> I want.

I'd also like to add how much sloppy Smooth Scrolling actually is. I hate it on Firefox. It's choppy, sloppy, whatever. returning to the old setting is much better, the browsing feels more fluid.

PS: Bigger problem. Every time I run Waterfox it keep asking me whether I'd like to set it up as default. That's a big problem.
Also, another issue: whenever I right click on Waterfox on taskbar (it's pinned) it doesn't show me any options, like "Private Browsing".

Also, it doesn't show up in Default Programs, so I can't ever set it up as default.

Alex, don't rush it. Take your time man. We support you. Fix these kinks with the installer.

This MSI is too big. Double the size of Firefox 13.


----------



## djkilla

*Nikon112* - Love your avatar! Definitely caught my attention.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay, I've managed to use Firefox installer to include the missing .dll's:
http://www.mediafire.com/?vf3iw8ilabozbbh

Hopefully everything is satisfactory? If no-one has problems then this will be the installer I'll be uploading.
(If you used the other installer then uninstall WF first, otherwise if you used the installer from other WF version you should get the option to upgrade)


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Seems msvcr100.dll wasn't included, I'll fix it before the final upload


You'll need the entire Intel C++ redist or else people will run into issues, especially AMD systems. I ran into that very issue when creating my custom installer so I added detection whether or not the Intel C++ redist was included and it'd prompt the user to download and install it if it was missing.


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay, I've managed to use Firefox installer to include the missing .dll's:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?vf3iw8ilabozbbh
> Hopefully everything is satisfactory? If no-one has problems then this will be the installer I'll be uploading.
> (If you used the other installer then uninstall WF first, otherwise if you used the installer from other WF version you should get the option to upgrade)


I'll test this in a bit and see how it works. Hopefully all is good.

I think the previous uninstaller left tons of files in the installation directory after uninstalling. Weird stuff happening.


----------



## Lord Venom

The new installer works, but I hope people remember to uninstall Waterfox 12 before installing this. Also, you can change the output EXE name to waterfox-13.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer if you want.


----------



## Nikon112

lol thx djkilla testing it now


----------



## MrAlex

Well good thing I didn't release WF13 yet. Sorry guys, it'll be released tomorrow. Just found a critical bug that causes crashing. Nothing I can't fix quickly.
If you're using WF13 already don't worry, it's just that WebGL apps cause WF to crash. (Always had this issue with ICC).

Sorry again guys, best that I release a complete working WF


----------



## Lord Venom

Two important things possible with this new installer that's neat (not sure if it does either of these);

- Auto update feature (YAY!)
- The installer can be made to only install on 64-bit Windows versions, it'll give an error on 32-bit Windows.

Alex, are you including all the DLLs from the Intel C++ redist? Just in case.


----------



## FTBBTF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well good thing I didn't release WF13 yet. Sorry guys, it'll be released tomorrow. Just found a critical bug that causes crashing. Nothing I can't fix quickly.
> If you're using WF13 already don't worry, it's just that WebGL apps cause WF to crash. (Always had this issue with ICC).
> Sorry again guys, best that I release a complete working WF


I don't know why but an error is still persistent: right click on taskbar icon pin and nothing's there. It should have options and last visited pages, but nothing is there. This is with the new installer.


----------



## petersaints

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well good thing I didn't release WF13 yet. Sorry guys, it'll be released tomorrow. Just found a critical bug that causes crashing. Nothing I can't fix quickly.
> If you're using WF13 already don't worry, it's just that WebGL apps cause WF to crash. (Always had this issue with ICC).
> Sorry again guys, best that I release a complete working WF


Exactly... I was going to report that. Good luck fixing it







If you need further testing post a new build here.


----------



## FTBBTF

I did a clean install of Waterfox on my PC, eliminating any factors that might cause corruption and I don't get the taskbar bug anymore. So far, everything else is good, though I can't comment on the WebGL thingy.
This is the way to go Alex. Good job so far. If you'll release a new build soon, I'll give it a go tomorrow.

PS: Yes, the WebGL bug is there. Crash on starting the demos I found. It loads fine, but crashes when starting.
Also, Smooth Scrolling seems more smooth right now. I think I actually needed a clean-up.


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hopefully WF13 will fix those issues!


Well this is with the 13 pre-release that you posted some pages back now. Something tells me those two things will still exist.


----------



## Katryne

Hello ! I discover Waterfox. and wonder how I can browse websites displaying .mov documents : they are not displayed and a missing quicktime plugin cannot be installed in Waterfox. Can you help please ? Use simple words : I am no geek ...


----------



## xunxun1982

Please see my workaround method in my wiki.

Code:



Code:


diff -ruNa mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/Makefile.in mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/Makefile.in
--- mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/Makefile.in       Thu May 24 02:56:42 2012
+++ mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/Makefile.in  Thu May 31 02:50:58 2012
@@ -153,3 +153,13 @@
 # upstream at some point.
 CXXFLAGS := $(filter-out -pedantic,$(CXXFLAGS))
 CFLAGS := $(filter-out -pedantic,$(CFLAGS))
+
+intermOut.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): intermOut.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
+       $(REPORT_BUILD)
+       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
+       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
+
+Initialize.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): Initialize.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
+       $(REPORT_BUILD)
+       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
+       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
diff -ruNa mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in
--- mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in    Thu May 24 02:56:44 2012
+++ mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in       Thu May 31 02:51:23 2012
@@ -161,3 +161,13 @@
                   /delayload:dwmapi.dll

 EXTRA_DSO_LDOPTS += $(MOZALLOC_LIB)
+
+intermOut.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): intermOut.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
+       $(REPORT_BUILD)
+       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
+       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
+
+Initialize.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): Initialize.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
+       $(REPORT_BUILD)
+       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
+       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
diff -ruNa mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in
--- mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in Thu May 24 02:56:44 2012
+++ mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in    Thu May 31 02:51:55 2012
@@ -170,3 +170,13 @@
                   "$(MOZ_DIRECTX_SDK_PATH)/lib/$(MOZ_DIRECTX_SDK_CPU_SUFFIX)/D3DCompiler.lib"

 EXTRA_DSO_LDOPTS += $(MOZALLOC_LIB)
+
+intermOut.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): intermOut.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
+       $(REPORT_BUILD)
+       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
+       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
+
+Initialize.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): Initialize.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
+       $(REPORT_BUILD)
+       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
+       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Please see my workaround method in my wiki.
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> diff -ruNa mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/Makefile.in mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/Makefile.in
> --- mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/Makefile.in       Thu May 24 02:56:42 2012
> +++ mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/Makefile.in  Thu May 31 02:50:58 2012
> @@ -153,3 +153,13 @@
> # upstream at some point.
> CXXFLAGS := $(filter-out -pedantic,$(CXXFLAGS))
> CFLAGS := $(filter-out -pedantic,$(CFLAGS))
> +
> +intermOut.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): intermOut.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
> +       $(REPORT_BUILD)
> +       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
> +       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
> +
> +Initialize.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): Initialize.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
> +       $(REPORT_BUILD)
> +       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
> +       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
> diff -ruNa mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in
> --- mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in    Thu May 24 02:56:44 2012
> +++ mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libEGL/Makefile.in       Thu May 31 02:51:23 2012
> @@ -161,3 +161,13 @@
> /delayload:dwmapi.dll
> 
> EXTRA_DSO_LDOPTS += $(MOZALLOC_LIB)
> +
> +intermOut.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): intermOut.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
> +       $(REPORT_BUILD)
> +       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
> +       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
> +
> +Initialize.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): Initialize.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
> +       $(REPORT_BUILD)
> +       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
> +       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
> diff -ruNa mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in
> --- mozilla-beta-vc/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in Thu May 24 02:56:44 2012
> +++ mozilla-beta/gfx/angle/src/libGLESv2/Makefile.in    Thu May 31 02:51:55 2012
> @@ -170,3 +170,13 @@
> "$(MOZ_DIRECTX_SDK_PATH)/lib/$(MOZ_DIRECTX_SDK_CPU_SUFFIX)/D3DCompiler.lib"
> 
> EXTRA_DSO_LDOPTS += $(MOZALLOC_LIB)
> +
> +intermOut.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): intermOut.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
> +       $(REPORT_BUILD)
> +       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
> +       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)
> +
> +Initialize.$(OBJ_SUFFIX): Initialize.cpp $(GLOBAL_DEPS)
> +       $(REPORT_BUILD)
> +       @$(MAKE_DEPS_AUTO_CXX)
> +       $(ELOG) $(CCC:icl=cl) $(OUTOPTION)[email protected] -c $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:O3=O2) $(COMPILE_CXXFLAGS:arch:SSE3=arch:SSE2) $(_VPATH_SRCS)


This will solve your WebGL crash.


----------



## xunxun1982

I also have IPO&PGO workaround patch.

I don't know whether you use PGO.

And if don't use -fprecise, you must use my -fp:fast workaround method.


----------



## xunxun1982

And if you use -Qax switch, there is also a bug.
You can see my wiki's avoid method.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> I also have IPO&PGO workaround patch.
> I don't know whether you use PGO.
> And if don't use -fprecise, you must use my -fp:fast workaround method.










who is this guy?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Katryne*
> 
> Hello ! I discover Waterfox. and wonder how I can browse websites displaying .mov documents : they are not displayed and a missing quicktime plugin cannot be installed in Waterfox. Can you help please ? Use simple words : I am no geek ...


The quicktime plugin is not 64bit compatible.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> And if you use -Qax switch, there is also a bug.
> You can see my wiki's avoid method.


Hi xunxun, thanks for the WebGL fix. Even though I use the /Qax switch I haven't been able to reproduce the GUI glitch you mention?


----------



## TheHunter

Is it live yet?


----------



## TheHunter

Ah i see its alive









http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/


----------



## virtualguy

Is it necessary, or recommended, to uninstall v.12 before installing v.13 ??? I don't need to be putting out fires today.


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi xunxun, thanks for the WebGL fix. Even though I use the /Qax switch I haven't been able to reproduce the GUI glitch you mention?


I will try your edition later, to see if your edition has the bug?
If not, maybe only exit in x86 edition build.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Is it necessary, or recommended, to uninstall v.12 before installing v.13 ??? I don't need to be putting out fires today.


You should be able to upgrade just fine without removing WF12. You can uninstall WF12 if you prefer (make sure not to delete personal data, unless you use Firefox Sync).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi xunxun, thanks for the WebGL fix. Even though I use the /Qax switch I haven't been able to reproduce the GUI glitch you mention?
> 
> 
> 
> I will try your edition later, to see if your edition has the bug?
> If not, maybe only exit in x86 edition build.
Click to expand...

Great thanks, and yes it could be. What GUI bug is there exactly? I haven't noticed anything different.


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> You should be able to upgrade just fine without removing WF12. You can uninstall WF12 if you prefer (make sure not to delete personal data, unless you use Firefox Sync).
> Great thanks, and yes it could be. What GUI bug is there exactly? I haven't noticed anything different.


I know that

You only use -QaxAVX, but I use -QaxSSE2,SSE3,SSSE3,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,AVX,CORE-AVX2,CORE-AVX-I

This will cause GUI showing abnormally (click option - click OK - close firefox - open firefox - strange gui)

I found that the issue is caused by nsBinaryStream.cpp, if you use -QaxAVX fluently, I think some targets auto tune of SSE2,SSE3,SSSE3,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,AVX,CORE-AVX2,CORE-AVX-I have some problems.
So I override dumb switch to nsBinaryStream.cpp Auto Tune switch.

ps : Your Intel dlls are very many. You can only repack these Intel dlls: libiomp5md.dll and libmmd.dll

If you don't use -fprecise, you also need svml_dispmd.dll


----------



## runeazn

Are you able to disable smoothscrolling?

never mind found: options>Advanced>smooth scrolling

btw why did it get enabled in this update?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> You should be able to upgrade just fine without removing WF12. You can uninstall WF12 if you prefer (make sure not to delete personal data, unless you use Firefox Sync).
> Great thanks, and yes it could be. What GUI bug is there exactly? I haven't noticed anything different.
> 
> 
> 
> I know that
> 
> You only use -QaxAVX, but I use -QaxSSE2,SSE3,SSSE3,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,AVX,CORE-AVX2,CORE-AVX-I
> 
> This will cause GUI showing abnormally (click option - click OK - close firefox - open firefox - strange gui)
> 
> I found that the issue is caused by nsBinaryStream.cpp, if you use -QaxAVX fluently, I think some targets auto tune of SSE2,SSE3,SSSE3,SSE4.1,SSE4.2,AVX,CORE-AVX2,CORE-AVX-I have some problems.
> So I override dumb switch to nsBinaryStream.cpp Auto Tune switch.
> 
> ps : Your Intel dlls are very many. You can only repack these Intel dlls: libiomp5md.dll and libmmd.dll
> 
> If you don't use -fprecise, you also need svml_dispmd.dll
Click to expand...

Ah I see. There weren't any benefits I could find from using SSE4.1 or 4.2 so I just stuck with AVX. And I included all the .dll's since I wasn't 100% sure which were required. Better safe than sorry


----------



## xunxun1982

BTW, Intel told me ago, AMD some x64 CPU don't support SSE3.

I think you should tell your users.


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

So do I need the Intel resdist package before upgrading from WF12 to WF13 using your installer? Is the uploaded installer already the final version?


----------



## J-Key

hmmm.... testing in process... so far waterfox performance very good...







:thumb:


----------



## kennyparker1337

The first time I went to install, on the "Choose Install Location" it choose the right path but said "You do not have permission to access this folder." lol

Only happened once. (And this did NOT happen on any other install.)

*edit: I would like to report it installed fine and I did not need anything extra.*


----------



## GoneTomorrow

Smooth as eggs. Never had any issues with WF.


----------



## rootzreggae

Its beautiful and smooth, just as i foresaw


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> BTW, Intel told me ago, AMD some x64 CPU don't support SSE3.
> 
> I think you should tell your users.


Most users will be hardware enthusiasts, and only older processors (Before 2005) do not support SSE3. Therefore everyone running a 64-Bit OS will most definitely be using a processor that supports SSE3. The oldest CPUs supported:
Intel Pentium 4F
AMD Venice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> So do I need the Intel resdist package before upgrading from WF12 to WF13 using your installer? Is the uploaded installer already the final version?


It seems that the .dll's have been bundled correctly so there's no need to install the redists unless you get missing .dll's.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> The first time I went to install, on the "Choose Install Location" it choose the right path but said "You do not have permission to access this folder." lol
> 
> Only happened once. (And this did NOT happen on any other install.)
> 
> *edit: I would like to report it installed fine and I did not need anything extra.*


That's strange, but great to hear nothing went wrong with the installation.


----------



## jasonliul

Cpu occupation dxxxed good!!!
But can't use other language.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0/win32/xpi/


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jasonliul*
> 
> Cpu occupation dxxxed good!!!
> But can't use other language.
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0/win32/xpi/


look here


----------



## kaares

I may have found a bug in 13. (well it is a bug here, it may apply to others too.)

Starting Waterfox works great, no problems. If I quit and start it again - not so much. It will only open up a small window up in the left hand corner of the screen, if I resize it it will display a window without any content, no buttons or anything. If I delete the startupCache folder in my profile everything works the next time I start it. But this needs to be repeated every time for it to work.
Hope this info is of some use.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaares*
> 
> I may have found a bug in 13. (well it is a bug here, it may apply to others too.)
> 
> Starting Waterfox works great, no problems. If I quit and start it again - not so much. It will only open up a small window up in the left hand corner of the screen, if I resize it it will display a window without any content, no buttons or anything. If I delete the startupCache folder in my profile everything works the next time I start it. But this needs to be repeated every time for it to work.
> Hope this info is of some use.


Do you get the same bug with FF13? I tried to reproduce the bug but I can't seem to?


----------



## FTBBTF

This problem I have had before. My advice is this: uninstall Waterfox, Firefox, everything Firefox. Then use CCleaner and clean everything, but also clean the registry as well with it. After uninstalling, restart the PC, then use CCleaner. You might want to use CCleaner in Safe Mode. After restarting at every step, as to insure a clean process, you should install Waterfox after.


----------



## fullmoon

maybe a problem with prefetch?


----------



## NightmareL4D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaares*
> 
> I may have found a bug in 13. (well it is a bug here, it may apply to others too.)
> Starting Waterfox works great, no problems. If I quit and start it again - not so much. It will only open up a small window up in the left hand corner of the screen, if I resize it it will display a window without any content, no buttons or anything. If I delete the startupCache folder in my profile everything works the next time I start it. But this needs to be repeated every time for it to work.
> Hope this info is of some use.


Just reporting that I am also experiencing the same bug. Waterfox 12 worked fine. I can also confirm this bug on both my laptop and desktop computer. Kaares' temporary fix of deleting the startup cache in appdata does indeed fix the problem until next cold start. I also tried FTBBTF's suggestion of a completely clean install and it did not remedy the problem.


----------



## kaares

I tried a reboot and deleted my profile to check, but the bug is still there. A slight change though, now I can run WF twice in a row without problems, but the third launch will consistently trigger the bug.

** it is possible I just couldn't count before, but I'm pretty sure this time







**


----------



## biceman

I confirm the bug. It seems it is not present in Firefox 13. So... 13=Bad luck ?


----------



## kaares

I also noticed that FF uses a different filename.

FF=startupCache.4.little
WF=startupCache.8.little

So they are not actually using the same file. Both will delete the old file and replace it with it's own.


----------



## Ceadderman

Thanks Mr. Alex you're the man as always.









This browser scrolls so much faster and is so much cleaner looking than WF12 imho.









~Ceadder


----------



## biceman

Yes... And if I delete startupCache.8.little, WF will start OK. So it is a start cache problem.


----------



## kaares

I think I found the source of the problem. The files we are deleting are in fact zip files. I unzipped one from FF and one from WF to see if I could see anything obvious.

Inside there is a file called 'nsXULPrototypeCache.startupCache'
It contains one line. The symbol before the language is the key.
In the file from FF it is a '4'
So like this: '4en-US' in my case.
The faulty WF file uses another character instead. Replace it with a '4', and the WF file works too.

Did that make any sense?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biceman*
> 
> I confirm the bug. It seems it is not present in Firefox 13. So... 13=Bad luck ?


ha I had this problem with nightly15...


----------



## MrAlex

The number is an endian. It seems that if you have two startup caches (I'm guessing you have both FF and WF installed?) this problem occurs, although I'm not sure why. I'll try and look into it. Have you delete both files? Does the error definitely occur after?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The number is an endian. It seems that if you have two startup caches (I'm guessing you have both FF and WF installed?) this problem occurs, although I'm not sure why. I'll try and look into it. Have you delete both files? Does the error definitely occur after?


I use only WF13 beta before, and I have also this(4 instead of 8) ; but no problem for me (I use the last WF13 RC and always no problem).


----------



## kaares

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The number is an endian. It seems that if you have two startup caches (I'm guessing you have both FF and WF installed?) this problem occurs, although I'm not sure why. I'll try and look into it. Have you delete both files? Does the error definitely occur after?


The bug appeared while I only had WF installed.
There are never two caches at the same time. FF will replace the WF file and vice versa.
The browser will delete the current file once it has loaded, and generate a new one on exit.
Loading using the faulty file will not delete it, since it seems to get stuck before getting there.
If I delete the file WF will run.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The number is an endian. It seems that if you have two startup caches (I'm guessing you have both FF and WF installed?) this problem occurs, although I'm not sure why. I'll try and look into it. Have you delete both files? Does the error definitely occur after?


I got this bug also. Using IE9 right now because I can't get Waterfox to display anything.









*edit: Just confirmed that the file "startupCache.8.little" in the "AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\anoieqlt.default\startupCache" is doing it. If you delete the file, WF13 will start up again normal but bug out the same on a 2nd go.

The only browser I have installed is WF13 (besides this IE9 temp junk).*


----------



## kaares

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kaares*
> 
> I think I found the source of the problem. The files we are deleting are in fact zip files. I unzipped one from FF and one from WF to see if I could see anything obvious.
> Inside there is a file called 'nsXULPrototypeCache.startupCache'
> It contains one line. The symbol before the language is the key.
> In the file from FF it is a '4'
> So like this: '4en-US' in my case.
> The faulty WF file uses another character instead. Replace it with a '4', and the WF file works too.
> Did that make any sense?


Ignore this, I probably just messed it up, and forced WF to ignore it on startup. Typing any random crap in the start of the file will have the same result.


----------



## MrAlex

This is very very strange. I'm wondering how many people have this problem? Why don't I? I'll try recompiling tomorrow and if that works, then I'll upload the new build.


----------



## Ganni87

Hello,

I just upgraded from WF12 and got this same problem as well. Deleting the cache as suggested fixes the problem temporarily. Apart from IE and IE64bit I have only WF installed.

EDIT: I've tried out what kaares said and it indeed "fixes" the problem.


----------



## TwistedMind

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Just read their FAQ and they don't support any Windows 64bit. Here's what I found:
> * Xfire In Game messaging does not work for me at all. Why?
> There are a number of factors that allow Xfire to run along with your games and send and receive messages from within the game. Things to check on your system are as follows:
> What OS? (Vista, XP, Windows 7, etc...) Is your OS 32bit or 64bit?
> Xfire In-Game messaging is currently *only supported* on Windows Vista, XP and 2000. If you are running a 64-bit version of Windows Vista or XP, some games will run in 64-bit mode and Xfire will not be able to detect them at all.
> So it looks like it's not compatible. If you want to make extra sure, try installing Pale Moon 64bit or HTGuard 64bit. They both offer 64bit versions of Firefox just like Waterfox. If XFire doesn't work with those either then you'll know 100% that it's not compatible. At that point, you can contact the creators of XFire and see if they have any plans to support 64bit.
> Pale Moon 64bit
> http://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-x64.shtml
> HTGuard 64bit
> Version 12: http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/downloads/detail?name=firefox-12.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe&can=2&q=
> Version 13 Beta 7: http://code.google.com/p/htguardmozilla/downloads/detail?name=firefox-13.0b7.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe&can=2&q=


That's what I've been using all along is PM, I don't have any problems with PaleMoon, matter of fact any application except Waterfox with xfire. But went to see if that problem still occurred on my new system because my new processor has AVX. And the problem still occurs.

I've been using xfire since 2005 and I have the same account, when ever win7 x64 RC and beta and final release & SP1 came out I always used xfire without any hiccups.

Edit:
I am gonna skip this, never even bother with it again. Just wanted to see if there were any difference in speed with the AVX. Will never know.


----------



## Schmuckley

Ok..how do I fix the flash problem?I install flash..yet it doesn't stick....


----------



## Kaldari

This final version of 13 seems even a little faster than the pre-release you posted a week ago. No problems so far.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> Ok..how do I fix the flash problem?I install flash..yet it doesn't stick....


Make sure to download flash from the website and look for the 64bit version. If you do it within the firefox plugin installer (that thing that pops up saying install missing plugin) that will by default install the 32bit version and so waterfox will not recognise it.


----------



## fullmoon

the characteristics of your CPU to better understand, maybe?
Mr Alex, my CPu is a pentium dual core 1.7Ghz and the last RC works fine, are you sure it does not come from WebGL problem?
I said again but I had this problem sometimes with nightly15.
Have you tested with a clean profile (add -p to link of WF and create)?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Schmuckley*
> 
> Ok..how do I fix the flash problem?I install flash..yet it doesn't stick....


checks if it's flash 64bit.


----------



## TheHunter

Hm its a bit buggy for me, if i hit refresh flash (video) content it sometimes freezes flash plugin and then it crashes.

It happened 2 times so far, WF11 or 12 was ok.


----------



## Calisto

I also have this "restart WF and only empty window in the upper left appears" bug. I've been using WF for some releases already. I always had the other browsers installed too besides them (IE9, current Chrome and current matching FF Version). Don't know if it matters, but my system normally runs in german language, so does the installed FF. WF runs in the english version (as thats the only one exists). Both use the same settings though. This used to run perfectly with versions 12 and 11.

To get WF to work again (without manually deleting anything) I found that closing that defunct WF window, starting FF (current version 13 also), closing FF and than starting WF again did lead to a working WF copy. But this could be due to the above already described different nameings of some cache files, combined with FF deleting other versions.


----------



## jasonliul

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> look here


i found old language pack works,that's funny!
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/13.0b7-candidates/build1/win32/xpi/


----------



## jasonliul

It seems proxy plugin always make crash.
i've tried many of such plugin, always like that.


----------



## gene-z

Seems a bit snappier than version 12. Also, is there any way to implement silent auto updates instead of having to manually download new versions?


----------



## qwerty77

the same bug occurred to me last night mr.alex. I thought I was the only experiencing it... glad it was reproduce by others here as well.. This didn't happened before with WF12 and FF12 installed here on my desktop. for now i'm using the official version of firefox 13.0 cause i can't browse with WF13.


----------



## DBone

Hi all, brand new to Waterfox just today. I did a clean install of W7 x64 Home Premium and downloaded WF 13 without issue. I am running it under Sandboxie's default sandbox, without any of the start up problems that others are having. I also disabled both phishing and malware protection in WF 13 too.

Do you suggest an 'over the top' install when the next version comes out, or should I uninstall 13 first and then install the next version (clean install)? Thanks for a great piece of software, and I would like to donate if you can point me to the link.


----------



## Nikon112

im on a 2gig ram laptop duo core and it installed fine and is running great seems faster than the last one i tried a few days ago great work loving it








just found a prob it did not make a shortcut to desktop only one tho otherwise nice


----------



## DBone

I am also on a Dual-Core T4500 2.3Ghz with 2GB RAM.


----------



## gene-z

Anyone know how to fix the slow searching for single keywords using the url bar? It seems that when using the URL bar to complete a keyword search, if the search phrase is just one word, the load times are rather slow. Now if you try a multiple phrase search, it's instant. Try it yourself with a single word phrase that is not cached and you will see. It's weird because the problem doesn't exist when using the actual search bar opposed to the url bar.

Only thing I could find, but doesn't really help fix the problem -
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2203037


----------



## Kaldari

Seems the Newgrounds medals thing I had mentioned with the pre-release was fixed in the final version. I haven't had a video's audio keep playing after closing the tab it's in either.


----------



## DBone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gene-z*
> 
> Anyone know how to fix the slow searching for single keywords using the url bar? It seems that when using the URL bar to complete a keyword search, if the search phrase is just one word, the load times are rather slow. Now if you try a multiple phrase search, it's instant. Try it yourself with a single word phrase that is not cached and you will see. It's weird because the problem doesn't exist when using the actual search bar opposed to the url bar.
> Only thing I could find, but doesn't really help fix the problem -
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=2203037


Single word 2.5 seconds, multiple words .5 second on my machine


----------



## Schmuckley

Okay..so to fix the Flash thing..You have to download the 64-bit non IE version.
Which probably goes without saying..but I'm saying anyways..


----------



## Ryleh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DBone*
> 
> Single word 2.5 seconds, multiple words .5 second on my machine


I'm having the same problem with similar time differences as well. I've noticed it before but never really thought anything of it until I went back and forth between different searches. This is quite weird... I wonder if using one the 'URL Google search bar' type addons would fix this.


----------



## xd_1771

From what I seem to be experiencing, WF13 is a massive improvement. Page rendering is instant upon enter key - very snappy!

Works excellent with my new graphics/navigation tablet and "Grab and Drag" addon!


----------



## ChaosBlades

Everything works as it should for me. Thanks a lot for this browser Alex!


----------



## grocal

I do confirm _startup issues due to a file called startupCache.8.little_ on clean Waterfox 13 install on Windows 7 64-bit.


----------



## MrAlex

Quick question! Is anyone with the bug using avast! antivirus?


----------



## Ganni87

Hello Alex,

Yes currently I have avast free edition installed.

EDIT: Now that you mentioned avast I went ahead and disabled all it's shields and the problem still persists, also tried to launch Waterfox in safe mode without avast running however still getting the same result.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ganni87*
> 
> Hello Alex,
> 
> Yes currently I have avast free edition installed.


Damn! Waterfox shows up as a false positive on avast!. It could be avast! corrupting the startup cache! I'll have to resolve it with them quickly. Need to make sure the other people with the problem are also using avast!

Anyone else with the statupcache bug NOT using avast? Or is it just users with avast?

Edit: Sorry for the unintended amount of exclamation marks


----------



## fullmoon

I have long since fled avast, it's creepy as free AV.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Damn! Waterfox shows up as a false positive on avast!. It could be avast! corrupting the startup cache! I'll have to resolve it with them quickly. Need to make sure the other people with the problem are also using avast!
> 
> Anyone else with the statupcache bug NOT using avast? Or is it just users with avast?
> 
> Edit: Sorry for the unintended amount of exclamation marks


Good news, i'm not using avast! and don't have the problem.

Edit: I also have Firefox 13 installed, just fyi.


----------



## fullmoon

I noticed something when I pin WF on the start menu, it shows me Aurora.


----------



## Woundman

I am having the start-up issue as well. The problem occurs when I open/close Waterfox three times. The startupCache.8.little is created on the third opening of Waterfox. I even tried deleting/creating a new profile. Same problem happens.

Edit: I do not have an anti-virus program installed.


----------



## phoenixsing

Hi, I have outpost security suite installed and having the startup issue. FF and WF are installed in my computer.


----------



## Chazn2

Got the bug, use Microsoft Securety Essentials. I scanned the waterfox folder and it didn't find any viruses.

Hope you work out what's going on here. :/


----------



## gene-z

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quick question! Is anyone with the bug using avast! antivirus?


Nope, I am however using MSE.


----------



## qwerty77

Using ZoneAlarm Internet Security Suite here Mr. Alex.

EDIT:
I scanned with malwarebytes and ZA. It's not flagging it as a virus.


----------



## Ganni87

For those buggered with deleting the cache file all the time here's a quick temporary fix.

1. Open up notepad

2. Copy and paste these 3 lines below:

echo off
del startupCache.8.little
"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"

3. Now save the file "whatevernameyouwant.bat"

4. Now download the Bat2Exe converter (http://download.cnet.com/Bat-To-Exe-Converter/3000-2069_4-10555897.html) and extract it somewhere.

5. Launch the Bat2Exe converter, browse to the batch file, Tick the "Invisible application" box, compile the file and save it to desktop.

6. Place the newly created exe file in "C:\Users\"*your windows account name*"\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\ouwwz6h4.default\startupCache"

7. Create Shortcut to desktop and run.









This process will automatically delete the cache file and run Waterfox flawlessly everytime, temporary eliminating the problem. Also you won't have any dos windows open (but cmd.exe and the exe file you create will still take a small amount of ram).


----------



## qwerty77

i think mines a little weird. I don't see any startupcache folder on my profile but the bug still occurs


----------



## Freakie

I have ESET Smart Security 5 and am having the startup issue as well. I tried installing WF13 before updating FF13, didn't work. Updated FF13 from the full installation package, not the FF updater, didn't work. Tried it with a fresh Profile, didn't work.

One thing that I did notice is that not only is it displaying wrong, but it is just flat out not loading the entire program. Loading up a fresh profile (not remembering any history from previous session, all settings at default) correctly will take about 66MB in my RAM while when it has the issue, it's only 48MB. Same thing is happening in my regular Profile, except it stops at around 68MB. Not sure if that helps at all, but it's just something I noticed.

Not sure how else to help :/ Any debug logs or something we can help you with?


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> i think mines a little weird. I don't see any startupcache folder on my profile but the bug still occurs


It's in "Local Disk C:\Users\[Your username]\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\[Your Profile]\startupCache"


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ganni87*
> 
> For those buggered with deleting the cache file all the time here's a quick temporary fix.
> 1. Open up notepad
> 2. Copy and paste these 3 lines below:
> echo off
> del startupCache.8.little
> "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
> 3. Now save the file "whatevernameyouwant.bat"
> 4. Now download the Bat2Exe converter (http://download.cnet.com/Bat-To-Exe-Converter/3000-2069_4-10555897.html) and extract it somewhere.
> 5. Launch the Bat2Exe converter, browse to the batch file, Tick the "Invisible application" box, compile the file and save it to desktop.
> 6. Place the newly created exe file in "C:\Users\"*your windows account name*"\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\ouwwz6h4.default\startupCache"
> 7. Create Shortcut to desktop and run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This process will automatically delete the cache file and run Waterfox flawlessly everytime, temporary eliminating the problem. Also you won't have any dos windows open (but cmd.exe and the exe file you create will still take a small amount of ram).


Or you could use firefox for the time being









nah, good suggestion


----------



## qwerty77

@Freakie thanks =)

yeah the workaround Ganni87 posted works.


----------



## Swift Castiel

Just chiming. Aforementioned bug I don't get. Running Kaspersky if that's any help.

EDIT: I take that back. It happened straight away after I rebooted.
EDIT 2: It works again after starting up Firefox, closing it, and using Waterfox again ... ?


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quick question! Is anyone with the bug using avast! antivirus?


While having startup issues I do NOT have avast installed. I do have ESET NOD 32 Antivirus though.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay I'm attempting a bug fix right now. Will upload the build immediately and need someone to tell me if it fixed their issues.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys here is the latest version:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2013%20PL1%20Setup.exe/download

Hopefully the bug is fixed now!


----------



## Freakie

Problem is fixed for me







Did you find the source of the problem or just work around it?

And these speed improvements are amazing







Thank you Alex!


----------



## mozproc

Had the startupCache.8.little problem on the Host OS every time I started a Virtualbox VM session with Win 7 64 bit machine.

The PL1 version fixed the problem - runs great (und really fast). Thank you.


----------



## qwerty77

runs great! thanks for the quick fix mr. alex!


----------



## gene-z

Also working fine here now. Thanks MrAlex.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Problem is fixed for me
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did you find the source of the problem or just work around it?
> 
> And these speed improvements are amazing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Alex!


Great! Actually it was the Qax switch causing the problem, the fix was to not compile a certain part of the program with it. xunxun1982 had the fix for it


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Great! Actually it was the Qax switch causing the problem, the fix was to not compile a certain part of the program with it. xunxun1982 had the fix for it


Please say my thanks to xunxun1982 for me mr. alex


----------



## Ganni87

The bug has been squashed









Works like a charm now and it's damn fast I must say.

Thanks xunxun1982 and MrAlex awesome job.


----------



## DBone

Do I uninstall version 13 before installing the updated version, or can I install 'over-the-top' of the existing version?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DBone*
> 
> Do I uninstall version 13 before installing the updated version, or can I install 'over-the-top' of the existing version?


Installing over the top should be fine.


----------



## DBone

Thanks for the quick reply, and all your hard work. I will update now.


----------



## kaares

Superb. Uninstalled FF too, and all is well.


----------



## xunxun1982

Yea, it's the GUI bug's another form.

I will modify my wiki to describe the GUI bug's two forms.


----------



## phoenixsing

It is working fine now. Thanks Mr Alex and xunxun1982.


----------



## DBone

I *may* have found a bug in both Firefox 13 and Waterfox 13. I have all of my bookmarks saved to my bookmarks toolbar, and of course the toolbar is enabled. I have them sorted to my preference on the toolbar itself, and the others that are shown once the little arrow next to "Bookmarks" is selected are sorted alphabetically. Whenever I add a new bookmark that I don't want on the actual visable toolbar, I click and hold, and then drag it up or down to the correct alphabetized location.

Before version 13 in Firefox, I never had an issue, but now the bookmark will not relocate to the desired location, and it then moves other bookmarks around out of order as well. Again, this has never been a problem in Firefox until version 13, and since I'm brand new to Waterfox, I can't comment on any prior versions.


----------



## ElQuia

Waterfox crashes on close or restart. It happens with 13 and it happened with 12, NOT with 11, it must be some interaction with some plugin because it does not happen with a cleaner profile.
BUT with the SAME PROFILE, neither Palemoon x64 12.1 or Firefox 12 or 13 crash.



Any ideas?


----------



## kevindd992002

Why is it that when I close WF, it doesn't get removed from the processes in the task manager?


----------



## {Unregistered}

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Why is it that when I close WF, it doesn't get removed from the processes in the task manager?


I'm not sure but this might apply.


----------



## biceman

Thanks for the fix!


----------



## fullmoon

On my computer pentium dual 3.5Ghz (O.C.) peacekeeper up to 2330. I see the difference with jemalloc.
I wait the return of tmalloc.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Just wanted to report the GUI bug is fixed for me also!


----------



## AceyMan

I just updated to Waterfox 13 PL1 and found that the app won't honor the scroll function of my Thinkpad keyboard (middle click, push trackpoint up/down).

When I press the middle button the mouse icon visibly changes to scroll mode, but the inputs do nothing to Waterfox. The Dell scroll function (analagous to the Thinkpad) works in 13 PL1, as I have both to compare.

Uninstalled 13 PL1, installed Waterfox 12 again, all is AOK.

I'll have to sit this release out until that's fixed (right now my hand's in a cast and I cannot use a mouse worth a dang.)

Thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AceyMan*
> 
> I just updated to Waterfox 13 PL1 and found that the app won't honor the scroll function of my Thinkpad keyboard (middle click, push trackpoint up/down).
> 
> When I press the middle button the mouse icon visibly changes to scroll mode, but the inputs do nothing to Waterfox. The Dell scroll function (analagous to the Thinkpad) works in 13 PL1, as I have both to compare.
> 
> Uninstalled 13 PL1, installed Waterfox 12 again, all is AOK.
> 
> I'll have to sit this release out until that's fixed (right now my hand's in a cast and I cannot use a mouse worth a dang.)
> 
> Thanks.


I'll look into it for you


----------



## AceyMan

Update-
Ok, now this scroll function is broken for me in WF 12 (!). I'm not sure when this broke for me, but it's not working now. No time to try to isolate it, but I wanted to follow up and say it's not a change in 13 PL1.

Cheers.


----------



## Jillxz

I cannot use Firefox so I installed pale Moon and Waterfox. I find Waterfox is a lot faster. But just like that I cannot use Firefox , I cannot use Waterfox either.

Why ? because once another Browser ever becomes the Default browser , there s no going back to Firefox or Waterfox as default. You can go in and check it as default , but the very next time you launch it, it is asking if you want to make it the default browser. this goes on and on and on. it will not stick. So that is a bug in both Firefox and Waterfox. Up until version 11 , Firefox did not do this. So , I had to go to another clone of Firefox. Pale Moon does not do this.

Mozilla and waterfox need to correct this problem.


----------



## coffeejunky

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AceyMan*
> 
> Update-
> Ok, now this scroll function is broken for me in WF 12 (!). I'm not sure when this broke for me, but it's not working now. No time to try to isolate it, but I wanted to follow up and say it's not a change in 13 PL1.
> 
> Cheers.


Try disabling Smooth Scrolling, its the only thing I can think of that changed with FF13 that could affect it.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> On my computer pentium dual 3.5Ghz (O.C.) peacekeeper up to 2330. I see the difference with jemalloc.
> I wait the return of tmalloc.


Cool Benchmark, I got 3636.


----------



## tonyman1969




----------



## tonyman1969

I am have the same problem. If the solution was listed above i didn't understand it.
What I did as a work-around was under here: *profile path*\startupCache\*startupCache.8.little*
I deleted the *startupCache.8.little* file. Then I created a new blank text file and renamed it to *startupCache.8.little*
*_Of course you need to be viewing your extensions in Windows Explorer_*
Lastly I made the *startupCache.8.little* file read only.

I know this is a total work-around but it works for now.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tonyman1969*
> 
> I am have the same problem. If the solution was listed above i didn't understand it.
> What I did as a work-around was under here: *profile path*\startupCache\*startupCache.8.little*
> I deleted the *startupCache.8.little* file. Then I created a new blank text file and renamed it to *startupCache.8.little*
> *_Of course you need to be viewing your extensions in Windows Explorer_*
> Lastly I made the *startupCache.8.little* file read only.
> 
> I know this is a total work-around but it works for now.


This issue has been fixed: Waterfox 13 PL1

You can install this over Waterfox 13.


----------



## ScottE

I'm having Google Maps WebGL crash Waterfox 13PL1 reliably for me (although some other WebGL sites work, such as the Chrome WebGL demos). Is the ICC fix on the Wiki (which is presumably incorporated into 13PL1) "the" fix, or do we suspect another module needs to be compiled with VC as well?


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ScottE*
> 
> I'm having Google Maps WebGL crash Waterfox 13PL1 reliably for me (although some other WebGL sites work, such as the Chrome WebGL demos). Is the ICC fix on the Wiki (which is presumably incorporated into 13PL1) "the" fix, or do we suspect another module needs to be compiled with VC as well?


Someone reported to me, too.
But I don't know why, because Google Maps WebGL works very well using my edition here.

You can try some methods:

replace all modules with VC build except libEGL.dll, libGLESv2.dll and gkmedias.dll

to see whether it will crash

If also crash, then the problem is not the WebGL module issue.


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Someone reported to me, too.
> But I don't know why, because Google Maps WebGL works very well using my edition here.
> You can try some methods:
> replace all modules with VC build except libEGL.dll, libGLESv2.dll and gkmedias.dll
> to see whether it will crash
> If also crash, then the problem is not the WebGL module issue.


Sorry

If also crash -> If NO crash


----------



## NoiseTemper

I am also getting Google Maps WebGL crash, as of PL1.


----------



## Kaldari

+1 to the Google Maps crash.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *{Unregistered}*
> 
> I'm not sure but this might apply.


I'm sure this is not because of a backdoor trojan because I don't experience most of the symptoms in that thread. My problem happens randomly meanong sometimes firefox.exe stays at task manager even after exit and sometimes it doesn't. This has been happening for a long time with firefox now. Any other ideas on this?


----------



## MrAlex

Hmm, I don't have the Google Maps crash either. Can't Google Maps still be used without MapsGL?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm, I don't have the Google Maps crash either. Can't Google Maps still be used without MapsGL?


Yes, but it's still considered a bug, and you know what we do with bugs.


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Yes, but it's still considered a bug, and you know what we do with bugs.


If I can reproduce it, maybe will fix it.

But I can't find the crash environment.

I tested many computers (XP or win7, win8), no crash.


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Yes, but it's still considered a bug, and you know what we do with bugs.


And please use the replacing dlls method, to make sure that which module has the problem.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> If I can reproduce it, maybe will fix it.
> But I can't find the crash environment.
> I tested many computers (XP or win7, win8), no crash.


Does this help?

Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: firefox.exe
Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
Fault Module Name: ntdll.dll
Fault Module Version: 6.1.7601.17725
Fault Module Timestamp: 4ec4aa8e
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 0000000000052fc6
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
Locale ID: 3081
Additional Information 1: f0a9
Additional Information 2: f0a9baf3ace1699ce9df912c8de71ceb
Additional Information 3: a307
Additional Information 4: a307fff8be05bc34cfc4105e7ed21791

and this

Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: firefox.exe
Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
Fault Module Name: mozglue.dll
Fault Module Version: 13.0.0.4540
Fault Module Timestamp: 4fcf4848
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 000000000000ba25
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
Locale ID: 3081
Additional Information 1: 5c1b
Additional Information 2: 5c1b85f3dd17d5cfa9a425716b53083c
Additional Information 3: 576f
Additional Information 4: 576fcd0b5859f46f2ea3913fa3e0e67e


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Does this help?
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: firefox.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
> Fault Module Name: ntdll.dll
> Fault Module Version: 6.1.7601.17725
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4ec4aa8e
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 0000000000052fc6
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 3081
> Additional Information 1: f0a9
> Additional Information 2: f0a9baf3ace1699ce9df912c8de71ceb
> Additional Information 3: a307
> Additional Information 4: a307fff8be05bc34cfc4105e7ed21791
> and this
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: firefox.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
> Fault Module Name: mozglue.dll
> Fault Module Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4fcf4848
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 000000000000ba25
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 3081
> Additional Information 1: 5c1b
> Additional Information 2: 5c1b85f3dd17d5cfa9a425716b53083c
> Additional Information 3: 576f
> Additional Information 4: 576fcd0b5859f46f2ea3913fa3e0e67e


Can you try replacing mozglue.dll with other vc x64 edition?
To see if this can solve your problem.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Can you try replacing mozglue.dll with other vc x64 edition?
> To see if this can solve your problem.


How do i do that? i.e. I'm not a programmer







.....well at least, not yet.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Can you try replacing mozglue.dll with other vc x64 edition?
> To see if this can solve your problem.
> 
> 
> 
> How do i do that? i.e. I'm not a programmer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .....well at least, not yet.
Click to expand...

For example download Waterfox 12 (and you can extract the setup .exe with winrar) and replace the mozglue.dll in WF13 with the one from WF12. (Backup the WF13 mozglue just in case).


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> Cool Benchmark, I got 3636.


Without cpu caracteristic, this is nothing...


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> For example download Waterfox 12 (and you can extract the setup .exe with winrar) and replace the mozglue.dll in WF13 with the one from WF12. (Backup the WF13 mozglue just in case).


ok i just did that and it comes up with, Error could not locate MOZ_assert, on launch.


----------



## NoiseTemper

i tried both mozglue.dll from WF12 and first WF13 release.


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> For example download Waterfox 12 (and you can extract the setup .exe with winrar) and replace the mozglue.dll in WF13 with the one from WF12. (Backup the WF13 mozglue just in case).


The api is changed.

I suggest to use Firefox 13 official x64 alpha 's mozglue.dll


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> For example download Waterfox 12 (and you can extract the setup .exe with winrar) and replace the mozglue.dll in WF13 with the one from WF12. (Backup the WF13 mozglue just in case).
> 
> 
> 
> The api is changed.
> 
> I suggest to use Firefox 13 official x64 alpha 's mozglue.dll
Click to expand...

It did?

Well here's a link:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2012/03/2012-03-01-03-11-35-mozilla-central/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.zip


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> The api is changed.
> I suggest to use Firefox 13 official x64 alpha 's mozglue.dll


Maybe try to use htguard edition 's mozglue.dll

http://htguardmozilla.googlecode.com/files/firefox-13.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.7z


----------



## xunxun1982

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It did?
> Well here's a link:
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2012/03/2012-03-01-03-11-35-mozilla-central/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.zip


The edition is OK, too.


----------



## virtualguy

You guys are AWESOME!


----------



## edm00se

Getting hit with the Google Maps WebGL issue on v13 PL1. I can also confirm that Google WebGL experiments do run fine.

http://statico.github.com/webgl-demos/ducks/


----------



## BMT

I also get the Google Maps WebGL Crash when using v13 PL1. Reverted to Waterfox 12 and it works just fine.
Quote:


> Adapter Description: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460
> Direct2D Enabled: true
> DirectWrite Enabled: true (6.1.7601.17789)
> WebGL Renderer: Google Inc. -- ANGLE (NVIDIA GeForce GTX 460) -- OpenGL ES 2.0 (ANGLE 1.0.0.963)
> GPU Accelerated Windows: 9/9 Direct3D 10


Google Chrome WebGL experiments work fine - PC Specs in Signature.
Quote:


> Problem signature:
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: firefox.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
> Fault Module Name: ntdll.dll
> Fault Module Version: 6.1.7601.17725
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4ec4aa8e
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 0000000000052fc6
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
> Locale ID: 2057
> Additional Information 1: bc45
> Additional Information 2: bc45bab408ffe087fa5356895fa7368e
> Additional Information 3: 5bb8
> Additional Information 4: 5bb896fa588eb083edd90124c6bc9ccc


I tried switching mozglue.dll as mentioned, but did not think it would work (as that's not what my crash referenced). The official 13a build mozglue.dll does not work at all and complains of a missing entry point, the htguardmozilla mozglue.dll results in the same crash as the Waterfox one does.

Google Maps WebGL works fine using 13.0a1 from:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/2012/03/2012-03-01-03-11-35-mozilla-central/firefox-13.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.zip

No idea if any of this is useful to anyone, but just thought it was worth mentioning. I'll keep using 13 PL1 anyway because I like some of the new features.


----------



## xunxun1982

In any case, I can't reproduce Google Maps WebGL crash in my environment here, so I have no method to fix it.

If you have time, you can try to replace any vc x64's dll until you can find the crash module.

btw, WebGL modules have three related dlls : libEGL.dll libGLESv2.dll gkmedias.dll

I won't continue to investigate the issue because I can't reproduce it, sorry.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> btw, WebGL modules have three related dlls : libEGL.dll libGLESv2.dll gkmedias.dll
> I won't continue to investigate the issue because I can't reproduce it, sorry.


Thank you! I tried replacing libEGL.dll & libGLESv2.dll earlier without any success (because those two seemed to be fairly obviously linked to OpenGL in some way) however I did not know gkmedias.dll was related to it - and it is in fact gkmedias.dll that causes the crash to occur.

Replace gkmedias.dll with the one from http://htguardmozilla.googlecode.com/files/firefox-13.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.7z and you can now use MapsGL - no crashes, etc.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *xunxun1982*
> 
> btw, WebGL modules have three related dlls : libEGL.dll libGLESv2.dll gkmedias.dll
> I won't continue to investigate the issue because I can't reproduce it, sorry.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you! I tried replacing libEGL.dll & libGLESv2.dll earlier without any success (because those two seemed to be fairly obviously linked to OpenGL in some way) however I did not know gkmedias.dll was related to it - and it is in fact gkmedias.dll that causes the crash to occur.
> 
> Replace gkmedias.dll with the one from http://htguardmozilla.googlecode.com/files/firefox-13.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.7z and you can now use MapsGL - no crashes, etc.
Click to expand...

Well gkmedia.dll related to WebRT which hasn't been fully implemented yet.

But a while ago a nightly version of Firefox (x64) was crashing on MapsGL due to Direct3D 9:

Quote:


> oh also, Nightly has D3DCompiler optimization turned off like Chrome, which is another reason to hope that it won't crash.


The bug here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694495


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> But a while ago a nightly version of Firefox (x64) was crashing on MapsGL due to Direct3D 9:
> 
> The bug here:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694495


Hmm, would a Direct3D 9 crash also cause the same crash under Direct3D 10? My browser is using D3D 10.
Anyhow, at least we now know that it's gkmedias.dll causing the issue.

Edit: I also noticed that the htguardmozilla gkmedias DLL is version 13.0.0.45*35*, whereas the version included with Waterfox is 13.0.0.45*40* - perhaps a bug was introduced between those builds.

Edit 2: Possibly also related to this? http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/issues/detail?id=232


----------



## Blameless

I haven't personally run into any issues yet, and this latest release seems to manage flash and the plugin container better than 11.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Most users will be hardware enthusiasts, and only older processors (Before 2005) do not support SSE3. Therefore everyone running a 64-Bit OS will most definitely be using a processor that supports SSE3. The oldest CPUs supported:
> Intel Pentium 4F
> AMD Venice


I still think a disclaimer may be warranted as some older A64s (ClawHammer, Venice, and Winchester) are still around and running 64-bit OSes. It's a tiny figure, but not zero.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> But a while ago a nightly version of Firefox (x64) was crashing on MapsGL due to Direct3D 9:
> 
> The bug here:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=694495
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, would a Direct3D 9 crash also cause the same crash under Direct3D 10? My browser is using D3D 10.
> Anyhow, at least we now know that it's gkmedias.dll causing the issue.
> 
> Edit: I also noticed that the htguardmozilla gkmedias DLL is version 13.0.0.45*35*, whereas the version included with Waterfox is 13.0.0.45*40* - perhaps a bug was introduced between those builds.
> 
> Edit 2: Possibly also related to this? http://code.google.com/p/angleproject/issues/detail?id=232
Click to expand...

It could be GPU drivers, but it seems unlikely. I'm running on Catalyst 12.4 drivers. Anyone on 12.4 with MapGL issues?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I haven't personally run into any issues yet, and this latest release seems to manage flash and the plugin container better than 11.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Most users will be hardware enthusiasts, and only older processors (Before 2005) do not support SSE3. Therefore everyone running a 64-Bit OS will most definitely be using a processor that supports SSE3. The oldest CPUs supported:
> Intel Pentium 4F
> AMD Venice
> 
> 
> 
> I still think a disclaimer may be warranted as some older A64s (ClawHammer, Venice, and Winchester) are still around and running 64-bit OSes. It's a tiny figure, but not zero.
Click to expand...

Are you using Catalyst 12.4 drivers? And I've added the system requirements to the download page


----------



## kymophobia

Hi all...
Anyone got this error on startup?
It shows up everytime when starting.

Using WF and Chrome only, Nod32 installed, Win7 64bit.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It could be GPU drivers, but it seems unlikely. I'm running on Catalyst 12.4 drivers. Anyone on 12.4 with MapGL issues?


I am using 12.6 beta thats are suppose to go live this week or next (12.4 had an hdmi audio issue so I dumped them as soon as possible) and get the crash


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Are you using Catalyst 12.4 drivers?


12.6 betas.

Not a crash or hiccup yet.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It could be GPU drivers, but it seems unlikely. I'm running on Catalyst 12.4 drivers. Anyone on 12.4 with MapGL issues?


Yes.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Restarted WF13 several times but when trying to load any page/tab Waterfox will time out and go unresponsive and items on the page take quite some time to load...


----------



## kevindd992002

Until now (I've started using WF from WF11), I get smoother Yotuube video playback with FF than WF. In WF, it's producing a small stutter randomly at the length of any video. All my drivers are latest. Is this a common problem with WF or Flash?


----------



## shimizu

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Until now (I've started using WF from WF11), I get smoother Yotuube video playback with FF than WF. In WF, it's producing a small stutter randomly at the length of any video. All my drivers are latest. Is this a common problem with WF or Flash?


Having the same problem at any flash player on waterfox


----------



## Prime2515102

Waterfox 13...

Odd things... When I first installed it (upgrade) it enabled smooth scrolling.

After awhile, inline autocomplete for the address bar was disabled (had to re-enable it in about:config). I couldn't even begin to image how this would randomly change...

Otherwise it's working good, including youtube videos (WF12 was messed up where the video and sound would go out of alignment).


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kymophobia*
> 
> Hi all...
> Anyone got this error on startup?
> It shows up everytime when starting.
> 
> Using WF and Chrome only, Nod32 installed, Win7 64bit.


Have you tried safe mode? (Waterfox>Help>Restart with Add-Ons disabled). If the problem doesn't occur then it's an add-on.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medievil*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It could be GPU drivers, but it seems unlikely. I'm running on Catalyst 12.4 drivers. Anyone on 12.4 with MapGL issues?
> 
> 
> 
> I am using 12.6 beta thats are suppose to go live this week or next (12.4 had an hdmi audio issue so I dumped them as soon as possible) and get the crash
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Are you using Catalyst 12.4 drivers?
> 
> 
> 
> 12.6 betas.
> 
> Not a crash or hiccup yet.
Click to expand...

So the crash still appears to happen randomly. But there must be SOMETHING in common for the people that get the crash.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Restarted WF13 several times but when trying to load any page/tab Waterfox will time out and go unresponsive and items on the page take quite some time to load...


Have you tried a different profile?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Until now (I've started using WF from WF11), I get smoother Yotuube video playback with FF than WF. In WF, it's producing a small stutter randomly at the length of any video. All my drivers are latest. Is this a common problem with WF or Flash?


It's a problem with Flash. I get random crashes and stuttering with Flash, but at least it's not as bad as it used to be!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Waterfox 13...
> 
> Odd things... When I first installed it (upgrade) it enabled smooth scrolling.
> 
> After awhile, inline autocomplete for the address bar was disabled (had to re-enable it in about:config). I couldn't even begin to image how this would randomly change...
> 
> Otherwise it's working good, including youtube videos (WF12 was messed up where the video and sound would go out of alignment).


That is strange indeed, but there shouldn't be any reason for the random changes.


----------



## TheHunter

Hi, i just got firefox plugin container crash again..

Quote:


> Description
> Faulting Application Path: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\plugin-container.exe
> 
> Problem signature
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: plugin-container.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e44
> Fault Module Name: xul.dll
> Fault Module Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4fcf4e3d
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 0000000001176d71
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 1060
> Additional Information 1: 88e5
> Additional Information 2: 88e54b17be1dbbfde20f3fab76d59877
> Additional Information 3: 2aff
> Additional Information 4: 2affada3f58cff4032cfedc7253249e5


btw, Im already at updated PL1 version, and the funny thing is i didnt have any flash content open.. All i did was login @ nvidia.com forums and when it loaded reply page it crashed.

Strange because i never had that before, std WF13 crashed 1-2 times by video content, when i updated to PL1 it stopped but now i got this crash.. WF12 was ok in both cases.

EDIT: i goggled a bit and it looks like its quite common by FF, weird because i never had it before.. Anyway i reinstalled FF13 just to be sure, im gonna report back if it happens again.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shimizu*
> 
> Having the same problem at any flash player on waterfox


Thank you for confirming this. MrAlex, can you take note of this problem? Thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *shimizu*
> 
> Having the same problem at any flash player on waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for confirming this. MrAlex, can you take note of this problem? Thanks.
Click to expand...

I can't because it's a problem with Flash player, not me.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> Hi, i just got firefox plugin container crash again..
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Description
> Faulting Application Path: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\plugin-container.exe
> 
> Problem signature
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: plugin-container.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e44
> Fault Module Name: xul.dll
> Fault Module Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4fcf4e3d
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 0000000001176d71
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 1060
> Additional Information 1: 88e5
> Additional Information 2: 88e54b17be1dbbfde20f3fab76d59877
> Additional Information 3: 2aff
> Additional Information 4: 2affada3f58cff4032cfedc7253249e5
> 
> 
> 
> btw, Im already at updated PL1 version, and the funny thing is i didnt have any flash content open.. All i did was login @ nvidia.com forums and when it loaded reply page it crashed.
> 
> Strange because i never had that before, std WF13 crashed 1-2 times by video content, when i updated to PL1 it stopped but now i got this crash.. WF12 was ok in both cases.
> 
> EDIT: i goggled a bit and it looks like its quite common by FF, weird because i never had it before.. Anyway i reinstalled FF13 just to be sure, im gonna report back if it happens again.
Click to expand...

I've never experienced the plugin container crashing before, but it is a common issue on Firefox.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't because it's a problem with Flash player, not me.


Well, yes, but is it normal? If it's normal then I don't need to worry about anything.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't because it's a problem with Flash player, not me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes, but is it normal? If it's normal then I don't need to worry about anything.
Click to expand...

Yes, Flash has always been notorious for it's crashing, although it has gotten better in recent years.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, Flash has always been notorious for it's crashing, although it has gotten better in recent years.


Thanks for the confirmation. I asked this issue a few weeks ago and I remember people here told me that they didn't have the problem and that made me worry since then.


----------



## Kaldari

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Singledigit*
> 
> does waterfox work with silverlight? I miss watching movies on Netflix. Also, is this near the same thing as Firefox Nightly?


The 64-bit versions of Flash, Java, and Silverlight are linked on the WF download page. They're required.

http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/

On a side not, I went ahead and reverted back to 12 until all the bugs have been worked out.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't because it's a problem with Flash player, not me.
> 
> I've never experienced the plugin container crashing before, but it is a common issue on Firefox.


I see, the funny thing is I never had that bug with any FF 3 -10 (switched to WF 10-12), only now with WF13. I used FF12 build in update method and maybe it messed up something by 13? Because i installed WF13 while i was still on FF12.

Anyway it looks fixed now that I uninstalled and reinstalled FF13 again.. I didnt have plugin crash yet and i've been watching multiple youtube videos and visited other flash sites/forums


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> So the crash still appears to happen randomly. But there must be SOMETHING in common for the people that get the crash.


I've tried everything I can to provoke a crash, but nothing I do works. I've had 150+ tabs open with the browser process cracking 2GiB of usage and the plug-in container using 1.5GiB itself, have played multiple flash videos with java apps running, etc. No go.

I have the newest versions of Java and Flash installed, but have never installed Silverlight.

My config is a bit atypical, as I have all the disk cache options in about:config disabled (not much point with 24GiB of memory). I also don't use Aero in windows.

I'm sure something will cause it to crash sooner or later, but even WF 11 crashed maybe once or twice a month, at the most, and I often didn't close the browser for weeks at a time.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've never experienced the plugin container crashing before, but it is a common issue on Firefox.


I've seen the plug-in container crash in 11, usually seemed to be Flash related.


----------



## Scree

Is there a reason WF (x64) eats every other right-click on an image on a page? For example, the first right-click on an image is ignored, then if I right click again I get the expected context menu (then if again it's ignored again instead of showing the menu in the new spot). Had this issue in previous WF versions too, and never in FF.


----------



## kevindd992002

Is it normal for WF13 to run a a plugin-container process in task manager that consumes around 1GB of RAM and firefox.exe that also consumes 1GB? I have a couple of tabs but not too many.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it normal for WF13 to run a a plugin-container process in task manager that consumes around 1GB of RAM and firefox.exe that also consumes 1GB? I have a couple of tabs but not too many.


How many plugins do you have?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> How many plugins do you have?


I only have 5 plugins. Right now, I restarted WF and the plugin-container consumes around 30KB of RAM only. I don't know what happened earlier that made it consume 1GB. Any ideas?


----------



## Jack Hennety

Sorry to jump in here - can someone tell me whether the WebGL fix that's part of PL1 should fix the Google Maps GL crash problem, or is that something different? Because I'm using PL1 and Maps still crashes every single time. I've tried reinstalling Flash, Silverlight, Java 64-Bit, ATI Catalyst (which is currently 12.4) but nope, every time it crashes. Am I misunderstanding what's meant by 'WebGL fix'?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scree*
> 
> Is there a reason WF (x64) eats every other right-click on an image on a page? For example, the first right-click on an image is ignored, then if I right click again I get the expected context menu (then if again it's ignored again instead of showing the menu in the new spot). Had this issue in previous WF versions too, and never in FF.


This might sound ridiculous, but have you tried a different mouse? When one of my mice were dying I would get strange issues such as that. If not then I'm not quite sure why the issue would occur. I see you're using an 8800GTX, are you using the latest drivers? There was an issue on Firefox a while ago where hardware acceleration was causing issues with the context menu, so it could be the drivers or hardware acceleration. But I don't see why these would suddenly start to crop up.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> How many plugins do you have?
> 
> 
> 
> I only have 5 plugins. Right now, I restarted WF and the plugin-container consumes around 30KB of RAM only. I don't know what happened earlier that made it consume 1GB. Any ideas?
Click to expand...

Probably just a memory leakage. But that's why you have 8GB of RAM









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jack Hennety*
> 
> Sorry to jump in here - can someone tell me whether the WebGL fix that's part of PL1 should fix the Google Maps GL crash problem, or is that something different? Because I'm using PL1 and Maps still crashes every single time. I've tried reinstalling Flash, Silverlight, Java 64-Bit, ATI Catalyst (which is currently 12.4) but nope, every time it crashes. Am I misunderstanding what's meant by 'WebGL fix'?


It appears that certain people get the MapsGL crash and some don't. Use this link instead:

http://maps.google.com/?vector=0


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jack Hennety*
> 
> Sorry to jump in here - can someone tell me whether the WebGL fix that's part of PL1 should fix the Google Maps GL crash problem, or is that something different? Because I'm using PL1 and Maps still crashes every single time. I've tried reinstalling Flash, Silverlight, Java 64-Bit, ATI Catalyst (which is currently 12.4) but nope, every time it crashes. Am I misunderstanding what's meant by 'WebGL fix'?


There's something wrong with the _gkmedias.dll_ included with Waterfox which is causing this crash.

Unfortunately MrAlex can not reproduce the crash, so I'm not sure he's trying to fix it.

Anyway, thanks to xunxun1982's suggestions I found that if you simply replace _gkmedias.dll_ with the one from:
http://htguardmozilla.googlecode.com/files/firefox-13.0.en-US.win64-x86_64.7z

Google MapsGL will then work perfectly









If you don't want to download a 17MB file just for a ~1MB DLL, I've uploaded just the DLL that you need here (~440KB zip file):
http://www.mediafire.com/?dp79syc3oh8w3t2

To fix it simply backup/delete the _gkmedias.dll_ in your _Waterfox directory_ and replace it with the one you downloaded.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Jack Hennety

BMT - that's done the trick! Thanks very much - great stuff


----------



## ElQuia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it normal for WF13 to run a a plugin-container process in task manager that consumes around 1GB of RAM and firefox.exe that also consumes 1GB? I have a couple of tabs but not too many.


I have the same problem with Waterfox, Firefox and PaleMoon x64 with the three running de SAME profile, memory use or leakage starts at about 350mb for the x64 and 230 mb for firefox x86
During the session (I have extension called memory restart that shows it) memory use starts growing, I have registered up to 2 GB. yes two gigas. Yesterday I did a test, with watefox open, with NO tabs just a blank page, after a session of opening multiple tabs, but at that moment only a blan tab, memory use was at about 750 MB, one hour later, with out doing anything (just open in thte background) it was at 900 MB, *There has to be some kind of leak!!!!*

Windows 7 x64, 7 GB RAM

Ideas?


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scree*
> 
> Is there a reason WF (x64) eats every other right-click on an image on a page? For example, the first right-click on an image is ignored, then if I right click again I get the expected context menu (then if again it's ignored again instead of showing the menu in the new spot). Had this issue in previous WF versions too, and never in FF.


Do you use Image Zoom?


----------



## TheHunter

Hmm, just got another flash plugin crash..








Quote:


> Problem signature:
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: plugin-container.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e44
> Fault Module Name: NPSWF64_11_2_202_235.dll
> Fault Module Version: 11.2.202.235
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4f9af721
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 000000000055cb89
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 1060
> Additional Information 1: 7327
> Additional Information 2: 7327e52a136413714339f251bfe50dcb
> Additional Information 3: 5334
> Additional Information 4: 53343aaf658d5bf4813dcc49550670eb


This time it happened when i visited beatport and tried to play some music.. Idk this WF13 looks a bit unstable, WF 12 was 100% flash stable.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This might sound ridiculous, but have you tried a different mouse? When one of my mice were dying I would get strange issues such as that. If not then I'm not quite sure why the issue would occur. I see you're using an 8800GTX, are you using the latest drivers? There was an issue on Firefox a while ago where hardware acceleration was causing issues with the context menu, so it could be the drivers or hardware acceleration. But I don't see why these would suddenly start to crop up.
> 
> Probably just a memory leakage. But that's why you have 8GB of RAM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that certain people get the MapsGL crash and some don't. Use this link instead:
> http://maps.google.com/?vector=0


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElQuia*
> 
> I have the same problem with Waterfox, Firefox and PaleMoon x64 with the three running de SAME profile, memory use or leakage starts at about 350mb for the x64 and 230 mb for firefox x86
> During the session (I have extension called memory restart that shows it) memory use starts growing, I have registered up to 2 GB. yes two gigas. Yesterday I did a test, with watefox open, with NO tabs just a blank page, after a session of opening multiple tabs, but at that moment only a blan tab, memory use was at about 750 MB, one hour later, with out doing anything (just open in thte background) it was at 900 MB, *There has to be some kind of leak!!!!*
> Windows 7 x64, 7 GB RAM
> Ideas?


So does Mozilla acknowledge this memory leak issue and are they doing anything to solve it?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This might sound ridiculous, but have you tried a different mouse? When one of my mice were dying I would get strange issues such as that. If not then I'm not quite sure why the issue would occur. I see you're using an 8800GTX, are you using the latest drivers? There was an issue on Firefox a while ago where hardware acceleration was causing issues with the context menu, so it could be the drivers or hardware acceleration. But I don't see why these would suddenly start to crop up.
> 
> Probably just a memory leakage. But that's why you have 8GB of RAM
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It appears that certain people get the MapsGL crash and some don't. Use this link instead:
> http://maps.google.com/?vector=0
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *ElQuia*
> 
> I have the same problem with Waterfox, Firefox and PaleMoon x64 with the three running de SAME profile, memory use or leakage starts at about 350mb for the x64 and 230 mb for firefox x86
> During the session (I have extension called memory restart that shows it) memory use starts growing, I have registered up to 2 GB. yes two gigas. Yesterday I did a test, with watefox open, with NO tabs just a blank page, after a session of opening multiple tabs, but at that moment only a blan tab, memory use was at about 750 MB, one hour later, with out doing anything (just open in thte background) it was at 900 MB, *There has to be some kind of leak!!!!*
> Windows 7 x64, 7 GB RAM
> Ideas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So does Mozilla acknowledge this memory leak issue and are they doing anything to solve it?
Click to expand...

Yep:

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink


----------



## TheHunter

I just noticed new flash player 11.3.300.257 (i have 11.2.202.235 atm). Installing now, hopefully its under control


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yep:
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/Performance/MemShrink


Seems like their last minutes was last March?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> I just noticed new flash player 11.3.300.257 (i have 11.2.202.235 atm). Installing now, hopefully its under control


Thanks


----------



## djkilla

Adobe Flash 11.3.300.257 has been released with lots of new features. Ladies and gentleman, time to update!

** New features:
- Full screen keyboard input for Flash Player
- Low latency audio support for streaming audio through NetStream
- Low latency audio support for Sound API
- Protected mode for Firefox (Windows® Only)
- Texture streaming

* Enhancements and bug fixes related to stability, performance, and device compatibility.*

Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.3.300.257: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

Reinstall Adobe Flash by doing the following:
1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/support/uninstall_flash_player.exe

2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed
**If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.

3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player:
For Internet Explorer 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x.exe
For Waterfox and other browsers 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin.exe

**You can install both. That's what I do so I have the latest Adobe Flash for everything.

4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy.


----------



## beerninja

My waterfox 13 PL1 won't start









I never had problems with my waterfox 12, I guess I'll have to downgrade. Here is my error if I try to run waterfox PL1:

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: firefox.exe
Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
Fault Module Name: xul.dll
Fault Module Version: 13.0.0.4540
Fault Module Timestamp: 4fcf4e3d
Exception Code: c000001d
Exception Offset: 0000000000be74ea
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: 7422
Additional Information 2: 7422d95d855e9f6281af97be599b0e34
Additional Information 3: a00f
Additional Information 4: a00f68c9c62009fd11ff90c0b9336c0d

I already upgraded flash 11.3, reinstalled the microsoft C++ distributables, didn't bother with the intel ones because I'm using an ancient athlon 64 3000+. If I should install the intel files let me know. Also I tried to reinstall waterfox 13 PL1 but I still get the same error message









Any ideas?


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> My waterfox 13 PL1 won't start
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I never had problems with my waterfox 12, I guess I'll have to downgrade. Here is my error if I try to run waterfox PL1:
> Problem signature:
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: firefox.exe
> Application Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Application Timestamp: 4fcf4e71
> Fault Module Name: xul.dll
> Fault Module Version: 13.0.0.4540
> Fault Module Timestamp: 4fcf4e3d
> Exception Code: c000001d
> Exception Offset: 0000000000be74ea
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
> Locale ID: 1033
> Additional Information 1: 7422
> Additional Information 2: 7422d95d855e9f6281af97be599b0e34
> Additional Information 3: a00f
> Additional Information 4: a00f68c9c62009fd11ff90c0b9336c0d
> I already upgraded flash 11.3, reinstalled the microsoft C++ distributables, didn't bother with the intel ones because I'm using an ancient athlon 64 3000+. If I should install the intel files let me know. Also I tried to reinstall waterfox 13 PL1 but I still get the same error message
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Any ideas?


I had that bug (xul.dll) with WF13 too, uninstall FF13 and reinstall it again.








http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-v13-pl1-6-jun-firefox-64-bit/2560_20#post_17436953


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Adobe Flash 11.3.300.257 has been released with lots of new features. Ladies and gentleman, time to update!
> ** New features:
> - Full screen keyboard input for Flash Player
> - Low latency audio support for streaming audio through NetStream
> - Low latency audio support for Sound API
> - Protected mode for Firefox (Windows® Only)
> - Texture streaming
> * Enhancements and bug fixes related to stability, performance, and device compatibility.*
> Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.3.300.257: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
> Reinstall Adobe Flash by doing the following:
> 1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
> http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/support/uninstall_flash_player.exe
> 2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
> C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
> C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed
> **If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.
> 3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player:
> For Internet Explorer 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x.exe
> For Waterfox and other browsers 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin.exe
> **You can install both. That's what I do so I have the latest Adobe Flash for everything.
> 4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy.


Still unsmooth playback with WF13


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Still unsmooth playback with WF13


Do you have Hardware Acceleration enabled for Flash Player? If not try enabling it - I've never had an issues with Flash related to Waterfox, plays perfectly smoothly for me (1080p video, etc).


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Do you have Hardware Acceleration enabled for Flash Player? If not try enabling it - I've never had an issues with Flash related to Waterfox, plays perfectly smoothly for me (1080p video, etc).


Yes I do have that enabled. Even MrAlex has that issue with Flash. DId you try to compare it with how smooth Youtube videos play with FF13? You'll know the difference. With WF13, it has some minimal stutter that is noticeable if you really look into it.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yes I do have that enabled. Even MrAlex has that issue with Flash. DId you try to compare it with how smooth Youtube videos play with FF13? You'll know the difference. With WF13, it has some minimal stutter that is noticeable if you really look into it.


Sorry, I literally have no stuttering - it makes no difference if I'm using FF13 or WF13.


----------



## Blameless

I don't have any issues playing 1080p flash videos with Waterfox 13, even multiple ones at the same time.

They are just as smooth as any other browser.


----------



## LordDeath

I just read about the new protected mode in Flash: https://blogs.adobe.com/asset/2012/06/inside-flash-player-protected-mode-for-firefox.html

As you can see in the screenshots with Flash 11.3 now the plugin-container.exe starts its own child processes and one of them has a low integrity level. This does not happen with Waterfox and the 64 Bit version of Flash.

Is this feature missing in the 64 Bit Version of Flash or isn't Flash using this feature because it does not recognize a valid Firefox on top of it?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Sorry, I literally have no stuttering - it makes no difference if I'm using FF13 or WF13.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I don't have any issues playing 1080p flash videos with Waterfox 13, even multiple ones at the same time.
> They are just as smooth as any other browser.


@MrAlex

What do you think is my issue with Flash Player? These guys aren't experiencing any stuttering like I do









I remember, though, that there are also other users experiencing the same stuttering problem.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> What do you think is my issue with Flash Player? These guys aren't experiencing any stuttering like I do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I remember, though, that there are also other users experiencing the same stuttering problem.


I don't have any stuttering either. There's lots of factors that could be causing this. How much RAM you have, processor speed, if you have hardware acceleration on or off in both Waterfox and Adobe Flash Player (Both have this setting), and your video graphics card and drivers. You'll have to try different settings and update your video drivers to see if that works. Maybe your hardware needs to be upgraded. It's hard to just give an answer because there's too many factors but you can narrow or solve the problem by trying to figure it out yourself. Some other areas to check that could cause this is your internet speed. Have you power cycled your modem? This could speed up your connection by reconfiguring your internet route. I would also recommend flushing your DNS while you're at it. I know it's a lot of stuff to do but I'm sure you can solve it by taking the time to find the problem.

I know a few others have this same problem. My suggestions apply to them too. No two computers are the same. But if many of us don't have this problem and some do then it's probably because of the hardware, settings and the speed/setup of their internet connection. Believe it or not, there's lots more things it could be like if you're using a proxy, VPN, etc.. Like I said, too many factors that could be causing the stuttering for you.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LordDeath*
> 
> I just read about the new protected mode in Flash: https://blogs.adobe.com/asset/2012/06/inside-flash-player-protected-mode-for-firefox.html
> As you can see in the screenshots with Flash 11.3 now the plugin-container.exe starts its own child processes and one of them has a low integrity level. This does not happen with Waterfox and the 64 Bit version of Flash.
> Is this feature missing in the 64 Bit Version of Flash or isn't Flash using this feature because it does not recognize a valid Firefox on top of it?


Good question. I haven't had the chance to install the latest flash yet but I assume the feature should work. It could be how it's implemented in 64bit compared to 32bit. I know Waterfox has it's own rebranding but it should still work. I'll have to check the user agent and see if that's causing flash to not detect Waterfox as a Firefox build.


----------



## momoko

I have Scriptish and Waterfox 13 PL, when I watch youtube videos with Yousabletubefix enabled (with scriptish), the whole gui freezes, and when I close firefox, it can not start again, showing a empty window. Does anyone have same issues? Without Yousabletubefix its all fine, it started after recent Yousabletubefix update.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> I don't have any stuttering either. There's lots of factors that could be causing this. How much RAM you have, processor speed, if you have hardware acceleration on or off in both Waterfox and Adobe Flash Player (Both have this setting), and your video graphics card and drivers. You'll have to try different settings and update your video drivers to see if that works. Maybe your hardware needs to be upgraded. It's hard to just give an answer because there's too many factors but you can narrow or solve the problem by trying to figure it out yourself. Some other areas to check that could cause this is your internet speed. Have you power cycled your modem? This could speed up your connection by reconfiguring your internet route. I would also recommend flushing your DNS while you're at it. I know it's a lot of stuff to do but I'm sure you can solve it by taking the time to find the problem.
> I know a few others have this same problem. My suggestions apply to them too. No two computers are the same. But if many of us don't have this problem and some do then it's probably because of the hardware, settings and the speed/setup of their internet connection. Believe it or not, there's lots more things it could be like if you're using a proxy, VPN, etc.. Like I said, too many factors that could be causing the stuttering for you.


I understand you but I think my hardware is more than enough to play 1080p Youtube videos









1.) Hardware acceleration: enabled both in WF and Adobe Flash
2.) Video card: GTX560M with Nvidia 296.10 WHQL (I even tried 301.42 WHQL which is the latest one and still has the same problem)
3.) RAM: 8GB 1600MHz Kingston PnP
4.) CPU: i7-2670QM 2.2GHz (up to 3.1GHz Turbo)
5.) Definitely not because of my Internet speed because every video that I've watched streams fast (no buffer). I also told this forum before that the stutter even occurs even after the whole video is finished loading and I replay it from the start. I use a 30Mbps/1.5Mbps connection with very low latency. DNS is setup optimally by my pfsense router box.

So yeah, I would consider my system up-to-date. This is why I'm confused why I'm having this issue. As I've said, I don't have any problems with FF13 and IE.


----------



## mktwo

I have this strange page-load problem with Waterfox and overclock.net forum. I have to force page-refresh (ctrl+F5) every time I visit this forum. Normal F5 will not update pages on this website.
Say, I visited this thread yesterday and its latest page was at 259. When I visited this thread again today, it still showed latest page as 259. I had to ctrl+F5 for the thread to update to page 261.

I had already changed "browser.cache.check_doc_frequency" to "1". It does not solve my problem. I still have to ctrl+F5 every time I visit this forum.
I have never had this problem with other website though. Every other websites update properly whenever I visit them.

By the way, on the subject of Flash stuttering playback. I used to have that problem when I used Firefox but not since I switched to Waterfox.
It could be because I completely disabled Session Restore function when I installed Waterfox. I have read that frequent session saving can cause stuttering.


----------



## kevindd992002

@djkilla

I think I know the problem with Waterfox now. When, I reformat my PC I save my tabs and bookmarks by copying sessionstore.js in the roaming folder of mozilla and by exporting bookmarks.html, respectively. I tried deleting sessionstore.js now in order to refresh my tabs and surprisingly the Youtube videos play smoothly with WF13 now. I think the problem is because I copied an old format of sessionstore.js to my profile, can this be it?

Anyhow, how do you refresh my Firefox/Waterfox profile to start freshly?


----------



## virtualguy

Okay, those of you having Flash issues with FF13 or Waterfox 13, it is NOT the browser that is causing the problem. It is the latest version of Flash. In their effort to make it more difficult to exploit Flash security vulnerabilities, they have changed the way Flash interacts with the OS. Here's the low down:
http://www.ghacks.net/2012/06/10/flash-player-update-fix-freezes-crashes-in-firefox/


----------



## kevindd992002

I just did a fresh install of Firefox with a new profile and everything. It seems that Youtube videos are playing in WF13 smoothly when I don't have lots of tabs. I tried manually opening all my tabs (I manually copied all links to a text file before reinstalling) and then playing Youtube videos again and it seems that it is stuttering again. There's got to be one or more tabs that are interfering with Youtube or something, right? Again, this does not happen with FF13. So I don't know what step will I perform next.

Please help


----------



## beerninja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> I had that bug (xul.dll) with WF13 too, uninstall FF13 and reinstall it again.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-v13-pl1-6-jun-firefox-64-bit/2560_20#post_17436953


I already tried that and I still get the same error message. WP13 PL1 won't even start


----------



## TheHunter

hm strange, do you have intel runtime installers? Idk maybe uninstall everything, but make sure to backup stuff :]

As for my problem;
im fine with 11.3 flash player, no more plugin crashes.


----------



## chilinmichael

Still have flash crashes here with newest Waterfox & Flash versions. It's a lot less annoying than it used to be, happens quicker and only crashes on the one issue item on a page. So, it's gotten better. Still hasn't convinced me to stop using Chrome though unfortunately, because Chrome never crashes. I don't blame waterfox here, it's something up with the main firefox coding cause it happens there too.


----------



## fullmoon

Why when I put WF13 on the start menu it shows me Aurora?








The problem of detection of flash comes perhaps from there?
Someone tried with 64bit palemoon to see?


----------



## kevindd992002

Right now WF13 shows that:

Firefox.exe is consuming 4% CPU usage and 970MB of RAM

and

plugin-container.exe shows 12% CPU usage and 512MB RAM.

Is it really normal for plugin-container to take up that much CPU and RAM? The only plugins I have installed are:

Java Deployment Toolkit
Java Platform
Microsoft Office 2010
Shockwave Flash
Silverlight

And I have one extensions: Internet Download Manager

Please shed some light here


----------



## NoiseTemper

Flash 11.3 is giving me interface glitches when watching videos (buttons disappearing, random lines etc.), really annoying so i had to switch back to 11.2, i only have Firefox installed now and i imagine it wouldn't be any better on Waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Why when I put WF13 on the start menu it shows me Aurora?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problem of detection of flash comes perhaps from there?
> Someone tried with 64bit palemoon to see?


The only reason is says Aura is because that's what a based the older structure of my icons from. (See Mozilla Firefox Branding). It's just branding. And I'm not quite sure I get what the issue is?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Right now WF13 shows that:
> 
> Firefox.exe is consuming 4% CPU usage and 970MB of RAM
> 
> and
> 
> plugin-container.exe shows 12% CPU usage and 512MB RAM.
> 
> Is it really normal for plugin-container to take up that much CPU and RAM? The only plugins I have installed are:
> 
> Java Deployment Toolkit
> Java Platform
> Microsoft Office 2010
> Shockwave Flash
> Silverlight
> 
> And I have one extensions: Internet Download Manager
> 
> Please shed some light here


Firefox RAM usage is proportional to the amount of RAM installed in the system. Halve your RAM and the same will happen to your RAM usage. There's no harm in using so much RAM, isn't that what you have all that RAM for?









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Flash 11.3 is giving me interface glitches when watching videos (buttons disappearing, random lines etc.), really annoying so i had to switch back to 11.2, i only have Firefox installed now and i imagine it wouldn't be any better on Waterfox.


Probably not.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Firefox RAM usage is proportional to the amount of RAM installed in the system. Halve your RAM and the same will happen to your RAM usage. There's no harm in using so much RAM, isn't that what you have all that RAM for?


Yup but the thing is I want it to use the RAM that it is suppose to use. I don't want any RAM leakage as we all do









And I'm more concerned of the CPU usage here. Is it normal for plugin-container.exe to take that much CPU resources, even higher than firefox.exe itself?

What I actually notice is that RAM and CPU "leakage" increases while the time WF/FF is open increases. Say if I leave it overnight, when I wake up the RAM and CPU usage gets higher even though it was idle the whole time! There's got to be something wrong there, yes?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Firefox RAM usage is proportional to the amount of RAM installed in the system. Halve your RAM and the same will happen to your RAM usage. There's no harm in using so much RAM, isn't that what you have all that RAM for?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yup but the thing is I want it to use the RAM that it is suppose to use. I don't want any RAM leakage as we all do
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I'm more concerned of the CPU usage here. Is it normal for plugin-container.exe to take that much CPU resources, even higher than firefox.exe itself?
> 
> What I actually notice is that RAM and CPU "leakage" increases while the time WF/FF is open increases. Say if I leave it overnight, when I wake up the RAM and CPU usage gets higher even though it was idle the whole time! There's got to be something wrong there, yes?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about CPU usage. I only get 1% (2 tabs, 1 playing a flash video). How many tabs do you have open?


----------



## NoiseTemper

I'm really sad that i can no longer use WF as my default browser, due to all the hiccups. How long do you think it will take for all the issues to be fixed MrAlex? I know your trying your hardest to address them, and we thank you for that, an update on how it's going would be nice


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm not sure about CPU usage. I only get 1% (2 tabs, 1 playing a flash video). How many tabs do you have open?


Approximately I have 50+ tabs, does that explain it?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Approximately I have 50+ tabs, does that explain it?


Yes. having too many tabs open can cause a high memory usage. Even on other browsers. As for me i only have 4 tabs open. Memory is only at 400+ Mb memory usage. Not really bothersome cause my ram can accommodate it.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Yes. having too many tabs open can cause a high memory usage. Even on other browsers. As for me i only have 4 tabs open memory is only at 400+ Mb memory usage. Not really bothersome cause my ram can accommodate it.


Yeah I understand that but what I don't get is why does RAM and CPU usage increase over time as long as WF/FF is opened even it sitting at idle.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> I'm really sad that i can no longer use WF as my default browser, due to all the hiccups. How long do you think it will take for all the issues to be fixed MrAlex? I know your trying your hardest to address them, and we thank you for that, an update on how it's going would be nice


Waterfox 14 most likely. See, I don't have a bunch of test computers or users either. Releasing preview builds here, while does help, still doesn't match the scope of the thousands of people that use Waterfox. So there's no way I can account for all the issues that crop up. But the next build will be rock solid


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yeah I understand that but what I don't get is why does RAM and CPU usage increase over time as long as WF/FF is opened even it sitting at idle.


Maybe of your tabs are having some activity. (like 1 or 5 tabs are playing a flash content.) Many factors really. It's how heavy the website is. But outdated extensions or too many extensions can affect the memory usage of WF/FF. if you want it to trim down memory when idle or when minimized there's a tweak on about:config that will shed some memory when it's minimized. (forgot the tweak code sorry







)


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Maybe of your tabs are having some activity. (like 1 or 5 tabs are playing a flash content.) Many factors really. It's how heavy the website is. But outdated extensions or too many extensions can affect the memory usage of WF/FF. if you want it to trim down memory when idle or when minimized there's a tweak on about:config that will shed some memory when it's minimized. (forgot the tweak code sorry
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


No activity in each of the tabs, really. Just plain forum texts.

Also, I only have one extension (IDM) and it is updated. I only have Silverlight, Flash, Shockwave, and Microsoft Office as plugins also.

Oh and by the way, I followed all the tweaks of djkilla here: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-v13-pl1-6-jun-firefox-64-bit/2050#post_16944929 . Maybe one of his tweaks causes my issue? Not sure on that.


----------



## meetloaf13

Curious if there is a work-around or plug-in for Google Voice and Video that works with this browser?

Not a deal breaker, but would be convenient.

I absolutely love this browser and am willing to go without, but never hurts to ask!

Thanks!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meetloaf13*
> 
> Curious if there is a work-around or plug-in for Google Voice and Video that works with this browser?
> 
> Not a deal breaker, but would be convenient.
> 
> I absolutely love this browser and am willing to go without, but never hurts to ask!
> 
> Thanks!


I've never used them before. Are they 32-Bit plugins? If so, there's nothing you can do but wait for Google. But take note this issue has come up at Google and is being looked into.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> No activity in each of the tabs, really. Just plain forum texts.
> Also, I only have one extension (IDM) and it is updated. I only have Silverlight, Flash, Shockwave, and Microsoft Office as plugins also.


Like qwerty77 said, there are lots of factors. He did mention a tweak that you can do to help memory and I'm going to give it to you. Hopefully it will help but there are so many factors involved that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what could be causing this issue for you. MrAlex has mentioned that with thousands of users, some will have issues and some won't. Every setup is different and it's almost impossible to reply and chase down every little thing especially when not everyone has the same issue due to each persons setup. Anyway, try this:

This little hack will drop Firefox's RAM usage down to 10 Mb when minimized:

1. Open Firefox and go to the Address Bar. Type in about:config and then press Enter.
2. Right Click in the page and select New -> Boolean.
3. In the box that pops up enter "config.trim_on_minimize". Press Enter.
4. Now select 'True' and then press Enter.
5. Restart Firefox.


----------



## meetloaf13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've never used them before. Are they 32-Bit plugins? If so, there's nothing you can do but wait for Google. But take note this issue has come up at Google and is being looked into.


Cool, looks like they have x64 plugins for fedora and debian:
http://www.google.com/chat/video/download.html?platform=linux_fedora_i386

I'll keep snooping around =]

Google is aware, looks like they are dragging their feet:
https://productforums.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/google-plus-discuss/xSmXl-FE6yg


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Like qwerty77 said, there are lots of factors. He did mention a tweak that you can do to help memory and I'm going to give it to you. Hopefully it will help but there are so many factors involved that it's hard to pinpoint exactly what could be causing this issue for you. MrAlex has mentioned that with thousands of users, some will have issues and some won't. Every setup is different and it's almost impossible to reply and chase down every little thing especially when not everyone has the same issue due to each persons setup. Anyway, try this:
> This little hack will drop Firefox's RAM usage down to 10 Mb when minimized:
> 1. Open Firefox and go to the Address Bar. Type in about:config and then press Enter.
> 2. Right Click in the page and select New -> Boolean.
> 3. In the box that pops up enter "config.trim_on_minimize". Press Enter.
> 4. Now select 'True' and then press Enter.
> 5. Restart Firefox.


Thanks. Will this tweaks have any disadvantage at all?


----------



## momoko

When I play youtube vids from pages or directly, the browser freezes and I have to close it from the taskbar. I have latest flash 64 and no userscripts for youtube. Anyone else experiencing this?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks. Will this tweaks have any disadvantage at all?


There's no disadvantage at all. Great way to reclaim memory.


----------



## momoko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momoko*
> 
> When I play youtube vids from pages or directly, the browser freezes and I have to close it from the taskbar. I have latest flash 64 and no userscripts for youtube. Anyone else experiencing this?


Oh, that was because I disabled plugin container before lol


----------



## omeyg

Since installing Waterfox V13 PL1, the tabs dont seem to be working properly.

Waterfox is supposed to open up the tabs that were open in the previous session but now opens up a blank new tab everytime regardless of the browser settings.

The group tabs button also seems to be stuffing up. When I click the group tabs button, nothing happens...

Somehow by trial and error I can manage to reach the group tabs screen but when I click on a tab in the group it doesnt load in the window and I have to end the session before I can use Waterfox normally.

I tried reinstalling the Waterfox V12 but the problem is now "permanent".

I would like to solve these problems and run them on Waterfox V13 PL1. The tabs were one of the few reasons that I would still use Waterfox so I am disappointed about this recent update.

Any ideas as to solve this problem? Should I reinstall Waterfox V13 PL1 again?


----------



## omeyg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *omeyg*
> 
> Since installing Waterfox V13 PL1, the tabs dont seem to be working properly.
> Waterfox is supposed to open up the tabs that were open in the previous session but now opens up a blank new tab everytime regardless of the browser settings.
> The group tabs button also seems to be stuffing up. When I click the group tabs button, nothing happens...
> Somehow by trial and error I can manage to reach the group tabs screen but when I click on a tab in the group it doesnt load in the window and I have to end the session before I can use Waterfox normally.
> I tried reinstalling the Waterfox V12 but the problem is now "permanent".
> I would like to solve these problems and run them on Waterfox V13 PL1. The tabs were one of the few reasons that I would still use Waterfox so I am disappointed about this recent update.
> Any ideas as to solve this problem? Should I reinstall Waterfox V13 PL1 again?


Also when I view the Bookmarks Toolbar and add bookmarks links to it, the links disappear when I open the browser in a new session.
I have shrink the toolbar down to button size and then view it again before the links come back.
Any fixes for this little issue? I dont know if this is Mozilla related or Waterfox related.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> There's no disadvantage at all. Great way to reclaim memory.


Ok, thanks. If it's not too much to ask, can you add this tweak in your list of tweaks here?







I follow that list whenever I delete my profile.

EDIT: By the way, I followed your steps in applying the minimize tweak but it seems to not work? The RAM usage is not dropping to a lower amount when I minimize WF.


----------



## oriented

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Until now (I've started using WF from WF11), I get smoother Yotuube video playback with FF than WF. In WF, it's producing a small stutter randomly at the length of any video. All my drivers are latest. Is this a common problem with WF or Flash?


I followed the instructions here and it solved my problem because it increases the time between each of the saves performed by session restore.

Go into about:config (via the Waterfox address bar) then typing browser.sessionstore.interval in the filter box. It should show a default value of 10000 milliseconds ie. 10 seconds.

Mine has been changed to 120000 ie. 2 minutes.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oriented*
> 
> I followed the instructions here and it solved my problem because it increases the time between each of the saves performed by session restore.
> Go into about:config (via the Waterfox address bar) then typing browser.sessionstore.interval in the filter box. It should show a default value of 10000 milliseconds ie. 10 seconds.
> Mine has been changed to 120000 ie. 2 minutes.


Without this tweak, does Youtube play jittery even when you use Firefox (not Waterfox)?


----------



## oriented

In Firefox, yes it used to jitter every now and then. This tweak was also applied to my Firefox... but now quite happy with Waterfox although does crash on the new Google map interface.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *oriented*
> 
> In Firefox, yes it used to jitter every now and then. This tweak was also applied to my Firefox... but now quite happy with Waterfox although does crash on the new Google map interface.


But as I've said, I have no problems with Firefox playing youtube videos?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *omeyg*
> 
> Since installing Waterfox V13 PL1, the tabs dont seem to be working properly.
> 
> Waterfox is supposed to open up the tabs that were open in the previous session but now opens up a blank new tab everytime regardless of the browser settings.
> 
> The group tabs button also seems to be stuffing up. When I click the group tabs button, nothing happens...
> 
> Somehow by trial and error I can manage to reach the group tabs screen but when I click on a tab in the group it doesnt load in the window and I have to end the session before I can use Waterfox normally.
> 
> I tried reinstalling the Waterfox V12 but the problem is now "permanent".
> 
> I would like to solve these problems and run them on Waterfox V13 PL1. The tabs were one of the few reasons that I would still use Waterfox so I am disappointed about this recent update.
> 
> Any ideas as to solve this problem? Should I reinstall Waterfox V13 PL1 again?


Try Firefox and tell me if you get the same problem? If not, have you tried a different profile?


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok, thanks. If it's not too much to ask, can you add this tweak in your list of tweaks here?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I follow that list whenever I delete my profile.
> EDIT: By the way, I followed your steps in applying the minimize tweak but it seems to not work? The RAM usage is not dropping to a lower amount when I minimize WF.


you can try with this Addon



https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/configuration-mania-4420/

.....
extra tweak for smoother page rendering


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> you can try with this Addon
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/configuration-mania-4420/
> .....
> extra tweak for smoother page rendering


Thanks but isn't it supposed to work with the tweak provided by djkilla?


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks but isn't it supposed to work with the tweak provided by djkilla?


It should fine, but with this addon you have a handy GUI and all in one place.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks but isn't it supposed to work with the tweak provided by djkilla?


Most of those tweaks I've included. This is an add-on which lets you tweak the settings without manually using about:config. It's not a bad add-on. It lets you do changes quickly and might be perfect for you to try to see if it improves or solve the YouTube jittering issue. If you get it, I would recommend changing the settings under 'Paint & Rendering'. Those settings control the page reflow which could be causing the jittering in YouTube. You can try increasing the numbers. This will cause Waterfox to not reflow the page as often.

Now that I think about it, you may want to try changing my tweak to reduce the amount of RAM Firefox uses for its cache feature from 0 to -1

1. Type "about:config" (no quotes) in the adress bar in the browser.
2. Find "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer"
3. Set it's value to "-1"

'0' keeps everything from being cached to RAM. But if you're streaming a YouTube video, you may need this setting to be '-1' so the video will play smoother by caching/buffering the video to RAM. You may notice more memory/RAM being used to do this to get smoother video play. When I get time, I'll see if there's another way to reduce the RAM used by Waterfox.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Those settings control the page reflow which could be causing the jittering in YouTube. You can try increasing the numbers. This will cause Waterfox to not reflow the page as often.


Hi,

You mean interval for the initial reflows?

I saw that it can glitch by gif pictures and cause a small hickup if its to high, same for maximum time to interrupt process..

its like so at default

120000 (i use 100000)
360000 (260000)
750000 (850000)

Any extra tips how to adjust properly?









And I also get this weird stutter in youtube, but sometimes its better with other drivers (almost none) so i thought its a driver thing









or is this enough,

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer -1

i dont mind extra ram usage, i use Ramdisk (500mb) for WF default cache









edit: ah its already at -1..


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Those settings control the page reflow which could be causing the jittering in YouTube. You can try increasing the numbers. This will cause Waterfox to not reflow the page as often.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi,
> You mean interval for the initial reflows?
> I saw that it can glitch by gif pictures and cause a small hickup if its to high, same for maximum time to interrupt process..
> its like so at default
> 120000 (i use 100000)
> 360000 (260000)
> 750000 (850000)
Click to expand...

Yes, this is the interval in microseconds before it reflows the page. There's a couple of settings to look at to improve the jitter.

content.notify.interval:
Sets the minimum amount of time (1 second = 1,000,000 microseconds) to wait between periodic reflowing of the page to 0.12 seconds - stops Firefox becoming slow by reflowing too frequently. This is a new integer value. Default is 120000. content.notify.ontimer must be set to true for this preference to take effect.

content.notify.ontimer:
Ensures Firefox does not reflow pages at an interval any higher than that specified by content.notify.interval above. This is a new Boolean value. Default is True

content.max.tokenizing.time:
Sets the maximum amount of time Firefox will be unresponsive while rendering pages - set to 3 times the content.notify.interval above. This is a new integer value. Default is 360000. Lowering the interval will make the application more responsive at the expense of page load time.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Yes, this is the interval in microseconds before it reflows the page. There's a couple of settings to look at to improve the jitter.
> content.notify.interval:
> Sets the minimum amount of time (1 second = 1,000,000 microseconds) to wait between periodic reflowing of the page to 0.12 seconds - stops Firefox becoming slow by reflowing too frequently. This is a new integer value. Default is 120000. content.notify.ontimer must be set to true for this preference to take effect.
> content.notify.ontimer:
> Ensures Firefox does not reflow pages at an interval any higher than that specified by content.notify.interval above. This is a new Boolean value. Default is True
> content.max.tokenizing.time:
> Sets the maximum amount of time Firefox will be unresponsive while rendering pages - set to 3 times the content.notify.interval above. This is a new integer value. Default is 360000. Lowering the interval will make the application more responsive at the expense of page load time.


Thanks,

so the best effect is to set

content.notify.interval: to 1 sec (1000000)

then i need content.max.tokenizing.time: 3.6sec (3600000), Isn't that a bit high compared to 360ms?

edit: i 've set it like so (1sec; 3.6sec) and it looks good, i also disabled initial paint delay to 0ms and it looks snappy, youtube videos are ok too









edit2: content.max.tokenizing.time: 3.6sec (3600000) lagged animated looped gifs, setting it back to 360ms fixed it.


----------



## omeyg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *omeyg*
> 
> Since installing Waterfox V13 PL1, the tabs dont seem to be working properly.
> Waterfox is supposed to open up the tabs that were open in the previous session but now opens up a blank new tab everytime regardless of the browser settings.
> The group tabs button also seems to be stuffing up. When I click the group tabs button, nothing happens...
> Somehow by trial and error I can manage to reach the group tabs screen but when I click on a tab in the group it doesnt load in the window and I have to end the session before I can use Waterfox normally.
> I tried reinstalling the Waterfox V12 but the problem is now "permanent".
> I would like to solve these problems and run them on Waterfox V13 PL1. The tabs were one of the few reasons that I would still use Waterfox so I am disappointed about this recent update.
> Any ideas as to solve this problem? Should I reinstall Waterfox V13 PL1 again?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Try Firefox and tell me if you get the same problem? If not, have you tried a different profile?


After rebooting the computer, all of the problems have been fixed.









BUT this is still only on Waterfox V12 and not V13 PL1...









Do the tabs work for everyone else?


----------



## Lord Venom

Tabs work fine for me. Waterfox 13 PL1 is working fine for me, other than the protected mode Flash issue now and then but I'm waiting for Adobe to issue a fix for that one.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> Thanks,
> so the best effect is to set
> content.notify.interval: to 1 sec (1000000)
> then i need content.max.tokenizing.time: 3.6sec (3600000), Isn't that a bit high compared to 360ms?
> edit: i 've set it like so (1sec; 3.6sec) and it looks good, i also disabled initial paint delay to 0ms and it looks snappy, youtube videos are ok too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit2: content.max.tokenizing.time: 3.6sec (3600000) lagged animated looped gifs, setting it back to 360ms fixed it.


The content.notify.interval doesn't need to be that high. Since the default is 120000, you can try going up to maybe 300000 then maybe 500000 to see if it helps to smooth everything out. Here's a better description of the setting:

content.notify.interval [Integer] *Create - Note that for this setting to work, a new Boolean called content.notify.ontimer must also be created and set to True as well. The value in microseconds for this preference (where 1000 microseconds = 1 millisecond = 1/1000th of a second) determines how long Firefox buffers network data before displaying it. By default this is 120000 microseconds (120 milliseconds). Lowering this setting may improve display speed in Firefox, however it will also increase CPU usage to do so. Experiment with this setting, either raising it or lowering it to see if the results are beneficial on your system. Don't drop this value to one which is extremely low however. If in doubt, do not change this value as you are more likely to slow Firefox down than speed it up.

The content.max.tokenizing.time is not as important or optional but can make a difference when combined with the other setting. It should be a multiple of 3x what the content.notify.interval is. So if content.notify.interval is set to 200000, then content.max.tokenizing.time would be 600000. Whatever the multiple is for content.max.tokenizing.time, you can then start lowering that number by maybe 50000. Lowering the interval will make the application more responsive at the expense of page load time. Like I said, this setting isn't as important but here's what it does:

This preference controls the maximum amount of time the application will be unresponsive while rendering pages.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Most of those tweaks I've included. This is an add-on which lets you tweak the settings without manually using about:config. It's not a bad add-on. It lets you do changes quickly and might be perfect for you to try to see if it improves or solve the YouTube jittering issue. If you get it, I would recommend changing the settings under 'Paint & Rendering'. Those settings control the page reflow which could be causing the jittering in YouTube. You can try increasing the numbers. This will cause Waterfox to not reflow the page as often.
> Now that I think about it, you may want to try changing my tweak to reduce the amount of RAM Firefox uses for its cache feature from 0 to -1
> 1. Type "about:config" (no quotes) in the adress bar in the browser.
> 2. Find "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer"
> 3. Set it's value to "-1"
> '0' keeps everything from being cached to RAM. But if you're streaming a YouTube video, you may need this setting to be '-1' so the video will play smoother by caching/buffering the video to RAM. You may notice more memory/RAM being used to do this to get smoother video play. When I get time, I'll see if there's another way to reduce the RAM used by Waterfox.


Ok. I want to do it manually though









Regadring the 10Mb RAM usage when minimized, why doesn't it work for me as I've said?


----------



## Conditioned

Why does fx 32 start faster than this?

Surfing I can definately see that Waterfox is faster, but shouldnt it start faster also?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok. I want to do it manually though
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Regadring the 10Mb RAM usage when minimized, why doesn't it work for me as I've said?


There's actually two different settings to deal with. Here's a better description of config.trim_on_minimize:

On Windows operating systems, when a program is minimized and left for a period of time, Windows will swap memory the program is using from RAM onto the hard disk in anticipation that other programs might need RAM. Because of the way Mozilla applications are stored in memory, Windows is much more aggressive in swapping out the memory they use, which can cause a delay when the program is restored. This preference determines whether to allow Windows to swap out memory from a minimized Mozilla application.

When setting this to 'True', you'll be able to reduce the amount of RAM used but it may not be right away. When you minimize Firefox or leave it running without messing with it, Windows will swap out the memory Firefox is using. Windows overall controls everything but this setting allows the memory being used by Firefox to be swapped out when the above conditions exist.

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer should have an 's' at the end. So the correct command/setting should be browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers Here's a better description for the setting:

browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [Integer] - This option determines how many pages to store in memory to speed up the back and forward buttons in Firefox. The default of -1 automatically determines the amount based on your system RAM, and is generally recommended. At 512MB of RAM, 5 pages are held in memory, while 1GB or more of RAM holds 8 pages. You can set this value to 0 to hold no pages in RAM (only recommended for very low RAM or troubleshooting purposes), or increase the value if you often use the back and forward functions for more than 8 pages.

So these two settings will control the amount of ram used by Firefox/Waterfox. I recommended changing the browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers from '0' (Do not store any pages in memory.) to '-1' (Automatically determine the maximum amount of pages to store in memory based on the total amount of RAM (Default)). You'll use more memory with this setting but it may solve the jittering in YouTube videos by caching/buffering the video into memory while streaming it. You can also use positive integers to control the amount of RAM used. Take a look at the following page for additional info:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Conditioned*
> 
> Why does fx 32 start faster than this?
> Surfing I can definately see that Waterfox is faster, but shouldnt it start faster also?


It's a combination of the Firefox code and how the code was compiled. Waterfox is always being improved in this area so how the code is compiled will change from time to time with each version. There's new versions of compilers coming out soon so Waterfox will continue to improve in this area. Once running, Waterfox is a speed beast when surfing the internet.


----------



## Miki

Been using this over a week now, I actually posted a thread in the news section regarding the most recent update. XD

Haven't experienced any abnormal issues so far. Cheers.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> There's actually two different settings to deal with. Here's a better description of config.trim_on_minimize:
> On Windows operating systems, when a program is minimized and left for a period of time, Windows will swap memory the program is using from RAM onto the hard disk in anticipation that other programs might need RAM. Because of the way Mozilla applications are stored in memory, Windows is much more aggressive in swapping out the memory they use, which can cause a delay when the program is restored. This preference determines whether to allow Windows to swap out memory from a minimized Mozilla application.
> When setting this to 'True', you'll be able to reduce the amount of RAM used but it may not be right away. When you minimize Firefox or leave it running without messing with it, Windows will swap out the memory Firefox is using. Windows overall controls everything but this setting allows the memory being used by Firefox to be swapped out when the above conditions exist.
> browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewer should have an 's' at the end. So the correct command/setting should be browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers Here's a better description for the setting:
> browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [Integer] - This option determines how many pages to store in memory to speed up the back and forward buttons in Firefox. The default of -1 automatically determines the amount based on your system RAM, and is generally recommended. At 512MB of RAM, 5 pages are held in memory, while 1GB or more of RAM holds 8 pages. You can set this value to 0 to hold no pages in RAM (only recommended for very low RAM or troubleshooting purposes), or increase the value if you often use the back and forward functions for more than 8 pages.
> So these two settings will control the amount of ram used by Firefox/Waterfox. I recommended changing the browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers from '0' (Do not store any pages in memory.) to '-1' (Automatically determine the maximum amount of pages to store in memory based on the total amount of RAM (Default)). You'll use more memory with this setting but it may solve the jittering in YouTube videos by caching/buffering the video into memory while streaming it. You can also use positive integers to control the amount of RAM used. Take a look at the following page for additional info:
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers


Thanks. But I left WF running overnight and the RAM usage is still high and unchanged even though I set config.trim_on_minimize to True. So Windows is the culprit here?

I remember that the first step in your list of tweaks is browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers but you were recommending a value of '0' there, can you modify the list for me to reflect a value of '-1' is better? Thanks.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks. But I left WF running overnight and the RAM usage is still high and unchanged even though I set config.trim_on_minimize to True. So Windows is the culprit here?
> I remember that the first step in your list of tweaks is browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers but you were recommending a value of '0' there, can you modify the list for me to reflect a value of '-1' is better? Thanks.


Yea, Windows is to blame. Even though the setting is 'True', It's Windows that chooses how it controls everything. For browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers, I'll change the setting back to it's default of '-1' because this may help for streaming videos to run more smoothly. Otherwise, I prefer to use '0' to save memory and keep pages from being cached that I may not want to visit again. It's really a personal choice for the user and there's lots of choices to choose from for this setting to better manage the memory/cache.


----------



## phoenixsing

Java plugin crashed after Java upgrade from ver 6 31 to 6 33. Anyone has the same problem with WF 13 PL1?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phoenixsing*
> 
> Java plugin crashed after Java upgrade from ver 6 31 to 6 33. Anyone has the same problem with WF 13 PL1?


Uninstall and reinstall using the latest Java released yesterday from the following locations:

http://www.filehippo.com/download/file/84d45b9955fe3ea74462a814887bce4eea9f64ada116c2e195693039a94d5250/

http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp

Additional Info:

http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/257230/oracle_to_issue_14_patches_for_java_se.html#tk.rss_news


----------



## phoenixsing

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Uninstall and reinstall using the latest Java released yesterday from the following locations:
> http://www.filehippo.com/download/file/84d45b9955fe3ea74462a814887bce4eea9f64ada116c2e195693039a94d5250/
> http://java.com/en/download/index.jsp
> Additional Info:
> http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/257230/oracle_to_issue_14_patches_for_java_se.html#tk.rss_news


Thanks for the links, will try out.


----------



## tek2005

Firefox 13.0.1 Released on Mozilla ftp roughly 3 hours ago







no change log yet i don't think

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2013.0.1.exe


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Firefox 13.0.1 Released on Mozilla ftp roughly 3 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no change log yet i don't think
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2013.0.1.exe


Looks like this update fixes multiple bugs including an auto-compacting routine, possible Adobe Flash plug-in fix and some other fixes. Thunderbird is also affected so there will be an update for that as well. Stay tuned for more info coming soon....


----------



## helloha

Out of curiosity, why is the installed size of firefox (32 bit) 36.5MB while Waterfox is 69.8MB? Both are the same version. Is there that much of a difference between the 32 and 64 bit versions?


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Firefox 13.0.1 Released on Mozilla ftp roughly 3 hours ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no change log yet i don't think
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/13.0.1/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2013.0.1.exe


Release notes
Quote:


> What's New
> 
> FIXED Windows Messenger did not load in Hotmail, and the Hotmail inbox did not auto-update (764546, fixed in 13.0.1)
> FIXED Hebrew text sometimes rendered incorrectly (756850, fixed in 13.0.1)
> FIXED Flash 11.3 sometimes caused a crash on quit (747683, fixed in 13.0.1)
> NEW When opening a new tab, users are now presented with their most visited pages
> NEW The default home page now has quicker access to bookmarks, history, settings, and more
> CHANGED SPDY protocol now enabled by default for faster browsing on supported sites
> CHANGED Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup
> CHANGED Smooth scrolling is now enabled by default
> DEVELOPER 72 total improvements to Page Inspector, HTML panel, Style Inspector, Scratchpad and Style Editor
> DEVELOPER The column-fill CSS property has been implemented
> DEVELOPER Experimental support for ECMAScript 6 Map and Set objects has been implemented
> DEVELOPER Support for the CSS3 background-position property extended syntax has been added
> DEVELOPER The :invalid pseudo-class can now be applied to the element
> DEVELOPER The CSS turn unit is now supported
> FIXED Various security fixes
> 
> Known Issues
> 
> Unresolved If you try to start Firefox using a locked profile, it will crash (see 573369)
> Unresolved For some users, scrolling in the main GMail window will be slower than usual (see 579260)
> Unresolved Windows: The use of Microsoft's System Restore functionality shortly after updating Firefox may prevent future updates (see 730285)
> Unresolved OS X: nsCocoaWindow::ConstrainPosition uses wrong screen in multi-display setup (see 752149)
> 
> Unresolved on v12 Resolved in v14
> Unresolved CSS :hover regression when an element's class name is set by Javascript (see 758885)


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> Release notes
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> What's New
> FIXED Windows Messenger did not load in Hotmail, and the Hotmail inbox did not auto-update (764546, fixed in 13.0.1)
> FIXED Hebrew text sometimes rendered incorrectly (756850, fixed in 13.0.1)
> FIXED Flash 11.3 sometimes caused a crash on quit (747683, fixed in 13.0.1)
> NEW When opening a new tab, users are now presented with their most visited pages
> NEW The default home page now has quicker access to bookmarks, history, settings, and more
> CHANGED SPDY protocol now enabled by default for faster browsing on supported sites
> CHANGED Restored background tabs are not loaded by default for faster startup
> CHANGED Smooth scrolling is now enabled by default
> DEVELOPER 72 total improvements to Page Inspector, HTML panel, Style Inspector, Scratchpad and Style Editor
> DEVELOPER The column-fill CSS property has been implemented
> DEVELOPER Experimental support for ECMAScript 6 Map and Set objects has been implemented
> DEVELOPER Support for the CSS3 background-position property extended syntax has been added
> DEVELOPER The :invalid pseudo-class can now be applied to the element
> DEVELOPER The CSS turn unit is now supported
> FIXED Various security fixes
> Known Issues
> Unresolved If you try to start Firefox using a locked profile, it will crash (see 573369)
> Unresolved For some users, scrolling in the main GMail window will be slower than usual (see 579260)
> Unresolved Windows: The use of Microsoft's System Restore functionality shortly after updating Firefox may prevent future updates (see 730285)
> Unresolved OS X: nsCocoaWindow::ConstrainPosition uses wrong screen in multi-display setup (see 752149)
> Unresolved on v12 Resolved in v14
> Unresolved CSS :hover regression when an element's class name is set by Javascript (see 758885)
Click to expand...

Is the Flash Protected Mode bug already fixed?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *helloha*
> 
> Out of curiosity, why is the installed size of firefox (32 bit) 36.5MB while Waterfox is 69.8MB? Both are the same version. Is there that much of a difference between the 32 and 64 bit versions?


Intel's C++ compiler increases code size by quite a bit, (for example xul.dll goes from 20MB to 30MB).


----------



## Daveski

What's this ~ Latest version: 13.0 PL1 (23.6 MB)?

Do I need to install this over version 13?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daveski*
> 
> What's this ~ Latest version: 13.0 PL1 (23.6 MB)?
> 
> Do I need to install this over version 13?


Only if you get the GUI bug.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is the Flash Protected Mode bug already fixed?


hm idk, apparently it is with latest 11.3 flash + FF13 combo.


----------



## satrow

The only Flash -related bug that the latest Firefox update fixes is the least troublesome one, where Flash crashes and gives an error message on closing the browser.


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Only if you get the GUI bug.


OK thanks for the reply.









Erm ... this might sound like a silly question, but what is the GUI bug & how would I recognise it? As far as I can tell Waterfox is running fine for me. I haven't had time to run my 64 bit computer a lot since the # 13 upgrade though.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> hm idk, apparently it is with latest 11.3 flash + FF13 combo.


But the protected mode issue was introduced by 11.3 flash itself?


----------



## Lord Venom

To fully fix it, there will need to be another Flash 11.3 build released.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> To fully fix it, there will need to be another Flash 11.3 build released.


Yes but right now it is not yet fixed, right?


----------



## ccchan123

HELP ME


----------



## qwerty77

If you have 11.3 of adobe flash installed downgrade to 11.2 first. Adobe seems to have recognize the crash and is working on a fix. No ETA tough.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> But the protected mode issue was introduced by 11.3 flash itself?


Ah yes i mixed it, but then again i just got another flash plugin crash yesterday, so its not fixed for me either -_-

There appears to be a issue with Flash 11.3 itself, there are a lot of complains @ adobe forums. Apparently reverting back to 11.2 fixes it.


----------



## Lord Venom

No, it's not fixed yet. Anyone having Flash 11.3 related crashes needs to downgrade to 11.2 until Adobe releases a fix.


----------



## sparkler

ffs you people are really stupid 11.2 has a security vulnerability thats getting exploited install this http://forums.adobe.com/thread/889580

http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-0779


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sparkler*
> 
> 11.2 has a security vulnerability thats getting exploited install this http://forums.adobe.com/thread/889580
> http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-0779


Quote:


> 11.x *before* 11.2.202.235 on Windows


^ from your web.nvd.gist.gov link.

The problem lies with the fact that for some people, Flash 11.3 is useless, it doesn't work or crashes inside the browser, 11.3 with the mms.cfg addition of the line: *ProtectedMode=0* _might_ be the best workaround (assuming that protected mode isn't the only security fix or update in 11.3) but many people are not comfortable with editing files deep inside the Windows folder, just like some aren't happy editing the Registry - for them, reverting to Flash 11.2 is a good compromise that they can handle as an activity within their comfort zone.

In the latest Adobe troubleshooting page for the current rash of Flash issues, it's one of the last options they offer: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1018071. The problem with that is that Flash 11.2.202.235 is NOT on the archived versions page that they link to: http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1022066?tstart=0 which links to: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html


----------



## sparkler

sorry wrong cve http://www.adobe.com/support/security/bulletins/apsb12-14.html

this also http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1022066?tstart=0 links to this http://forums.adobe.com/thread/889580 why there is no 11.2.202.235 archived i don't know there all vulnerable also has this

f you install the latest 10.3 build, you will get a player with all known security patches applied. It won't however have the functionality of the 11.x series. If you install the last version of 11.x, your player might not have all of the known security updates applied but you will have more recent features.


----------



## qwerty77

Just a question Mr. Alex. Are you planning on releasing the 13.0.1 version too? Sorry for the noobish question please delete this if i have violated any rules.


----------



## satrow

Seriously sparkler, for those people who have these problems with Flash 11.3 it effectively means they have a Flash player that doesn't work. No amount of recent features is going to convince them to keep a player that doesn't play.


----------



## attackcenter

Problem with Waterfox:

One plugin recognizes Waterfox as a separate browser and not as Firefox.

The Dfx Audio Enhancer recognizes Waterfox as a separate browser and not Firefox. Please fix this so I can continue to use Waterfox. Otherwise, I unfortunately have to go back to the stock Firefox. I don't know which of my other plugins are having the same problem. Lets hope its just Dfx Audio Enhancer.

I'm also using ad muncher, webroot secure anywhere complete, and malwarebytes anti-malware. Please make sure that Waterfox gets recognized as Firefox on our systems like it should be.

Thanks for all of your work. Please get back to me.

AC


----------



## Lord Venom

It's really up to the vendor to recognize and support Waterfox as a Firefox fork or independently. Have you reported it to them?


----------



## attackcenter

Hi,

You would think so. Although, it seems obvious since most of the other plugins work that its something that Waterfox is doing. I'm sure if Waterfox devs would make sure that Waterfox is 100% being detected as Firefox that it would work. Dfx Audio Enhance simply looks for Firefox. DFX seems to be seeing a Waterfox ID and not Firefox.

AC


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *attackcenter*
> 
> Problem with Waterfox:
> One plugin recognizes Waterfox as a separate browser and not as Firefox.
> The Dfx Audio Enhancer recognizes Waterfox as a separate browser and not Firefox. Please fix this so I can continue to use Waterfox. Otherwise, I unfortunately have to go back to the stock Firefox. I don't know which of my other plugins are having the same problem. Lets hope its just Dfx Audio Enhancer.
> I'm also using ad muncher, webroot secure anywhere complete, and malwarebytes anti-malware. Please make sure that Waterfox gets recognized as Firefox on our systems like it should be.
> Thanks for all of your work. Please get back to me.
> AC


Nothing is wrong with Waterfox. Go talk to whoever makes the plugins you want and ask them for 64bit compatibility. There is nothing that can be done to Waterfox to fix your problem as it is a problem with 3rd party software.

And for all intents and purposes, Waterfox is recognized as Firefox, not as a separate "browser" that would confuse plugins. Some plugins simply do not have 64bit support and so will not start with Waterfox, but start with Firefox just fine. Both WF and FF pull from the same list of plugins installed on your computer, there isn't a separate set of plugins just for Waterfox, they are all from the same place.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *attackcenter*
> 
> Hi,
> You would think so. Although, it seems obvious since most of the other plugins work that its something that Waterfox is doing. I'm sure if Waterfox devs would make sure that Waterfox is 100% being detected as Firefox that it would work. Dfx Audio Enhance simply looks for Firefox. DFX seems to be seeing a Waterfox ID and not Firefox.
> AC


Yes, many plugins have 64bit compatibility. Java, Flash, and Silverlight all install both 32bit and 64bit on your computer when you install them. The problem you are having is the people who make the plugins you want do NOT include 64bit version of their plugins, so they do not start with Waterfox.


----------



## attackcenter

Hi Freakie,

Thanks. You may be correct. Although, I have seen some past screen shots of the Dfx Audio Enhancer showing that it had 64-bit. Now, it shows 32-bit. I took it for granted that the dev simply changed it back to 32-bit and offers 64-bit compatibility. The Dfx Audio Enhancer devs don't seem to answer e-mails. I was once able to get a hold of them by phone. Might try and contact them.

AC


----------



## Freakie

I just tried looking into it, and yeah it seems that Dfx only supports 32bit browsers even if they are on 64bit versions of Windows 7 :/ If they did support it in the past I am sorry to hear that they seem to have stopped supporting 64 bit







A friend of mine also cannot properly use her fingerprint reader with Waterfox, and of course none of us can use Adobe's in-browser PDF viewer with Waterfox xP Developers just aren't getting on board with this whole faster web browser thing


----------



## attackcenter

Freakie,

I just found a number that appeared to contact the Power Technology developer directly.









He confirmed that Dfx Audio Enhancer currently doesn't have 64 bit support. They said they are working on it and they should have a 64-bit support version released in a month or two.

Very good. You were right.









Thanks,

AC


----------



## Freakie

Awesome! Glad they are actively working on it. Happier ending than many plugins get


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Just a question Mr. Alex. Are you planning on releasing the 13.0.1 version too? Sorry for the noobish question please delete this if i have violated any rules.


Hello,

With the new release of firefox (v13.0.1) it will be great to make a new version of waterfox









Is it possible ?

Thanks a lot for the very good work with waterfox


----------



## MrAlex

Firefox 14 or 15 includes a built in PDF reader (or you can test it out before it gets integrated, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdfjs/).


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Firefox 14 or 15 includes a built in PDF reader (or you can test it out before it gets integrated, https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/pdfjs/).


Awesome, thanks, Alex


----------



## grocal

Unfortunately I'm switching back to classic Firefox. All because of X-Fire incompatibility. Please do remember it's not a matter of any plugins (as some sometimes say). Whenever X-Fire launches _xfire64.exe_ as its child process Waterfox crashes (if running) or crashes on start up (if starting). My previous solution was just to delete xfire64.exe from X-Fire directory thus preventing X-Fire from running it, but lately I've noticed that due to lack of that process in memory most of Steam games tend to be reported by X-Fire as being played even they are not (that gave me inaccurate game play timing on X-Fire webpage, for example playing Dota 2 for 40 hours in last two days). I'll give Waterfox a try once in a while but stability is more important to me than other Waterfox virtues.


----------



## Lord Venom

Unfortunately incompatibilities like that is up to the third party vendors to address/fix/support.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grocal*
> 
> Unfortunately I'm switching back to classic Firefox. All because of X-Fire incompatibility. Please do remember it's not a matter of any plugins (as some sometimes say). Whenever X-Fire launches _xfire64.exe_ as its child process Waterfox crashes (if running) or crashes on start up (if starting). My previous solution was just to delete xfire64.exe from X-Fire directory thus preventing X-Fire from running it, but lately I've noticed that due to lack of that process in memory most of Steam games tend to be reported by X-Fire as being played even they are not (that gave me inaccurate game play timing on X-Fire webpage, for example playing Dota 2 for 40 hours in last two days). I'll give Waterfox a try once in a while but stability is more important to me than other Waterfox virtues.


Hmmmm. I noticed when everyone says there's a problem, it's always blamed on Waterfox. Most of the time it's not Waterfox. Anyway, lets get down to business. Have you tried other 64bit builds of Firefox to verify it's 100% NOT the XFire plugin/addon? Here's a good one to try:

HTGuard 64bit
http://htguard.island.ac/

If XFire works with both of the above builds, then please report back here so we can take a closer look at why Waterfox has this problem.

If XFire does not work with the above builds, then you need to contact XFire support to make a better 64bit plugin/addon.

*UPDATE*: I just read through the XFire FAQ and found the following answers for you:

First thing I noticed is the system requirements which doesn't mention 64bit:
http://www.xfire.com/download/

FAQ answers:
*** Why aren't the Windows games (Pinball, Minesweeper, etc.) detected on Windows Vista 64?
On Vista 64 the default games run as a 64-bit process which Xfire cannot detect. We may release a 64-bit Xfire client in the future.

*** Some of my games are not detected on Windows Vista 64 or XP 64. Why?
Xfire is a 32-bit application and cannot interface with a 64-bit process. We are planning on releasing a 64-bit compatible client in the future.

This mostly affects Steam users since Steam will detect your OS and force HL2 based games to run in 64-bit mode. However, there is a command line switch you can add to force them back into 32-bit mode. Here's how:

In Xfire, go to Tools | Options | Games tab.
Under Installed games, highlight the game you wish to run in 32-bit mode.
In the "Extra command line Parameters" field add this line:

-32bit

Click Apply | Click Ok.

You should now be able to launch this game in 32-bit mode from Xfire Tools | Launch menu.

*** Xfire In Game messaging does not work for me at all. Why?
There are a number of factors that allow Xfire to run along with your games and send and receive messages from within the game. Things to check on your system are as follows:

What OS? (Vista, XP, Windows 7, etc...) Is your OS 32bit or 64bit?
Xfire In-Game messaging is currently only supported on Windows Vista, XP and 2000. If you are running a 64-bit version of Windows Vista or XP, some games will run in 64-bit mode and Xfire *will not be able to detect them at all*.


----------



## satrow

Pale Moon x64 does not use "Firefox.exe" as the process name, it also uses its' own profile. This makes it less useful to troubleshoot problems of this type.

HTGuard x64 would be a better testbed as it does use the Firefox name and profile.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *satrow*
> 
> Pale Moon x64 does not use "Firefox.exe" as the process name, it also uses its' own profile. This makes it less useful to troubleshoot problems of this type.
> HTGuard x64 would be a better testbed as it does use the Firefox name and profile.


I forgot about that. I remember reading that the developer of Pale Moon will be changing the release dates and version numbers to his own. Also changing the code and features of the browser so it's different and moves away from the original Firefox.


----------



## satrow

Pale Moon began moving away from Firefox quite some time ago (FX 4?), as has Waterfox over the last 7-8 months (FX 9?).


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *satrow*
> 
> Pale Moon began moving away from Firefox quite some time ago (FX 4?), as has Waterfox over the last 7-8 months (FX 9?).


Depends what you consider moving away. Pale Moon has started drastically to move away and completely redo the code and features starting with version 12. Here's what the developer said:

"Pale Moon 12 sees the start of a different release cycle for Pale Moon because honestly, I'm sick and tired of the 6 week carousel forcing me to start from scratch because code merges fail with lumped-together patches (as became clear with Pale Moon 9). You'll have to stop thinking in terms of PM 13 and 14, considering a stable base in PM12 will see incremental implementations of relevant bugfixes on it, similar to 9.2 in lieu of 10, before. Pale Moon's development will become more independent of the staged release cycles @Mozilla from here on out."

Starting around version 13 of Firefox, Pale Moon announced some of the major changes that would be done. Here's the link:

http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=710

The next version of Pale Moon will be entirely changed. Here's the link:

http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=5&t=987

Waterfox hasn't in a major way moved away from Firefox. Everything remains the same except for the optimizing that's done. Features and settings remain faithfully true to Firefox and aren't changed. This makes Waterfox very stable and compatible for a 64bit build. Pale Moon is more like an entirely new browser. Personally, the direction Pale Moon is taking is aggressive but very interesting. I don't agree with some changes but other changes (even if introduced in a beta) is welcomed if deemed stable enough by the developer for a Pale Moon release.

Overall, Waterfox stays true to Firefox. Compare Waterfox and Firefox, there's no difference except for the branding and 64bit optimizations. Disabling debug, crashreporter, etc. in mozconfig are minor and not used by the average user so I don't consider that moving away from Firefox. That's a good thing and that's what makes Waterfox great. Anyway, that's my 2¢.


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Features and settings remain faithfully true to Firefox and aren't changed


You'd do well to check that.


----------



## sonofsam0981

Just started using waterfox a few months ago and just found this community for it
Nothing to really say except for loving the browser as much as regular firefox








I am getting a flash plug in crash at random times, but other than that, its great.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sonofsam0981*
> 
> Just started using waterfox a few months ago and just found this community for it
> Nothing to really say except for loving the browser as much as regular firefox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am getting a flash plug in crash at random times, but other than that, its great.


FLASH!

No, really. Flash may have been fixed.

"Today's Flash Player update to version 11.3.300.262 is said to fix the issues that Firefox users are experiencing with Flash contents in the web browser. The latest version of Flash is already available for download at Adobe's official Flash download site, and also as a direct offline installer from Macromedia's ftp server."

Your welcome!

VG


----------



## sonofsam0981

Ill check that out
Thanks!


----------



## virtualguy

I installed the Flash update for Firefox, but I still get crashes trying to watch Flash video on some sites. It doesn't seem to affect the browser as much as before... just the Flash.


----------



## Lord Venom

I heard the Flash bug's not fixed yet, so that could be it still.


----------



## darkhog

I am interested in getting localized version of Waterfox, Polish in particular. Where can I get it?


----------



## kevindd992002

How about the Flash protected mode, is it already fixed?


----------



## Vicpdx19

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I installed the Flash update for Firefox, but I still get crashes trying to watch Flash video on some sites. It doesn't seem to affect the browser as much as before... just the Flash.


In regards to that I just updated my flash for water fox and got the plugin container has stopped working message. I noticed that with waterfox v13 pl1. Before I updated flash to the newer version I found that it worked fine with water fox.

Problematic Flash: 11.3.300.262

Working flash: 11.3.300.257


----------



## qwerty77

The latest flash plugin works fine for me though no crash even on the older one.


----------



## Vicpdx19

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> The latest flash plugin works fine for me though no crash even on the older one.


Wierd that mine would not work as well. by the way I went to Comedycentral.com and thats where i experienced the crash since it is based on flash video.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkhog*
> 
> I am interested in getting localized version of Waterfox, Polish in particular. Where can I get it?


I'm working on releasing language packs for every language soon


----------



## Vicpdx19

Ok so I did try flash video again and it did not crash in full screen this time but just offered some performance issue's. I also wanted to ask is it normal for waterfox to take a huge amount of memory on a system?

I was looking at task manager in windows 7 64-bit when waterfox was open and under processes firefox(waterfox) was showing 120,000k just for the default screen.

so I was just wondering if it was normal for to be that high or if that is not normal.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vicpdx19*
> 
> Ok so I did try flash video again and it did not crash in full screen this time but just offered some performance issue's. I also wanted to ask is it normal for waterfox to take a huge amount of memory on a system?
> I was looking at task manager in windows 7 64-bit when waterfox was open and under processes firefox(waterfox) was showing 120,000k just for the default screen.
> so I was just wondering if it was normal for to be that high or if that is not normal.


It's normal. 64 bit softwares are meant to consume more memory but in a more efficient way. However that varies on waterfox/firefox cause it depends on how many add-ons you have. Having more add-ons will consume more memory and vice versa for few add-ons.


----------



## darkhog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm working on releasing language packs for every language soon


Ok, thanks alot!


----------



## outspoken

Hi,

Can we have a Waterfox build of Firefox 13.0.1







, although the version bump is very small, it contains some __security__ fixes. I like living on the cutting edge, but I really don't want to be using a unpatched browser.

From release notes, it also seems to be fixing some Flash crashes:
Quote:


> Flash 11.3 sometimes caused a crash on quit (747683, fixed in 13.0.1)


----------



## alienstorexxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkhog*
> 
> I am interested in getting localized version of Waterfox, Polish in particular. Where can I get it?


for each version you need to put firefox version where i indicated

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/(here goes ff version, in this case "13.0", without quotation marks)/win32/xpi/


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *outspoken*
> 
> Hi,
> Can we have a Waterfox build of Firefox 13.0.1
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , although the version bump is very small, it contains some __security__ fixes. I like living on the cutting edge, but I really don't want to be using a unpatched browser.
> From release notes, it also seems to be fixing some Flash crashes:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Flash 11.3 sometimes caused a crash on quit (747683, fixed in 13.0.1)
Click to expand...

If you're not experiencing this issue, then there's no need of an update. If you're worried about having an unpatched browser and security fixes, then wait for version 14. Why you ask? Take a look at this and you'll know why 13.0.1 won't help you:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/22/firefox_new_tab_security_concerns/


----------



## raizooor3

I stopped using waterfox. Regular firefox seems faster now than waterfox. Plus waterfox never updated itself ( I was at version 11-12 last time )


----------



## darkhog

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienstorexxx*
> 
> for each version you need to put firefox version where i indicated
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/(here goes ff version, in this case "13.0", without quotation marks)/win32/xpi/


Yeah, and I already have Polish FF. But WF is in English anyways.


----------



## Blameless

Would it be possible to allow installs on Windows XP x64/Server 2003 x64 in the next build?

Waterfox 13 PL1 runs flawlessly on XP x64, but I had to manually copy the program directory from a PC with Windows 7 on it. Not being able to just run the installer is a bit annoying.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *darkhog*
> 
> Yeah, and I already have Polish FF. But WF is in English anyways.


I have converted waterfox in french and it's good.

Have you execute the *.xpi ?

After execute *.xpi you must do it in waterfox :

about:config
in the filter field : general.useragent.locale

Now replace the current value by the value of Polish country :

en-US by pl-PL (or po-PO or ?????)

Restart waterfox


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Hmmmm. I noticed when everyone says there's a problem, it's always blamed on Waterfox. Most of the time it's not Waterfox. Anyway, lets get down to business. Have you tried other 64bit builds of Firefox to verify it's 100% NOT the XFire plugin/addon?


Yes, yes, yes! You were 99% right, djkilla! I've decided to work on this problem from A to Z and I've tested couple of 64-bit Firefox builds. Every one of them crashed or froze. Then I've decided to assume that both XFire and Waterfox work correctly and there must be something else interfering with them. I've started to uninstall typical applications which might do that. I got my answer on the first try! *Uninstalling Comodo Firewall (64-bit) did the trick!* So for anyone having problem with XFire and Waterfox - check if you're using Comodo software.

Case solved! Waterfox is back on board and so far - it will be for a looooong time! Thanks everybody!


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *grocal*
> 
> Yes, yes, yes! You were 99% right, djkilla! I've decided to work on this problem from A to Z and I've tested couple of 64-bit Firefox builds. Every one of them crashed or froze. Then I've decided to assume that both XFire and Waterfox work correctly and there must be something else interfering with them. I've started to uninstall typical applications which might do that. I got my answer on the first try! *Uninstalling Comodo Firewall (64-bit) did the trick!* So for anyone having problem with XFire and Waterfox - check if you're using Comodo software.
> Case solved! Waterfox is back on board and so far - it will be for a looooong time! Thanks everybody!


Can't believe I forgot about checking the firewall and sandboxing. Anyway, good to hear that everything is playing nicely now. Enjoy!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *raizooor3*
> 
> I stopped using waterfox. Regular firefox seems faster now than waterfox. Plus waterfox never updated itself ( I was at version 11-12 last time )


I'd understand having the same performance, but Firefox being faster makes no sense, especially not since WF13 to which a more powerful compiler is used. And that is an issue being resolved in WF14.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Would it be possible to allow installs on Windows XP x64/Server 2003 x64 in the next build?
> 
> Waterfox 13 PL1 runs flawlessly on XP x64, but I had to manually copy the program directory from a PC with Windows 7 on it. Not being able to just run the installer is a bit annoying.


WF14 will have installer compatibility with XP


----------



## alienstorexxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pierredupont17*
> 
> I have converted waterfox in french and it's good.
> Have you execute the *.xpi ?
> After execute *.xpi you must do it in waterfox :
> about:config
> in the filter field : general.useragent.locale
> Now replace the current value by the value of Polish country :
> en-US by pl-PL (or po-PO or ?????)
> Restart waterfox










yes.. i missed that point. @darkhog those xpi works both for wf and ff


----------



## Vicpdx19

Ok so after a few more tests with flash I have found that it is affecting waterfox the newest version and flash newest version. What I will see is either the plug in container has crashed or wierd glitches in some movies.

Example: Movie on xfinitytv.com. Xfinitytv.com uses either flash or silver-light. Both of these programs are up to date but have started causing movie glitches and black screens not with windows but the movie will all of a sudden show a black screen then return with a picture.

It may be a glitch with waterfox or somthing else but just letting everyone know its there.


----------



## Lord Venom

It's Flash.


----------



## Daveski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm working on releasing language packs for every language soon


I hope that includes British English.


----------



## Oldiesmann

I just installed Waterfox and can't get Java to install. I've run the xpiinstaller.exe file that I got via the link on the Waterfox download page, and I've also tried running the full installer that you get from java.com. Each time it says Java was successfully installed, but it doesn't show up in aboutlugins. Any suggestions?


----------



## Oldiesmann

Ignore my previous post. Apparently I hadn't run the full Java installer ("jre-7u5-windows-x64.exe") after all. I ran that and it installed everything properly. I guess the jxpiinstaller.exe file only handles 32-bit and not 64-bit.


----------



## kevindd992002

How do I save/backup tab groups in WF/FF? I know how to save tabs (by backing up sessionstore.js in the profile folder) but how do I specifically save the tab groups?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> How do I save/backup tab groups in WF/FF? I know how to save tabs (by backing up sessionstore.js in the profile folder) but how do I specifically save the tab groups?


Why would you want to backup just a certain part of FF and not all of it? Anyway, tab groups are a part of sessionstore.js.

Also this might be of relevance:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/795591


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Why would you want to backup just a certain part of FF and not all of it? Anyway, tab groups are a part of sessionstore.js.
> Also this might be of relevance:
> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/795591


Well, it's only what I need of my profile. The rest are disposable. So as long as I copy sessionstore.js, my tab groups are intact?


----------



## TheHunter

well i still have a occasional plugin crash, even with latest 11.3.362? flash player.. Imo its definitely something in FF13..


----------



## Lord Venom

It's Flash.


----------



## Swag

Does anyone have any results pertaining which is faster between Chrome and WF13? I stuck with WF13 because I wanted to support MrAlex, but my co-workers don't feel the same way.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Does anyone have any results pertaining which is faster between Chrome and WF13? I stuck with WF13 because I wanted to support MrAlex, but my co-workers don't feel the same way.


Next release I'll be having benchmarks as well.

Also browsers are mostly personal preference, you won't find a slow browser anymore. The only difference here is that I'm trying to give people the fastest Firefox possible. But I appreciate the support


----------



## BlackThought

Been using Waterfox for 2 weeks now, and immediately i noticed how much better it was than FF.

I have a tendency to have a ton of tabs open, but who doesnt?.

FF + tabs + lots of memory which leads to slowing dwn and eventually crashing.

But with WF it handles it just fine, even if the RAM usages gets high (i have 8GB)

My only issue is flash, which i see other folks talking about. Don't know what i did wrong but on forums if someone post a flash video, usually not a youtube, it will have a white block where the video should be. Works on IE, but not on WF.

So is it WF or Flash 64bit ?


----------



## Lord Venom

It's Flash. It's been having all kinds of issues with Firefox lately. Downgrading (clean installing) to Flash 11.2 or 10.3 would probably help with that issue. This advice applies to anyone having issues with loading videos, scrolling artifacts, crashes, Flash content appearing black/white/grey/not playing, etc.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/flash-113-doesnt-load-video-firefox


----------



## BlackThought

Nice, going back to flash 11.2 solved it.

EDIT: or so i thought.

Do the videos here load for you?

http://skyrim.nexusmods.com/mods/13531


----------



## Lord Venom

No. They probably embedded the videos wrong.


----------



## Le_Loup

Problem!!!

Waterfox stopped working, no error #, nothing... Just needs to close.

Due to, me going to maps.google.ca , and searching ANYTHING or zooming. If I "just" go there, and sit there, it does nothing bad...

I am forced to reopen...

I've reinstalled waterfox, java, flash, 64bit's.

Suggestions if you had this problem?

- Le_Loup


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Le_Loup*
> 
> Problem!!!
> Waterfox stopped working, no error #, nothing... Just needs to close.
> Due to, me going to maps.google.ca , and searching ANYTHING or zooming. If I "just" go there, and sit there, it does nothing bad...
> I am forced to reopen...
> I've reinstalled waterfox, java, flash, 64bit's.
> Suggestions if you had this problem?
> - Le_Loup


This issue has a fix for it on the main waterfox homepage http://waterfoxproject.org/ located here, the most recent post.

If you don't want to click links it says.....

"

Problems with Google Maps?
Jun 12, 2012
Posted by: MrAlex

If you are one of the users that gets crashes with Google Maps you may temporarily use this address to no longer get the crashes (but you won't get access to 3D buildings).
http://maps.google.com/?vector=0

"

So just use that link for google maps should fix it.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Does anyone have any results pertaining which is faster between Chrome and WF13? I stuck with WF13 because I wanted to support MrAlex, but my co-workers don't feel the same way.
> 
> 
> 
> Next release I'll be having benchmarks as well.
> 
> Also browsers are mostly personal preference, you won't find a slow browser anymore. The only difference here is that I'm trying to give people the fastest _Firefox_ possible. But I appreciate the support
Click to expand...

Yes, I know it seems weird, but I've grown attached to this browser. I liked the concept of it even when it was crashing a lot. A simple, but fast browser that has all the features that I want.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> This issue has a fix for it on the main waterfox homepage http://waterfoxproject.org/ located here, the most recent post.
> If you don't want to click links it says.....
> "
> Problems with Google Maps?
> Jun 12, 2012
> Posted by: MrAlex
> If you are one of the users that gets crashes with Google Maps you may temporarily use this address to no longer get the crashes (but you won't get access to 3D buildings).
> http://maps.google.com/?vector=0
> "
> So just use that link for google maps should fix it.


When i have replaced gkmedias.dll all my problems with Google Maps has been resolved.
See here :
http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-v13-pl1-6-jun-firefox-64-bit/2580


----------



## Le_Loup

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> This issue has a fix for it on the main waterfox homepage http://waterfoxproject.org/ located here, the most recent post.
> If you don't want to click links it says.....
> "
> Problems with Google Maps?
> Jun 12, 2012
> Posted by: MrAlex
> If you are one of the users that gets crashes with Google Maps you may temporarily use this address to no longer get the crashes (but you won't get access to 3D buildings).
> http://maps.google.com/?vector=0
> "
> So just use that link for google maps should fix it.


ty, missed it entirely.









- Le_Loup


----------



## rsa98

Installed Waterfox 13 PL1 and now Adobe flash crashes all the time. Everything is up to date.


----------



## Lord Venom

It's Flash. Look in the last few pages for a few workarounds.


----------



## TheHunter

FF or WF 12 never had any crashes and i used 11.2 there, FF13 or WF 13 +11.2 occasional mozzila.plugin crash or now 11.3.362, but very very rare..


----------



## Lord Venom

Try Flash 10.3?


----------



## TheHunter

Nah.

Im gonna wait for stabler FireFox version. 14 shouldn't be that faaar away no?


----------



## MrAlex

14th of July.


----------



## Novae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> sigh - read my post #1612 just above yours. and the other ones nearby. you need a 64 bit version of the PLUGIN in order to run it in a 64 bit browser. if it is in fact an add-on it may or may not work depending on compatibility with v9 of waterfox.


Bit late now... But there is no 64 bit version of the Google Talk Plugin. Its not a Firefox add on either.
Another thing is... What exactly IS waterfox? Is it just 64 bit optimizations? If so then I think compatibility is going to be a continuing issue.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Novae*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> sigh - read my post #1612 just above yours. and the other ones nearby. you need a 64 bit version of the PLUGIN in order to run it in a 64 bit browser. if it is in fact an add-on it may or may not work depending on compatibility with v9 of waterfox.
> 
> 
> 
> Bit late now... But there is no 64 bit version of the Google Talk Plugin. Its not a Firefox add on either.
> Another thing is... What exactly IS waterfox? Is it just 64 bit optimizations? If so then I think compatibility is going to be a continuing issue.
Click to expand...

At the moment yes. But after v14, hopefully I'll get OpenMP implemented into SpiderMonkey. OpenCL would require a complete rewrite, which is a waste of time.


----------



## Lord Venom

Honestly, if you want a specific plugin with 64-bit browser support then it's probably wise to bug the developer(s) of the plugins to release a 64-bit browser compatible plugin.


----------



## djkilla

I've been busy testing Windows 8 but wanted to share some awesome news about the next version of Firefox/Waterfox. For starters, version 14 will have an all new look. You can see it below:



There's lots more features which will make you smile from ear to ear. You can check out these features to come at the following link:

http://dottech.org/browsers/32945/firefox-14-brings-extra-security-features-metro-style-other-improvements/


----------



## Towik

I don't know why my Plugin-container is using freaking 50% of my cpu


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> I've been busy testing Windows 8 but wanted to share some awesome news about the next version of Firefox/Waterfox. For starters, version 14 will have an all new look. You can see it below:
> 
> There's lots more features which will make you smile from ear to ear. You can check out these features to come at the following link:
> http://dottech.org/browsers/32945/firefox-14-brings-extra-security-features-metro-style-other-improvements/


Why is this not seen in beta, aurora or nightly?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Why is this not seen in beta, aurora or nightly?


Looks like there's been a regression bug which is delaying the implementation of the Australis theme. There's not a confirmed target yet. Possibly version 16. With the announcement of development ending for Mozilla Thunderbird, there's a major restructering going on at Mozilla. Developers are being moved into other departments. Some will end up developing Firefox quicker with many new features, others will be moved to develop Mozilla's new OS and others into developing heavily in the mobile department which could include both a mobile OS to compete with Android/iOS and develop Firefox for the mobile platform.

Right now, the focus is in developing a working metro app/tile for Windows 8 (rumored to be released in October) which should be in the next release of Firefox 14.


----------



## MrAlex

Anyone want to test WF14?

http://www.mediafire.com/?j8o3c13hxuje8qm

Edit: include any missing .dll's from WF13

If anyone who got the crashes with the initial WF13 release could test please. I've tried to reproduce them but can't.


----------



## Lord Venom

Getting the error about missing DLLs regarding the Intel stuff again. Other than that working fine here.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Getting the error about missing DLLs regarding the Intel stuff again. Other than that working fine here.


Oops, always forget that


----------



## fullmoon

for me:
work fine without add-on, only a bug with aero...
with add-on:
newsfox bug
add-on bar is always able after launch
and see here
WF is not recognized by mozilla site!

don't search resolve this bug, wait stable version, and see after.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> for me:
> work fine without add-on, only a bug with aero...
> with add-on:
> newsfox bug
> add-on bar is always able after launch
> and see here
> WF is not recognized by mozilla site!
> 
> don't search resolve this bug, wait stable version, and see after.


Do you have any pictures of the incompatibility? Also what isn't recognized by Mozilla?


----------



## fullmoon

he appears: "You do not have firefox" instead of "Download this add-on".

Désolé si j'écris en français, j'ai peur d'une mauvaise traduction.
Pour newsfox le bouton pour "gérer les marques pages dynamiques" ne s'affiche pas, j'ai eu droit aussi au fichier corrompu.

Pour aéro, c'est juste une sorte d'image noir qui vient s'appliquer par-dessus la transparence au niveau des barres( soupçonne glassMyFox).


----------



## medievil

ok weird....I use Yahoo's web mail..I get this with 14

You're almost there, but your web browser doesn't support the newest version of Yahoo! Mail

Upgrade to a faster, more secure version of a supported browser. It's free and it only takes a few moments:

Firefox
Internet Explorer (for Windows)
Safari

works fine in 13

oh and it appears ad block plus no longer works cause all the pages are loaded with ads, clicking options for adblock seems to do nothing but give a white screen

and I can confirm mozilla doesn't recognize the browser (can't grab any addons)


----------



## Lord Venom

Waterfox using its own user agent now? That could cause all those issues. Also noticed the executable's called waterfox.exe now.

EDIT: Yep, changed user agent.

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120709 Waterfox/14.0

It has to mention Firefox somewhere in the string for it to work correctly on all those site. Here's a string that would work;

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120709 Firefox/14.0 Waterfox/14.0


----------



## medievil

confirmed...adding the useragent override setting in about:config and setting it to the string with firefox in it, now things seem to work correctly, including adblock plus....


----------



## NoiseTemper

So where exactly do we add this line to?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Well looks like i found a somewhat easier fix. Press shift while opening Waterfox (must be in task bar or shortcut, not .exe in the folder) and select "restore user preferences to Waterfox default" and then click make changes and restart. Add-ons should now work properly. Obviously, this will reset your preferences you have made in "options" and in the "options" of your add-ons.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Is there a reason for the weird looking google? Its normal in Firefox 14 beta.



Below is firefox's version. i.e. normal version


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Hmm - have other people noticed WF behaving sluggishly on their system? I've noticed this starting to happen recently.


I noticed that with v12 that it would start to slow down when left on a website/page that had a lot of activity. Facebook was one in particular. I could leave it logged in and about 2-3 hours WF would start to slow down. Other apps were performing fine.

My laptop has only 4 GB of RAM running Windows 7 Pro (64-bit). According to the Resource Monitor about 500 MB was committed and 500 MB was private. No hard faults so it never had to go to disk.

I made sure that all the plug-ins/add-ons in WF were current (I really don't have that many loaded/installed, just the "everyday" ones: Java, Adobe Shockwave and Silverlight).

I recently upgraded to v13 and so far Facebook appears to be behaving. But it's too early to tell.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Is there a reason for the weird looking google? Its normal in Firefox 14 beta.


Passing through and saw your post. For starters, they both look different because of the addons being used. How can I tell? If you look on the far left hand side, you will see icons next to 'Web', 'Images', 'Videos' in Waterfox. This tells be that you're not using an addon which blocks ads and other aspects of the web page. In Firefox, these addons are working and blocking the different aspects of your web page resulting in a different formated web page. My guess is you're using the addons 'AdBlock Plus', 'Ghostery' or something similar for Firefox and no addons for Waterfox. That's why your web pages look different.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Passing through and saw your post. For starters, they both look different because of the addons being used. How can I tell? If you look on the far left hand side, you will see icons next to 'Web', 'Images', 'Videos' in Waterfox. This tells be that you're not using an addon which blocks ads and other aspects of the web page. In Firefox, these addons are working and blocking the different aspects of your web page resulting in a different formated web page. My guess is you're using the addons 'AdBlock Plus', 'Ghostery' or something similar for Firefox and no addons for Waterfox. That's why your web pages look different.


Yes you're correct i am using Adblock plus. The only two addons i use in firefox is Adblock plus and pdf.js. Adblock plus was appearing to be working properly in Waterfox on other sites such as Youtube and OCN. I don't know why it isn't working for google though, so i don't think the problem is Adblock plus.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Yes you're correct i am using Adblock plus. The only two addons i use in firefox is Adblock plus and pdf.js. Adblock plus was appearing to be working properly in Waterfox on other sites such as Youtube and OCN. I don't know why it isn't working for google though, so i don't think the problem is Adblock plus.


That's probably because of the implementation of google HTTPS on firefox 14. Firefox 14 now supports and defaults google search to be in encrypted/secure search whereas in version 13 https is not on by default. (needs HTTPS Everywhere add-on).


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Yes you're correct i am using Adblock plus. The only two addons i use in firefox is Adblock plus and pdf.js. Adblock plus was appearing to be working properly in Waterfox on other sites such as Youtube and OCN. I don't know why it isn't working for google though, so i don't think the problem is Adblock plus.
> 
> 
> 
> That's probably because of the implementation of google HTTPS on firefox 14. Firefox 14 now supports and defaults google search to be in encrypted/secure search whereas in version 13 https is not on by default. (needs HTTPS Everywhere add-on).
Click to expand...

This is not the cause. I said earlier i was using firefox 14 beta where it already has been implemented for a long time. Chrome also uses https google searches and it looks normal. Clearly something has been changed in Waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

I actually do not know what the cause is. I haven't changed anything related to that, and if you check the URL that WF14 uses for Google it's the same as what FF14 uses as well.

I'll try and find out.


----------



## Rickkins

All of a sudden, I'm seeing pages blocked by something called StopBadware. How do I switch that off....???


----------



## djkilla

Just a quick post. Wanted to let everyone know that there's a new version of Adobe Flash. At the moment, I would recommend NOT to download it. I'm seeing some reports of Firefox crashing after the update. There's no info yet on what this version fixes or what new features it contains. I'll try to find out more and post more info later.

**Keep in mind that some users will automatically get this update if you chose to get the updates automatically (default setting) when you installed the last two versions. If this is you, report back on any crashes or improvements. You're the testers for the rest of us.

Latest version released today is 11.3.300.265

To see what version you have, click the following link: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> All of a sudden, I'm seeing pages blocked by something called StopBadware. How do I switch that off....???


Fake anti-virus type of thing, perhaps?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> All of a sudden, I'm seeing pages blocked by something called StopBadware. How do I switch that off....???


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> All of a sudden, I'm seeing pages blocked by something called StopBadware. How do I switch that off....???
> 
> 
> 
> Fake anti-virus type of thing, perhaps?
Click to expand...

http://stopbadware.org/

It's been around for years. If you visit malicious websites, you'll get a warning about it from the browser. If you visit the website from Google search, you'll get a warning from Google itself.


----------



## Rickkins

Never ever seen it before, and I'm not visiting any sites that I haven't been visiting for years. Fortunately. I figured out how to turn it off.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> Never ever seen it before, and I'm not visiting any sites that I haven't been visiting for years. Fortunately. I figured out how to turn it off.


Sometimes false positives come about, and then they got sorted within a few days.


----------



## LamiX

all fixed


----------



## djkilla

Adobe Flash 11.3.300.265 has been released. There's still reports of bugs not being fixed and Firefox/Waterfox crashing after installing the latest version. So if you feel adventurous and want to take a chance on the latest version, follow the directions below:

** New features:
- Fullscreen text input
Enable full support for all keyboard keys available to a SWF running in full screen mode.

* Fixed Issues:
- Upload button not working on photoshop.com (3223953)
- Audio is garbled in Win XP on certain sound cards (3223249)
- Audio not heard while playing videos in Flash Player on Win 7 and Vista on certain sound cards (3223256)
- Video not playing for DisneyConnection (3223286)
- Various general stability issues

* Known Issues
- Audio distortion issues when streaming Flash content(3212648)*

Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.3.300.265: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/

Reinstall Adobe Flash by doing the following:
1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/support/uninstall_flash_player.exe

2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed

**If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.

3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player:
For Internet Explorer 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x.exe

For Waterfox and other browsers 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin.exe

**You can install both. That's what I do so I have the latest Adobe Flash for everything.

4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Adobe Flash 11.3.300.265 has been released. There's still reports of bugs not being fixed and Firefox/Waterfox crashing after installing the latest version. So if you feel adventurous and want to take a chance on the latest version, follow the directions below:
> ** New features:*
> - Info coming soon!
> ** Enhancements and bug fixes related to stability, performance, and device compatibility.*
> - Info coming soon!
> Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.3.300.265: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
> Reinstall Adobe Flash by doing the following:
> 1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
> http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/support/uninstall_flash_player.exe
> 2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
> C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
> C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed
> **If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.
> 3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player:
> For Internet Explorer 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x.exe
> For Waterfox and other browsers 32bit & 64bit - http://download.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin.exe
> **You can install both. That's what I do so I have the latest Adobe Flash for everything.
> 4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy.


Mine was updated automatically, is that OK or should I follow your steps manually?


----------



## djkilla

Updated my last post on what new features, fixes and known issues come with the latest version of Abobe Flash 11.3.300.265


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Mine was updated automatically, is that OK or should I follow your steps manually?


That's ok. All Abobe Flash releases will now be automatically installed with each new version by default. Should you have any issues after updating to the latest version, then you can follow the steps to see if that fixes any issues you may have. Be sure to check out my last post to see what the new version contains. Just updated the post with additional info.


----------



## fordy314

Hey, I'm having an issue with Waterfox where a certain forum site doesn't load correctly for me. Screenshoot Firefox has the same issue but it didn't before I installed waterfox. My friend with firefox doesn't have the issue and chrome loads it fine for me. What it should look like (Screenshot from Chrome). Any ideas on what the problem is and how to fix it? Thanks.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fordy314*
> 
> Hey, I'm having an issue with Waterfox where a certain forum site doesn't load correctly for me. Screenshoot Firefox has the same issue but it didn't before I installed waterfox. My friend with firefox doesn't have the issue and chrome loads it fine for me. What it should look like (Screenshot from Chrome). Any ideas on what the problem is and how to fix it? Thanks.


This isn't a problem with WF/FF. It's a problem made my google cause they labeled the site an attack site. to temporarily fix it do this: Go to Options>Security>Uncheck "Block reported Attack Sites"


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fordy314*
> 
> Hey, I'm having an issue with Waterfox where a certain forum site doesn't load correctly for me. Screenshoot Firefox has the same issue but it didn't before I installed waterfox. My friend with firefox doesn't have the issue and chrome loads it fine for me. What it should look like (Screenshot from Chrome). Any ideas on what the problem is and how to fix it? Thanks.


qwerty77 is right. Tested the site after unchecking 'Blocked reported attack sites' in options and everything worked like you want.


----------



## illli

can someone please tell me the difference between waterfox and palemoon? does waterfox include/exclude some things like palemoon? i checked the waterfox site and i didnt see any info in regards to this. so i'm guessing waterfox is more like a 64bit 'vanilla' firefox and pale moon has a little more customization?


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *illli*
> 
> can someone please tell me the difference between waterfox and palemoon? does waterfox include/exclude some things like palemoon? i checked the waterfox site and i didnt see any info in regards to this. so i'm guessing waterfox is more like a 64bit 'vanilla' firefox and pale moon has a little more customization?


Short answer, both are optimized but Waterfox remains more closer and true to the Firefox code and includes all features. Pale Moon is built using features that are still being tested in beta/alpha. It's also taking a drasticly different direction. The creator is moving away from Firefox and will remove features that doesn't fit the Pale Moon plan. Kinda like creating his own vision of what a browser should be. Both have pros and cons but if you want a 64bit version of Firefox, optimized, stable and with all the features, then Waterfox is your choice. If you want an entirely different browser missing some features and cutting edge with features still in alpha/beta, then Pale Moon may be for you. Keep in mind Pale Moon uses it's own profile and is a very different browser moving away from Firefox.


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *illli*
> 
> can someone please tell me the difference between waterfox and palemoon? does waterfox include/exclude some things like palemoon? i checked the waterfox site and i didnt see any info in regards to this. so i'm guessing waterfox is more like a 64bit 'vanilla' firefox and pale moon has a little more customization?


It might pay you to ask the same question on the Pale Moon forum and look around there while you wait for replies, you can then make your own mind up.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Short answer, both are optimized but Waterfox remains more closer and true to the Firefox code and includes all features. Pale Moon is built using features that are still being tested in beta/alpha. It's also taking a drasticly different direction. The creator is moving away from Firefox and will remove features that doesn't fit the Pale Moon plan. Kinda like creating his own vision of what a browser should be. Both have pros and cons but if you want a 64bit version of Firefox, optimized, *stable* and with all the features, then Waterfox is your choice. If you want an entirely different browser missing some features and cutting edge with features still in alpha/beta, then Pale Moon may be for you. Keep in mind Pale Moon uses it's own profile and is a very different browser moving away from Firefox.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Just wanted to give feedback on new flash player. So far so good. Watched a few Youtube videos with out any hiccups and the glitches i was experiencing with the previous version seems to happen less. This is on Firefox 14 beta.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *illli*
> 
> can someone please tell me the difference between waterfox and palemoon? does waterfox include/exclude some things like palemoon? i checked the waterfox site and i didnt see any info in regards to this. so i'm guessing waterfox is more like a 64bit 'vanilla' firefox and pale moon has a little more customization?


Essentialy. Waterfox uses Intel's C++ Compiler though, whereas Palemoon uses Microsoft's compiler. My aim is to keep the user experience the same as Firefox while providing backend improvements.

I think I stated before that soon I'll start to implement OpenMP as well.


----------



## illli

thanks for the replies. not sure what OpenMP is, but i'm trying out both, and both seem faster than stock firefox. and they both seem more stable too. for example, how flash would crash about every 10 minutes or so with stock firefox (i think this is a known issue with flash from what i've read in other forums), but with palemoon or waterfox i cant say i've noticed flash messing up as much/as frequently.

to be honest both waterfox and palemoon seem equal to my untrained eye. in fact i bet if i did a blind test i would not be able to tell the difference between them. actually the ~only~ difference i notice is palemoon not displaying that..not sure what it is called, when you click on a link and the url text is displayed in the lower left bottom corner? in palemoon that is hidden, but waterfox it is displayed like in stock ff. (see image) 
other than resorting to an add-on is there any way to turn that off in waterfox? thanks


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *illli*
> 
> thanks for the replies. not sure what OpenMP is, but i'm trying out both, and both seem faster than stock firefox. and they both seem more stable too. for example, how flash would crash about every 10 minutes or so with stock firefox (i think this is a known issue with flash from what i've read in other forums), but with palemoon or waterfox i cant say i've noticed flash messing up as much/as frequently.
> to be honest both waterfox and palemoon seem equal to my untrained eye. in fact i bet if i did a blind test i would not be able to tell the difference between them. actually the ~only~ difference i notice is palemoon not displaying that..not sure what it is called, when you click on a link and the url text is displayed in the lower left bottom corner? in palemoon that is hidden, but waterfox it is displayed like in stock ff. (see image)
> other than resorting to an add-on is there any way to turn that off in waterfox? thanks


Like djkilla said. *PaleMoon is drastically taking a different direction.* They customized it and removed some original features such as the thing you just mentioned. It's still 100% sourced to the original FF code but it's like a completely new browser and from what I saw from their forums even the start page of firefox will be removed on the latest version of PaleMoon. On the other hand WF remains true to the original features while optimizing the code under the hood.


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Like djkilla said. *PaleMoon is drastically taking a different direction.* They customized it and removed some original features such as the thing you just mentioned. It's still 100% sourced to the original FF code but it's like a completely new browser and from what I saw from their forums even the start page of firefox will be removed on the latest version of PaleMoon. On the other hand WF remains true to the original features while optimizing the code under the hood.


Actually, in respect of the Status bar mentioned above, the disappear/reappear thing is very new to Firefox, Pale Moon retains something much closer to the original Firefox Status bar which is highly customizable. (Alt) Tools > Status Bar Options - after you have enabled the Status bar from the View menu, of course - (Alt) View > Toolbars > Status bar. < note that the Status bar *was* a feature of Firefox, now it's reduced to a little distracting popup thing.

Drastically different direction? No, Pale Moon's actually staying truer to Firefox as a browser than Firefox itself has been recently.

Firefox Start page, why would that need to be in Pale Moon anyway, all Mozilla/Firefox browsers still have about:home?


----------



## illli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *satrow*
> 
> Drastically different direction? No, Pale Moon's actually staying truer to Firefox as a browser than Firefox itself has been recently.
> Firefox Start page, why would that need to be in Pale Moon anyway, all Mozilla/Firefox browsers still have about:home?


yeah, i'm not seeing the drastically different thing either. if anything it appears official ff is going more towards chrome. and there is a reason why i dont like chrome and will never use it. as an aside, i've been using ff before it was even called ff (i think back then it was just called mozilla browser or something).

about that ff url status box thingy that newer ff versions use. pale moon got rid of it somehow. i know i can use stylish to get rid of it too, but was looking for a more elegant solution








really other than that, i cant tell the difference between waterfox and pale moon. i think they are both equally better than stock.


----------



## arontrol

Just signed up. And started today with Waterfox.

Thanks for a 64-bit variant. Have been using 32-bit FF for a while now though I'm running Windows 7 64-bit.

Any pointers on a 64-bit email client for Windows 7? I use Thunderbird but that's 32-bit too.


----------



## kringel

Hey guys!

After reading Waterfox's support page a few minutes ago, I thought it a good idea to register with you









And, of course, I have question: My installation of Waterfox doesn't mark RSS feeds which I already have read. You know what I'm talking about? Here's a screenshot:


Now this is a screenshot of Firefox, I know, but this happens in Waterfox as well. Maybe this is an engine error?

Anything missing... ah, yes: Firefox is v13.0.1, Waterfox 13.0

Thanks in advance for your support,
kringel


----------



## medievil

on a whim I decided to try Pale moon one day...found it to be severely lacking.. waaay slower than waterfox and overall not anywhere close to being as smooth

just my opinion of course, but for me, pale moon was a pale comparison


----------



## ElQuia

I am using palemoon, started with it after waterfox (wich I still ocasionally use, to test, waiting for 14) started continuolsy crashing on me
I dont find much difference between both relatve to speed and smootheness.

But it WOULD be nice to see some benchmarks


----------



## demoneye

i am sure its been cover in the past , but lets ask again , does waterfox uses all cores while running ???


----------



## Lord Venom

As far as I know, Firefox (and thus Waterfox) doesn't use more than one core.


----------



## kevindd992002

I really hate video stuttering when I play Flash videos! Until now I didn't solve that problem, I really don't know what to do with it. I tried all suggestions of djkilla to no avail


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I really hate video stuttering when I play Flash videos! Until now I didn't solve that problem, I really don't know what to do with it. I tried all suggestions of djkilla to no avail


Long time ago, I started to get stuttering and problems with Flash animations. I tried everything and just couldn't solve the problem. So I built a new computer and installed a $600 video card, installed 12 gigs of DDR3 1600 ram, overclocked the processor to 4.0 and installed a $400 SSD drive. It's overkill but I spent thousands building a very powerful computer. Now I no longer have Flash stuttering or any problems. Web sites more and more are containing heavier Flash content which really needs a modern computer to be able to handle it all. It could be time for you to upgrade to keep up with the changes on the internet. For example, lots of people who own last years MacBook Air laptops were complaining games were stuttering. This year a new MacBook Air with the latest Intel processor and with a more powerful graphics chip came out. Now the same games play smoothly without stuttering. It does help to upgrade to keep up with the demands of software and the internet.

Even though I built a modern computer and no longer have Flash issues, I ran into another problem. Sometimes hardware alone might not fix the stuttering of Flash content or streaming video on the internet. I still had problems with some streaming content like stuttering. So I got Road Runner Lightining 40mbs internet connection. Now I no longer have stuttering caused by a slower internet connection.

There's three things to make the internet and software run smoothly. Hardware, a modern up-to-date browser and a fairly fast internet connection. Without these, you can only adjust the settings so far. As the internet continues to advance and become more graphics intensive, the hardware and other requirements will continue to change to keep up. Hopefully this info helps and gives you another path to fix these issues. I've tried many times with success and not success to resolve issues but sometimes the issues aren't the software but the hardware or speed of the internet connection.

Another thing to try to help resolve the Flash stuttering is try other browsers. Each browser is built differently and may handle certain things better than others. Chrome, Opera and many more others are there to choose from. Maybe one of them will run Flash more smoothly. Anyway, if there's anything else I can do to help, let me know and I'll do my best.


----------



## ElQuia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Long time ago, I started to get stuttering and problems with Flash animations. I tried everything and just couldn't solve the problem. So I built a new computer and installed a $600 video card, installed 12 gigs of DDR3 1600 ram, overclocked the processor to 4.0 and installed a $400 SSD drive. It's overkill but I spent thousands building a very powerful computer. Now I no longer have Flash stuttering or any problems. Web sites more and more are containing heavier Flash content which really needs a modern computer to be able to handle it all. It could be time for you to upgrade to keep up with the changes on the internet. For example, lots of people who own last years MacBook Air laptops were complaining games were stuttering. This year a new MacBook Air with the latest Intel processor and with a more powerful graphics chip came out. Now the same games play smoothly without stuttering. It does help to upgrade to keep up with the demands of software and the internet.
> Even though I built a modern computer and no longer have Flash issues, I ran into another problem. Sometimes hardware alone might not fix the stuttering of Flash content or streaming video on the internet. I still had problems with some streaming content like stuttering. So I got Road Runner Lightining 40mbs internet connection. Now I no longer have stuttering caused by a slower internet connection.
> There's three things to make the internet and software run smoothly. Hardware, a modern up-to-date browser and a fairly fast internet connection. Without these, you can only adjust the settings so far. As the internet continues to advance and become more graphics intensive, the hardware and other requirements will continue to change to keep up. Hopefully this info helps and gives you another path to fix these issues. I've tried many times with success and not success to resolve issues but sometimes the issues aren't the software but the hardware or speed of the internet connection.
> Another thing to try to help resolve the Flash stuttering is try other browsers. Each browser is built differently and may handle certain things better than others. Chrome, Opera and many more others are there to choose from. Maybe one of them will run Flash more smoothly. Anyway, if there's anything else I can do to help, let me know and I'll do my best.


Totally agree. The other thing thing that can help is avoid streaming and browser bottlenecks by downloading the flash (I use firefox add on "Download Helper" but there are others) and viewing it off line with SMPlayer for windows or MPC HomeCinema,


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Long time ago, I started to get stuttering and problems with Flash animations. I tried everything and just couldn't solve the problem. So I built a new computer and installed a $600 video card, installed 12 gigs of DDR3 1600 ram, overclocked the processor to 4.0 and installed a $400 SSD drive. It's overkill but I spent thousands building a very powerful computer. Now I no longer have Flash stuttering or any problems. Web sites more and more are containing heavier Flash content which really needs a modern computer to be able to handle it all. It could be time for you to upgrade to keep up with the changes on the internet. For example, lots of people who own last years MacBook Air laptops were complaining games were stuttering. This year a new MacBook Air with the latest Intel processor and with a more powerful graphics chip came out. Now the same games play smoothly without stuttering. It does help to upgrade to keep up with the demands of software and the internet.
> Even though I built a modern computer and no longer have Flash issues, I ran into another problem. Sometimes hardware alone might not fix the stuttering of Flash content or streaming video on the internet. I still had problems with some streaming content like stuttering. So I got Road Runner Lightining 40mbs internet connection. Now I no longer have stuttering caused by a slower internet connection.
> There's three things to make the internet and software run smoothly. Hardware, a modern up-to-date browser and a fairly fast internet connection. Without these, you can only adjust the settings so far. As the internet continues to advance and become more graphics intensive, the hardware and other requirements will continue to change to keep up. Hopefully this info helps and gives you another path to fix these issues. I've tried many times with success and not success to resolve issues but sometimes the issues aren't the software but the hardware or speed of the internet connection.
> Another thing to try to help resolve the Flash stuttering is try other browsers. Each browser is built differently and may handle certain things better than others. Chrome, Opera and many more others are there to choose from. Maybe one of them will run Flash more smoothly. Anyway, if there's anything else I can do to help, let me know and I'll do my best.


Oh no no, I have as Sager NP8130 laptop and this surely is a "modern" computer. It has the 2620QM Sandy Bridge CPU and GTX 560M GPU. 8GB of DD3 1600MHz RAM and with a 128GB Crucial M4 SSD. I am 100% sure that this is MORE MORE MORE than enough for just playing Flash videos. My Internet is also fast. If you can remember I already asked for your help a few months back. One proof that my laptop specs isn't the problem is because I can play Flash videos smoothly with FF. Stuttering only occurs when I started using WF (since WF11 AFAIK). There is no "buffering", there is just random stuttering across the length of the video.

I hope you can help me here. Thanks.


----------



## djkilla

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Oh no no, I have as Sager NP8130 laptop and this surely is a "modern" computer. It has the 2620QM Sandy Bridge CPU and GTX 560M GPU. 8GB of DD3 1600MHz RAM and with a 128GB Crucial M4 SSD. I am 100% sure that this is MORE MORE MORE than enough for just playing Flash videos. My Internet is also fast. If you can remember I already asked for your help a few months back. One proof that my laptop specs isn't the problem is because I can play Flash videos smoothly with FF. Stuttering only occurs when I started using WF (since WF11 AFAIK). There is no "buffering", there is just random stuttering across the length of the video.
> I hope you can help me here. Thanks.


If it's a laptop, are you using a wireless connection or directly plugged in to the ethernet port. Wireless could be causing the stuttering. You can try the following:

1) Plug your laptop directly to the modem/router.

2) Follow the instructions at the following link (skip 'Continue Reading: 3. Advanced Graphics Settings': http://ultrabooknews.com/2012/07/12/how-to-optimize-your-ultrabook-for-maximum-gaming-performance/

3) Open a command prompt and type the following: *ipconfig /release* then *ipconfig /flushdns* then *ipconfig /renew*

3) Test to see if the Flash content stutters.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> If it's a laptop, are you using a wireless connection or directly plugged in to the ethernet port. Wireless could be causing the stuttering. You can try the following:
> 1) Plug your laptop directly to the modem/router.
> 2) Follow the instructions at the following link (skip 'Continue Reading: 3. Advanced Graphics Settings': http://ultrabooknews.com/2012/07/12/how-to-optimize-your-ultrabook-for-maximum-gaming-performance/
> 3) Open a command prompt and type the following: *ipconfig /release* then *ipconfig /flushdns* then *ipconfig /renew*
> 3) Test to see if the Flash content stutters.


Done all of those steps. I even have a Gigabit Ethernet card. I'm pretty much knowledgeable in Networking so I can assure you that it's not the connection or speed that's the problem.

As I've mentioned earlier, Firefox (32-bit) and Internet Explorer (32-bit) doesn't have problem playing the same exact videos. This alone says it all, that WF (64-bit) is what's causing the problem. It's just that I/we don't know why it causes it. I hope you can help me.

Please also note that even though I let the Flash video download first (to prevent any potential buffering but it has never buffered) and then play it, the stutter continues. Again, this proves that the Internet connection is not the problem.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Done all of those steps. I even have a Gigabit Ethernet card. I'm pretty much knowledgeable in Networking so I can assure you that it's not the connection or speed that's the problem.
> As I've mentioned earlier, Firefox (32-bit) and Internet Explorer (32-bit) doesn't have problem playing the same exact videos. This alone says it all, that WF (64-bit) is what's causing the problem. It's just that I/we don't know why it causes it. I hope you can help me.
> Please also note that even though I let the Flash video download first (to prevent any potential buffering but it has never buffered) and then play it, the stutter continues. Again, this proves that the Internet connection is not the problem.


Your logic is good there, and it was obvious several messages back that your problem had nothing to do with your networking. However, you're missing one point when you say it only happens in waterfox. Since it's 64bit, that means you're also using the 64bit Flash plugin, so isn't it just as likely that the problem might lie there ? In fact, since it's a flash video this is happening with, I'd have been even more inclined to look at that. I'm not a flash expert, so I could be completely wrong here - maybe it's a bit of both, some sort of weird interaction between Waterfox and Flash.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Done all of those steps. I even have a Gigabit Ethernet card. I'm pretty much knowledgeable in Networking so I can assure you that it's not the connection or speed that's the problem.
> As I've mentioned earlier, Firefox (32-bit) and Internet Explorer (32-bit) doesn't have problem playing the same exact videos. This alone says it all, that WF (64-bit) is what's causing the problem. It's just that I/we don't know why it causes it. I hope you can help me.
> Please also note that even though I let the Flash video download first (to prevent any potential buffering but it has never buffered) and then play it, the stutter continues. Again, this proves that the Internet connection is not the problem.


Have you tested this:
-aero disable?
-UAC disable?
-accelerate GPU disable?
-all plugins and add-on without flash disable?
-with opera or chrome (because it is the same flash)?
-Add -p to end of a link, create a new profile.

My PC includes a Pentium 1.7Ghz and a nvidia 8400 with 128 mb; and I have no problem before 720p.


----------



## chilinmichael

Have you tried playing the video with IE 64 bit? That would use the 64-bit flash as well. See if the same issue is there.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheReaperWaits*
> 
> Anyone else get constant adobe flash 64bit crashes?


I upgraded my Waterfox to v13 PL1 about a week ago and now have started to experience the Adobe Flash plug-in crashing.

I've already done the obvious things: uninstalled and reinstalled Adobe Flash, tried different profiles and even installed Waterfox on another computer which never had Firefox or Waterfox installed.

I didn't have this problem with v12 so I may have to go back to that version (as it seemed to be the most stable for me) and wait for the next update/release of WF.

Rob.


----------



## Micko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Done all of those steps. I even have a Gigabit Ethernet card. I'm pretty much knowledgeable in Networking so I can assure you that it's not the connection or speed that's the problem.
> As I've mentioned earlier, Firefox (32-bit) and Internet Explorer (32-bit) doesn't have problem playing the same exact videos. This alone says it all, that WF (64-bit) is what's causing the problem. It's just that I/we don't know why it causes it. I hope you can help me.
> Please also note that even though I let the Flash video download first (to prevent any potential buffering but it has never buffered) and then play it, the stutter continues. Again, this proves that the Internet connection is not the problem.


I've had the occasional stutter while playing flash videos as well and what I did was going back to the older version of Flash and now everything is smooth as it should be. Flash is demanding, but (for 480p and lower) it's not the hardware unless you're rocking with a 2004 single core. When videos stutter it's the Flash, only Flash and nothing but the Flash (did this sound right?)







. Now I'm using Flash v.11.0.1.98 and iirc even some of the 10.x.x versions provided a smooth playback so you might wanna try one of those. Newer versions of Flash are a lottery and I'd stay away from them unless there is a good reason not to.

My own stutter test is I open the video of Jamelia - Superstar on Youtube, set the quality to 720p, and while playing in a window i right click on it and select "Show video info". If the "video fps" stays at 25 for 30-40 seconds without dropping, that's it - you've found a "good" version of Flash for yourself. And yeah, some versions of Flash do stutter in _some_ browsers, but I just picked the one which doesn't stutter in my main browser and ignored that fact. What can you do.

And for God's sake, turn that auto update off.


----------



## Lord Venom

Is it network stutter or video stutter? If the latter, sounds like there's no vsync?

Apparently Firefox 14 final's supposed to be out today.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Is it network stutter or video stutter? If the latter, sounds like there's no vsync?
> Apparently Firefox 14 final's supposed to be out today.


look in ftp of firefox, I see 14.0.1, maybe many problems.. .


----------



## virtualguy

Kevin, it sounds like there are compatibility issues between the 64-bit version of Flash and the video drivers for your laptop. I don't recall if you specified what video chip your system has. If you bring this issue up in the graphics manufacturer's support forum, you might get some helpful suggestions on some driver tweaks that might help the Flash stuttering.

VG


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Your logic is good there, and it was obvious several messages back that your problem had nothing to do with your networking. However, you're missing one point when you say it only happens in waterfox. Since it's 64bit, that means you're also using the 64bit Flash plugin, so isn't it just as likely that the problem might lie there ? In fact, since it's a flash video this is happening with, I'd have been even more inclined to look at that. I'm not a flash expert, so I could be completely wrong here - maybe it's a bit of both, some sort of weird interaction between Waterfox and Flash.


Thanks for the info.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Have you tested this:
> -aero disable?
> -UAC disable?
> -accelerate GPU disable?
> -all plugins and add-on without flash disable?
> -with opera or chrome (because it is the same flash)?
> -Add -p to end of a link, create a new profile.
> My PC includes a Pentium 1.7Ghz and a nvidia 8400 with 128 mb; and I have no problem before 720p.


I might have to try all of these and see if the problem still persist. Of all those things you've mentioned, I already trued GPU Acceleration disabled and creating a new profile, but the problem is still there.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> Have you tried playing the video with IE 64 bit? That would use the 64-bit flash as well. See if the same issue is there.


Have to try this as well.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Micko*
> 
> I've had the occasional stutter while playing flash videos as well and what I did was going back to the older version of Flash and now everything is smooth as it should be. Flash is demanding, but (for 480p and lower) it's not the hardware unless you're rocking with a 2004 single core. When videos stutter it's the Flash, only Flash and nothing but the Flash (did this sound right?)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Now I'm using Flash v.11.0.1.98 and iirc even some of the 10.x.x versions provided a smooth playback so you might wanna try one of those. Newer versions of Flash are a lottery and I'd stay away from them unless there is a good reason not to.
> My own stutter test is I open the video of Jamelia - Superstar on Youtube, set the quality to 720p, and while playing in a window i right click on it and select "Show video info". If the "video fps" stays at 25 for 30-40 seconds without dropping, that's it - you've found a "good" version of Flash for yourself. And yeah, some versions of Flash do stutter in _some_ browsers, but I just picked the one which doesn't stutter in my main browser and ignored that fact. What can you do.
> And for God's sake, turn that auto update off.


Hmmm, I'll try that. I'm just boggled why the latest version of Flash works with no stuttering in FF and IE 32-bit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Kevin, it sounds like there are compatibility issues between the 64-bit version of Flash and the video drivers for your laptop. I don't recall if you specified what video chip your system has. If you bring this issue up in the graphics manufacturer's support forum, you might get some helpful suggestions on some driver tweaks that might help the Flash stuttering.
> VG


Hmmm, I highly doubt this because I've tried many different driver versions for my GTX 560M GPU and the problem is always there. I'm at driver version 296.10 now (not the latest but the most stable for my laptop).


----------



## fullmoon

firefow 14 is out, 14.0.1 exactly


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> firefow 14 is out, 14.0.1 exactly


Nope not yet. Still being quality checked by Mozilla. Should be officially out in a few hours though.


----------



## Freakie

Having some problems with the website, Alex? xP

What laptop do you have, Kevindd? It seems odd that such an old driver is the only stable one for it  That may just be causing a little bit of your stutter problems, but who knows.


----------



## MrAlex

Just letting everyone know I've been busy working hard and there will be a megapost when Waterfox 14 is released









Also website downtime wasn't my fault, it was SF.net


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Just letting everyone know I've been busy working hard and there will be a megapost when Waterfox 14 is released
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also website downtime wasn't my fault, it was SF.net


Thanks for the updates Mr. Alex!

EDIT: Firefox 14.0.1 is now out officially.

https://www.mozilla.org/products/download.html?product=firefox-14.0.1&os=win&lang=en-US

release notes:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/14.0.1/releasenotes/

And custom fonts on the 32bit version is not working on Google Search again. Times New Roman sucks lol.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Just letting everyone know I've been busy working hard and there will be a megapost when Waterfox 14 is released
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also website downtime wasn't my fault, it was SF.net


Sorry to hear about SF taking a dump







But it definitely wont make me lose any appreciation for another great WF update from you! Thanks again for the work you put into this, and thanks in advanced for WF14


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

eta ?


----------



## maaz87

Hey guys, I'm using the last Waterfox (13PL1). Sometimes the GUI freezes for some minutes and come back to normal. I read PL1 was supossed to fix that, is it a know bug or what?


----------



## Lord Venom

Wait for 14 honestly.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Having some problems with the website, Alex? xP
> What laptop do you have, Kevindd? It seems odd that such an old driver is the only stable one for it  That may just be causing a little bit of your stutter problems, but who knows.


I have a Sager NP8130 laptop which is a known gaming laptop among enthusiasts. 296.10 is not that old.

Oh to set things straight, the issue that I have also happens with my Desktop computer which is on 301.42. So that eliminates the potential cause of being the driver versions.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I have a Sager NP8130 laptop which is a known gaming laptop among enthusiasts. 296.10 is not that old.
> Oh to set things straight, the issue that I have also happens with my Desktop computer which is on 301.42. So that eliminates the potential cause of being the driver versions.


Don't worry, I'm a notebook junkie too and know all about Sagers









But 296.10 is still kind of old when you look at Nvidia's general release rate. Are you sure you aren't stable on the latest (304.79)? Only trouble I've seen with Sagers and the latest 304 drivers was that Nvidia didn't include the Hardware IDs of some new Sagers with 600 series GPU's in them (which of course is easily fixed by modifying your INF file then rerunning the installation). I haven't seen any reliable complaints about stability with the drivers on Clevo barebones 

Also, your desktop is still on old drivers too xP Also has different hardware to boot. The 560 Ti is based off the GF 114 core while the 560M is based on the GF 116, so it's quiet possible that different drivers will affect your desktop and laptop GPU's differently. Just seems odd to me that you're using old WHQL drivers instead of the latest beta when you have a known performance issue









EDIT:
Also, does it still stutter when you Right Click Waterfox's icon and run it with your Nvidia GPU? Come to think of it, this driver talk might not actually be all that useful if you haven't tried this yet, as WF defaults with running on the Intel GPU.


----------



## pierredupont17

FF 13 is not the best version of Mozilla, FF 14 fix 1749 bugs :

http://www.gizmodo.fr/2012/07/18/firefox-14.html

So, welcome to FF14 and, of course, to WaterFox 14


----------



## 01042009

Hi,
I've noticed that with some custom builds, Waterfox 13 PL1 and a fast 32bit build I like to use (http://www1.plala.or.jp/tete009/en-US/software.html), the Acid 3 test (http://acid3.acidtests.org/) is broken.
I only get 99 out of 100 points. The third rectangle is supposed to be yellow and not grey. Any one else with the same problem? With the official FF 14.0.1 everything is fine.
Regards,
Peter


----------



## rootzreggae

Waterfox is the only browser i can use, due to some wierd bug, i am not able to download with any other browser, besides waterfox. Like the pop up window, that asks the location to save files never shows on 32 bit major browsers, only waterfox 64 bit. That and the fact that waterfox is blazing fast around here


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *01042009*
> 
> Hi,
> I've noticed that with some custom builds, Waterfox 13 PL1 and a fast 32bit build I like to use (http://www1.plala.or.jp/tete009/en-US/software.html), the Acid 3 test (http://acid3.acidtests.org/) is broken.
> I only get 99 out of 100 points. The third rectangle is supposed to be yellow and not grey. Any one else with the same problem? With the official FF 14.0.1 everything is fine.
> Regards,
> Peter


For that build I've no idea about that one. Like the creator said use at your own risk. As for the acid3 test... i get 100/100 so i think the problem is at your end. Try resetting waterfox to it's default settings via the troubleshooting information in the firefox menu. If acid3 get 100/100 then waterfox is running fine. If you still get 99/100 then try updating your graphics drivers to the latest one though i don't know if that will really cure it.


----------



## Conditioned

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rootzreggae*
> 
> Waterfox is the only browser i can use, due to some wierd bug, i am not able to download with any other browser, besides waterfox. Like the pop up window, that asks the location to save files never shows on 32 bit major browsers, only waterfox 64 bit. That and the fact that waterfox is blazing fast around here


Theres an addon called Downthemall thats really good and might help you with that.


----------



## 01042009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> For that build I've no idea about that one. Like the creator said use at your own risk. As for the acid3 test... i get 100/100 so i think the problem is at your end. Try resetting waterfox to it's default settings via the troubleshooting information in the firefox menu. If acid3 get 100/100 then waterfox is running fine. If you still get 99/100 then try updating your graphics drivers to the latest one though i don't know if that will really cure it.


Thank you for your reply. You were right, an add-on was the culprit. After I disabled NoScript 2.4.8 and ran the test again, perfect score 100/100.
Regards,
Peter.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *01042009*
> 
> Thank you for your reply. You were right, an add-on was the culprit. After I disabled NoScript 2.4.8 and ran the test again, perfect score 100/100.
> Regards,
> Peter.


I'm glad that you sorted it out even though I didn't mention about the add-ons lol. NoScript is actually a good add-on you just need to configure it to block certain items properly else you will encounter problems like that.


----------



## 01042009

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> I'm glad that you sorted it out even though I didn't mention about the add-ons lol. NoScript is actually a good add-on you just need to configure it to block certain items properly else you will encounter problems like that.


Yes you didn't mention the add-on, but the troubleshooting information in the firefox menu disabled the add-ons. So indirectly you solved my problem ;-)
Of course I keep NoScript enabled because of the obvious security benefits. I'll try to get in touch with the creator, maybe he can find what is causing the "slight problem" with acid 3, if noScript is really at fault.
Were you able to get a score of 100 with NoScript enabled?
I white-listed all the relevant domains to the test (according to the source code of the site), but still only get 99.
It says: "Failed 1 tests. Test 47 failed: expected 'default' but got 'auto' - cursor default not supported"


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *01042009*
> 
> Yes you didn't mention the add-on, but the troubleshooting information in the firefox menu disabled the add-ons. So indirectly you solved my problem ;-)
> Of course I keep NoScript enabled because of the obvious security benefits. I'll try to get in touch with the creator, maybe he can find what is causing the "slight problem" with acid 3, if noScript is really at fault.
> Were you able to get a score of 100 with NoScript enabled?
> I white-listed all the relevant domains to the test (according to the source code of the site), but still only get 99.
> It says: "Failed 1 tests. Test 47 failed: expected 'default' but got 'auto' - cursor default not supported"


No, I don't use NoScript that's why I directed you to the troubleshooting information.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Don't worry, I'm a notebook junkie too and know all about Sagers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But 296.10 is still kind of old when you look at Nvidia's general release rate. Are you sure you aren't stable on the latest (304.79)? Only trouble I've seen with Sagers and the latest 304 drivers was that Nvidia didn't include the Hardware IDs of some new Sagers with 600 series GPU's in them (which of course is easily fixed by modifying your INF file then rerunning the installation). I haven't seen any reliable complaints about stability with the drivers on Clevo barebones
> Also, your desktop is still on old drivers too xP Also has different hardware to boot. The 560 Ti is based off the GF 114 core while the 560M is based on the GF 116, so it's quiet possible that different drivers will affect your desktop and laptop GPU's differently. Just seems odd to me that you're using old WHQL drivers instead of the latest beta when you have a known performance issue
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT:
> Also, does it still stutter when you Right Click Waterfox's icon and run it with your Nvidia GPU? Come to think of it, this driver talk might not actually be all that useful if you haven't tried this yet, as WF defaults with running on the Intel GPU.


But the thing is that I don't use Beta drivers from NVIDIA? I usually use the latest WHQL driver unless it is unstable for a particular system and then I downgrade to one version less?

How do you exactly "run WF with NVIDIA GPU instead of Intel GPU"? Well, my laptop doesn't have an Intel GPU for sure, it is disabled by default.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> But the thing is that I don't use Beta drivers from NVIDIA? I usually use the latest WHQL driver unless it is unstable for a particular system and then I downgrade to one version less?
> How do you exactly "run WF with NVIDIA GPU instead of Intel GPU"? Well, my laptop doesn't have an Intel GPU for sure, it is disabled by default.


Ah, apparently the NP8130 is used the same motherboard from the original 460M GPU it shipped with to the upgrade 560M and therefor it does not support Optimus. So there is no way for you to Run it with a different GPU xP My bad, didn't realize that Sager had a model that shipped with a 500 series GPU but no Optimus.

You should try the Beta drivers from the Nvidia website. You don't need to use Sager's drivers, and Beta drivers = more stability and less problems. Nvidia chooses to not have every driver be WHQL because that slows down the time that they can release drivers. Beta drivers are rarely unstable, they are just drivers that have had small fixes added on, and then released right away instead of waiting for Microsoft to give the WHQL certification for each and every driver release. And even if the latest Beta driver doesn't fix your stutter, you'll definitely get an increase in gaming performance







There have been a number of performance optimizations that you're missing out on for gaming!


----------



## guy7685

Hi,
I was just wondering if this patch has been added or will be added to one of the next releases.

If not, how can I make\get .EXE file out of it and apply on my waterfox to check if it works?

Thanks in advance...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Ah, apparently the NP8130 is used the same motherboard from the original 460M GPU it shipped with to the upgrade 560M and therefor it does not support Optimus. So there is no way for you to Run it with a different GPU xP My bad, didn't realize that Sager had a model that shipped with a 500 series GPU but no Optimus.
> You should try the Beta drivers from the Nvidia website. You don't need to use Sager's drivers, and Beta drivers = more stability and less problems. Nvidia chooses to not have every driver be WHQL because that slows down the time that they can release drivers. Beta drivers are rarely unstable, they are just drivers that have had small fixes added on, and then released right away instead of waiting for Microsoft to give the WHQL certification for each and every driver release. And even if the latest Beta driver doesn't fix your stutter, you'll definitely get an increase in gaming performance
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There have been a number of performance optimizations that you're missing out on for gaming!


Yes you're right, it doesn't support Optimus, bummer









Alright then. I never used Sager's GPU drivers since I'm a type of person that has all drivers updated. I'm using 296.10 simply because of stability (no BSODs) as I've said earlier. I might try the beta drivers though. So beta drivers VERSION for laptop NVIDIA GPU = beta driver VERSION for desktop NVIDIA GPU?


----------



## krazysteve33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *guy7685*
> 
> Hi,
> I was just wondering if this patch has been added or will be added to one of the next releases.
> If not, how can I make\get .EXE file out of it and apply on my waterfox to check if it works?
> Thanks in advance...


Although a patch has been released for this bug, it has not been verified by the QA team. To test to see if it works, either a very involved patch has to be written that replaces the old code, or the source code needs to be recompiled with that new code...which is what is done by the QA team. It is not as simple as turning the new code into an .exe file. This issue is slated for firefox15 which Mr Alex will recompile into waterfox15. Until then i recommend you holding your monitor in front of a mirror...lol


----------



## guy7685

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krazysteve33*
> 
> Although a patch has been released for this bug, it has not been verified by the QA team. To test to see if it works, either a very involved patch has to be written that replaces the old code, or the source code needs to be recompiled with that new code...which is what is done by the QA team. It is not as simple as turning the new code into an .exe file. This issue is slated for firefox15 which Mr Alex will recompile into waterfox15. Until then i recommend you holding your monitor in front of a mirror...lol


Thanks for the tip... waiting for WF15 then...


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yes you're right, it doesn't support Optimus, bummer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Alright then. I never used Sager's GPU drivers since I'm a type of person that has all drivers updated. I'm using 296.10 simply because of stability (no BSODs) as I've said earlier. I might try the beta drivers though. So beta drivers VERSION for laptop NVIDIA GPU = beta driver VERSION for desktop NVIDIA GPU?


Yep, the drivers are mostly GPU core tweaks, and so since desktops and laptops use the same GPU cores then Nvidia almost always releases the same driver version for both at the same time.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Yep, the drivers are mostly GPU core tweaks, and so since desktops and laptops use the same GPU cores then Nvidia almost always releases the same driver version for both at the same time.


Ok. So what if updating my GPU drivers didn't solve the problem, any other suggestions?


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok. So what if updating my GPU drivers didn't solve the problem, any other suggestions?


Try putting a second install of Windows on your computer and seeing if you still have the problem?

Another thing I would try to do is completely uninstall Flash, Waterfox, and Firefox and then use something like RevoUninstaller's tracking feature to record the installation of all 3 of those. So you'd uninstall everything the best you can, then individually install each one, one by one, tracking each one separately with RevoUninstaller. Once you have them all tracked, I would then used the saved logs with RevoUninstaller to Uninstall all 3 once more. This way, you make sure to reverse EVERY change that they make to your system (usually a program's uninstaller leaves some things screwed up). I do this when I am really having problems with a program that just wont work no matter how many times I reinstall and it fixes the problem about half the time.

Both of those two suggestions are time intensive, unfortunately :/ The first one would let you know if it's something with your system, second will skip that and just try to brute-force fix things. I'd also make sure your chipset drivers are up-to-date from Intel as well.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Try putting a second install of Windows on your computer and seeing if you still have the problem?
> Another thing I would try to do is completely uninstall Flash, Waterfox, and Firefox and then use something like RevoUninstaller's tracking feature to record the installation of all 3 of those. So you'd uninstall everything the best you can, then individually install each one, one by one, tracking each one separately with RevoUninstaller. Once you have them all tracked, I would then used the saved logs with RevoUninstaller to Uninstall all 3 once more. This way, you make sure to reverse EVERY change that they make to your system (usually a program's uninstaller leaves some things screwed up). I do this when I am really having problems with a program that just wont work no matter how many times I reinstall and it fixes the problem about half the time.
> Both of those two suggestions are time intensive, unfortunately :/ The first one would let you know if it's something with your system, second will skip that and just try to brute-force fix things. I'd also make sure your chipset drivers are up-to-date from Intel as well.


Thanks for the 1st suggestion although I don't think that will solve the problem since this is a fairly new Win7 install.

I already did your 2nd suggestion before even asking in this thread. I'm an OC type of person and do these things very neatly which is why I don't think it will also help?

And my drivers are ALL updated. Even all the firmwares/BIOS down from the USB3 ports up to the main BIOS of my laptop, so yeah.


----------



## kevindd992002

Sorry for the double post.

Now this is weird. I've tried it again using IE 32-bit and IE 64-bit and have definitely no stuttering with it. However, I tried using FF14 and WF13 and both produces the stuttering problem. This is playing the same video. Now what could be the problem? We can now isolate that it isn't between Flash 32-bit and Flash 64-bit.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Sorry for the double post.
> 
> Now this is weird. I've tried it again using IE 32-bit and IE 64-bit and have definitely no stuttering with it. However, I tried using FF14 and WF13 and both produces the stuttering problem. This is playing the same video. Now what could be the problem? We can now isolate that it isn't between Flash 32-bit and Flash 64-bit.


Flash for Internet Explorer uses ActiveX components. Have you tried 64-Bit Opera?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Sorry for the double post.
> Now this is weird. I've tried it again using IE 32-bit and IE 64-bit and have definitely no stuttering with it. However, I tried using FF14 and WF13 and both produces the stuttering problem. This is playing the same video. Now what could be the problem? We can now isolate that it isn't between Flash 32-bit and Flash 64-bit.


Probably a bug in the FF code then. Try Mr. Alex's suggestion to use Opera 64-bit.


----------



## nodiaque

Hello,

I have an issue with all of my waterfox 13 pl1 installation. Javascript seems to have issue. For instance, if I go to www.sutton.com and try to see album photo (not single photo) or change the information on the left, nothing happen. All work well in IE.

I also tried to add hotmail as my mailto using various method from the firefox forum, but when trying to run "javascript:navigator.registerProtocolHandler('mailto','http://hotmail.msn.com/secure/start?action=compose&to=%s','Hotmail');" from the navigation bar (should request to add an application), nothing happen. I've check to see if javascript is activated and it is.

Thanks


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> Hello,
> I have an issue with all of my waterfox 13 pl1 installation. Javascript seems to have issue. For instance, if I go to www.sutton.com and try to see album photo (not single photo) or change the information on the left, nothing happen. All work well in IE.
> I also tried to add hotmail as my mailto using various method from the firefox forum, but when trying to run "javascript:navigator.registerProtocolHandler('mailto','http://hotmail.msn.com/secure/start?action=compose&to=%s','Hotmail');" from the navigation bar (should request to add an application), nothing happen. I've check to see if javascript is activated and it is.
> Thanks


Are you sure you have installed the 64bit version Java? http://www.filehippo.com/download_jre_64/ WF uses 64bit plugins so that maybe the issue in your case.


----------



## nodiaque

Java doesn't have anything to do with javascript







But yes, I do have java 32 and 64 bits, since I myself program in java for 64-bits platform and 32-bits. Also, this problem wasn't here before upgrading to 13.

thanks


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Flash for Internet Explorer uses ActiveX components. Have you tried 64-Bit Opera?


Will try that.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Probably a bug in the FF code then. Try Mr. Alex's suggestion to use Opera 64-bit.


Yeah probably, but the thing is that users like Mr. Alex doesn't experience this problem whether with FF or WF?


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> Hello,
> I have an issue with all of my waterfox 13 pl1 installation. Javascript seems to have issue. For instance, if I go to www.sutton.com and try to see album photo (not single photo) or change the information on the left, nothing happen. All work well in IE.
> I also tried to add hotmail as my mailto using various method from the firefox forum, but when trying to run "javascript:navigator.registerProtocolHandler('mailto','http://hotmail.msn.com/secure/start?action=compose&to=%s','Hotmail');" from the navigation bar (should request to add an application), nothing happen. I've check to see if javascript is activated and it is.
> Thanks


I noticed something similar with the latest FF14 and Photobucket or any photo upload site, javascript seems blocked and doesn't allow me to upload photos..

I uninstalled both FF14 & WF13 also all profiles etc, then used only FF14 and still the same??

when i installed WF13 and tried again it worked, although not all scrips.

For example i have to allow noscript google- analytics in photobucket to access that script (to tag and generate links for pics), it use to work fine before with it blocked heh.. Strange

@ Mr.Alex

sorry to bother you, but any news on WF14? I saw you mentioned end of the week







, can we expect it tomorrow ?


----------



## MrAlex

Well I'm having DNS problems with my registrar which means the auto-update feature isn't working yet, as well as some other things. They said they'd sort it out but I'm still waiting for them


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well I'm having DNS problems with my registrar which means the auto-update feature isn't working yet, as well as some other things. They said they'd sort it out but I'm still waiting for them


Run your own DNS server.


----------



## charlir

well no sure what you need.. but take your time MrAlex .. better do it right then rush into it and thanks for all your time


----------



## sussah

anyway to add .xpi files

specifically i need an IDM CC extension for Internet Download Manager.

Other than that, waterfox is flowing like water for me! Awesome job!


----------



## kevindd992002

I let FF sit idle for a while (letting it load all my tabs completely first) for around 5 mins and tried to play again the same video and surprisingly there was no stutter. So the stutter is left with WF13 only.

I will try Opera 64-bit now, but where do I download it? It says on Opera.com that the 64-bit version of Opera is only available for FreeBSD and Linux on a x86_64 platform?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I let FF sit idle for a while (letting it load all my tabs completely first) for around 5 mins and tried to play again the same video and surprisingly there was no stutter. So the stutter is left with WF13 only.
> I will try Opera 64-bit now, but where do I download it? It says on Opera.com that the 64-bit version of Opera is only available for FreeBSD and Linux on a x86_64 platform?


Opera x64: http://get5.opera.com/pub/opera/win/1200/int/Opera_1200_int_Setup_x64.exe

As for the stuttering issue have you tried latest OEM drivers of your Sager laptop? Those are the ones that are optimized for that specific brand.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sussah*
> 
> anyway to add .xpi files
> specifically i need an IDM CC extension for Internet Download Manager.
> Other than that, waterfox is flowing like water for me! Awesome job!


Install IDM. It will automatically install the add-on or go to this site to download it manually.

http://www.internetdownloadmanager.com/idmmzcc/idmmzcc.xpi

To install the xpi file just drag it on the WF window.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Opera x64: http://get5.opera.com/pub/opera/win/1200/int/Opera_1200_int_Setup_x64.exe
> As for the stuttering issue have you tried latest OEM drivers of your Sager laptop? Those are the ones that are optimized for that specific brand.


Thanks for the link. Is that an official Opera x64?

As everyone might suggest here, it is not recommended to use the OEM drivers for my laptop because they are really OLD. The generic NVIDIA drivers are more optimized.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks for the link. Is that an official Opera x64?
> As everyone might suggest here, it is not recommended to use the OEM drivers for my laptop because they are really OLD. The generic NVIDIA drivers are more optimized.


Yep. That's an official build. Installed it myself.



I see... I'm not familiar with sagers so i thought OEM drivers might help. Oh well.. I hope you resolve your issue soon.


----------



## Vertig0

Is Waterfox 14 ready ? What changes can we expect ?


----------



## MrAlex

Note: Firefox and Waterfox were using heavily used profiles including add-ons. Palemoon was run on a clean profile.

SunSpider is the only benchmark where lower is better.


----------



## anitac

What version of each browser was used in the benchmarks?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anitac*
> 
> What version of each browser was used in the benchmarks?


The latest of each. Waterfox 14.0.1, Firefox 14.0.1 and Palemoon 12.3


----------



## fullmoon

build with OpenMP?
I don't know if it's a good idea...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> build with OpenMP?
> I don't know if it's a good idea...


OpenMP is for future versions and only if it brings benefits. Why isn't it a good idea?


----------



## virtualguy

Is Waterfox 14.0.1 not ready for prime time? How about a progress report?


----------



## qwerty77

I'm very curious as well Mr. Alex. If you need some testers to try your build I'll gladly help you out. If not I'm still waiting patiently for the release of WF 14


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Flash for Internet Explorer uses ActiveX components. Have you tried 64-Bit Opera?


I just tried playing the same youtube file (stuttering in WF and FF) with Opera x64 and it didn't have a single stutter. So this just points out to WF as the problem?

By the way, I'm using Primo RAMDisk with WF and FF for my cache files, does that have to do something with this stuttering? Because I use it also with IE and it doesn't have a problem there.


----------



## fullmoon

When updating WF uninstalls and removes everything, even the profiles, then installed the new version, and try like that.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> When updating WF uninstalls and removes everything, even the profiles, then installed the new version, and try like that.


Tried that to no avail.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Waiting for the auto update feature in 14.









I love W13!


----------



## krazysteve33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I just tried playing the same youtube file (stuttering in WF and FF) with Opera x64 and it didn't have a single stutter. So this just points out to WF as the problem?
> By the way, I'm using Primo RAMDisk with WF and FF for my cache files, does that have to do something with this stuttering? Because I use it also with IE and it doesn't have a problem there.


I'm not exactly sure how Primo RAMDisk works, but if you are using a "virtual disk" in memory/RAM to store cache files instead of the hard drive, there is most likely an issue with the way Mozilla code is writing the cache video files to the "virtual disk" that causes the stuttering, that the other browsers don't have an issue with? It maybe just the way Mozilla writes data to memory/RAM but idk. Again not exactly sure how Primo works since I have not used it myself, just my two cents


----------



## MrAlex

Hey guys, website update! Hope you all like it, I worked hard on it so hopefully it'll pay off. Some parts are a bit messy but I'm trying to keep on track for the next release (which is a pain ATM!).

As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.

Edit: I'm getting slightly paranoid now, so if the new website sucks please let me know and I'll revert back to the old one


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *krazysteve33*
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how Primo RAMDisk works, but if you are using a "virtual disk" in memory/RAM to store cache files instead of the hard drive, there is most likely an issue with the way Mozilla code is writing the cache video files to the "virtual disk" that causes the stuttering, that the other browsers don't have an issue with? It maybe just the way Mozilla writes data to memory/RAM but idk. Again not exactly sure how Primo works since I have not used it myself, just my two cents


Primo RAMDisk is actually a RAMDisk where you use a part of your RAM as a normal hard disk. It is supposed to speed up things in any browser since the RAM is the fastest device in our systems. It is around 10x faster than an SSD. And it is RECOMMENDED to use it with Mozilla and any type of browser. So I don't know why this is a problem?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys, website update! Hope you all like it, I worked hard on it so hopefully it'll pay off. Some parts are a bit messy but I'm trying to keep on track for the next release (which is a pain ATM!).
> As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.


Mr. Alex, what do you think of my problem?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *krazysteve33*
> 
> I'm not exactly sure how Primo RAMDisk works, but if you are using a "virtual disk" in memory/RAM to store cache files instead of the hard drive, there is most likely an issue with the way Mozilla code is writing the cache video files to the "virtual disk" that causes the stuttering, that the other browsers don't have an issue with? It maybe just the way Mozilla writes data to memory/RAM but idk. Again not exactly sure how Primo works since I have not used it myself, just my two cents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Primo RAMDisk is actually a RAMDisk where you use a part of your RAM as a normal hard disk. It is supposed to speed up things in any browser since the RAM is the fastest device in our systems. It is around 10x faster than an SSD. And it is RECOMMENDED to use it with Mozilla and any type of browser. So I don't know why this is a problem?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys, website update! Hope you all like it, I worked hard on it so hopefully it'll pay off. Some parts are a bit messy but I'm trying to keep on track for the next release (which is a pain ATM!).
> As always, feedback is greatly appreciated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Mr. Alex, what do you think of my problem?
Click to expand...

Two things it could be:


It's the placebo effect
There were some conflicts that ICC doesn't like with your system, but WF14 should fix that, I had to fix a lot of things in it but everything runs smooth as butter for me now. (The amount of linking errors drove me slowly insane, but I've fixed them all, so I'm quite sure that WF14 will solve any microstutter).

Edit: Just a test, on a Flash video on YouTube>Right Click>Show Infomation, what are the FPS of the video like?


----------



## TheHunter

Site looks good









So friday it is, thanks


----------



## Vertig0

New site looks good.

Also, how many pages will people have to deal with kevindd992002's problem. Can you please just wait for a newer version, or just switch to another Firefox distro ? Please, it's not like Waterfox is specifically essential to anyone's needs, feature-wise ...


----------



## DRock6032

The new site looks very good, looking forward to Friday!


----------



## BMT

Looks like I'm going to be the odd one out when I say I much preferred the old site then








In my opinion the old site was cleaner/more, hmm, polished? - I think the thing I don't like is the menu tab styles and the massive slideshow style images.

Doing this makes it look a bit better, in my opinion, but even then I still prefer the old site:


Thanks for all your hard work on Waterfox MrAlex, really appreciate it! Looking forward to Friday


----------



## ChaosBlades

Mr Alex you are a badass the way you pump out updates to this browser. I can't wait for Version 14 this Friday.









As for the new website, I think there is to much white. Maybe put the old blue background on the new website, or another darker background.


----------



## kennyparker1337

The OP links still take one to the old site (along with the "Downloads" link on the new site, goes to the old site).

Nvm, its just the Downloads page that isn't updated to the new format (edit: yet).

And I like the new site.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> The OP links still take one to the old site (along with the "Downloads" link on the new site, goes to the old site).
> Nvm, its just the Downloads page that isn't updated to the new format.
> And I like the new site.


_Note: The new template is rolling out to the whole website slowly, so please forgive any minor bugs, they'll be squashed as soon as possible._ http://waterfoxproject.org/news/46/15/Updated-Website.html


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Two things it could be:
> 
> It's the placebo effect
> There were some conflicts that ICC doesn't like with your system, but WF14 should fix that, I had to fix a lot of things in it but everything runs smooth as butter for me now. (The amount of linking errors drove me slowly insane, but I've fixed them all, so I'm quite sure that WF14 will solve any microstutter).
> Edit: Just a test, on a Flash video on YouTube>Right Click>Show Infomation, what are the FPS of the video like?


It's definitely not a placebo effect. Hmmm, I hope WF14 fixes this.

I get 22~24 FPS based on the video info.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vertig0*
> 
> New site looks good.
> Also, how many pages will people have to deal with kevindd992002's problem. Can you please just wait for a newer version, or just switch to another Firefox distro ? Please, it's not like Waterfox is specifically essential to anyone's needs, feature-wise ...


What's up? I've been waiting since WF11 for the solution to this problem but it isn't being solved, get it? MrAlex himself doesn't have the problem and I do have it so why the discrepancy, hence my questions. Skip my comments if you're hurting your eye reading them.


----------



## kennyparker1337

I'm not sure if you can fix this or not.

In all current forms of WF/FF it seems that when viewing something that requires a bottom horizontal scroller, you need to click on the top 5 pixels of the scroller to drag it / move it. Otherwise if you click anywhere below the top, it won't highlight it and select it.

*HUGE NASA IMAGE OF EARTH. Modem Destroyer.*


----------



## Lord Venom

Probably should report it to Mozilla.


----------



## illli

the website looks really great


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I'm not sure if you can fix this or not.
> In all current forms of WF/FF it seems that when viewing something that requires a bottom horizontal scroller, you need to click on the top 5 pixels of the scroller to drag it / move it. Otherwise if you click anywhere below the top, it won't highlight it and select it.
> *HUGE NASA IMAGE OF EARTH. Modem Destroyer.*


Just tried this. And its working fine on mine? Both WF/FF.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Just tried this. And its working fine on mine? Both WF/FF.














Spoiler: The Police











*EDIT: Figured out that this is a problem isolated to my firefox profile by creating a new profile and seeing the problem disappear. http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/927272

going to bed for today...*


----------



## fullmoon

we will have often said, thank you for letting us think about other possibilities


----------



## pvt.joker

Been using WF since i found it here on OCN at version 10 or so. I use it for all my pc's (except my gaming pc, bf3 just will not function with WF)
Love it!


----------



## Vertig0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pvt.joker*
> 
> except my gaming pc, bf3 just will not function with WF


What do you mean ?


----------



## pvt.joker

I had tried running the bf3 browser plugin but never could get it to work.. haven't tried it in a while, so maybe it works now and I can run WF all across the board? Guess I'll wait till 14 drops and give it a shot again.


----------



## Vertig0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pvt.joker*
> 
> I had tried running the bf3 browser plugin but never could get it to work.. haven't tried it in a while, so maybe it works now and I can run WF all across the board? Guess I'll wait till 14 drops and give it a shot again.


They need to implement a x64 plugin for x64 browsers.
http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf3/forum/threadview/2832654624931677284/1/


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, Battlelog/Battlefield 3 won't work in Waterfox due to DICE/EA not releasing a plugin for 64-bit browsers. You'll need to use a 32-bit browser to use Battlelog/Battlefield 3.


----------



## altrac

Hi, Waterfox is optimized for Intel's CPUs only?


----------



## Blameless

Regarding RAM drives for cache, I don't think they should be bothered with for Waterfox.

You can manually disable the disk cache and increase the default memory cache size to any value you see fit in the about:config page yourself, you just need to add _browser.cache.memory.capacity_ integer value.

The default max is 32MiB, even on systems with 8GiB or more memory. I run 512MiB, and may increase it further.

Here are the relevant entries in my configuration file:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *altrac*
> 
> Hi, Waterfox is optimized for Intel's CPUs only?


I have no idea how it's optimized, but it runs perfectly fine on my AMD systems.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I have no idea how it's optimized, but it runs perfectly fine on my AMD systems.


By Intel's C++ compiler(and many modification of Mr Alex), an adaptation is made by Intel, as long as you have installed the corresponding version of "Intel Redistributable Files".
looks: about:buildconfig


----------



## irsa04

Can you please make waterfox can load by itself like pale moon browser. I want to use mozilla and waterfox in different content of tabs to do my jobs. So far I must use one of them (mozilla or waterfox), in fact I want to use them separately. When I open mozilla and I open waterfox it said "Waterfox is already running", please make them separately.
I'm very love using waterfox and mozilla so much.
Thank you

Best regards


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *irsa04*
> 
> Can you please make waterfox can load by itself like pale moon browser. I want to use mozilla and waterfox in different content of tabs to do my jobs. So far I must use one of them (mozilla or waterfox), in fact I want to use them separately. When I open mozilla and I open waterfox it said "Waterfox is already running", please make them separately.
> I'm very love using waterfox and mozilla so much.
> Thank you
> 
> Best regards


Hi irsa04, follow the instructions here:

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/

Except follow it for Waterfox









I've got a special surprise for all my OCN browsers:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2014%20Setup.exe/download

Let me know if there are any problems, I've tested on 3 different systems and no problems, so I'm hoping no-one else has any either.

What I've added this time round: (If you want a whole list, wait for the official list tomorrow)


Profile-Guided Optimisation
Automatic Updater (Yay!)
Digitally signed .exe and installer









Make sure to uninstall any other version of Waterfox first.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Yay!









Will try when i get home


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've got a special surprise for all my OCN browsers:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2014%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> Let me know if there are any problems, I've tested on 3 different systems and no problems, so I'm hoping no-one else has any either.
> What I've added this time round: (If you want a whole list, wait for the official list tomorrow)
> 
> Profile-Guided Optimisation
> Automatic Updater (Yay!)
> Digitally signed .exe and installer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Make sure to uninstall any other version of Waterfox first.


Removed WF13, Installed WF14. All went just fine and it seems to be working just fine so far!








Oh, and for anyone who cares, this version fixes the Google MapsGL crash too









Thanks MrAlex!


----------



## LBear

Working fine here. Thanks for the update


----------



## BMT

Edit: Not a WF bug, caused my a userChrome.css modification and a change to the way FF/WF displays it.


----------



## safari801

So far so great! Excellent work Mr Alex


----------



## qwerty77

just installed it mr. alex and works great!









btw guys it seems that google search is redirecting you to your local language. If you want to use the english one (encrypyted.google.com)
use this:

google.xml 3k .xml file


(I extracted the xml file from the waterfox 13 installer) and place it on the "searchplugins" folder on the main waterfox directory. In my case DrogramFiles/Waterfox/searchplugins.

make sure you do this on Firefox 14.0.1 too then run it before waterfox 14 or else it will still default to your local language. After you do that you can just run waterfox 14 normally.

*EDIT:*
Another thing is if you want to use the classic toolbar look I recommend installing Classic Toolbar Buttons
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cstbb/

WF/FF seems to have change the interface a bit so installing that add-on should make it look like version 13.


----------



## tek2005

2 issues i've had so far.

1. i had some weird issue where i had to reinstall adblockplus. Seems to be working now. Minor set back, not real issues there. -solved myself-
2. Taskbar isn't pinning properly. Not being collected under the same tabbing like it use to:
http://i.imgur.com/umnQt.png
works if i pin the firefox.exe instead of waterfox.exe but when i try to launch from taskbar:
http://i.imgur.com/IPNKh.png

edit: fixed the 2nd error coming up by just removing waterfox completely (minus profile settings and such) but still not getting proper grouping. Also im gettting the same issue as someone below that says there waterfox icon isn't showing in the taskbar.

on side note: program seems to be running fine though, no other issues minus that quirk. However i still am getting crashes occasionally on streaming sites due to flash. but its rare and was happening in WF13. Thought maybe it might be fixed but guess its just a flash issue. and like i said its rare when it happens. Keep up the good work


----------



## Lord Venom

So far so good here.


----------



## netuser

The Waterfox icon does not appear correctly on my Windows 7 Taskbar; however, the desktop icon does appear normally. I uninstalled Waterfox 13 as recommended before I installed 14. Any ideas how to fix it? Thanks.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Regarding RAM drives for cache, I don't think they should be bothered with for Waterfox.
> You can manually disable the disk cache and increase the default memory cache size to any value you see fit in the about:config page yourself, you just need to add _browser.cache.memory.capacity_ integer value.
> The default max is 32MiB, even on systems with 8GiB or more memory. I run 512MiB, and may increase it further.
> Here are the relevant entries in my configuration file:
> 
> I have no idea how it's optimized, but it runs perfectly fine on my AMD systems.


A RAMDisk being used with WF would in no way connected with my stuttering problem, would it?


----------



## altrac

Woow. Thanks


----------



## mktwo

Some plugin like Adblock Plus and RES stop working with Waterfox 14.
Now, everything works fine after I reinstall Waterfox and restart Windows.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> Some plugin like Adblock Plus and RES stop working with Waterfox 14.


Try reinstalling Adblock Plus. Then the other addon should work again. the problem happened to me too with Classic Toolbar buttons.

Okay nevermind lol. I'm glad you sorted it out


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> Some plugin like Adblock Plus and RES stop working with Waterfox 14.
> Now, everything works fine after I reinstall Waterfox and restart Windows.


I noticed ABP stopped working too, though all I had to do was disable then re-enable the plugin and close/re-open Waterfox to fix that, no need to re-install WF.


----------



## Daveski

Is it recommended to uninstall Waterfox 13 before installing Waterfox 14?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daveski*
> 
> Is it recommended to uninstall Waterfox 13 before installing Waterfox 14?


Yes.


----------



## Daveski

OK thanks. My 64 bit PC has an AMD processor (Athlon IIX4 645) in a custom built box. Will Waterfox 14 run OK with that?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daveski*
> 
> OK thanks. My 64 bit PC has an AMD processor (Athlon IIX4 645) in a custom built box. Will Waterfox 14 run OK with that?


Yes. Just make sure that you have Intel Redistributable Files installed.


----------



## Daveski

OK thanks.


----------



## Seitman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Just noticed what I assume is a bug with WF14? Secure sites no longer seem to display the padlock icon/image.


It's not a bug. Mozilla since version 14 has disabled the favicons from appearing in the address bar. They only appear in the tabs.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *netuser*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Waterfox icon does not appear correctly on my Windows 7 Taskbar; however, the desktop icon does appear normally. I uninstalled Waterfox 13 as recommended before I installed 14. Any ideas how to fix it? Thanks.


Try rebuilding the icon cache.


----------



## kevindd992002

I remember Mr.Alex telling people here that you don't need to uninstall previous WF installation before upgrading to a new one.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I remember Mr.Alex telling people here that you don't need to uninstall previous WF installation before upgrading to a new one.


But for this version Mr.Alex told us to uninstall other versions first. See post 2916.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Make sure to uninstall any other version of Waterfox first.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> But for this version Mr.Alex told us to uninstall other versions first. See post 2916.


Oh ok. So Firefox can stay (no need to uninstall first) ?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Oh ok. So Firefox can stay (no need to uninstall first) ?


I think so. I have FF 14.0.1 installed when I installed WF 14 so i think there would be no problems. I can even run WF and FF simultaneously using separate profiles.









btw kevin adobe has release a new version (11.3.300.268) of adobe flash. It might help you with your video stutters.

*Changelog:

* Fixed Issues
- Flash Player content not rendering correctly on Firefox on Windows in Sandbox mode
- Various general stability issues

Known Issues:
• Audio distortion issues when streaming Flash content*


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Just noticed what I assume is a bug with WF14? Secure sites no longer seem to display the padlock icon/image.


I don't think it's Waterfox's bug, since secured websites still have padlock icon in address bar on my computer (just updated to Waterfox 14.0.1)


----------



## qwerty77

opps sorry wrong post lol


----------



## MrAlex

To address some issues:


Adblock Plus can be solved by going to Add-Ons>Disabled>Enabled, then just refresh the page. I'm not sure why it does this, but you don't have to reinstall it.
As for the Taskbar icon: If you get no icon, it's because waterfox's executable is now waterfox.exe (and you have firefox.exe pinned).
The other taskbar issue: Run Waterfox, and then pin the icon of the one that's running. The installer doesn't support direct pinning to the taskbar because the taskbar it's designed to be configured by the user.


----------



## qwerty77

Just a question Mr. Alex about the auto-update feature. How often does waterfox check for updates?


----------



## mktwo

I just noticed that Waterfox 14 shortcut (pinned to Start Menu) does not retain recent visited website list. Does this happen to anyone else?


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seitman*
> 
> It's not a bug. Mozilla since version 14 has disabled the favicons from appearing in the address bar. They only appear in the tabs.


Actually, that's incorrect - the URL bar now shows a globe for regular sites, a lock icon for regular secure sites, and a green lock icon with site company name for EV secure sites.

Turned out it was an old modification I made to my userChrome.css that I used to restore the "blank page" icon instead of the dotted outline for sites without favicons, because I really disliked that change.

False alarm there, not caused by WF, just a change with the way FF does things, sorry about that!

---
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> I just noticed that Waterfox 14 shortcut (pinned to Start Menu) does not retain recent visited website list. Does this happen to anyone else?


I can confirm that I no longer have jumplists on either the Start Menu or Task Bar shortcuts either.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Ah, weird decision by Mozilla there, but thanks for letting me know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I wonder if it can be re-enabled via a userChrome.css modification or something...


I tried searching for a solution but it seems impossible for now. there's an add-on called Favicon Inserter but it's quite buggy and it mixes with the padlock icon so it's quite crowded on the address bar.

You can make it look like opera though. Just install Stylish addon then go to this site to install the userstyle.

This is how it looks on mine on a secured site.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Just a question Mr. Alex about the auto-update feature. How often does waterfox check for updates?


Whenever the computer sits idle for more than 5 minutes.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> I just noticed that Waterfox 14 shortcut (pinned to Start Menu) does not retain recent visited website list. Does this happen to anyone else?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Seitman*
> 
> It's not a bug. Mozilla since version 14 has disabled the favicons from appearing in the address bar. They only appear in the tabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, that's incorrect - the URL bar now shows a globe for regular sites, a lock icon for regular secure sites, and a green lock icon with site company name for EV secure sites.
> 
> Turned out it was an old modification I made to my userChrome.css that I used to restore the "blank page" icon instead of the dotted outline for sites without favicons, because I really disliked that change.
> 
> False alarm there, not caused by WF, just a change with the way FF does things, sorry about that!
> 
> ---
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> I just noticed that Waterfox 14 shortcut (pinned to Start Menu) does not retain recent visited website list. Does this happen to anyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can confirm that I no longer have jumplists on either the Start Menu or Task Bar shortcuts either.
Click to expand...

Run Waterfox, then pin the icon of the Waterfox that's running:


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Run Waterfox, then pin the icon of the Waterfox that's running:
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/976787/


I've already done that, and the icon is pinned just fine, there are just no jumplists for the start menu or taskbar.










While yes, I can pin a file there if I want to, there used to be recently visited websites there, e.g. Gmail etc. with older versions of WF.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Whenever the computer sits idle for more than 5 minutes.


I see. Thanks Mr. Alex and congrats on the official launch of WF 14!








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> I've already done that, and the icon is pinned just fine, there are just no jumplists for the start menu or taskbar.


Second this. I thought I was seeing it right cause I'm always in private browsing mode. The jumplist is not there like it used to in firefox.


----------



## papafabian

Hello Mr Alex,

I've just installed WF14 and i have some bug :

1)i've no longer the three buttons in the right upper corner (reduce , full page and close) i have a black rectangle
2) All the text is blurred
3) I can't see my tab in the windows bar although the option is check

i had uninstall WF13 before installing WF14 and before WF14 i hadn't any problem. I have reinstall WF14 but still the same.
Could you help me please.
Thx a lot.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *papafabian*
> 
> Hello Mr Alex,
> I've just installed WF14 and i have some bug :
> 1)i've no longer the three buttons in the right upper corner (reduce , full page and close) i have a black rectangle
> 2) All the text is blurred
> 3) I can't see my tab in the windows bar although the option is check
> i had uninstall WF13 before installing WF14 and before WF14 i hadn't any problem. I have reinstall WF14 but still the same.
> Could you help me please.
> Thx a lot.


1. Have you tried using a fresh profile or disabling some add-ons? Or a persona/theme conflicting maybe?
To try a fresh profile reset it first using firefox under the "troubleshooting information" if that solves your problem then some of your add-ons maybe conflicting with WF/FF.

To revert back to your original profile type run on the windows start menu to open the "run" window to open the profile manager just search for the one with your original bookmarks and add-ons:

"D:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -p

just change the drive letter depending on where you installed firefox.

2. Try disabling hardware acceleration.
3. Same as my first suggestion.


----------



## papafabian

I just notice something : it's the same now with Firefox 14 (32 bits) but not with IE9.
I vaven't this before installing WF14.

Thx qwerty77,
I disable hardware acceleration and the text is net and my three button on the right upper corner come back!!
But i always can't see my tab in the windows bar.

I recheck the hardware acceleration and it works now. I understand nothing!!


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *papafabian*
> 
> I just notice something : it's the same now with Firefox 14 (32 bits) but not with IE9.
> I vaven't this before installing WF14.
> Thx qwerty77,
> I disable hardware acceleration and the text is net and my three button on the right upper corner come back!!
> But i always can't see my tab in the windows bar.
> I recheck the hardware acceleration and it works now. I understand nothing!!


Maybe it's a driver issue then? Try updating your drivers to the latest one.


----------



## Jarkko

Adding to that Taskbar-issue, mine has wrong shortcuts in "Tasks"-section, all three point to "\Waterfox\firefox.exe" and obviously won't work. Wouldn't be any issue if there wasn't two profiles, first one start (or at least did with 13 PL1 and before that in regular Firefox) by default and another by "Open new window".



edit:


----------



## papafabian

i'm up to date : 301.42


----------



## MrAlex

I'll look into the taskbar issue. I never used it so I didn't notice anything was wrong. I'll let you know how I'm progressing with the issue, nothing a small patch can't fix now! (Yay for updaters).


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *papafabian*
> 
> i'm up to date : 301.42


NVIDIA? I see ver. 302.59 as the latest one.


----------



## qwerty77

Sorry for the double post... internet lagged for a moment


----------



## papafabian

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> NVIDIA? I see ver. 302.59 as the latest one.


I don't see these version.
In the nvidia site it's 301.42 whql.
It's works now, only my tabs don't appear in the windows bar (don't know her name) in the bottom of the screen.


----------



## Jcow

What about the benchmarks?









http://waterfoxproject.org/benchmarks/


----------



## Manveru

Is it any option to install another interface language than English? Or the language version is somehow depend on compilation?


----------



## Lord Venom

You can install the Firefox language packs, I believe.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jcow*
> 
> What about the benchmarks?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://waterfoxproject.org/benchmarks/


They're coming







trying to make it look pretty.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *papafabian*
> 
> I don't see these version.
> In the nvidia site it's 301.42 whql.
> It's works now, only my tabs don't appear in the windows bar (don't know her name) in the bottom of the screen.


no driver problem

Mr Alex, same problem as in the pre-released, I had stated and there have always.
Disable the hardware accelerator is only solution. But enable after works always. The problem occurs only starting, with hardware acceleration enabled.
However, I have two PCs and knows it only happens with my laptop, both have intel pentium SSSE3.
laptop nvidia 8400M G
desktop: nvidia 9600gt
I look settings nvidia...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> I think so. I have FF 14.0.1 installed when I installed WF 14 so i think there would be no problems. I can even run WF and FF simultaneously using separate profiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> btw kevin adobe has release a new version (11.3.300.268) of adobe flash. It might help you with your video stutters.
> *Changelog:
> * Fixed Issues
> - Flash Player content not rendering correctly on Firefox on Windows in Sandbox mode
> - Various general stability issues
> Known Issues:
> • Audio distortion issues when streaming Flash content*


I already tried the new Flash player yesterday together with WF13 and I still experience stuttering. Already updated my NVIDIA drivers to 304.79 also. I will try to update to WF14 and see if the problem goes away.


----------



## tek2005

kk solved my icon issue and the grouping as well. Just had to keep removing then reinstalling till it finally worked (like 2 times) now its working fine









Thank you for the great program. Runs pretty well


----------



## Jcow

So far so good here, just the bugs that you guys reported with adblock(I just had to reinstall it) and the taskbar..

No problem with adobe neither


----------



## jgbittar

I get the following error upon startup of waterfox 14.1 see enclosed

waterfoxstartuperror.jpg 28k .jpg file


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jgbittar*
> 
> I get the following error upon startup of waterfox 14.1 see enclosed
> 
> waterfoxstartuperror.jpg 28k .jpg file


I've never seen that error before. Have you tried reinstalling waterfox? It looks like parts of the program are missing?


----------



## pvt.joker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jgbittar*
> 
> I get the following error upon startup of waterfox 14.1 see enclosed
> 
> waterfoxstartuperror.jpg 28k .jpg file


I got this same error when trying to upgrade from 13 to 14. Uninstall both and reinstall worked for me..


----------



## fullmoon

double poste...


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jgbittar*
> 
> I get the following error upon startup of waterfox 14.1 see enclosed
> 
> waterfoxstartuperror.jpg 28k .jpg file


uninstal waterfox and delete folder.


----------



## xNAPx

after the installation when i start the browser i got this error message and the browser doesn't start, how can i fix this?


----------



## spanielsells

Bug Report: In the task bar (Windows 7) the Waterfox icon is pinned but will not stay grouped, it always opens a new icon to the right of all the others in the task bar. The icon also does not stay as it should, it comes across as a "general" icon.


----------



## pvt.joker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spanielsells*
> 
> Bug Report: In the task bar (Windows 7) the Waterfox icon is pinned but will not stay grouped, it always opens a new icon to the right of all the others in the task bar. The icon also does not stay as it should, it comes across as a "general" icon.


Noticed the same thing.. it's weird, if you run it from the desktop icon, and then pin it to the taskbar, it won't open from the taskbar. When you pin it, it seems to look for firefox.exe and the desktop shortcut points to waterfox.exe Not sure what the fix needs to be to sort out the issue..


----------



## aluxaard

Getting an error updating Flash 64bit (latest download from adobe)
anyone else running into this and is there a workaround/fix?


----------



## jvkeller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spanielsells*
> 
> Bug Report: In the task bar (Windows 7) the Waterfox icon is pinned but will not stay grouped, it always opens a new icon to the right of all the others in the task bar. The icon also does not stay as it should, it comes across as a "general" icon.


This bug is in firefox 14 also.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pvt.joker*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jgbittar*
> 
> I get the following error upon startup of waterfox 14.1 see enclosed
> 
> waterfoxstartuperror.jpg 28k .jpg file
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I got this same error when trying to upgrade from 13 to 14. Uninstall both and reinstall worked for me..
Click to expand...

I posted multiple times on the website to uninstall the old version of Waterfox before installing v14.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xNAPx*
> 
> 
> 
> after the installation when i start the browser i got this error message and the browser doesn't start, how can i fix this?


An add-on or toolbar is causing a syntax error, specifically for XML. Try running on a clean profile.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spanielsells*
> 
> Bug Report: In the task bar (Windows 7) the Waterfox icon is pinned but will not stay grouped, it always opens a new icon to the right of all the others in the task bar. The icon also does not stay as it should, it comes across as a "general" icon.


Run Waterfox from the Desktop shortcut, then pin the icon that appears.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aluxaard*
> 
> Getting an error updating Flash 64bit (latest download from adobe)
> anyone else running into this and is there a workaround/fix?


http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser_will_not_start_up#XULRunner_error_after_an_update


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> uninstal waterfox and delete folder.


Which folder?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xNAPx*
> 
> 
> after the installation when i start the browser i got this error message and the browser doesn't start, how can i fix this?


error langage pack, puss shift and start WF, select disable add-on, update langage pack.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Which folder?


in program files


----------



## marcmy

Hello MrAlex, I've uninstalled Waterfox 13 before installing 14, but having the issue with the Win7 taskbar icon/shortcut. You say to run it from desktop and then pin the new icon, when I do that though it's still giving me the same issue. I removed my old Waterfox pin but the new one still shows It's target location firefox.exe and blank icon. The only temporary fix I found for now is to rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe so at least the shortcut works, but then it asks me to set default browser every time I startup. Not sure what else to do.


----------



## xNAPx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> An add-on or toolbar is causing a syntax error, specifically for XML. Try running on a clean profile.


which file i can remove to fix this? maybe it depends on a add-on i use in version 13


----------



## Scree

Had to go back to adblockplus 2.1.2. WF 14 made the 2.1.3 dev "disappear" (still in addons and enabled, but toolbar icon and menu gone, and clicking addon's "more" link resulted in blank page).


----------



## rude_gw

Pinning waterfox in the taskbar pins the real icon but trying to start waterfox in any way just brings a blank icon, leaving the waterfox icon just idle.


----------



## xNAPx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> error langage pack, puss shift and start WF, select disable add-on, update langage pack.
> in program files


great, thanks


----------



## cryfer

The update check is a huge annoyance. For one, the idle timer counts "watching a movie" as being idle, for another, the condition itself is way over the top. Default should be check once a day, not something that will throw a popup in my face every couple minutes.
Where can I deactivate/change this? It is _really_ annoying.


----------



## Jarkko

Disable/remove task from Windows Task Scheduler.

edit: or change interval to once/day or what you like.


----------



## tomv

How do I stop Auto updater pop up . My screen saver will be on and I'll go to use my computer and I get the pop up , it says "your software is up to date.


----------



## demoneye

is it me only or ....

ad muncher ( http://www.admuncher.com ) doesnt work along side wf14 , with ff14 its works ok ....


----------



## Taomyn

Hi,

Thanks for the excellent work on Waterfox







have been using it since v12 with little issues, but since v13 I've been using LogMeIn to push it to various systems and the need to uninstall the previous version for v14 was a p.i.t.a. so back to manual I go. I do however have a few more comments:

The updater - please make it an option during installation - I don't want it and was pleased it wasn't available before. Is this the reason my PC triggered a UAC prompt when first running? I hope it wasn't because it wanted to be made default browser which will be another major issue for me.
Taskbar icon when pinned - as someone has pointed out earlier, the process causes a second icon to appear rather than using the pinned icon. This goes against standards
Installer/Uninstaller - please make sure there are command line parameters, listable using "/?" or equivalent. Not being able to find a command line parameter for v13 uninstall was very frustrating.
I also experienced the issue with AdBlock not starting after the upgrade - just hitting Remove then Undo in the Add-ons tab seems to fix it
Lastly, any chance of splitting this thread up to be more manageable - I came here before signing up to a thread that was 299 pages long, so I just went ahead with my reply and apologise for anything that's repeated. You can't expect people to sift through that lot when they have issues - in my experience, especially at XDA, searches on forums are nearly always a waste of time,

Many thanks,
Taomyn


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> How do I stop Auto updater pop up . My screen saver will be on and I'll go to use my computer and I get the pop up , it says "your software is up to date.


Look in Control Panel for the Scheduled Tasks - it's in there. Just delete it. I've requested this be made an installation option as I don't want this at all.


----------



## SciFiz

I had the blank icon too. It turns out that the installer created a link in the start menu to .../Waterfox/firefox.exe
Meanwhile it installs Waterfox under the path .../Waterfox/waterfox.exe instead of firefox.exe as was the case in previous versions.
The net result of that one wrong link in the start menu is the taskbar thinks it's a different program.

If you have admin rights you can edit the target in the start menu to the right name and the taskbar will immediately re-integrate the process into the icon.

Incidentally, uninstalling Waterfox 13 (as the site says you should do) removed it as default browser. The new installer didn't automatically, or give the option, of making Waterfox the default browser again.
You have to go into the Waterfox Options, Adanced, General and make it default manually.

Edit: Okay, so it didn't stay integrated with the icon when I next booted waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Scree*
> 
> Had to go back to adblockplus 2.1.2. WF 14 made the 2.1.3 dev "disappear" (still in addons and enabled, but toolbar icon and menu gone, and clicking addon's "more" link resulted in blank page).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for the excellent work on Waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> have been using it since v12 with little issues, but since v13 I've been using LogMeIn to push it to various systems and the need to uninstall the previous version for v14 was a p.i.t.a. so back to manual I go. I do however have a few more comments:
> 
> The updater - please make it an option during installation - I don't want it and was pleased it wasn't available before. Is this the reason my PC triggered a UAC prompt when first running? I hope it wasn't because it wanted to be made default browser which will be another major issue for me.
> Taskbar icon when pinned - as someone has pointed out earlier, the process causes a second icon to appear rather than using the pinned icon. This goes against standards
> Installer/Uninstaller - please make sure there are command line parameters, listable using "/?" or equivalent. Not being able to find a command line parameter for v13 uninstall was very frustrating.
> I also experienced the issue with AdBlock not starting after the upgrade - just hitting Remove then Undo in the Add-ons tab seems to fix it
> Lastly, any chance of splitting this thread up to be more manageable - I came here before signing up to a thread that was 299 pages long, so I just went ahead with my reply and apologise for anything that's repeated. You can't expect people to sift through that lot when they have issues - in my experience, especially at XDA, searches on forums are nearly always a waste of time,
> 
> Many thanks,
> Taomyn


Sorry, the updater is supposed to check silently for updates, I never got any pop-ups about it when testing.

To everyone:

I've released an post to address any issues:

http://waterfoxproject.org/news/48/15/Address-to-certain-issues.html


----------



## spanielsells

Quote:


> Run Waterfox from the Desktop shortcut, then pin the icon that appears.


Unfortunately, that solution doesn't work. When you click on desktop icon, and pin it to the taskbar, it works fine. As soon as you exit Waterfox and try to get back in, you get the following message:


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spanielsells*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Run Waterfox from the Desktop shortcut, then pin the icon that appears.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, that solution doesn't work. When you click on desktop icon, and pin it to the taskbar, it works fine. As soon as you exit Waterfox and try to get back in, you get the following message:
Click to expand...

You're doing something wrong:

Go to C:/Program Files/Waterfox:



Run waterfox.exe and Right Click the icon> Pin to taskbar:



Voila, it should work:



I don't see how you get firefox.exe showing?


----------



## spanielsells

Can't imagine what I could possibly be doing wrong... I've even tried running as Administrator, and I still get the same error. And, since Windows essentially thinks WaterFox is Firefox, it generates Firefox error messages as far as I can tell.

Never had these problems w/ Version 13.


----------



## tomv

Thanks, problem updater pop up solved .


----------



## rude_gw

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> You're doing something wrong:
> 
> Go to C:/Program Files/Waterfox:
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977320/
> 
> Run waterfox.exe and Right Click the icon> Pin to taskbar:
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977325/
> 
> Voila, it should work:
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977326/
> 
> I don't see how you get firefox.exe showing?


I'm having the same issue, and opening waterfox from its folder opens waterfox, with the blank icon. Trying to change the icon doesn't work either.

And I also tried uninstalling firefox, and reinstalling waterfox, still with the blank icon that refers to firefox.exe.


----------



## spanielsells

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rude_gw*
> 
> I'm having the same issue, and opening waterfox from its folder opens waterfox, with the blank icon. Trying to change the icon doesn't work either.
> And I also tried uninstalling firefox, and reinstalling waterfox, still with the blank icon that refers to firefox.exe.


I've gone ahead now and uninstalled using ccleaner. I've run ccleaner to get any instances of Waterfox off the computer. I've reinstalled. The first step I did was go back into C/Programs/Waterfox and opened waterfox.exe.

I got the same "no icon" icon, I pinned it, I closed it, I reopened and I got the same Firefox error message.

I really like Waterfox and I'm willing to go through troubleshooting steps... does someone believe it would be helpful to delete Firefox from my computer (even though Firefox is x86 not x64)?


----------



## kxtcd950

I'm having difficulties starting Waterfox 14; I'd uninstalled WF13, and ran the WF14 installer with the defaults all accepted - I've done nothing "funny" with the install.
However, when I start WF from any of the created shortcuts, I get a windows messagebox popup titled "waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found" and with the body text:

"The procedure entry point [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@@Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mozjs.dll."

This message is displayed twice for each attempted start of WF14.
I've uninstalled WF14 and re-installed it, and additionally installed the Intel x64 redistributable libraries, but no luck, WF14 just refuses to start up; there's no chrome displayed, this is the first UI element that is displayed.

Any help would be appreciated (this was posted using FF14 instead). I've searched this thread for parts of that text, and couldn't find anything, my apologies if this has been solved before, just point me at the post I should have found


----------



## japaget

I am installing Waterfox on a system where I don't have admin rights, but do have access to an installer utility that runs with elevated privileges. When I attempted to install, I got the error:

File does not exist:
C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox 14.0.1\install\A90C313\Waterfox 14 Setup.msi

The fix was to copy the contents of "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited" to "C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited" and rerun the installer. If you get a "File does not exist" error about C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox 14.0.1\install\A90C313\update.exe, then repeat the copy operation and retry, since the installer created additional files in "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\...\Waterfox Limited" that need to be copied over to to "C:\Windows\System32\...\Waterfox Limited".

Once you are done with the installer you should clean up your system by removing the Waterfox Limited folders from both locations. This will prevent later problems when installing 14.0.2 or 15.0.


----------



## mpeg3s

After 14.1 Install:

Error so I uninstalled:

Waterfox top bar is not translucent now. It's BLACK now and can't see the right top buttons. Some tabs go missing every now and then.

Bookmarks - no refresh icons as well

Where is maximize and close?

My Video Card is Nvidia.

Thanks!


----------



## kennyparker1337

Installed Waterfox 14 and...


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Voila, it should work:
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/977326/
> 
> I don't see how you get firefox.exe showing?


Thanks, this problems is resolved for me


----------



## pierredupont17

SInce update to WF 14 I can't open a new tab when i click on a link with the Middle mouse click.

Have you the same problems ? Any idea ?

Thanks


----------



## virtualguy

*Pinning Waterfox icon to the Tasbar*

Simple. If you have a Waterfox icon on your Desktop, right-click and select "Pin to Taskbar". If it names it Waterfox (2), or something like that, navigate to:
C:\Users\DAN\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\

... delete the older shortcut and make a new one.

This ain't rocket science, guys. Geezzuss... figure it out. If you can't figure out something this simple, perhaps you should stick to your Android cell phone and give up your Windows PC..


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pierredupont17*
> 
> SInce update to WF 14 I can't open a new tab when i click on a link with the Middle mouse click.
> Have you the same problems ? Any idea ?
> Thanks


Try doing a system reboot. If that doesn't work, run the mouse driver software and reset to default. Then, do your mouse button customizations over again. If you tinker with it long enough, I'm sure you'll find a solution. When you find out what did the trick, please let us know.


----------



## mpeg3s

I've updated the above!


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> How do I stop Auto updater pop up . My screen saver will be on and I'll go to use my computer and I get the pop up , it says "your software is up to date.


Waterfox updater updates too often, like, every few hours. It's getting annoying to have to close the pop up several times a day. Is there a way to disable the updater and run it manually only when I need to? Solved, I just read the front page


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kxtcd950*
> 
> I'm having difficulties starting Waterfox 14; I'd uninstalled WF13, and ran the WF14 installer with the defaults all accepted - I've done nothing "funny" with the install.
> However, when I start WF from any of the created shortcuts, I get a windows messagebox popup titled "waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found" and with the body text:
> 
> "The procedure entry point [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@@Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mozjs.dll."
> 
> This message is displayed twice for each attempted start of WF14.
> I've uninstalled WF14 and re-installed it, and additionally installed the Intel x64 redistributable libraries, but no luck, WF14 just refuses to start up; there's no chrome displayed, this is the first UI element that is displayed.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated (this was posted using FF14 instead). I've searched this thread for parts of that text, and couldn't find anything, my apologies if this has been solved before, just point me at the post I should have found


https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/920179

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *japaget*
> 
> I am installing Waterfox on a system where I don't have admin rights, but do have access to an installer utility that runs with elevated privileges. When I attempted to install, I got the error:
> 
> File does not exist:
> C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox 14.0.1\install\A90C313\Waterfox 14 Setup.msi
> 
> The fix was to copy the contents of "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited" to "C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited" and rerun the installer. If you get a "File does not exist" error about C:\Windows\System32\config\systemprofile\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox 14.0.1\install\A90C313\update.exe, then repeat the copy operation and retry, since the installer created additional files in "C:\Windows\SysWOW64\...\Waterfox Limited" that need to be copied over to to "C:\Windows\System32\...\Waterfox Limited".
> 
> Once you are done with the installer you should clean up your system by removing the Waterfox Limited folders from both locations. This will prevent later problems when installing 14.0.2 or 15.0.


I'll look into the admin right issues. Shouldn't be any.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s*
> 
> After 14.1 Install:
> 
> Error so I uninstalled:
> 
> Waterfox top bar is not translucent now. It's BLACK now and can see the right top buttons.
> 
> Bookmarks - no icons as well
> 
> Where is maximize and close?
> 
> Thanks!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s*
> 
> GUI Update:
> 
> Bookmarks - no icons as well


I have no GUI problems. Possible driver problems?


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> *Pinning Waterfox icon to the Tasbar*
> Simple. If you have a Waterfox icon on your Desktop, right-click and select "Pin to Taskbar". If it names it Waterfox (2), or something like that, navigate to:
> C:\Users\DAN\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\
> ... delete the older shortcut and make a new one.
> This ain't rocket science, guys. Geezzuss... figure it out. If you can't figure out something this simple, perhaps you should stick to your Android cell phone and give up your Windows PC..


Ironically, MrAlex has posted a simpler solution to the particular issue some people have been experiencing.


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry about all the issues everyone! I tested it on three systems over the week to make sure this wouldn't happen







There are just so many different system combinations though


----------



## Jarkko

Well, as you said yourself, this was major update so bugs should be expected.

Nothing that can't be fixed, right


----------



## Jcow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry about all the issues everyone! I tested it on three systems over the week to make sure this wouldn't happen
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are just so many different system combinations though


you did a pretty good job, this is a mayor update and there are only minor bugs, I'm pretty sure you can/will fix them


----------



## Psych0HoliC

Quote:


> Originally Posted by mpeg3s
> 
> After 14.1 Install:
> 
> Error so I uninstalled:
> 
> Waterfox top bar is not translucent now. It's BLACK now and can see the right top buttons.
> 
> Bookmarks - no icons as well
> 
> Where is maximize and close?
> 
> Thanks!


got the same problem. what driver should that be? worked with v 13 of waterfox. no plugins does this. i cannot recreate in firefox. turned off all nvidia control panel tweaks for application.

got any idea?


----------



## TheHunter

The only bug for me is the issue with pinned WF icon and its right click task option, FF14 shows it normally.



And i tried pinning it from desktop, from opened link, from default WF directory, even reinstalled WF 3-4 times..









Other then that it works great, feels a little snappier compared to WF13. Thanks


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psych0HoliC*
> 
> got the same problem. what driver should that be? worked with v 13 of waterfox. no plugins does this. i cannot recreate in firefox. turned off all nvidia control panel tweaks for application.
> got any idea?


Disable then enable back hardware acceleration.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> The only bug for me is the issue with pinned WF icon and its right click task option, FF14 shows it normally.
> 
> And i tried pinning it from desktop, from opened link, from default WF directory, even reinstalled WF 3-4 times..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other then that it works great, feels a little snappier compared to WF13. Thanks


Yep. Same goes for all of us. Mr. Alex is already looking at the issues regarding the taskbar jumplist and pinning etc.


----------



## agenttwisted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Psych0HoliC*
> 
> got the same problem. what driver should that be? worked with v 13 of waterfox. no plugins does this. i cannot recreate in firefox. turned off all nvidia control panel tweaks for application.
> got any idea?




i am alos having this issue. the issue with no min/max/exit


----------



## Hammerfest

A HUGE thanks for Waterfox... I was using the nightly x64 builds off/on because auto-update was broken (among other things), it was really quite annoying actually!

I was having an issue (well 2 actually) I see one is already listed and being looked into, the pinned process issue (with "jump" lists), so thats fine, ill look forward to an update.

The second is actually the most annoying... The updater! I tested this on all 3 of my systems, and can confirm that upon a restart, it auto-checks for an update! Also, there is no "task" for it listed in the Task Scheduler on any of my systems (2x Windows 7, 1x Windows Vista), there also is no entry in autoruns, which is abnormal to say the least. (yes I read the waterfoxproject.org front page, as I said above, there is no Task or Autorun entry present on all 3 of my systems)

In fixing the updater, can you add options? IE, if an update is found, download and apply it without needed actions (like the Java or Adobe Reader updater and many more), download but let me chose to install, and of course, the options to NOT tell me when updates are NOT found!

Thanks again!

*I had an account here at one point years past... bloody hell if I didnt try for 20min~ trying to rack my brain remembering it or the email I used back then...


----------



## agenttwisted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *agenttwisted*
> 
> 
> i am alos having this issue. the issue with no min/max/exit


update to this. it will only disappear when use hardware accel. is on. if i disable it, i can see my min/max/exit. very annoying as id like to keep hardware accel on.

(edit) to add more info, this was't an issue for me on WF 13, if fact thinking of rolling back to it til this is fixed.


----------



## ____

I'm trying this out for the first time. I saw a thread like this a long time ago but ignored it.

So far everything seems to be working. Is there any chance that it will ruin my Firefox profile? (Other than the normal, yeah, all unofficial programs have bugs).

So far so good, thanks for this. I really like the blue button, I matches the theme I've been using.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *agenttwisted*
> 
> 
> i am alos having this issue. the issue with no min/max/exit


Disable then enable hardware accelaration.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hammerfest*
> 
> A HUGE thanks for Waterfox... I was using the nightly x64 builds off/on because auto-update was broken (among other things), it was really quite annoying actually!
> I was having an issue (well 2 actually) I see one is already listed and being looked into, the pinned process issue (with "jump" lists), so thats fine, ill look forward to an update.
> The second is actually the most annoying... The updater! I tested this on all 3 of my systems, and can confirm that upon a restart, it auto-checks for an update! Also, there is no "task" for it listed in the Task Scheduler on any of my systems (2x Windows 7, 1x Windows Vista), there also is no entry in autoruns, which is abnormal to say the least. (yes I read the waterfoxproject.org front page, as I said above, there is no Task or Autorun entry present on all 3 of my systems)
> In fixing the updater, can you add options? IE, if an update is found, download and apply it without needed actions (like the Java or Adobe Reader updater and many more), download but let me chose to install, and of course, the options to NOT tell me when updates are NOT found!
> Thanks again!
> *I had an account here at one point years past... bloody hell if I didnt try for 20min~ trying to rack my brain remembering it or the email I used back then...


Tried reinstalling? The task scheduler should have an item there called "updater".









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *____*
> 
> I'm trying this out for the first time. I saw a thread like this a long time ago but ignored it.
> So far everything seems to be working. Is there any chance that it will ruin my Firefox profile? (Other than the normal, yeah, all unofficial programs have bugs).
> So far so good, thanks for this. I really like the blue button, I matches the theme I've been using.


It shouldn't ruin your profile. but if you want to be sure you can set a different profile for waterfox to avoid conflicts from your firefox one.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/

just follow the instruction there for waterfox. your waterfox desktop shortcut should look like this.


----------



## erstwhile

The problem is, although I can get the Waterfox icon to taskbar, something is just wrong. It redirects to this "blank icon" every time I run Waterfox. As you can see, the original icon just never seems to be triggered. I don't know why and in the process view, it is THE application.

Oh another thing, some of my addons won't work ever since I upgraded to Waterfox 14.0.1.


----------



## agenttwisted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Disable then enable hardware accelaration.
> Tried reinstalling? The task scheduler should have an item there called "updater".


i did disable (could see my min/max/exit/ again) then enabled again, and it went away again. does not work


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Tried reinstalling? The task scheduler should have an item there called "updater".


Nope... not there... On 2 of the systems, its a fresh install (Win7) because I reformatted 2 weeks ago and had not gotten around to installing a browser on them, the 3rd, the Vista PC, I literally just re-did the install last night, fresh-format/diskpart and all, that entry for updater is just not in my task scheduler.

I did fix my issue however, I went into the updater.ini and changed the check preference to 0 from 2, sure, auto-updating is disabled, but id rather refresh/feed the waterfoxproject or sourceforge download pages then not be able to disable the "nope, no updates" prompt all the time.

My thanks still stand, I still love Waterfox.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *agenttwisted*
> 
> i did disable (could see my min/max/exit/ again) then enabled again, and it went away again. does not work


Then just disable hardware acceleration =)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erstwhile*
> 
> 
> The problem is, although I can get the Waterfox icon to taskbar, something is just wrong. It redirects to this "blank icon" every time I run Waterfox. As you can see, the original icon just never seems to be triggered. I don't know why and in the process view, it is THE application.
> Oh another thing, some of my addons won't work ever since I upgraded to Waterfox 14.0.1.


http://waterfoxproject.org/news/48/15/Address-to-certain-issues.html


----------



## agenttwisted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *erstwhile*
> 
> 
> The problem is, although I can get the Waterfox icon to taskbar, something is just wrong. It redirects to this "blank icon" every time I run Waterfox. As you can see, the original icon just never seems to be triggered. I don't know why and in the process view, it is THE application.
> Oh another thing, some of my addons won't work ever since I upgraded to Waterfox 14.0.1.


on rocket dock when i would try to add the shortcut it would always set it to C:/programs files (x86)/waterfox even tho the original shortcut was to c:/program files/waterfox. i ended up having to manually set the icon and shortcut path, even tho i neve had to do anything like that on waterfox 13. maybe something similar is going on with the windows "pin bar"


----------



## agenttwisted

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Then just disable hardware acceleration =)


i would like to keep it enabled but yes at the time being it is diabled


----------



## Rickkins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> Thanks, problem updater pop up solved .


How did you fix that..??


----------



## RightPaddock

Waterfox 14.01 :not working for me : I am getting this error.



Waterfox 13 was working fine, and Firefox 14.01 is working fine

what is XULRunner

I have xul.dll's in the firefox & waterfox directories both are version 14.01



My guess is that its an extension or plugin - I'll try Safe Mode - I'll be back in a minute

RP


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> How did you fix that..??


from the waterfox home page:

*Automatic updates: Some users experience an issue where the updater automatically checks for updates and displays a message. This can be configured by going to the Windows Task Scheduler and modifying the updater setting.*
Access Task Scheduler from the control panel.


----------



## Lord Venom

No silent switch for the task available?


----------



## Rickkins

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> from the waterfox home page:
> 
> *Automatic updates: Some users experience an issue where the updater automatically checks for updates and displays a message. This can be configured by going to the Windows Task Scheduler and modifying the updater setting.*
> Access Task Scheduler from the control panel.


Did that, don't see no settings to change...
Thanks.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RightPaddock*
> 
> Waterfox 14.01 :not working for me : I am getting this error.
> 
> Waterfox 13 was working fine, and Firefox 14.01 is working fine
> what is XULRunner
> I have xul.dll's in the firefox & waterfox directories both are version 14.01
> 
> My guess is that its an extension or plugin - I'll try Safe Mode - I'll be back in a minute
> RP


http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser_will_not_start_up#XULRunner_error_after_an_update
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> Did that, don't see no settings to change...
> Thanks.


right click updater and click properties. go to the "trigger" tab. Then you'll be able to edit it.


----------



## tomv

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> How did you fix that..??


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Look in Control Panel for the Scheduled Tasks - it's in there. Just delete it. I've requested this be made an installation option as I don't want this at all.


Good luck, It works for me and I've never been happier with Waterfox. I know I could set it to run at different times and so forth, but I usually keep up with updates, so I didn't really need it on. By the way, after I installed Waterfox I opened it up and right clicked on the icon in the task bar and pined to task bar, everything is working great.

Thanks MrAlex great job!


----------



## Lord Venom

It'd work better running silently in the background without any popup dialogs or anything like that.


----------



## RightPaddock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RightPaddock*
> 
> Waterfox 14.01 :not working for me : I am getting this error.
> 
> Waterfox 13 was working fine, and Firefox 14.01 is working fine
> what is XULRunner
> I have xul.dll's in the firefox & waterfox directories both are version 14.01
> 
> My guess is that its an extension or plugin - I'll try Safe Mode - I'll be back in a minute
> RP


Thanks qwerty77 for responding - however I think I've resolved my problem.

FYI Prior post was done with Firefox 14.01

Before I ran Waterfox 14.01 in safe mode, I checked for extension updates, there was a new Ad Block, which I installed

When I ran Waterfox in Safe Mode - it worked, as I expected it would

I then ran it in Normal mode - it worked - ah ahh the culprit must have been Adblock. But that didn't ring true, surely Adblock would have been tested by the Waterfox crew !

Then I noticed my tab bar wasn't as it should be, for the benefit of others I'll give a detailed description of what happened

I have my search bar on the right end of the tab bar,
Its size should be fixed at 375 pixels, this is looked after by the Searchbar Autosizer extension.
However, the search bar was stretched over to the last tab - much, much bigger than it should have been
Clicked on SearchBar Autosizer Options, nothing happened
But now Waterfox was wedged, had to kill it with Process Explorer
Restarted Waterfox
Disabled Searchbar Autosizer - Search Bar disappeared, as expected
Enabled Searchbar Autosizer - Search Bar reappeared at 375 pixels
Clicked on SearchBar Autosizer Options, worked as expected

Conclusion something fishy about Searchbar Autosizer Options, I think this is where XUL comes into the picture

Bottom line is Waterfox is working but Searchbar Autosizer may have a defect - I'll report it to author

RP is happy again, sort of 8)


----------



## fullmoon

Uninstall, delete folder and clean registry ( with Ccleaner is better) before install WF14. repaet again


----------



## kevindd992002

So I just updated with WF14 and the latest Flash player but still get those microstutters in Youtube. I monitored the FPS of the video I am playing and it is smooth with 22~24 FPS until the stutter happens when it drops suddenly to 18 FPS and back to 22~24. That FPS drop basically explains why it stutters but what is the reason behind that FPS drop?


----------



## kennyparker1337

*Solve: Uninstall Waterfox / Firefox. (Don't remove user settings.) Install Waterfox 14.*

_This problem, at least for me, was due to not uninstalling Waterfox 13 before installing 14._

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Waterfox Website*
> Note: Uninstall older versions of Waterfox (prior to 14) before installing the latest


----------



## kevindd992002

I just tried creating a new clean "only-for-troubleshooting" profile again and now the video playback is very smooth! It is consistent at 24 FPS. So what could be wrong with my current profile then?

EDIT: I tried using my current profile again and observed something. I have lots of tabs separated into tab groups. Two of these groups are the "main tab" and "google searches" tab. The main tab (several tabs here) contains all my frequently visited tabs and as the name implies it is my main tab. The google searches tab simply contains a handful of google searches. I tried playing the youtube video in the google searches tab and surprisingly it is consistent at 24 FPS also (no stuttering). Playing back the video in the main tab brought back the stuttering. So I was thinking that one of my tabs in the main tab is causing the stuttering or is it because there are many tabs there? How do I troubleshoot on this?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I just tried creating a new clean "only-for-troubleshooting" profile again and now the video playback is very smooth! It is consistent at 24 FPS. So what could be wrong with my current profile then?
> EDIT: I tried using my current profile again and observed something. I have lots of tabs separated into tab groups. Two of these groups are the "main tab" and "google searches" tab. The main tab (several tabs here) contains all my frequently visited tabs and as the name implies it is my main tab. The google searches tab simply contains a handful of google searches. I tried playing the youtube video in the google searches tab and surprisingly it is consistent at 24 FPS also (no stuttering). Playing back the video in the main tab brought back the stuttering. So I was thinking that one of my tabs in the main tab is causing the stuttering or is it because there are many tabs there? How do I troubleshoot on this?


Many reasons. It could be your how many add-ons you have installed or the one you mentioned about one of your tabs especially if that specific tab is loading a very heavy website. It could be how your setup access the cache file. It's hard to pinpoint actually...

But try these methods.

1. Permanently turn on the private browsing feature to disable cache storing.
2. Limit the add-ons you use or uninstall some of it. (for me i only have like 11)
3. Use a different profile for waterfox
http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/


----------



## blodflekk

I got it last night when it first went up, I took off 13PLA then put this on, no issues with the install and no crashing. It also seems much faster too. I love it.


----------



## RightPaddock

Waterfox 14.01 not obeying Windows 7 Taskbar settings



I should only see one Waterfox icon with the "Taskbar buttons" setting of "Always combine hide labels"

It worked in Waterfox 13 and all the other applications only show one item

I think the problem is within the Firefox 14.01 base, because it has problems regarding the Windows 7 taskbar settings - every Tab seems to be a new instance :grhhh:

I don't have this sort of problem with Chrome, Opera or IE browsers - but its the 3rd occasion I've had similar problems with Mozilla based products - this is basic windows programming stuff.

RP









PS : before I installed Waterfox 14.01, I uninstalled Waterfox 13


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Many reasons. It could be your how many add-ons you have installed or the one you mentioned about one of your tabs especially if that specific tab is loading a very heavy website. It could how your setup access the cache file. It's hard to pinpoint actually...
> But try these methods.
> 1. Permanently turn on the private browsing feature to disable cache storing.
> 2. Limit the add-ons you use or uninstall some of it. (for me i only have like 11)
> 3. Use a different profile for waterfox
> http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/


1.) But I really want the caching feature?

2.) I don't have a lot of plugins installed. Please see this:










3.) But I already saw that my profile isn't the problem? It's just the main tab group that's the problem?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> 1.) But I really want the caching feature?
> 2.) I don't have a lot of plugins installed. Please see this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 3.) But I already saw that my profile isn't the problem? It's just the main tab group that's the problem?


1. I'm talking about how firefox stores them. It doesn't ultimately disable it.
2. Not plug-ins but "add-ons"
3. I don't know anymore XD it's hard to troubleshoot as we have different setups... sorry.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> 1. I'm talking about how firefox stores them. It doesn't ultimately disable it.
> 2. Not plug-ins but "add-ons"
> 3. I don't anymore XD it's hard to troubleshoot as we have different setups... sorry.


1.) Ok. How would private browsing feature alter the caching feature? What would be the advantage of turning this permanently on?

2.) Oh, with add-ons you mean Extensions, right? I only have two, man. Internet Download Manager and PDF Viewer. I highly doubt the problem is with add-ons since I have more with FF14 and don't have problems there.


----------



## bsmith781

The open new tab, open new window, and enter private browsing tasks in the taskbar icon's right-click menu do not work because they try to launch C:\Program Files\Waterfox\*firefox.exe*, although the app has been renamed *waterfox.exe*.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> 1.) Ok. How would private browsing feature alter the caching feature? What would be the advantage of turning this permanently on?


Sorry i misinterpreted the private browsing feature. What it exactly does is it doesn't remember it.

from mozilla:
Quote:


> Cached Web Content and Offline Web Content and User Data: No temporary Internet files (cached files) or files that websites save for offline use will be saved.


I really don't know if it will benefit you as I'm just giving you what my settings are. btw... how old is your laptop? Sorry I couldn't help much.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Sorry i misinterpreted the private browsing feature. What it exactly does is it doesn't remember it.
> from mozilla:
> I really don't know if it will benefit you as I'm just giving you what my settings are. btw... how old is your laptop? Sorry I couldn't help much.


Ok. I hope somebody can help me here







Oh I'm pretty sure it's not about the specs of my laptop (as I mentioned earlier) because it's just less than a year and it is a gaming laptop. Specs:

Sager NP8130
i5-2670QM (CPU)
GTX 560M (GPU)
Crucial M4 SSD 128GB (OS drive)
Seagate 1TB 5400RPM HDD (Storage drive)
2 x 4GB RAM 1600MHz

So yeah


----------



## Itchywolf

I'm having a problem with "Waterfox is not set as your default browser" box popping up every time I start waterfox. Yes, of course I have it set to check every time and I click yes. I've tried starting it in admin mode, holding cntrl+shift and starting it, I also tried going to control panel, default programs, but Waterfox was not listed there.

It really seems like changing the name of the exe to waterfox.exe was not a particularly great idea, as this is the 1st time I've had ANY issues with waterfox. I also can't open a new tab from the taskbar, open new tab, open new window and enter private browsing are all blank white icons, when you click on them, an error box says C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe Unspecified error.

Some of my add-ons acted screwy, not just adblock, but reddit enhancement suite needed to be disabled, enabled too... I will uninstall waterfox, clean my registry and try a reinstall, will update if I have any luck.

I still love the browser Alex and don't really care about these tiny issues, however the jackass on here saying stuff like "This isn't rocket science, maybe you should stick with your android phone" reflects badly on this project and goes to show why more and more people are switching platforms. The last thing we need are neckbearded geeks with an inferiority complex and the social skills of a spoiled 5 year old telling people to stick with their phones just because they don't go hacking the registry every time a problem shows up. I'd rather have people asking for help instead of poking around their systems, potentially messing up things they don't understand and then blaming it on waterfox when their machine won't restart or something. Seriously people, there's no need for that kind of attitude, either help people politely or let someone else do the trouble shooting if it's going to put you out so much that you randomly insult people who politely ask for help. Even if it IS a simple fix, it's still a good idea for someone to post their issues here so the next update can include a fix, you know? I mean, even though I know how to edit my registry, or change or move something, or whatever the problem was, that doesn't mean I want to do that every time I install the program, right?

EDIT: Well, I just had the crap scared out of me, I uninstalled waterfox from control panel>add remove programs, and it never popped up asking me if I wanted to keep my profile, you know? Now, here's a stupid question, I have not installed "firefox" since version 5. Is one expected to have Firefox 14 before they install Waterfox 14? Should one uninstall firefox before installing Waterfox 14?

EDIT 2: I uninstalled Waterfox, ran CCleaner, had to click analyse and clean twice, (the second analysis I saw something about waterfox listed) rebooted, reinstalled waterfox, made it default, and it stayed that way. So that's nice. However I still have the issue where right clicking my waterfox program on the taskbar shows open new tab etc with a white "No default application" icon listed with the same error.

I hardly use those options so I really don't care and plan to keep using waterfox for now, boy it sure feels snappy Alex, thanks so much for all your hard work on this. Perhaps you could recruit some beta testers for the next major release, like you said you only have 3 machines to test it on, let us be your slaves! I know I wouldn't mind at all.


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rickkins*
> 
> Did that, don't see no settings to change...
> Thanks.


Thanks for confirming that Im not the only one seeing this issue... (where there is no updater entry in the task scheduler)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok. I hope somebody can help me here
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh I'm pretty sure it's not about the specs of my laptop (as I mentioned earlier) because it's just less than a year and it is a gaming laptop. Specs:
> Sager NP8130
> i5-2670QM (CPU)
> GTX 560M (GPU)
> Crucial M4 SSD 128GB (OS drive)
> Seagate 1TB 5400RPM HDD (Storage drive)
> 2 x 4GB RAM 1600MHz
> So yeah


If a new profile works just fine, try starting fresh, and importing items from your old profile...

It was quite common a while back for profile bugs to pop-up here and there... its entirely possible you have encountered one of them... Simply make a new profile and import the things you really need/want into the new profile and try again, if the problem persists, then one of your other tabs in the group is calling for priority thus causing the currently active tab to falter... Its too bad Fire/Waterfox does not have "on demand" flash/java like mobile browser variants do, as well as tab priority queuing...

I had a different issue with Youtube and one of my add-ons's, using AutoPager (god I love it SOO much) which would cause a double flash player instance to spawn causing audio doubling... its fixed now... but it was horrid!


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Itchywolf*
> 
> I hardly use those options so I really don't care and plan to keep using waterfox for now, boy it sure feels snappy Alex, thanks so much for all your hard work on this. Perhaps you could recruit some beta testers for the next major release, like you said you only have 3 machines to test it on, let us be your slaves! I know I wouldn't mind at all.


I agree. letting us beta test would be the best option to get some feedback. I don't mind being a slave err a beta tester


----------



## shirilover

My problem is now, no matter which version I use, it will close when trying to open a bookmark in a new tab.
Same result with a new profile and after restarting and re-installing. Have also run anti-malware with nothing found.
This doesn't happen with firefox from Mozilla.
Such a shame as it worked beautifully before.
I suppose that will teach me to update something that isn't broken.

Upon further investigation, it appears that when I attempt to do any action after opening a tab, it seems to believe I want to close the program.


----------



## Calisto

Did I miss the hint to install some additional packages? Deinstalling v13 and installing the 14.0.1 package gives me this:

www.gibts-bestimmt.net/dl/waterfox-14.1.jpg

German Win7 64Bit SP1.

Edit: After uninstalling and reinstalling it works now. Whatever the problem was, it's gone


----------



## demoneye

consider it as a bump ... BUT anyone got any clew why ad muncher doesnt works under waterfox 14 (only) ??


----------



## medievil

ok..not read most of the newer posts (too many).. maybe it is just me.. but there is now no icon on the task bar.. just the generic windows I don't know what this is icon...

the quick icon has the waterfox world, but starting it the taskbar doesn't...

edited to add that NOT combining icons, all the waterfox windows show the waterfox logo in the taskbar, it's only the generic icon if they are combined


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hammerfest*
> 
> Thanks for confirming that Im not the only one seeing this issue... (where there is no updater entry in the task scheduler)
> If a new profile works just fine, try starting fresh, and importing items from your old profile...
> It was quite common a while back for profile bugs to pop-up here and there... its entirely possible you have encountered one of them... Simply make a new profile and import the things you really need/want into the new profile and try again, if the problem persists, then one of your other tabs in the group is calling for priority thus causing the currently active tab to falter... Its too bad Fire/Waterfox does not have "on demand" flash/java like mobile browser variants do, as well as tab priority queuing...
> I had a different issue with Youtube and one of my add-ons's, using AutoPager (god I love it SOO much) which would cause a double flash player instance to spawn causing audio doubling... its fixed now... but it was horrid!


Well yeah, but as I've stated earlier I don't think a new profile will solve the problem if I import my old tabs/tab groups since I can safely say that only in my "main tab" group does the stuttering occurs.


----------



## medievil

ok..disregard my issue.. restarted the taskbar (end task explorer.exe and run it from file run in task manager) and it's working now


----------



## overclocknonuse

Hey I have two problems

1) I can't set water fox as my default browser
2) the automatic up dater can't be disabled, an option to disable it would be great, also I think changing the browser to water fox.exe had caused certain plugins to not work

Ok thanks


----------



## erstwhile

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Then just disable hardware acceleration =)
> http://waterfoxproject.org/news/48/15/Address-to-certain-issues.html


That doesn't work.
Problem solved.
In the installation folder of Waterfox there should be a Firefox.exe along with Waterfox.exe, but Firefox.exe was missing. So I copied and changed the Waterfox.exe, re-pinned the icon, and everything is ok now.


----------



## MrAlex

I've issued an update to fix the updater









As for GUI issues, you're using custom themes. Try disabling them.

EDIT: Also, if you're using shortcuts from older versions of Waterfox, you're going to get the problems you mention about firefox.exe


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Well yeah, but as I've stated earlier I don't think a new profile will solve the problem if I import my old tabs/tab groups since I can safely say that only in my "main tab" group does the stuttering occurs.


Just registered because i have a idea for your problem.
Are you maybe using the youtube html5 player?
Youtube html5 does not work with Waterfox. If i do that my CPU usage goes through the roof....


----------



## Playmogeek

Hello,

i can't start waterfox 14 : i have this error  or "unspecified error" sorry for my english. I have uninstalled WF13 before but the problem is the same. Also, i try the waterfox update option, but it's the same thing

Waterfox 13pl work fine!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've issued an update to fix the updater
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As for GUI issues, you're using custom themes. Try disabling them.
> 
> EDIT: Also, if you're using shortcuts from older versions of Waterfox, you're going to get the problems you mention about firefox.exe


Where can we get the update?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Just registered because i have a idea for your problem.
> Are you maybe using the youtube html5 player?
> Youtube html5 does not work with Waterfox. If i do that my CPU usage goes through the roof....


Thanks for registering







How do I know if I'm using html5 or not?


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Right click on the video, then you see if its flashplayer or html5.
Or http://www.youtube.com/html5/ and there you can also change the settings.


----------



## fullmoon

For solve many of yours problems, read the last posts. repeat again


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Where can we get the update?


Through Waterfox Updater. Or http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2014.0.2.exe/download
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks for registering
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How do I know if I'm using html5 or not?


This page should tell you whether you are using Youtube HTML5. You will see the option to Leave the HTML5 Trial. Alternatively, you can disable WebM completely through about:config; set "media.webm.enabled" to "false". This will force Youtube to use Flash videos instead of HTML5 videos.

Edit: I always find WebM caused more trouble than it's worth; lower quality video, use more bandwidth, occasionally freeze webpages. I'd recommend disabling it in about:config, if you don't need to use it.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> Alternatively, you can disable WebM completely through about:config; set "media.webm.enabled" to "false". This will force Youtube to use Flash videos instead of HTML5 videos.


No reason to do that. You than can not play HTML5 videos in the native Firefox player.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> Edit: I always find WebM caused more trouble than it's worth; lower quality video, use more bandwidth, occasionally freeze webpages. I'd recommend disabling it in about:config, if you don't need to use it.


Here i made two WebM videos. The first one is 1 hour and it runs perfect. You can skip back and forth without problems
http://balkenhantel.de/


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Right click on the video, then you see if its flashplayer or html5.
> Or http://www.youtube.com/html5/ and there you can also change the settings.


Ok, I'm not in the HTML5 trial and I'm using flashplayer but still have the problem. Did you solve yours? I noticed that the "dropped frames" is increasing when I'm playing the video.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mktwo*
> 
> Through Waterfox Updater. Or http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2014.0.2.exe/download
> This page should tell you whether you are using Youtube HTML5. You will see the option to Leave the HTML5 Trial. Alternatively, you can disable WebM completely through about:config; set "media.webm.enabled" to "false". This will force Youtube to use Flash videos instead of HTML5 videos.
> Edit: I always find WebM caused more trouble than it's worth; lower quality video, use more bandwidth, occasionally freeze webpages. I'd recommend disabling it in about:config, if you don't need to use it.


So no need to reinstall WF just for this patch?


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Did you solve yours?


?? I dont have one...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> ?? I dont have one...


Oh I see. You just had an idea of my problem, I thought you were also experiencing it.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Oh I see. You just had an idea of my problem, I thought you were also experiencing it.


Only if i use html5 at youtube

But there is one funny thing. If you use html5 at youtube and the video stutters and is eating your CPU
then click Help > restart with add-ons disabled and then when the popup is asking if you are
sure, then just leave it open and the CPU usage drops and the video plays without problems.
Funny behavior....


----------



## chilinmichael

I was wondering if you were aware that Logitech Device Detection does not properly work. The extension does infact install, but when you restart Waterfox as per it's install, it goes back and loops saying it's not installed and to allow and install then reboot Waterfox. Endless loop basically, but it does infact install and show on the extension list. You can try it here: http://www.logitech.com/en-us/support?dd=1&submit=Detect+your+devices

Thanks. I also had this issue on Waterfox 13 fyi.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> I was wondering if you were aware that Logitech Device Detection does not properly work. The extension does infact install, but when you restart Waterfox as per it's install, it goes back and loops saying it's not installed and to allow and install then reboot Waterfox. Endless loop basically, but it does infact install and show on the extension list. You can try it here: http://www.logitech.com/en-us/support?dd=1&submit=Detect+your+devices
> Thanks. I also had this issue on Waterfox 13 fyi.


What does this extension actually do?


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Here i made two WebM videos. The first one is 1 hour and it runs perfect. You can skip back and forth without problems
> http://balkenhantel.de/


It's good if WebM works for you. It's just that my personal experience with WebM has been nothing but negative. Beside, Youtube keep insist on using HTML5 video even though I explicitly told it not to. That's why I had to disabled it through about:config.

Also, personally, as an average user, I don't see the need to use WebM at all. Majority of websites don't use HTML5 videos (H.264 or WebM). For those that do, they usually have Flash videos as a fallback. I've never seen a single video site that require me to have HTML5 video enabled to watch their videos. I don't really care about video formats. I just use whatever that works, and get rid of whatever that cause problems.


----------



## chilinmichael

Kevin, the extension detects all Logitech devices on your system and gives you links for updated drivers, etc automatically instead of you having to select individual products, go to their page and check.


----------



## farmers

I'm unable to install the new version at all, I had already removed the old one a while back. The installer gets so far and then produces an error (see below) which appears to be saying it's unable to create the Start Menu entry. I've never seen anything like this while installing any other program, all of which have successfully updated the Start Menu. I'm running Windows 8 RP btw.


----------



## qwerty77

I just installed the update fix. Now I don't see the updater at the task scheduler is that normal? Does it mean it will silently check for updates now?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> I was wondering if you were aware that Logitech Device Detection does not properly work. The extension does infact install, but when you restart Waterfox as per it's install, it goes back and loops saying it's not installed and to allow and install then reboot Waterfox. Endless loop basically, but it does infact install and show on the extension list. You can try it here: http://www.logitech.com/en-us/support?dd=1&submit=Detect+your+devices
> 
> Thanks. I also had this issue on Waterfox 13 fyi.


Most likely the extension contains 32-Bit .dll's in it. Ask Logitech, they should give you a complete answer.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> I'm unable to install the new version at all, I had already removed the old one a while back. The installer gets so far and then produces an error (see below) which appears to be saying it's unable to create the Start Menu entry. I've never seen anything like this while installing any other program, all of which have successfully updated the Start Menu. I'm running Windows 8 RP btw.


Hmm, does Windows 8 have that folder?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> I just installed the update fix. Now I don't see the updater at the task scheduler is that normal? Does it mean it will silently check for updates now?


Yes, it should check silently now


----------



## kevindd992002

Can I just install the update without uninstalling WF 14.0.1?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, it should check silently now


Cool. Thanks Mr. Alex.









Question. Will it install an update automatically or it will still prompt us to update? I don't like installing an update w/o my consent so I'm asking


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Can I just install the update without uninstalling WF 14.0.1?


Yes Start>Waterfox>Waterfox Updater

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, it should check silently now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cool. Thanks Mr. Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question. Will it install an update automatically or it will still prompt us to update? I don't like installing an update w/o my consent so I'm asking
Click to expand...

You will always be asked


----------



## qwerty77

Okay, thanks Mr. Alex


----------



## kevindd992002

I just updated using the Waterfox Updater buy I still see 14.0.1 under Help>About Waterfox of the program, is this normal?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I just updated using the Waterfox Updater buy I still see 14.0.1 under Help>About Waterfox of the program, is this normal?


Yes, only the updater was changed.


----------



## Anime4000

I have problem with waterfox, at my laptop just fine, when at desktop, the font become like this:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/621722_4283441767191_1683605238_o.jpg
maybe my desktop are AMD processor?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anime4000*
> 
> I have problem with waterfox, at my laptop just fine, when at desktop, the font become like this:
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/621722_4283441767191_1683605238_o.jpg
> maybe my desktop are AMD processor?


No, Waterfox runs fine on AMD systems. Do you have the latest display drivers installed?


----------



## s0ulslack

Thank you MrAlex for all your hard work. Only issue I still have is the Jumplist, it points to firefox.exe still and that was one feature I loved... plus the empty icons for those 3 tasks drivers me crazy!


----------



## Anime4000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No, Waterfox runs fine on AMD systems. Do you have the latest display drivers installed?


My AMD CCC is up-to-date:
http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/amd_gpu.PNG
I can see the text, very blur.


----------



## Playmogeek

Erreur d'analyse XML : entité non définie
Emplacement : chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
Numéro de ligne 2791, Colonne 7 :

^

nobody for this error when waterfox start?


----------



## seti

Mr Alex...I must thank you for all the hard work that we know of and those hours of hard work that we don't know of. Waterfox for me is far beyond any other browser out there in my opinion and this new release is...well...over the top really. Still need to do the about:config tweaks from an earlier thread, but I don't even know if that is needed considering how well this thing is performing. Install was easy...I opted for complete removal of 13 and a preview build of 14 using Geek Uninstaller rather than the standard Windows Uninstaller as it goes and removes any registry keys/entries, files, or folders after the traditional uninstall...making sure first to back up my profile info with FEBE...installed WF 14.0.2...installed FEBE...restored profile and all is good.

Beyond all the praise of good software you provide something else that is missed from a good majority of developers...support...REAL TIME SUPPORT. Hehe...good to see that you care so much for this program that you want to help as much as possible to fix issues...even those not directly associated with WF. Thanks alot my friend...much appreciated!


----------



## Conditioned

Thanks for Waterfox. When you mentioned linking errors, I can just say 'better you than me'


----------



## Anime4000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No, Waterfox runs fine on AMD systems. Do you have the latest display drivers installed?


MrAlex, I know the problem about blurry text, because Anti Aliasing: morphological

Text blur, Anti Aliasing: morphological enable:
screenshot: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/morphological_on.png

Text normal, Anti Aliasing: morphological disabled:
screenshot: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/morphological_off.png

it's get effect, since new browser are GPU Accelerated...


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anime4000*
> 
> I have problem with waterfox, at my laptop just fine, when at desktop, the font become like this:
> https://fbcdn-sphotos-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash3/621722_4283441767191_1683605238_o.jpg
> maybe my desktop are AMD processor?


It's not a browser issue. It is a video/graphics issue. Try finding a graphics thread and posing your question to that group.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Mr Alex...I must thank you for all the hard work that we know of and those hours of hard work that we don't know of. [snip]
> Beyond all the praise of good software you provide something else that is missed from a good majority of developers...support...REAL TIME SUPPORT. Hehe...good to see that you care so much for this program that you want to help as much as possible to fix issues...even those not directly associated with WF. Thanks alot my friend...much appreciated!


I see so many posts in this thread where it seems people don't realize that Mr.Alex is not a team. He's not a committee. He is one browser enthusiast with limited time and resources.


----------



## Anime4000

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> It's not a browser issue. It is a video/graphics issue. Try finding a graphics thread and posing your question to that group.


I found the solution: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3090#post_17809022


----------



## charlir

Im almost scared to update to 14.01 im still running 13 Id be lost without all my profiles pws etc.. the uninstall things scares me.. firefox didnt have us do that..


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> Im almost scared to update to 14.01 im still running 13 Id be lost without all my profiles pws etc.. the uninstall things scares me.. firefox didnt have us do that..


You can uninstall without deleting profiles (by default).


----------



## rude_gw

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *s0ulslack*
> 
> Thank you MrAlex for all your hard work. Only issue I still have is the Jumplist, it points to firefox.exe still and that was one feature I loved... plus the empty icons for those 3 tasks drivers me crazy!


Make another copy of waterfox.exe and rename it to firefox.exe. This fixed the blank icon and the jumplist for me.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Most likely the extension contains 32-Bit .dll's in it. Ask Logitech, they should give you a complete answer.
> 
> Hmm, does Windows 8 have that folder?


Yes, 'C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu' does exist and is where the Start Menu is.


----------



## proxeiros

What about google earth 3d plugin? It seems that it can't be installed.
MapsGL is enabled but asks for the plugin...


----------



## fullmoon

For my problem of black windows in aero, for people that read me, clean up uninstall and reinstall graphic driver (me, update with last beta).








Mystery for no problem in version 13!

Mr Alex, there are a problem of link jump link, they need "firefox.exe"!


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm, does Windows 8 have that folder?


Sure, everything is where it ever was








I'm also on 8


----------



## beerninja

I installed WF14.0.2 from WF12 (which I uninstalled) but when I try to run it, it flashes some window on my screen for like a few milliseconds then it just disappears and doesn't run at all. Also I get no error message whatsoever because the window just closes instantly.

Athlon 64 3000+
radeon 9800XT
win7 x64

Any ideas? WF12 works fine for me. A while back I tried upgrading to WF13PL1 but I got some error message and it wouldn't work.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *proxeiros*
> 
> What about google earth 3d plugin? It seems that it can't be installed.
> MapsGL is enabled but asks for the plugin...


There is no x64 google earth 3d plugin, or?
MapsGL works here on Win8. No crashs anymore like in Waterfox 13.


----------



## felata

No Windows 7 jumplist on Waterfox 14.0.x any more. After install new waterfox, there is no tasks such as open new tab in jumplist, no recent history either.


----------



## Anime4000

FFT Firefox API HTML5 benchmark:
Waterfox 14: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/waterfox_41fps.png
Nightly 16a: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/nightly_50fps.png

both are 64bit

Test here:
http://animeclan.org/fft/index.html


----------



## proxeiros

I agree no crashes with MapsGL enabled.
I'm talking about this capability:





!

With Chrome browser works great...


----------



## charlir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *proxeiros*
> 
> I agree no crashes with MapsGL enabled.
> I'm talking about this capability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !
> With Chrome browser works great...


Thanks I got a backup profile tool just in case.. but it worked fine.. ok k1 question .. the new download says 14.02 and the updater is in programs start .. I think I read back a bit that .. as long as the update is there.. I have 14.02 Was that correct?

and thanks for all your work guys..


----------



## charlir

grrrr so I installed waterfox now no forum will display it dis-plays in like text few.. it even has my firefox messed up omg .. I cant read this forum for help lucky i can even reply guess ill have to go on a diff lappy ., im liked hosed for my business


----------



## marcmy

Okay, finally I figured out the icon/shortcut issue. It's a shortcut in the start menu that was either left over from a previous waterfox installation (despite uninstalling) or installed with the new one that refers to firefox.exe. For some reason Windows uses this shortcut when you try to pin waterfox (even if you run it directly from the installation folder).

Steps to fix:
1-Close waterfox
2-unpin waterfox in your taskbar
3-Go to start menu, search for waterfox and delete any shortcuts in there that point to firefox.exe
4-Run waterfox.exe from the main installation folder as shown in MrAlex's post
5-Pin it

That should do the trick


----------



## charlir

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> grrrr so I installed waterfox now no forum will display it dis-plays in like text few.. it even has my firefox messed up omg .. I cant read this forum for help lucky i can even reply guess ill have to go on a diff lappy ., im liked hosed for my business


ok i have no idea .. i unstalled and reinstalled then used ccleaner .. seems to be working ok .., i have no idea what that was all about


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *proxeiros*
> 
> I agree no crashes with MapsGL enabled.
> I'm talking about this capability:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !
> With Chrome browser works great...


Yes thats the Google Earth 3d Plugin. There is no 64bit version of this plug in.
And sure it works in Chrome. Chrome is 32bit.


----------



## anastrophe

hi there - longtime waterfox user. minor 'complaint':

please make the (currently grey, small, text) "Note: Uninstall older versions of Waterfox (prior to 14) before installing the latest " larger, red, more prominent. this is the first install of waterfox that i've had that required an uninstall of the previous version. totally missed that text. had some 'fun' issues fixing waterfox after failing to do the uninstall.

all good now, but since this is an atypical update in this respect, i think it should be much more prominently noted on the download page.

cheers!


----------



## HomerSimpson

For the people that cant set Waterfox as default browser, go in your Control Panel and then Programs > Default Programs > Set Program Access and Computer Defaults, Click Custom, in "Choose a default Web browser" click Waterfox.


----------



## dnyanesh

I am experiencing stuttering effect while playing YouTube videos. I've disabled the WebM player but the video still stutters. Also, Waterfox freezes for a split second at irregular intervals.

Any heads-up guys?


----------



## Vertig0

All fine here ...


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> I am experiencing stuttering effect while playing YouTube videos. I've disabled the WebM player but the video still stutters. Also, Waterfox freezes for a split second at irregular intervals.
> Any heads-up guys?


How is your CPU usage?
Hardware acceleration on or off in Flash?

Why always this few infos? This way nobody can help.


----------



## Rotax1

Need help Waterfox 14 wont install even though I have completely removed 13pL. The installer will open but says there is already a installer running closed it 5 times and retried checked services and task mgr to see if there is anything else running and it still wont install. 9 gigs ram ok windows 7 64 intel 980. did a complete uninstall with revo uninstaller and then cleaned with CC cleaner.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rotax1*
> 
> Need help Waterfox 14 wont install even though I have completely removed 13pL. The installer will open but says there is already a installer running closed it 5 times and retried checked services and task mgr to see if there is anything else running and it still wont install. 9 gigs ram ok windows 7 64 intel 980. did a complete uninstall with revo uninstaller and then cleaned with CC cleaner.


Did you try a reboot?


----------



## Rotax1

Yes about 3 times and after completely removing waterfox 13. So after not being able to install 14 I went ahead and had no problem installing 13 again I went far enough even to remove my customizations and bookmarks along with 13 and still no go. They are easy to put back just back them up and reinstall the bookmarks and the customizations are not hard but I didnt want anything that I had done or installed to hinder the install.


----------



## beerninja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> I installed WF14.0.2 from WF12 (which I uninstalled) but when I try to run it, it flashes some window on my screen for like a few milliseconds then it just disappears and doesn't run at all. Also I get no error message whatsoever because the window just closes instantly.
> Athlon 64 3000+
> radeon 9800XT
> win7 x64
> Any ideas? WF12 works fine for me. A while back I tried upgrading to WF13PL1 but I got some error message and it wouldn't work.


Here is a video of my problem:



Any ideas would be appreciated.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rotax1*
> 
> Yes about 3 times and after completely removing waterfox 13. So after not being able to install 14 I went ahead and had no problem installing 13 again I went far enough even to remove my customizations and bookmarks along with 13 and still no go.


There is never a reason for removing your bookmarks. Just always try a new profile if something does not work.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Any ideas would be appreciated.


Ok, for everybody who has problems. Try a fresh profile.
Right click your Waterfox icon oben the properties.
At "-p" to the path. Like:
Quote:


> "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -p


This will open the profile manager. Make a new one and try it.


----------



## Hammerfest

Only had a chance to test it on one system so far, but the Windows Vista x64 SP2 FRESH install with a FRESH install of 14.0.1 then upgraded to 14.0.2, I still dont have an entry in Task Scheduler or any Autoruns.

Its not a big deal for me, I have tuned the updater.ini to disable the updater and disabled the .exe, but just wanted to say that despite the upgrade to 14.0.2, I still didnt have an entry in Task Scheduler


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hammerfest*
> 
> Only had a chance to test it on one system so far, but the Windows Vista x64 SP2 FRESH install with a FRESH install of 14.0.1 then upgraded to 14.0.2, I still dont have an entry in Task Scheduler or any Autoruns.
> Its not a big deal for me, I have tuned the updater.ini to disable the updater and disabled the .exe, but just wanted to say that despite the upgrade to 14.0.2, I still didnt have an entry in Task Scheduler


14.0.2 removed the Task Scheduler entry; you don't need to "tune" or disable anything.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> I installed WF14.0.2 from WF12 (which I uninstalled) but when I try to run it, it flashes some window on my screen for like a few milliseconds then it just disappears and doesn't run at all. Also I get no error message whatsoever because the window just closes instantly.
> Athlon 64 3000+
> radeon 9800XT
> win7 x64
> Any ideas? WF12 works fine for me. A while back I tried upgrading to WF13PL1 but I got some error message and it wouldn't work.


Try this: make a shortcut from the waterfox directory. right-click waterfox icon>send to desktop, rename it if you want. then try to pin it to the taskbar.

or try MrGrasspole's suggestion and make a new profile.


----------



## mhowie

Does the upgrade to 14.0.2 change the version number under "About/Help"? Mine is still showing 14.0.1.


----------



## sveken

When i try installing waterfox 14 it says there is a newer version installed but there is not. What files do i need to delete so it passes this check?


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> A RAMDisk being used with WF would in no way connected with my stuttering problem, would it?


I highly doubt it.

You could always try without it, to be sure.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Here is a video of my problem:Any ideas would be appreciated.


Open Event View in Administrator Tools. If your Control Panel doens't have Administrator Tools listed, search how to access Event Viewer in your version of Windows. Once you're in Event Viewer, look in the Windows Logs folder and scroll the System and Application events for clues to the problems your system is having.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sveken*
> 
> When i try installing waterfox 14 it says there is a newer version installed but there is not. What files do i need to delete so it passes this check?


Download CCleaner and let it scan and clean your registry.


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mhowie*
> 
> Does the upgrade to 14.0.2 change the version number under "About/Help"? Mine is still showing 14.0.1.


Apparently an oversight.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mhowie*
> 
> Does the upgrade to 14.0.2 change the version number under "About/Help"? Mine is still showing 14.0.1.


Yes, it will still show 14.0.1 cause only waterfox was updated internally and not the official build which is still 14.0.1


----------



## qwerty77

Double post please delete.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, it wasn't an oversight, it was a build to fix the issue with the updater.


----------



## bsdaiwa

If there is a version 14.0.2 why does the download page show 14.0.1?


----------



## Ryrynz

MrAlex, how do you get a 500,000+ score on Browsermark with Firefox? And even more so, how do you achieve greater than 550,000 with Pale Moon and Waterfox?

I'm running an i7 3570K (default clock) with Intel HD 4000 and I can only get 424338 with a blank 32bit Firefox profile. I also ran a blank Firefox profile on a Q9550 (default clock) with a Radeon HD5850 and scored 380611, so this really doesn't stack up with the results you have posted. Were you testing x64 builds of Firefox? If so which version? My results should be higher than the i7 960 results as the 3570 is a faster CPU.

Also, how is Fishbowl benchmarked in your results? The only two options I can see is selecting auto and have the browser give an upper limit of fish before it drops below 60FPS (~740 fish on my system with Waterfox) or you can benchmark a set number of fish and measure the FPS (2000 fish ~20FPS, 1750 Fish ~22 FPS)

Just FYI: 64bit browsers score lower in most benchmarks vs 32bit ones so comparing to Firefox 32bit with the typical benchmarks probably isn't a good idea, please read the following post from Moonchild @ the Pale Moon forums Here (32-bit versus 64-bit and tight loops)

The benchmark results should ideally be redone, over multiple systems with different specs for a good cross comparison either with blank profiles only
or two sets of benchmarks one blank the other not across each browser, consistency is key to valid benchmarking.

Although by the looks of it the only other browser you could properly compare to is Pale Moon as that's the only 64bit Firefox browser that's not alpha code, which kind of defeats the purpose of benchmarking Waterfox really as Waterfox is meant to serve as an alternative to Firefox (which you can't benchmark against very well due to the reasons mentioned in the link above from Moonchild)

I've often seen Waterfox on my system benchmark as slower than Firefox (Same goes for 64bit Pale Moon) so it might just be a good idea to remove the benchmarking page altogether as it really doesn't highlight the true strengths of a 64bit Firefox.

Unless of course you just want to have it out with Pale Moon...


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bsdaiwa*
> 
> If there is a version 14.0.2 why does the download page show 14.0.1?


Most likely to follow the official numbering of Firefox or Mr. Alex forgot to rename it. The download itself is WF 14.0.2 though.


----------



## beerninja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Open Event View in Administrator Tools. If your Control Panel doens't have Administrator Tools listed, search how to access Event Viewer in your version of Windows. Once you're in Event Viewer, look in the Windows Logs folder and scroll the System and Application events for clues to the problems your system is having.


Thanks for the suggestion! I opened Event Viewer and I kept it open on one window on my 2nd monitor, then I tried to open waterfox on my main monitor. I'm guessing that it is supposed to automatically log when WF tries to open and fails? I clicked Actions --> Refresh but no new events were showing up at all?

I also tried the -p to make a new profile but instead of the big window disappearing immediately, I see a smaller window flash on the screen then disappear. Nothing in the event log either


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ryrynz*
> 
> Just FYI: 64bit browsers score lower in most benchmarks vs 32bit ones


Here WX is faster than FX: 319560 vs 288939 Points


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion! I opened Event Viewer and I kept it open on one window on my 2nd monitor, then I tried to open waterfox on my main monitor. I'm guessing that it is supposed to automatically log when WF tries to open and fails? I clicked Actions --> Refresh but no new events were showing up at all?
> I also tried the -p to make a new profile but instead of the big window disappearing immediately, I see a smaller window flash on the screen then disappear. Nothing in the event log either


Sorry don't know how to help further.

I don't get it where the problems come from people having.
I use Waterfox since it came out. The profile is still the first one with 34 Add-Ons.
And since that I also moved it around between different PCs and OS.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Here WX is faster than FX: 319560 vs 288939 Points


For me i think benchmarks are really unreliable. Because there are so many different setups out there. Most benchmarks depend on hardware specs too so its kinda hard to tell which is better of all the unofficial builds of firefox 64 bit be it Pale Moon, Waterfox or the official nightly build.

For me WF "feels" fast and i think that's enough benchmark for me.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> I am experiencing stuttering effect while playing YouTube videos. I've disabled the WebM player but the video still stutters. Also, Waterfox freezes for a split second at irregular intervals.
> Any heads-up guys?


Having this problem too for the LONGEST TIME. I think people here may tag me of this stuttering problem, lol.

Anyway, can you post a video of your problem so that I can confirm if we have the same? Did you monitor the FPS (right click the video and click "show video info") of the video while playing it? If you see it goes from 24 to around 18 at random times, then that is definitely stuttering.

I still don't know why most people here don't have that problem and we experience it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> I highly doubt it.
> You could always try without it, to be sure.


Thanks man.


----------



## Stefan Pendl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Adblock Plus can be solved by going to Add-Ons>Disabled>Enabled, then just refresh the page. I'm not sure why it does this, but you don't have to reinstall it.


The problem is not solved with this if you have both, Firefox and Waterfox, installed.

There seems to be a problem with the way the add-on is enabled.

If you enable AdBlock Plus in Firefox, it is disabled in Waterfox and vice versa.
Any other add-on is working in both browsers as expected.

This wasn't a problem in Firefox 13 and Waterfox 13.

I have Firefox 14.0.1 and Waterfox 14.0.2 installed.
I run one or the other, but not both at the same time.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Having this problem too for the LONGEST TIME. I think people here may tag me of this stuttering problem, lol.


How about vimeo?

And i still don't know what you cpu says when playing youtube videos.


----------



## bsmith781

Most of my history and some of my bookmarks were lost after I updated from Waterfox 14.0.1 to Waterfox 14.0.2


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> How about vimeo?
> And i still don't know what you cpu says when playing youtube videos.


CPU has very low usage (around 2~5%) when playing the video. Here are some significant findings that I had earlier:

http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3030#post_17806010

http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3040#post_17806138


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> CPU has very low usage (around 2~5%) when playing the video. Here are some significant findings that I had earlier:
> http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3030#post_17806010
> http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3040#post_17806138


Again: do you have the same problems on vimeo????

Low CPU usage but dropped frames? Maybe the GPU?


----------



## mayankleoboy1

MrAlex :

the banner animation on the homepage of waterfox is jerky on Waterfox14.0.2 (but smooth in firefox 17) .
So a redesign of some of the elements might be needed.
In effect, the webpage that is promoting the browser does not work that well in the browser itself !


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Again: do you have the same problems on vimeo????
> Low CPU usage but dropped frames? Maybe the GPU?


What is vimeo?

If you read the links I gave, I stated there that my problem (low cpu usage but dropped frames) is only present in the "main tab group" of WF14. Any other browser (IE-32bit, IE-64bit, FF14, Opera x64), the problem is not present. So I don't think it is the GPU there. Besides my GPU is a GTX 560M and is more than enough to handle these videos. Also, I use the latest 304.79 for my NVIDIA driver.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is vimeo?
> If you read the links I gave, I stated there that my problem (low cpu usage but dropped frames) is only present in the "main tab group" of WF14. Any other browser (IE-32bit, IE-64bit, FF14, Opera x64), the problem is not present. So I don't think it is the GPU there. Besides my GPU is a GTX 560M and is more than enough to handle these videos. Also, I use the latest 304.79 for my NVIDIA driver.


kevin have you tried enabling/disabling some settings from the Nvidia Display driver? If you haven't, try disabling some presets there. I think there is some settings interfering with how GTX560M renders some videos in your case. Again this just my guess lol.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> kevin have you tried enabling/disabling some settings from the Nvidia Display driver? If you haven't, try disabling some presets there. I think there is some settings interfering with how GTX560M renders some videos in your case. Again this just my guess lol.


Which settings specifically? Well, this could be the case but how do you explain the problem only present in my main tab group? That alone is bothering the hell out of me. I can't believe why the problem isn't present in other tab groups.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mayankleoboy1*
> 
> MrAlex :
> the banner animation on the homepage of waterfox is jerky on Waterfox14.0.2 (but smooth in firefox 17) .
> So a redesign of some of the elements might be needed.
> In effect, the webpage that is promoting the browser does not work that well in the browser itself !


The banner runs normal here. But the whole side is not made for speed.
17 external Javascript scripts
6 external stylesheets
10 external background images
is really really way way to much. There are 50 or more HTTP requests.
Also no gzip.
And never put javascript in the header cause it blocks parallel downloads.

And you can reduce CPU usage if you set jQuery fx interval to something between 50-70.
Quote:


> jQuery.fx.interval = 70;


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Which settings specifically? Well, this could be the case but how do you explain the problem only present in my main tab group? That alone is bothering the hell out of me. I can't believe why the problem isn't present in other tab groups.


As I only have intel hd graphics I don't know which setting it is that you need to tweak on. Try disabling certain settings one at a time.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is vimeo?


One of the best if not the best and most popular video-sharing site.


----------



## mayankleoboy1

Quote:


> The banner runs normal here. But the whole side is not made for speed.


just compare it to : FF17/IE9/opera/chrome. I am specifically talking about the banner animation. there is definite jerkiness compared to the other browsers. FF 14 too has the same proble, Since its smooth in FF17, it could be inherent to the mozilla base code.

Quote:


> And you can reduce CPU usage if you set jQuery fx interval to something between 50-70.


also, this page uses *huge* amount of CPU compared to chrome/opera.

On IE9/WF14/FF17 :

Idle : 7% CPU use
animation : 15%
Quick scrolling : 23%

Opera/Chrome :
idle : 1%
animation : 2%
scroll : 4%

out of a possible 25% (i have a quad core CPU)

so WF/FF uses double the CPU _idling_ the page, than the competition does in animation+scroll.

That said, it does look great.


----------



## Fingli

I'm not able start Waterfox. It installs smoothly but when I try to start it, only a transparent window appears for a second on the screen and disappears immediately after, no process in memory or whatsoever indication it works. I've been told the Waterfox is working only with native 64bit CPUs with native 64bit OS - my CPU is Athlon64 3200+ with Windows 7 (64) so I think it's not an hardware problem. I'll be glad for any help.

P. S. I have Visual C++ 2010 x64 Redistributable installed as well.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Fingli*
> 
> I'm not able start Waterfox. It installs smoothly but when I try to start it, only a transparent window appears for a second on the screen and disappears immediately after, no process in memory or whatsoever indication it works. I've been told the Waterfox is working only with native 64bit CPUs with native 64bit OS - my CPU is Athlon64 3200+ with Windows 7 (64) so I think it's not an hardware problem. I'll be glad for any help.
> P. S. I have Visual C++ 2010 x64 Redistributable installed as well.


What Athlon 64 do you have? A ClawHammer, Newcastle, Winchester or newer? This three do not have SSE3 and it looks
like Athlon has a problem with arch:SSE3 .


----------



## FTBBTF

I have this bug. When I click the add-ons Options button the whole add-ons list disappears and nothing happens. WF 1402, according to the SF page.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> As I only have intel hd graphics I don't know which setting it is that you need to tweak on. Try disabling certain settings one at a time.


Thanks.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> One of the best if not the best and most popular video-sharing site.


Ok, will try to play a video there and report back.

@all

A little off-topic here. Why is it that when I press multi on different posts and then press reply on any post, it quotes that last post also?! Shouldn't it just direct me to the box where I can type with the quoted (multi-clicked) posts that I made?


----------



## kevindd992002

Sorry for the double post.

@MrGlassPole

It seems that the stuttering is less with Vimeo videos. Any ideas why?


----------



## beerninja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> What Athlon 64 do you have? A ClawHammer, Newcastle, Winchester or newer? This three do not have SSE3 and it looks
> like Athlon has a problem with arch:SSE3 .


Athlon 64 3200+ does not have SSE3 and neither does 3000+ (which is what I have) and I'm having the exact same problem he's having. I have already tried -p to make a new profile which just pops up a smaller window that disappears immediately. Also tried the intel distribs and that didn't work. Tried pinning WF to taskbar, that didn't work. Uninstalled and cleaned reg with CCleaner and that didn't work. Nothing shows up in the Event Viewer.

WF12 works fine. Anything above WF12 does not work. It seems to me that Alex made SSE3 a requirement to run WF now?

Again, here is a video of the problem:


----------



## fullmoon

This come of your configuration PC or hardware settings.


----------



## fullmoon

WF14 not works on your CPU...


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Athlon 64 3200+ does not have SSE3


Depends on the year. The ones after 2004 have it. Venice and Manchester


----------



## penio

here is my issue:


Uninstall old version, install new one. Install again FF an d WF - not workinfg. Try a lot of combos - not working. Wait fro fix








If need more info about computer or other - ask, will help you.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Thanks for the suggestion! I opened Event Viewer and I kept it open on one window on my 2nd monitor, then I tried to open waterfox on my main monitor. I'm guessing that it is supposed to automatically log when WF tries to open and fails? I clicked Actions --> Refresh but no new events were showing up at all?
> I also tried the -p to make a new profile but instead of the big window disappearing immediately, I see a smaller window flash on the screen then disappear. Nothing in the event log either


Boot Windows into safe mode and try the installation. I'm just guessing. It's just a process of elimination. You try everything you can think of. Then, try everything anyone else can think of, until something works.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Athlon 64 3200+ does not have SSE3 and neither does 3000+ (which is what I have) and I'm having the exact same problem he's having. I have already tried -p to make a new profile which just pops up a smaller window that disappears immediately. Also tried the intel distribs and that didn't work. Tried pinning WF to taskbar, that didn't work. Uninstalled and cleaned reg with CCleaner and that didn't work. Nothing shows up in the Event Viewer.]


It looks like you're running a pretty lean system... not a lot of stuff in the system tray running in the background. Still, open Task Manager and End Process on any unnecessary process that are running. I've seen this behavior before. It's usually something pretty simple. But, the screen flashes so quickly, you can really get any clues from it. I'm surprised that you're not getting any events logged and showing in the Event Viewer. If I so much as tickle my mouse, I get a logged event of some kind.


----------



## Fingli

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> What Athlon 64 do you have? A ClawHammer, Newcastle, Winchester or newer? This three do not have SSE3 and it looks
> like Athlon has a problem with arch:SSE3 .


It's Newcastle.







pity
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *beerninja*
> 
> Athlon 64 3200+ does not have SSE3 and neither does 3000+ (which is what I have) and I'm having the exact same problem he's having. I have already tried -p to make a new profile which just pops up a smaller window that disappears immediately. Also tried the intel distribs and that didn't work. Tried pinning WF to taskbar, that didn't work. Uninstalled and cleaned reg with CCleaner and that didn't work. Nothing shows up in the Event Viewer.
> WF12 works fine. Anything above WF12 does not work. It seems to me that Alex made SSE3 a requirement to run WF now?


So it seems It's hardware issue which is sad a little bit. My CPU is working all fine so I don't want upgrade just because WF, I'd rather not use it.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Having this problem too for the LONGEST TIME. I think people here may tag me of this stuttering problem, lol.[snip]
> I still don't know why most people here don't have that problem and we experience it.
> Thanks man.


Because there is something unique to you system configuration (hardware, drivers, active processes, etc) that you have in common, but the rest of us don't. It could be any one thing, or the unique combination of two things, that is causing the stuttering. At least there are two of you trying to figure it out now. So, perhaps you will find the answer twice as fast! lol


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Sorry for the double post.
> @MrGlassPole
> It seems that the stuttering is less with Vimeo videos. Any ideas why?


For the longest time, I could not get a video to play on metacafe.com. Had no problem with Vimeo, YouTube or any other video site. I tried everything I could think of. Uninstalled and re-installed Flash numerous times... and various other things. Nothing worked. I just gave up. I don't know what's different now, but, I noticed about two weeks ago that I can now play video on metacafe.com. I think the video gods just like to watch us sweat sometimes. ;-)


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> How is your CPU usage?
> Hardware acceleration on or off in Flash?
> Why always this few infos? This way nobody can help.


System Specs:
AMD Athlon 64 X2 - 4800+
4GB DDR2 800 MHz RAM
OCZ Vertex 2 SSD
Windows 7 x64

H/W acceleration is ON.
CPU usage fluctuates in between 10-50%.
RAM usage goes to 1.5 GB quickly if more than 10 tabs are open.
I used to experience shuttering in flash videos and occasional freezes and that's why I got a SSD and switched to Waterfox, expecting this to stop but it's been the same.
Moreover, the Firefox 14.0.0.1 seems better as compared to Waterfox 14.


----------



## Lord Venom

I'm glad I'm not having any of the issues others seem to be having. =P


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> System Specs:
> AMD Athlon 64 X2 - 4800+
> 4GB DDR2 800 MHz RAM
> OCZ Vertex 2 SSD
> Windows 7 x64
> H/W acceleration is ON.
> CPU usage fluctuates in between 10-50%.
> RAM usage goes to 1.5 GB quickly if more than 10 tabs are open.
> I used to experience shuttering in flash videos and occasional freezes and that's why I got a SSD and switched to Waterfox, expecting this to stop but it's been the same.
> Moreover, the Firefox 14.0.0.1 seems better as compared to Waterfox 14.


What GPU do you have? The CPU usage looks high.
Here with just a 2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo i have on this video




in 1080p (make sure you switch)
5% waterfox and 25% plugin container usage on the cpu.
If i play it in 360p my plugin container usage is only 7%

So you have this problem also in 32bit firefox?
And also lets say at vimeo?


----------



## MrGlasspoole

There is a lot of things going on when it comes to video decoding.
It depends on the GPU what PureVideo or UVD version you have and how strong the GPU is.
Also the player plays a role.

If the GPU does not hardware acceleration on a codec then the CPU needs to do it.
You can see the GPU usage with GPU-Z.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> What GPU do you have? The CPU usage looks high.
> Here with just a 2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo i have on this video
> 
> 
> 
> 
> in 1080p (make sure you switch)
> 5% waterfox and 25% plugin container usage on the cpu.
> If i play it in 360p my plugin container usage is only 7%
> So you have this problem also in 32bit firefox?
> And also lets say at vimeo?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> There is a lot of things going on when it comes to video decoding.
> It depends on the GPU what PureVideo or UVD version you have and how strong the GPU is.
> Also the player plays a role.
> If the GPU does not hardware acceleration on a codec then the CPU needs to do it.
> You can see the GPU usage with GPU-Z.


I have XFX ATI 5670HD GPU.

The CPU usage I stated was of all processes in total, not just waterfox.
The CPU usage of Waterfox is almost the same, 10-50%. The plugin-container process also has usage of about 10-20%.
The problem is less evident in Firefox (32bit). Earlier, I was experiencing this problem only on YouTube and all other sites worked fine (DailyMotion, Vimeo, etc). But now I get this problem while viewing Dailymotion. The drop rate of frames is very less on Vimeo as compared to YT & DM.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Ok guys one step after the other. We can take over the world later









1. Make a fresh Waterfox profile (change nothing) and test Youtube
2. Make sure you have the latest flashplayer: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
3. Make sure you have the latest driver for your graphics card
4. My AMD Pro Card has also a setting in CCC where i can apply the video settings to internet videos. Don't know AMD consumer cards. But check its not set.

Also try it in 32 bit aka Firefox.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *penio*
> 
> here is my issue:
> 
> 
> Uninstall old version, install new one. Install again FF an d WF - not workinfg. Try a lot of combos - not working. Wait fro fix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If need more info about computer or other - ask, will help you.


Check out these links:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/920179

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2452223


----------



## Anakunda

I updated to Waterfox 14.0.2 and get error about some missing export in mozjs.dll ([email protected]). How do I resolve this?


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Ok guys one step after the other. We can take over the world later
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1. Make a fresh Waterfox profile (change nothing) and test Youtube
> 2. Make sure you have the latest flashplayer: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
> 3. Make sure you have the latest driver for your graphics card
> 4. My AMD Pro Card has also a setting in CCC where i can apply the video settings to internet videos. Don't know AMD consumer cards. But check its not set.
> Also try it in 32 bit aka Firefox.


I have the latest Flash Player.
I have the latest driver for my gpu.
This problem existed even when I had not installed the gpu drivers.

For making a new Waterfox profile, I need to make a new Firefox profile right?
Also, Tell me where are the settings that apply for internet videos?


----------



## penio

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Check out these links:
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/920179
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=2452223


Thanks! That ones works 100% for me:

"Do a clean (re)install and delete the Firefox program folder (C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\).
Download a fresh Firefox copy and save the file to the desktop.
Firefox 10.0.x: http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all.html
Uninstall your current Firefox version, if possible.
Do NOT remove personal data when you uninstall the current version or you lose your bookmarks and other data because all profile folders will be removed.
Remove the Firefox program folder before installing that newly downloaded copy of the Firefox installer.
It is important to delete the Firefox program folder to remove all the files and make sure that there are no problems with files that were leftover after uninstalling.
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Uninstalling_Firefox
Your bookmarks and other profile data are stored elsewhere in the Firefox Profile Folder and won't be affected by a reinstall, but make sure that you do not select to remove personal data if you uninstall Firefox. "


----------



## Lord Venom

I always export my bookmarks before doing a clean install and clean profile. Maybe that's why I don't have any issues since I did a clean install for WF14?


----------



## WaterfoxTR

I need switch for silent installation.

"-ms" or "/S /NCRC" does not work.

Sorry for my bad English.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> I have the latest Flash Player.
> I have the latest driver for my gpu.
> This problem existed even when I had not installed the gpu drivers.
> For making a new Waterfox profile, I need to make a new Firefox profile right?
> Also, Tell me where are the settings that apply for internet videos?


Fresh Waterfox Profile: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3120#post_17811220
The video setting is in the catalyst control center > video > quality
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I always export my bookmarks before doing a clean install and clean profile. Maybe that's why I don't have any issues since I did a clean install for WF14?


There is no reason for doing that. I have 34 add-ons. Its impossible to remember all setting of them and Firefox/Waterfox.
Also there are the saved passwords and so on - not only bookmarks.

As i said. Its still the first Waterfox profile since Waterfox came out and i moved it since then from PC to PC and from OS to OS.
I also sync it between Laptop and Workstation (totally different machines). I do the same with Chrome, Opera...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WaterfoxTR*
> 
> I need switch for silent installation.
> 
> "-ms" or "/S /NCRC" does not work.
> 
> Sorry for my bad English.


The bootstrapper supports all MSIEXEC command line switches.

http://www.advancedinstaller.com/user-guide/exe-setup-file.html


----------



## ElQuia

Had 14.0.1 working OK
Downloaded 14.0.2
Uninstalled 14.0.1
Installed 14.0.2

"About" STILL SHOWS 14.0.1 as waterfox version

¿IDEAS?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ElQuia*
> 
> Had 14.0.1 working OK
> Downloaded 14.0.2
> Uninstalled 14.0.1
> Installed 14.0.2
> "About" STILL SHOWS 14.0.1 as waterfox version
> ¿IDEAS?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Yes, it will still show 14.0.1 cause only waterfox was updated internally and not the official build which is still 14.0.1


Firefox is still at 14.0.1. Waterfox updated the "updater" to silently check for updates. So WF was updated to 14.0.2. read more on the waterfox homepage.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *marcmy*
> 
> Okay, finally I figured out the icon/shortcut issue. It's a shortcut in the start menu that was either left over from a previous waterfox installation (despite uninstalling) or installed with the new one that refers to firefox.exe. For some reason Windows uses this shortcut when you try to pin waterfox (even if you run it directly from the installation folder).
> Steps to fix:
> 1-Close waterfox
> 2-unpin waterfox in your taskbar
> 3-Go to start menu, search for waterfox and delete any shortcuts in there that point to firefox.exe
> 4-Run waterfox.exe from the main installation folder as shown in MrAlex's post
> 5-Pin it
> That should do the trick


I tried first suggestion to rename waterfox.exe copy to firefox.exe and then put it in Waterfox dir.,

And yes it works too









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anime4000*
> 
> FFT Firefox API HTML5 benchmark:
> Waterfox 14: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/waterfox_41fps.png
> Nightly 16a: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/nightly_50fps.png
> both are 64bit
> Test here:
> http://animeclan.org/fft/index.html


Hm idk first time i tried this test and it looks ok; avg 57-58fps


----------



## ElQuia

OK, thanks. ;-)


----------



## Jarkko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jarkko*
> 
> Adding to that Taskbar-issue, mine has wrong shortcuts in "Tasks"-section, all three point to "\Waterfox\firefox.exe" and obviously won't work. Wouldn't be any issue if there wasn't two profiles, first one start (or at least did with 13 PL1 and before that in regular Firefox) by default and another by "Open new window".
> 
> edit:


Until proper fix is released I fixed this oddity with hardlink.

mklink /H firefox.exe waterfox.exe

Works like a charm


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anime4000*
> 
> FFT Firefox API HTML5 benchmark:
> Waterfox 14: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/waterfox_41fps.png
> Nightly 16a: http://animeclan.org/files/screenshot/nightly_50fps.png
> both are 64bit
> Test here:
> http://animeclan.org/fft/index.html


Where in this test is the GPU test? There is no VP8 hardware accelerator out, isn't it?
I can run
1080p H.264 [email protected] with 8 ReFrames
without problems and also
1080p H.264 High [email protected] with16 ReFrames
on my PC.

But his test does nothing on my GPU, the test is webm and there is no hardware accelerator for it.
So what i'm missing on this test?


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrGlassPole

Any ideas on my stuttering problem mate?


----------



## ipv89

using it right now no problems so far great to use


----------



## headcleaner

Everything from my firefox profile is still working fine in waterfox 14 - except for the add-on "thinkvantage password manager 4.0"








How can I solve this?
Apart from that waterfox is great!


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headcleaner*
> 
> Everything from my firefox profile is still working fine in waterfox 14 - except for the add-on "thinkvantage password manager 4.0"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I solve this?
> Apart from that waterfox is great!


are-you test with ff14? many add-on don't works with ff14...


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headcleaner*
> 
> Everything from my firefox profile is still working fine in waterfox 14 - except for the add-on "thinkvantage password manager 4.0"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How can I solve this?
> Apart from that waterfox is great!


thinkvantage password manager 4.0 not compatible with firefox?

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/806925#answer-161856

EDIT:

I've read the lenovo forums and i see that it should be compatible. But i'm not sure if it supports version 14 of firefox. Try downloading the latest one and make sure its a 64bit installer.


----------



## gracemillian

Hi Mr Alex,

Great piece of software, I have been following your work for a while now. Is it possible for you to make an SSE4.2 optimised Waterfox version? I am sure there are many people with the first gen Intel i series processors and now we have 3rd gen i series of processors, so there is a whole lot of people who can use SSE4.2


----------



## Laylow

For those having problems/crashes with Flash:

Try doing a full uninstall of flash: method here http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/uninstall-flash-player-windows.html
make sure to run the uninstaller and delete all files in the folders listed.

Then Downgrade to Flash 11.2 http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/archived-flash-player-versions.html

I also unchecked harware acceleration in flash settings, and in waterfox options.

This has worked for me so far, I've been messing around with it since earlier today and no problems yet. Will post again if I get more crashes.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> are-you test with ff14? many add-on don't works with ff14...


Thats not right. I have 32 Add-ons and all working.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrGlassPole
> Any ideas on my stuttering problem mate?


You read and tried: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3170#post_17816202 ?


----------



## demoneye

AGAIN.......

after things relax a little bit can someone tell me WHY ADMUNCHER DOESNT WORK WITH WF14 ????


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> AGAIN.......
> 
> after things relax a little bit can someone tell me WHY ADMUNCHER DOESNT WORK WITH WF14 ????


How am I to know? I don't use it, why are you getting angry? If you want an adblocker, use Adblock Plus, it's free and does the job perfectly. And as I'm aware it's Admunchers duty to be compatible with Waterfox, NOT the other way around.


----------



## demoneye

i am not angry just cant understand why wf14 only doesn't work with it... previous WF did work with it also ff 14 and even 15 beta.
and yes , i know adblock plus and all the lists he using , but my question was why WF build 14 (only) doesn't work with it..i am just curious


----------



## Amo

I've been having a lot of trouble lately with flash and WF14. Ocasionally WF hangs and/or the plugin crashes. I know it's flash because as soon as I close the plugin container everything is fixed. Also, not sure if it's unrelated, when I'm watching a stream or video for long periods of time WF seems to have a memory leak as it continually grows until WF crashes. I've updated flash player and reinstalled but it hasn't made a difference. Any suggestions?


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> ... my question was why WF build 14 (only) doesn't work with it..i am just curious


You are asking the wrong question, demoneye. The question should be why AdMuncher doesn't work with Waterfox 14. As MrAlex has indicated, it is the responsibility of the add-on to be compatible with the browser. Not the other way around. Have you tried using AdMuncher with FF 14?

You will get better results by directing your focus where the focus belongs: http://www.admuncher.com/contact.shtml

VG
Dang rookies...


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> You are asking the wrong question, demoneye. The question should be why AdMuncher doesn't work with Waterfox 14. As MrAlex has indicated, it is the responsibility of the add-on to be compatible with the browser. Not the other way around. Have you tried using AdMuncher with FF 14?
> You will get better results by directing your focus where the focus belongs: http://www.admuncher.com/contact.shtml
> VG
> Dang rookies...


LIKE I SAID ADMUNCHER WORKS WITH FF14 AND EVEN 15 .... so its very weird it doesnt work with wf14 (only) with old wf it did work


----------



## Lord Venom

Maybe it doesn't work with 64-bit browsers? I use Adguard with Waterfox 14 and it works fine with 64-bit browsers so no clue what's going on with Ad Muncher.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Fresh Waterfox Profile: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3120#post_17811220
> The video setting is in the catalyst control center > video > quality
> There is no reason for doing that. I have 34 add-ons. Its impossible to remember all setting of them and Firefox/Waterfox.
> Also there are the saved passwords and so on - not only bookmarks.
> As i said. Its still the first Waterfox profile since Waterfox came out and i moved it since then from PC to PC and from OS to OS.
> I also sync it between Laptop and Workstation (totally different machines). I do the same with Chrome, Opera...


I enabled the setting in the CCC but I still experience freezes and flash video stuttering.
I also made a new profile and the video doesn't stutter at all. I checked the "video info" in the youtube player which shows the frame rate, frames dropped, etc. The default profile dropped about 450-600 frames in a 5-8 minute video and the new profile managed about just 25 dropped frames for a 1hr video.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Maybe it doesn't work with 64-bit browsers? I use Adguard with Waterfox 14 and it works fine with 64-bit browsers so no clue what's going on with Ad Muncher.


i already said it works with all previous WF build just not with wf14


----------



## Anakunda

Waterrfox 14.0.2 is too bad, many addons (including Adblock p;us) work incorrectly or even don't work at all with Waterfox.
Uninstall causes BSOD. In my opinion there is some problem with this version, none of older versions caused so many problems.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> I enabled the setting in the CCC but I still experience freezes and flash video stuttering.
> I also made a new profile and the video doesn't stutter at all. I checked the "video info" in the youtube player which shows the frame rate, frames dropped, etc. The default profile dropped about 450-600 frames in a 5-8 minute video and the new profile managed about just 25 dropped frames for a 1hr video.


I was talking about disabling the setting if it is enabled. That it has no effect on the web videos.

So if a fresh profile works, then save your bookmarks and the stuff you need.
Use the new profile, install your add-ons, import your bookmarks...
Thats faster then searching days for an error...


----------



## maaz87

A while ago I posted about the GUI freezing for 30 seconds+- from time to time. I was told to wait for Waterfox 14. Unfortunately, I've got the same problem still. Any suggestions?


----------



## pierredupont17

Good evening everybody,

Unfortunately since update to WF14 (uninstall WF13 and install WF14 with no addon) I can't use middle mouse click in WF14 (open link in a new tab and scroll up / down)

I've installed FF13 and i did not have this problems.

Have you the same problems ? Any idea to help me ? Any suggestions?

Thanks


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> i already said it works with all previous WF build just not with wf14


Probably best to report it to the Ad Muncher developers then... or use Adblock Plus which works as good as Ad Muncher for Firefox. I'd use Ad Muncher for the other browsers.


----------



## Hyperman360

Here's my workaround to the pinned shortcut tasks not showing up. I'm combining some steps from others.

First, open Waterfox.exe from the Program Files folder it's in. (For example, for me it's "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe".)

When it opens, right-click the icon that pops up in the taskbar and pin it. Then drag it to whatever position you like. (I believe this part was the suggestion of marcmy.)

Next, use Jarkko's hardlink idea to fix the tasks. Once you have the shortcut, you can open up an elevated command prompt, and type in these commands. Make sure to hit ENTER after each line.

Code:



Code:


cd "C:\Program Files\Waterfox"

(NOTE: Replace the directory given with wherever Waterfox is installed.)

Code:



Code:


mklink /H firefox.exe waterfox.exe

Now you can close the command prompt and when you hover over the taskbar icon, the tasks will work, but you still won't have icons for them.

Finally, if you want to have this shortcut available pinned in the start menu or something like that, all you have to do is this:

Open up the Run box and type this in:

Code:



Code:


%AppData%\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\User Pinned\Taskbar

Now drag the Waterfox shortcut in the folder into the start menu's pinned items and the Tasks should be available there as well.


----------



## nicoliani

Used to have stuttering issues with Adobe Flash Player and HTML5 on sites like YouTube with Firefox. Now with Waterfox it's all gone!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> You read and tried: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3170#post_17816202 ?


Yes and as I stated in the links I've posted earlier I don't have any problem when creating a new profile. But when I import my main tab group there, then there goes the problem. Please take note: THE PROBLEM IS ONLY PRESENT IN MY MAIN TAB GROUP EVEN WITH MY CURRENT PROFILE.


----------



## headcleaner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> are-you test with ff14? many add-on don't works with ff14...


Thinkvantage passwordmanager 4.0 works fine for firefox 14, it seems that only 32bit is supporrted.
Doesn't work in waterfox.


----------



## irsa04

Hi,

Please help me waterfox takes lot of memory than palemoon. Here's the pic :



















Thanks


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headcleaner*
> 
> Thinkvantage passwordmanager 4.0 works fine for firefox 14, it seems that only 32bit is supporrted.
> Doesn't work in waterfox.


Then it won't work with waterfox since this is a 64bit browser.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *irsa04*
> 
> Hi,
> Please help me waterfox takes lot of memory than palemoon. Here's the pic :
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks


You have too many tabs open? Palemoon is complied different from waterfox so there will differences on how they consume memory i think. Also try disabling unneeded add-ons that maybe causing your high memory usage.


----------



## qwerty77

Sorry for the double post.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> AGAIN.......
> after things relax a little bit can someone tell me WHY ADMUNCHER DOESNT WORK WITH WF14 ????


http://www.admuncher.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=18262&p=38852&hilit=Firefox#p38852

You should've browsed their forums first before getting mad here. And take note capitalizing letters on a forum indicates that you're angry. It's not a proper forum etiquette.


----------



## irsa04

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Then it won't work with waterfox since this is a 64bit browser.
> You have too many tabs open? Palemoon is complied different from waterfox so there will differences on how they consume memory i think. Also try disabling unneeded add-ons that maybe causing your high memory usage.


Yes I always open lot of tabs to do for my jobs. Hope Waterfox team will fix this issue. I really love using waterfox. Like I said before I need mozilla alike to do for my jobs becoz easy to install addon for making my jobs easier. For now I only use waterfox and palemoon. Suggest for waterfox team, please make separately open between waterfox and firefox.
Thanks


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *irsa04*
> 
> Yes I always open lot of tabs to do for my jobs. Hope Waterfox team will fix this issue. I really love using waterfox. Like I said before I need mozilla alike to do for my jobs becoz easy to install addon for making my jobs easier. For now I only use waterfox and palemoon. Suggest for waterfox team, please make separately open between waterfox and firefox.
> Thanks


you can open firefox and waterfox separately.

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/

except follow the instructions for waterfox.


----------



## headcleaner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> thinkvantage password manager 4.0 not compatible with firefox?
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/806925#answer-161856
> EDIT:
> I've read the lenovo forums and i see that it should be compatible. But i'm not sure if it supports version 14 of firefox. Try downloading the latest one and make sure its a 64bit installer.


qwerty77, I never wrote that thinkvantage passwordmanger doesn't work in firefox -it doesn't work in waterfox.......you've to read carefully.

Thinkvantage password manager (64bit) _is_ installed on my T420 OS WIN7 Pro.
The 64bit installer seems to support two different things:
1. 64bit suppport for the OS (e.g. win logon)
2. supports IE9 32/64 (tested), Google Chrome (not tested) Firefox (14.0.1 tested).
Thinkvantage passwordmanager is listed as add-on, but it seems to be a plugin -it only supports firefox 32bit 'cause there's still no official firefox 64bit, I think.
So I use autofill forms in waterfox 14.0.2 and fingerprint / thinkvantage password manager in firefox 14.0.1
Process password_manager.exe is running, when i start firefox process password_manager.exe *32 is added in task manager .


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headcleaner*
> 
> qwerty77, I never wrote that thinkvantage passwordmanger doesn't work in firefox -it doesn't work in waterfox.......you've to read carefully.
> Thinkvantage password manager (64bit) _is_ installed on my T420 OS WIN7 Pro.
> The 64bit installer seems to support two different things:
> 1. 64bit suppport for the OS (e.g. win logon)
> 2. supports IE9 32/64 (tested), Google Chrome (not tested) Firefox (14.0.1 tested).
> Thinkvantage passwordmanager is listed as add-on, but it seems to be a plugin -it only supports firefox 32bit 'cause there's still no official firefox 64bit, I think.
> So I use autofill forms in waterfox 14.0.2 and fingerprint / thinkvantage password manager in firefox 14.0.1
> Process password_manager.exe is running, when i start firefox process password_manager.exe *32 is added in task manager .


Then the plugin is not 64bit then. I thought that it's an add-on so i assumed that is should work. Apologies for misinterpreting.


----------



## headcleaner

As I wrote it's listed as add-on, but it seems to be a plugin.
Would it be an add-on there should not be added the process password_manager.exe *32?!?


----------



## Kaninelupus

New error occurring since the move to the new installer... odd thing is it's only happening on the work PC but not on the machine at home (both running Win7 Pro x64).

WF works the first time after install, but once closed I cop this error when trying to load up from there on

*error: platform version '14.0.1' is not compatible with
minVersion >=13.0
maxVersion <=13.0
*

The only means of fixing I've discovered thus far is to reinstall FF14 then reinstall WF14... and that fix only lasts till WF is closed the once then re-opened... Anyone have any ideas as to a fix? I've even tried on a clean profile and no love there either.


----------



## knasen

Don't know if it's been mentioned before but something I've stumbled upon is that alt+clicking an thumbnail image won't save the image in full size, in fact wont save the image at all.

Please fix this issue soon because I use this feature a lot.


----------



## realkaka2204

I set 150 MB for cache. Sometimes the Cache clear automatic.
Beside, Waterfox 14 sometimes crash. I think Flash is cause. (I updated Flash to latest version)

I'm using windows 8 RP.


----------



## Conditioned

I like applications using a lot of memory. I have disabled swap. The more memory is used, the snappier/faster they usually are. I just dont like apps that use a lot of ram unessecarily.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Conditioned*
> 
> I like applications using a lot of memory. I have disabled swap. The more memory is used, the snappier/faster they usually are. I just dont like apps that use a lot of ram unessecarily.


Yep, thats something people don't understand. They complain that W7 uses more RAM then XP. But that is what makes it also faster. It does not make sense to have 4GB or 8 and complaining that xyz is using that much RAM. What is it got for to have 4GB and 3GB is not used - nothing.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yes and as I stated in the links I've posted earlier I don't have any problem when creating a new profile. But when I import my main tab group there, then there goes the problem. Please take note: THE PROBLEM IS ONLY PRESENT IN MY MAIN TAB GROUP EVEN WITH MY CURRENT PROFILE.


Ok, i never used tab groups (i have ToMany Tabs, TabMix Plus and Session Manager) and was looking how it works.
So it's a collection of sites. How many are in this group? Did you try to make a new one and move the ones from the group that makes problems to the new one?
You say you import the group to the new profile, so its saved. did you try to delete one site after the other in the group to check if the problem goes away?
There must be one site in that group that is responsible for the problem. Cause you say in other groups is no problem.


----------



## Hilcotebrewer

Hi Guys,

I have upgraded to 14, but have noticed that adblock plus no longer works? it was fine in 13..
I have reinstalled and installed ona clean profile, any ideas?

Many thanks


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kaninelupus*
> 
> New error occurring since the move to the new installer... odd thing is it's only happening on the work PC but not on the machine at home (both running Win7 Pro x64).
> 
> WF works the first time after install, but once closed I cop this error when trying to load up from there on
> 
> *error: platform version '14.0.1' is not compatible with
> minVersion >=13.0
> maxVersion <=13.0*
> 
> The only means of fixing I've discovered thus far is to reinstall FF14 then reinstall WF14... and that fix only lasts till WF is closed the once then re-opened... Anyone have any ideas as to a fix? I've even tried on a clean profile and no love there either.


http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser_will_not_start_up#XULRunner_error_after_an_update

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *knasen*
> 
> Don't know if it's been mentioned before but something I've stumbled upon is that alt+clicking an thumbnail image won't save the image in full size, in fact wont save the image at all.
> 
> Please fix this issue soon because I use this feature a lot.


I haven't changed any of the hotkeys, but I'll look into it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hilcotebrewer*
> 
> Hi Guys,
> 
> I have upgraded to 14, but have noticed that adblock plus no longer works? it was fine in 13..
> I have reinstalled and installed ona clean profile, any ideas?
> 
> Many thanks


Go to Addons, then disable it and enable it. Refresh the page, you should be fine.


----------



## Hilcotebrewer

yep thats working - great cheers


----------



## Playmogeek

Erreur d'analyse XML : entité non définie
Emplacement : chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
Numéro de ligne 2791, Colonne 7 :

^

any idea?


----------



## zergut

*Hyperman360*,Thanks for your great solution!








The icon issue was really annoying!


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Yep, thats something people don't understand. They complain that W7 uses more RAM then XP. But that is what makes it also faster. It does not make sense to have 4GB or 8 and complaining that xyz is using that much RAM. What is it got for to have 4GB and 3GB is not used - nothing.


totally agree


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Playmogeek*
> 
> Erreur d'analyse XML : entité non définie
> Emplacement : chrome://browser/content/browser.xul
> Numéro de ligne 2791, Colonne 7 :
> 
> ^
> any idea?


http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/2950_50#post_17802909
this maybe?


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Yep, thats something people don't understand. They complain that W7 uses more RAM then XP. But that is what makes it also faster. It does not make sense to have 4GB or 8 and complaining that xyz is using that much RAM. What is it got for to have 4GB and 3GB is not used - nothing.


You are right, I am totally agree with you too


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Ok, i never used tab groups (i have ToMany Tabs, TabMix Plus and Session Manager) and was looking how it works.
> So it's a collection of sites. How many are in this group? Did you try to make a new one and move the ones from the group that makes problems to the new one?
> You say you import the group to the new profile, so its saved. did you try to delete one site after the other in the group to check if the problem goes away?
> There must be one site in that group that is responsible for the problem. Cause you say in other groups is no problem.


Will have to try this one by one. I'll report back


----------



## sirmatto

So I went to install Waterfox 14 (I have 13 installed currently) and it failed to install due to me not having admin privileges. Waterfox 13 didn't need admin privileges to install and Firefox 14 doesn't need admin privileges to install (provided you install elsewhere than Program Files), so why all of a sudden does Waterfox 14 need admin? Is it the new installer? Is there any way around it other than downloading a portable version?


----------



## Lord Venom

Because it need to be installed into Program Files? It requiring admin privileges isn't really a big deal, honestly. Most programs do. And I'm guessing as for why it does, it's set in the installer script to require admin privileges which is honestly a good idea.


----------



## sirmatto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Because it need to be installed into Program Files? It requiring admin privileges isn't really a big deal, honestly. Most programs do. And I'm guessing as for why it does, it's set in the installer script to require admin privileges which is honestly a good idea.


Quite a few programs, on Windows 7, will attempt to install to the AppData\Local folder if they are unable to install to Program Files, due to no admin access. With Waterfox 13, I could manually select that folder and it would install and run fine. It's frustrating that now i have to request elevated privileges just to update Waterfox.


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Noticed that when I upgraded to Waterfox 14, 3-finger swipe to the right and left doesn't go back/forward anymore, but instead it is page up/down. Anyway to change this back to how it was before?

There are no issues with back/forward anywhere else in the OS, so it is definitely a Waterfox issue.

P.S. I upgraded from Waterfox 12 because 13 had plugin issues.


----------



## sfranklin1717

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sirmatto*
> 
> So I went to install Waterfox 14 (I have 13 installed currently) and it failed to install due to me not having admin privileges. Waterfox 13 didn't need admin privileges to install and Firefox 14 doesn't need admin privileges to install (provided you install elsewhere than Program Files), so why all of a sudden does Waterfox 14 need admin? Is it the new installer? Is there any way around it other than downloading a portable version?


I have the exact same problem. I don't have admin rights on my work computer (and can't get them) so it's a deal-breaker for me. The WF 13 installer didn't have this issue. I see this as a bug in the new installer. What was wrong with the old one? Can we get a setup for 14 that uses the old installer?


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Yep, thats something people don't understand. They complain that W7 uses more RAM then XP. But that is what makes it also faster. It does not make sense to have 4GB or 8 and complaining that xyz is using that much RAM. What is it got for to have 4GB and 3GB is not used - nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> totally agree
Click to expand...

Nevermind that Win 7 will recognize x so amount of RAM where XP will only recognize up to 3+change Gigs of RAM. If you have more than 4Gigs wt**** cares.


















~Ceadder


----------



## bsmith781

To the people complaining because they cannot install Waterfox 14 but currently have Waterfox 13 installed: It says right on the Waterfox download page that you MUST manually uninstall previous versions before installing Waterfox 14.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bsmith781*
> 
> To the people complaining because they cannot install Waterfox 14 but currently have Waterfox 13 installed: It says right on the Waterfox download page that you MUST manually uninstall previous versions before installing Waterfox 14.


Including the leftover files in the waterfox folder.


----------



## demoneye

if you completely uninstall wf13 in order to install wf14 , u may need to install ALL addons again??


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> if you completely uninstall wf13 in order to install wf14 , u may need to install ALL addons again??


No: your profile is stored in a separate location; just don't check the option to remove settings.


----------



## mpeg3s

Any progress on a Nvidia accelerated GUI fix?


----------



## sirmatto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Including the leftover files in the waterfox folder.


I've tried this and even tried removing the profiles folder too (I know this shouldn't affect that, but was worth a try). I can install Waterfox 13 PL1 just fine to a fresh folder, but any of the Waterfox 14 installers fail. And it's because of an internal admin rights check in the installer. Windows isn't preventing or disallowing the installation, it's the installer itself. This has never been an issue on any earlier Waterfoxes or any Firefoxes, including 14. I believe this is a regression in the new installer, and like sfranklin1717 said, a deal breaker.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sirmatto*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Including the leftover files in the waterfox folder.
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried this and even tried removing the profiles folder too (I know this shouldn't affect that, but was worth a try). I can install Waterfox 13 PL1 just fine to a fresh folder, but any of the Waterfox 14 installers fail. And it's because of an internal admin rights check in the installer. Windows isn't preventing or disallowing the installation, it's the installer itself. This has never been an issue on any earlier Waterfoxes or any Firefoxes, including 14. I believe this is a regression in the new installer, and like sfranklin1717 said, a deal breaker.
Click to expand...

Open up a command line, Waterfox 14 Setup.exe /extract. Run the .msi installer in the extracted folder.


----------



## sirmatto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Open up a command line, Waterfox 14 Setup.exe /extract. Run the .msi installer in the extracted folder.


The .msi in the extracted folder does the same thing. However, this command line switch also extracts all the Waterfox program files, so I can at least run a temporary "portable" version of Waterfox, in the same folder the install file refuses to install to.


----------



## Kevaskous

Same here, i tried all suggestions but it seems the -internal- icon path for Waterfox is incorrect, no matter what i do, when i run the program, the no icon, icon, is displayed. This -must- be a internal Waterfox issue.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s*
> 
> Any progress on a Nvidia accelerated GUI fix?


Have you any evidence that the Nvidia GUI issue is directly related to the Waterfox installer, and not a bug in the graphics driver?


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kevaskous*
> 
> Same here, i tried all suggestions but it seems the -internal- icon path for Waterfox is incorrect, no matter what i do, when i run the program, the no icon, icon, is displayed. This -must- be a internal Waterfox issue.


I saw this info this morning. It may not be of any help. But, take a look and see if it offers any ideas:
http://www.askvg.com/fix-wrong-program-or-file-opens-with-incorrect-icon-and-error-message/


----------



## Kevaskous

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I saw this info this morning. It may not be of any help. But, take a look and see if it offers any ideas:
> http://www.askvg.com/fix-wrong-program-or-file-opens-with-incorrect-icon-and-error-message/


Seems to have done the trick actually, i'll come back if it changes so far so good!


----------



## Jonny5isalivetm




----------



## Jonny5isalivetm

Hello all my last post seemed to be blank I dunno..

Just wondering for the next version of Waterfox if it could be renamed back to firefox.exe again because I can no longer use firefox preloader anymore.


----------



## Kevaskous

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jonny5isalivetm*
> 
> Hello all my last post seemed to be blank I dunno..
> Just wondering for the next version of Waterfox if it could be renamed back to firefox.exe again because I can no longer use firefox preloader anymore.


I stopped using that ages ago due to little to no benefit, just my 2cents.


----------



## meetloaf13

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I saw this info this morning. It may not be of any help. But, take a look and see if it offers any ideas:
> http://www.askvg.com/fix-wrong-program-or-file-opens-with-incorrect-icon-and-error-message/


I am experiencing the same problem. I went to try this and I did not have any of those keys, though I have the awesome "no icon" icon.

Also, I have noticed that since upgrading to 14, (in Windows 7), the program opens as if it is running as a "portable" installation. I have a shortcut that I pinned to my taskbar (which has the correct icon), but when the program starts, it shows up as a separate instance from my official WaterFox task bar icon.

I'm wondering if that has something to do with it not being named "firefox.exe", because when I click a shortcut on the jumplist of the program window it throws the following error:
"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe Unspecified Error"

UPDATE: After reading several pages back, I followed the advice to copy "waterfox.exe" and rename it to "firefox.exe"

This fixed BOTH problems described above.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s*
> 
> Any progress on a Nvidia accelerated GUI fix?


desable FXAA or reinstall cleanup driver GPU; for me this is resolved, read last post...


----------



## ChaosBlades

Don't know if this was asked before, but what is up with the benchmarks on the official site? Where they taken with a really slow computer?

This is what I am getting with Waterfox...

V8... Site... 7,241
V8... Me.... 10,090

BrowserMark... Site... 560,000
BrowserMark... Me..... 744,148

Edit: I see the system at the bottom now







. Didn't think my computer should improve the scores that much.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> Don't know if this was asked before, but what is up with the benchmarks on the official site? Where they taken with a really slow computer?
> This is what I am getting with Waterfox...
> V8... Site... 7,241
> V8... Me.... 10,090
> BrowserMark... Site... 560,000
> BrowserMark... Me..... 744,148
> Edit: I see the system at the bottom now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Didn't think my computer should improve the scores that much.


That's why those benchmarks vary from hardware to hardware. We can't really stress out that WF is faster cause we have different setups.
And like what you saw in those benchmarks, it really relies on hardware.


----------



## mpeg3s

So it was FXAA which wasn't a problem on FF13. I created a new NVIDIA profile to disable FXAA.

No more browser GUI issues, however bookmarks don't refresh icons until I goto them.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> desable FXAA or reinstall cleanup driver GPU; for me this is resolved, read last post...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mpeg3s*
> 
> So it was FXAA which wasn't a problem on FF13. I created a new NVIDIA profile to disable FXAA.
> No more browser GUI issues, however bookmarks don't refresh icons until I goto them.


What specifically is the problem of FXAA with Waterfox?

@MrAlex

Is it not recommended to rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe to fix all of the problems mentioned by users above? If not, why?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What specifically is the problem of FXAA with Waterfox?
> @MrAlex
> Is it not recommended to rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe to fix all of the problems mentioned by users above? If not, why?


It's safe to rename it. I already did that to fix the jumplist menu. I even changed the icon of waterfox to the firefox icon (using resource hacker) and replaced the omni.jar file to emulate firefox's looks. There's no harm renaming it see my screenshot below









watefox.png 630k .png file


----------



## fullmoon

I don't know, me too no problem with WF13, after a clean reinstall, my problem of black is resolved.
After I have put enable on FXAA in settings global of Nvidia panel, and the black is back; disable FXAA, no black.


----------



## Jonny5isalivetm

If I rename Waterfox to firefox I get application not found error when clicking hyperlinks..which is why I asked it to be renamed for next version..


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jonny5isalivetm*
> 
> If I rename Waterfox to firefox I get application not found error when clicking hyperlinks..which is why I asked it to be renamed for next version..


Well as for my case I haven't encountered any error after I renamed it to firefox (see my screeshot above). I just can't set it as my default browser, however it it isn't a big deal as i can just disable the pop to set it as my default browser.









Edit:

Do you mean when you open .html, .htm and .url files? If yes there is a solution for that.

Go to Control Panel>Search "Default Programs">Set Association

grtghe.png 165k .png file


Just change the program to waterfox.


----------



## Anime4000

No Safe Mode? I can't use "-safe-mode" = =


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Anime4000*
> 
> No Safe Mode? I can't use "-safe-mode" = =


Safe Mode? Isn't that the same when you go to the firefox tab then help>Restart With Add-ons Disabled and in the Troubleshooting Info "Reset Firefox"?

OR

Hold Shift while launching Waterfox.

Addtional Info here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> Noticed that when I upgraded to Waterfox 14, 3-finger swipe to the right and left doesn't go back/forward anymore, but instead it is page up/down. Anyway to change this back to how it was before?
> There are no issues with back/forward anywhere else in the OS, so it is definitely a Waterfox issue.
> P.S. I upgraded from Waterfox 12 because 13 had plugin issues.


Bump my post up! I would really like the back/forward functionality back because I really look the smoothness of Waterfox 14 over 12.


----------



## fullmoon

I've found, FXAA is not compatible with Firefox. look in settings Nvidia for firefox...
Waterfox14 isn't recognized as a firefox (then WF13, yes).


----------



## Jonny5isalivetm

Thanks man

I set Associations earlier but only on html and htm url did the trick thanks for the pointer


----------



## Taomyn

I'd like to vote for renaming the executable back to firefox.exe - I've never seen so many issue caused by such an unnecessary change, with "having to uninstall" being the most annoying.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> Noticed that when I upgraded to Waterfox 14, 3-finger swipe to the right and left doesn't go back/forward anymore, but instead it is page up/down. Anyway to change this back to how it was before?
> There are no issues with back/forward anywhere else in the OS, so it is definitely a Waterfox issue.
> P.S. I upgraded from Waterfox 12 because 13 had plugin issues.
> 
> 
> 
> Bump my post up! I would really like the back/forward functionality back because I really look the smoothness of Waterfox 14 over 12.
Click to expand...

I will look into it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> I'd like to vote for renaming the executable back to firefox.exe - I've never seen so many issue caused by such an unnecessary change, with "having to uninstall" being the most annoying.


I might have to next release.


----------



## dqwf

Mr Alex,
I dont agree with going back to firefox.exe.

First of all the problems have occurred because people cant read. It was clearly explained we needed to uninstall to install the new version. I was scared to loose my tabs but did as told and no problems for me (W8 RP x64). This is the first time we had to uninstall before installing the new version because of the the exe name change. Next time it wont be needed but if you change the name again we will have to, causing more problems. Waterfox should also try to evolve and not stay stuck with firefox.exe. We might as well go back to x32 as some plugins dont work! Move forward and fix issues to make the product better.

There are also some problems which seem to be cosmetic. Complaining about an icon, a way of docking, flash, etc. Those a not real problems or at least WF problems. If WF is crashing, is slow, has memory leaks, security issues, doesnt display pages as it should, etc. those are real problems.

I dont like the Updater, I prefer the way it was before, when I clicked the Help menu to check for updates when I wanted to but this is not a life threatening thing so I dont complaing about it. There was a way to disable it from checking for updates every time the PC was idle (this was extreme) so problem solved. Now I can check for updates when I want.

I like the project, have been using it for a while and want it to be better and not just stall to keep people happy.

Thanks for what you have done!


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> I dont agree with going back to firefox.exe.


I agree.
One thing is it's annoying to have Waterfox running but the Taskmanager shows Firefox.

I have 35 Add-Ons and my Waterfox since the beginning of Waterfox.
I did as instructed and have no problems.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> I dont like the Updater, I prefer the way it was before, when I clicked the Help menu to check for updates when I wanted to


Also agree on this one.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> Bump my post up! I would really like the back/forward functionality back because I really look the smoothness of Waterfox 14 over 12.


What laptop/touchpad do you have? I have an Elantech touchpad and my 3 finger page forwards/backwards still works just fine with WF14. Have you tried reinstalling your touchpad drivers? Or if your laptop is old, then you should try to find drivers for a newer laptop that uses the same brand touchpad and download it's drivers (neat trick that a lot of Synaptics users of older laptops did when they released multi-touch drivers a couple of years back so that their old laptops could get the new features).


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> What laptop/touchpad do you have? I have an Elantech touchpad and my 3 finger page forwards/backwards still works just fine with WF14. Have you tried reinstalling your touchpad drivers? Or if your laptop is old, then you should try to find drivers for a newer laptop that uses the same brand touchpad and download it's drivers (neat trick that a lot of Synaptics users of older laptops did when they released multi-touch drivers a couple of years back so that their old laptops could get the new features).


I have an Asus Zenbook Prime UX32VD which also has an Elantech touchpad. Also, I am already on the latest drivers. The 3 finger back/forward works fine in WF12 so it is not the drivers. I have also tried reinstalling WF14, but that didn't fix the issue.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I will look into it.


Thank you very much!


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> I have an Asus Zenbook Prime UX32VD which also has an Elantech touchpad. Also, I am already on the latest drivers. The 3 finger back/forward works fine in WF12 so it is not the drivers. I have also tried reinstalling WF14, but that didn't fix the issue.
> Thank you very much!


Double weird, I'm on an ASUS N53SV and am going fine. I know I've had a couple of the special functions stop working once, and I opened up the touchpad's properties (right click the Elan Smart-Pad icon on the lower right, and select Property of Smart-Pad, go to the ELAN tab of the new window, then hit Options) and then I disabled those features that weren't working, Applied/OK'd out of the windows, then reopened them and re-enabled everything and it start working again, so maybe try that? Also, does it still work in other browsers or Windows Explorer? I usually find Explorer to hate my touchpad gestures the most xP


----------



## seti

I wouldn't change the name either...I am behind moving forward with the project and agree with nearly everything dqwf said in his post. I have not had issue one with this new release and I haven't had to make any tweaks to make it so. You are doing a great job with WF Alex...can't thank you enough.


----------



## Lord Venom

To those whom don't like the new updater, there's probably nothing that can be done about that one as in the past many had problems with the built-in updater.


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> Double weird, I'm on an ASUS N53SV and am going fine. I know I've had a couple of the special functions stop working once, and I opened up the touchpad's properties (right click the Elan Smart-Pad icon on the lower right, and select Property of Smart-Pad, go to the ELAN tab of the new window, then hit Options) and then I disabled those features that weren't working, Applied/OK'd out of the windows, then reopened them and re-enabled everything and it start working again, so maybe try that? Also, does it still work in other browsers or Windows Explorer? I usually find Explorer to hate my touchpad gestures the most xP


All touchpad functionality works perfectly in Explorer. it is definitely a Waterfox 14 issue. I have tried your fix and it didn't work either :'( Also, I find it annoying that when I ask Waterfox to restore my previous session, tabs aren't loaded until I view them. This wasn't an issue in WF12 and I was wondering if I can get them to all load up again? Lastly, WF constantly asks me to make it the default browser even though I say yes. Anyone else having this issue?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> Lastly, WF constantly asks me to make it the default browser even though I say yes. Anyone else having this issue?


Make a shortcut from the waterfox.exe (Send to Desktop) then launch it from there then if the prompt appears select yes. I think this only occurs when you rename the waterfox.exe to firefox.exe cause that is what happened on mine when i renamed it. I just disable the prompt to set it as default.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> All touchpad functionality works perfectly in Explorer. it is definitely a Waterfox 14 issue. I have tried your fix and it didn't work either :'( Also, I find it annoying that when I ask Waterfox to restore my previous session, tabs aren't loaded until I view them. This wasn't an issue in WF12 and I was wondering if I can get them to all load up again? Lastly, WF constantly asks me to make it the default browser even though I say yes. Anyone else having this issue?


Hmm... not sure what do do about the touchpad then :/ Have you tried toggling the touchpad off and on? Seems silly, but who knows xP Maybe try uninstalling touchpad drivers, restarting computer, reinstalling touchpad drivers, and then restart once more?

As for the tabs reloading thing, I had the same problem with WF13 and figured out that somehow the "browser.sessionstore.restore_on_demand" setting got changed. Not sure if this is something that got messed up on Alex's end or if it's unique to us, you're the only other person I have seen to complain about it. But to fix it, just go to about:config and find that setting and change it to "3" and you should be back to normal


----------



## JackDinn

hi,

Please help, i just cant seem to be able to uninstall waterfox.

its not showing in the programs and features (add remove programs) , if i run the waterfox installer again it has an remove option but its still there, if i try to run firefox it runs waterfox instead ?

im really confused

im on WF 14.0.1 (just installed it but it crashed after install with some weird errors) , i did uninstall the previous version first. I just thought o well its no problem i'll just uninstall it and re-install but i just cant figure out how to.

any help please.

thx.


----------



## Conditioned

Just delete the folder, the profile (if you dont want to use firefox ofc) and start whatever browser you want to use and select 'yes' when it asks you if you want it as default.


----------



## tuman18

*MrAlex*, can you upload somewhere source files or this new release with "old installer"? For a long time I have portable version of waterfox, and when it was updating I've just opened installer like an archive and copied files from "core" folder to my "firefox" folder. Now new version of installer has this .rsrc and .data files so I can't just copy it to destination folder, and if I copy files from ordinary installed waterfox to my portable waterfox folder - it just not working.
Sorry for my language, English not my native.


----------



## JackDinn

well i did try to delete the WF folder but it was locked by something using it at the time ( it wasn't WF running ^^) , but i was more concerned if there was any reg entries to deal with?

i assume not.

cheers

p.s. its not that i dont want to use WF im just trying to remove it so i can re-install it properly


----------



## seti

Jack Dinn - Do you have admin rights to your machine? Right click the taskbar and go to task manager to see if you see the waterfox.exe/firefox.exe task running. If so, right click on the process and choose to stop/kill that process. Flash sometimes gets hung up with WF/FF leaving some components running even thought the program has been closed. As a matter of fact both WF and FF had an issue with Add-ons hanging a while back. Haven't seen that on 14 though. Hope that helps!


----------



## JackDinn

cheers, it was the divx updater that was holding it, i have now removed WF and am back on FF.

I might re-install WF at some point but i had problems last time like the shortcuts it made pointed to the x86 programfiles folder for some reason and i couldn't get the divx vod plugin to work either and then there was the odd crash when i first run it. Probably just me being an idiot.

However im sure ill give it another go shortly as iv been using it for a long while now and was always quite happy with it apart from the non-working auto update.

Thx,
jd.


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> First of all the problems have occurred because people cant read. It was clearly explained we needed to uninstall to install the new version.


Sorry, but I find that a condescending statement and personally insulting - I as many others did as it was asked, uninstalled first and had nearly all the issues simply because the name is different. So no, you are totally incorrect. If it was that important the installer should have been programmed to refuse to install when discovering an older version - app development 101!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> I was scared to loose


You mean "lose" unless you were frightened to set your tabs free to roam the world unhindered
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> my tabs but did as told and no problems for me (W8 RP x64). This is the first time we had to uninstall before installing the new version because of the the exe name change. Next time it wont be needed but if you change the name again we will have to, causing more problems.


Or fixing even more problems by going back and having them never to return. Many have probably either not bothered with v14 yet or have gone back to v13 waiting for a proper release.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Waterfox should also try to evolve and not stay stuck with firefox.exe. We might as well go back to x32 as some plugins dont work! Move forward and fix issues to make the product better.


What evolution - the coding is still Mozilla's Firefox and this project will pretty much die in the near future once Mozilla themselves start to release 64bit versions. The writing's on the wall and I'm sure they'll the appreciate the efforts of this project to make their own release as good if not better.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> There are also some problems which seem to be cosmetic. Complaining about an icon, a way of docking, flash, etc. Those a not real problems or at least WF problems.


Yes it is - you try dealing with support calls for people because of such "cosmetic" things. It's these kinds of issues that make the product look untested and unprofessional, neither of which are true, but that's the impression given.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> If WF is crashing, is slow, has memory leaks, security issues, doesnt display pages as it should, etc. those are real problems.


Yes they are, and WF 14 seems to have these also - I've never had WF processes crash on me so many times, in fact v13 never did that I can recall.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> I dont like the Updater, I prefer the way it was before, when I clicked the Help menu to check for updates when I wanted to but this is not a life threatening thing so I dont complaing about it. There was a way to disable it from checking for updates every time the PC was idle (this was extreme) so problem solved. Now I can check for updates when I want.
> I like the project, have been using it for a while and want it to be better and not just stall to keep people happy.


The WF updater or even what Mozilla uses have not been popular with me either, but at least it's not as insidious as Google's Chrome updater - a real pain to remove. The updater should be an installer option so we can choose to not use it.

Also is Waterfox a "fork" of Firefox? If not, then the name should remain Firefox as it's purely a recompile of the official source code - what add-on or 3rd party app developer is going to support a niche version of Firefox just because their code is looking for the official executable name.


----------



## chilinmichael

I can tell you my ongoing Adobe/Waterfox issue was infact the fault of my video card overclock setting. Though it passed all normal tests in a benchmark, it apparently was causing issues. I set it back to stock and now not a single problem! Waterfox works with most of my plugins/addons without issue. The only two I have are Logitech FlowScroll and Logitech Device Detection, which, I've contacted Logitech asking them to update both.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Also is Waterfox a "fork" of Firefox? If not, then the name should remain Firefox as it's purely a recompile of the official source code - what add-on or 3rd party app developer is going to support a niche version of Firefox just because their code is looking for the official executable name.


Fork or not, the name "Firefox" can't be used since it violates the trademark of firefox. ALL unofficial builds built from the firefox code can't use the name "firefox" as its official branding.

See trademark logo, branding and visual identity section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox


----------



## Trommy

All hello. I`m use Waterfox at 12.0 version. WF like me better than original FF. Goodjob, brothas)) thnx
==========================================
But i very sad, that build only install-version, not also portable. Last year i discovered for myself an portable-soft, and forget what is installation







.
But i havn`t search Waterfox 13.0 on portable variable in all net







My attempts in SpoonStudio and VMware ThinApp is no effect too








I build portable WF13.0 only on "shortcut-method (in appearence of shortcut to wf.exe write path to you profile)"
And i have very painfull question: whether to wait portable-version or "DIY"?
P.S.:Sorry for my "albanian"







, eng isn`t my native lang.
=======================
2nd question: If i copy-past myself profile (folder profile) from 13.0 to 14.0, is it worked? Because i have much visual-tabs on Fast-Dial add-on and don`t want lost them


----------



## byteninja2

Installed waterfox as soon as I rebuilt my PC, just wanted to try it out, but I guess now its my permanant browser!


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Sorry, but I find that a condescending statement and personally insulting - I as many others did as it was asked, uninstalled first and had nearly all the issues simply because the name is different. So no, you are totally incorrect. If it was that important the installer should have been programmed to refuse to install when discovering an older version - app development 101!
> You mean "lose" unless you were frightened to set your tabs free to roam the world unhindered
> Or fixing even more problems by going back and having them never to return. Many have probably either not bothered with v14 yet or have gone back to v13 waiting for a proper release.
> What evolution - the coding is still Mozilla's Firefox and this project will pretty much die in the near future once Mozilla themselves start to release 64bit versions. The writing's on the wall and I'm sure they'll the appreciate the efforts of this project to make their own release as good if not better.
> Yes it is - you try dealing with support calls for people because of such "cosmetic" things. It's these kinds of issues that make the product look untested and unprofessional, neither of which are true, but that's the impression given.
> Yes they are, and WF 14 seems to have these also - I've never had WF processes crash on me so many times, in fact v13 never did that I can recall.
> The WF updater or even what Mozilla uses have not been popular with me either, but at least it's not as insidious as Google's Chrome updater - a real pain to remove. The updater should be an installer option so we can choose to not use it.
> Also is Waterfox a "fork" of Firefox? If not, then the name should remain Firefox as it's purely a recompile of the official source code - what add-on or 3rd party app developer is going to support a niche version of Firefox just because their code is looking for the official executable name.


"condescending statement and personally insulting" ha ha ha. did I make you cry?

You seem to talk very bad about WF. Why do you use it if it is so bad? There are other browsers out there. I am glad WF exists as Mozilla and Google dont have the b...s to release a x64 version of FF or Chrome. WF14 works perfectly for me.

If you have your degree in "app development" and know so much about "forks", why dont you "recompile" your own FF?

Be warned, there might have been some more grammar or spelling mistakes in this post.


----------



## TheHunter

well i still have occasional flash crash.. Usually its only if i open new flash link to quickly.

WF12 was immune to it, guess its a mix of both newer FF and adobe flash..


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sirmatto*
> 
> So I went to install Waterfox 14 (I have 13 installed currently) and it failed to install due to me not having admin privileges. Waterfox 13 didn't need admin privileges to install and Firefox 14 doesn't need admin privileges to install (provided you install elsewhere than Program Files), so why all of a sudden does Waterfox 14 need admin? Is it the new installer? Is there any way around it other than downloading a portable version?


I'll look into the Admin permissions. You should be able to install WITHOUT admin permissions, I made sure of it but for some reason it's not working.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackDinn*
> 
> cheers, it was the divx updater that was holding it, i have now removed WF and am back on FF.
> 
> I might re-install WF at some point but i had problems last time like the shortcuts it made pointed to the x86 programfiles folder for some reason and i couldn't get the divx vod plugin to work either and then there was the odd crash when i first run it. Probably just me being an idiot.
> 
> However im sure ill give it another go shortly as iv been using it for a long while now and was always quite happy with it apart from the non-working auto update.
> 
> Thx,
> jd.


Yeah unfortunately DivX have to release a 64-Bit plugin.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> I can tell you my ongoing Adobe/Waterfox issue was infact the fault of my video card overclock setting. Though it passed all normal tests in a benchmark, it apparently was causing issues. I set it back to stock and now not a single problem! Waterfox works with most of my plugins/addons without issue. The only two I have are Logitech FlowScroll and Logitech Device Detection, which, I've contacted Logitech asking them to update both.


Great to hear things are sorted!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> All hello. I`m use Waterfox at 12.0 version. WF like me better than original FF. Goodjob, brothas)) thnx
> ==========================================
> But i very sad, that build only install-version, not also portable. Last year i discovered for myself an portable-soft, and forget what is installation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> But i havn`t search Waterfox 13.0 on portable variable in all net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My attempts in SpoonStudio and VMware ThinApp is no effect too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I build portable WF13.0 only on "shortcut-method (in appearence of shortcut to wf.exe write path to you profile)"
> And i have very painfull question: whether to wait portable-version or "DIY"?
> P.S.:Sorry for my "albanian"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , eng isn`t my native lang.
> =======================
> 2nd question: If i copy-past myself profile (folder profile) from 13.0 to 14.0, is it worked? Because i have much visual-tabs on Fast-Dial add-on and don`t want lost them


You can get a portable version by using the /extract command on the installer. But I might release a portable version soon. Also you can use the Profile Manager just like Firefox, to set profiles. It should do it automatically though without any problems.

-----

Ju mund të merrni një version të mbartshëm duke përdorur komandën /extract në installer. Por unë mund të nxjerrë një version portativ së shpejti. Gjithashtu ju mund të përdorni Manager Profile ashtu si Firefox, për të ngritur profilet. Ajo duhet të bëjë atë automatikisht edhe pse pa ndonjë problem.
I përdorur Google Translate kështu që shpresojmë se ju mund të kuptoni më mirë.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> well i still have occasional flash crash.. Usually its only if i open new flash link to quickly.
> 
> WF12 was immune to it, guess its a mix of both newer FF and adobe flash..


I get it sometimes too, but it occurs only on certain websites. YouTube works flawlessy, as do the majority of flash websites though.


----------



## deadman3000

Bug: When you pin Waterfox to the taskbar in Windows 7 and then launch the program it creates a second icon on the taskbar. There should only be one icon on the taskbar which should highlight when in use and place itself over the pinned icon instead of creating a new one.


----------



## Hyperman360

Okay, I've got a question/problem. Whenever I run the Waterfox Updater, nothing comes up. It doesn't show anything new in the processes in Task Manager either. Shouldn't something happen?


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hyperman360*
> 
> Okay, I've got a question/problem. Whenever I run the Waterfox Updater, nothing comes up. It doesn't show anything new in the processes in Task Manager either. Shouldn't something happen?


Yes. I didn't checked the taskmanager but there is no feedback from the updater.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hyperman360*
> 
> Okay, I've got a question/problem. Whenever I run the Waterfox Updater, nothing comes up. It doesn't show anything new in the processes in Task Manager either. Shouldn't something happen?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Hyperman360*
> 
> Okay, I've got a question/problem. Whenever I run the Waterfox Updater, nothing comes up. It doesn't show anything new in the processes in Task Manager either. Shouldn't something happen?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes. I didn't checked the taskmanager but there is no feedback from the updater.
Click to expand...

The updater is now silent. You won't get any notice until an update is available.


----------



## Trommy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> You can get a portable version by using the /extract command on the installer. But I might release a portable version soon. Also you can use the Profile Manager just like Firefox, to set profiles. It should do it automatically though without any problems.
> 
> Ju mund të merrni një version të mbartshëm duke përdorur komandën /extract në installer. Por unë mund të nxjerrë një version portativ së shpejti. Gjithashtu ju mund të përdorni Manager Profile ashtu si Firefox, për të ngritur profilet. Ajo duhet të bëjë atë automatikisht edhe pse pa ndonjë problem.
> I përdorur Google Translate kështu që shpresojmë se ju mund të kuptoni më mirë.


Thnx for this rapidly answer =) Unpacked work correctly) And what is Profile Manager? Never see it...

(But 2nd lang isnt mine. I`m from Russia







Better answer on Eng) I understand that. Thnx for understanding me)


----------



## JamesMsmith777

Hey guys,

I am having these these errors appear whenever I start waterfox with version 14. Can anyone help?

http://db.tt/DsCBVwEj
http://db.tt/VlpCMDsV


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Fork or not, the name "Firefox" can't be used since it violates the trademark of firefox. ALL unofficial builds built from the firefox code can't use the name "firefox" as its official branding.
> See trademark logo, branding and visual identity section: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox


Thanks, but I suppose my question was more aimed and the name of the executable not the product which of course can't be the same, and isn't anyway hence the name Waterfox.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The updater is now silent. You won't get any notice until an update is available.


Some feedback like "up to date" would be better i think. It's like nothing is happening. What if maybe the connection to the server did not work.


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Some feedback like "up to date" would be better i think. It's like nothing is happening. What if maybe the connection to the server did not work.


Agree.


----------



## kennyparker1337

*MrAlex: Are you planning on getting Waterfox officially "compatible" for Windows 8?*

I use quotations because it works fine as far as I can tell. Would love an official test done by you.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JamesMsmith777*
> 
> Hey guys,
> I am having these these errors appear whenever I start waterfox with version 14. Can anyone help?
> http://db.tt/DsCBVwEj
> http://db.tt/VlpCMDsV


clean install, read last post...


----------



## kpopsaranghae

It seems that my 3 finger swipe issue has spread. Not only does it not work in WF14, but it doesn't work in WF12 or FF14 X.x The functionality is still there in things like Explorer, so I know it's not a hardware or software issue. I also have the latest drivers from the Asus website....

For the life of me, I can't figure out what's wrong.

EDIT: It even works in Internet Explorer... Effing INTERNET EXPLORER @[email protected]$%*@%*!(!%!)$!)%!)%!#)%!) XD


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> *MrAlex: Are you planning on getting Waterfox officially "compatible" for Windows 8?*
> I use quotations because it works fine as far as I can tell. Would love an official test done by you.


Have been using it with W8 since RP was available. No problems so far.

Did have some issues when I installed some unofficial nvidia drivers but went back to the official ones and everything was back to normal.


----------



## Gawet

I've been using the version 13 for the last months and today i tried upgrading to the 14.0.2 without succes...
I uninstalled the version 13 while making sure not to tick the remove personal data box. i installed the new version successfully but when i try to run it i have this error message :

waterfox.png 34k .png file

(yeah i'm french)
i have no idea what this message means, and it's talking about chrome ??! I'm confused

translation to english :
xml analysis error : entity not defined
location : chrome://blahblahblah
line number 2791, column 7 :

Someone please help ?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gawet*
> 
> I've been using the version 13 for the last months and today i tried upgrading to the 14.0.2 without succes...
> I uninstalled the version 13 while making sure not to tick the remove personal data box. i installed the new version successfully but when i try to run it i have this error message :
> 
> waterfox.png 34k .png file
> 
> (yeah i'm french)
> i have no idea what this message means, and it's talking about chrome ??! I'm confused
> translation to english :
> xml analysis error : entity not defined
> location : chrome://blahblahblah
> line number 2791, column 7 :
> Someone please help ?


Try this: in your profile's prefs.js check the value of general.useragent.locale. If it isn't en-US or for your case french, set it to that and try again(from en-US to en-fr). Then install the appropriate language pack and set it to the right locale.

Also try starting waterfox on safe mode. Hold Shift while launching waterfox. just click continue to safe mode. Usually this is just an add-on error. But if other options fail then try a fresh profile.

Or uninstall WF again including the waterfox folder on the program files. (Not your profile folder) Then try reinstalling it one more time. If all else fails... i don't know anymore XD


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gawet*
> 
> I've been using the version 13 for the last months and today i tried upgrading to the 14.0.2 without succes...
> I uninstalled the version 13 while making sure not to tick the remove personal data box. i installed the new version successfully but when i try to run it i have this error message :
> 
> waterfox.png 34k .png file
> 
> (yeah i'm french)
> i have no idea what this message means, and it's talking about chrome ??! I'm confused
> translation to english :
> xml analysis error : entity not defined
> location : chrome://blahblahblah
> line number 2791, column 7 :
> Someone please help ?


Exactement, tu as oublier de mettre à jour le langage pack avant de mettre à jour WF, demarre avec shift maintenu, desactive add-on, met à jour la langue.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Exactement, tu as oublier de mettre à jour le langage pack avant de mettre à jour WF, demarre avec shift maintenu, desactive add-on, met à jour la langue.


Je ne suis pas tout seul il y'a des français ici


----------



## kennyparker1337

Vous devriez essayer de traduire vos commentaires à l'anglais. Je ne pense pas que d'autres langues peuvent être utilisées sur OCN. Juste un conseil.









(Soit dit en passant, je me sers d'un traducteur. Comme si cela n'est pas évident).


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Vous devriez essayer de traduire vos commentaires à l'anglais. Je ne pense pas que d'autres langues peuvent être utilisées sur OCN. Juste un conseil.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Soit dit en passant, je me sers d'un traducteur. Comme si cela n'est pas évident).


Oui, mais celui-là, je l'ai déja répèté plusieurs fois avant...








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pierredupont17*
> 
> Je ne suis pas tout seul il y'a des français ici


----------



## tyrannor

Had to disable and enable AdBlockPlus to get it working.


----------



## InsaneO

Something is seriously wrong with version 14. Many sites do not work right. Text is all over the place. On some sites I can't get in to my account. It just sits there displaying "Connecting".
Version 14 is not even on the list of programs to uninstall. Before it was on the list I could click Uninstall but the menu did not have that option. All it had was Repair and other 3 options but not Uninstall.
I had no choice but to install version 13 over it.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InsaneO*
> 
> Something is seriously wrong with version 14. Many sites do not work right. Text is all over the place. On some sites I can't get in to my account. It just sits there displaying "Connecting".
> Version 14 is not even on the list of programs to uninstall. Before it was on the list I could click Uninstall but the menu did not have that option. All it had was Repair and other 3 options but not Uninstall.
> I had no choice but to install version 13 over it.


give the links that have problems because you are the first to defer.


----------



## Gawet

Merci c'était bien ça ! Je n'ai pas trouvé comment mettre a jour le language pack alors finalement j'ai gardé en anglais !
En tout cas c'est encore plus rapide que la version 13 =)


----------



## EnigmaNL

I just recently found out about Waterfox and I've been trying it for a couple of days. I really like it, it seems to be faster and much more stable than regular Firefox. With Firefox 14 I've been getting a lot of freezes with Youtube (like many other people have experienced as well) and that doesn't happen with Waterfox so I'm really pleased about that.

There's two things I haven't been able to solve. How do I get Waterfox in Dutch and how do I install the Dutch dictionary (for spell check)? I can't find a Dutch language pack anywhere and the Firefox site won't let me install the Dutch dictionary.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EnigmaNL*
> 
> I just recently found out about Waterfox and I've been trying it for a couple of days. I really like it, it seems to be faster and much more stable than regular Firefox. With Firefox 14 I've been getting a lot of freezes with Youtube (like many other people have experienced as well) and that doesn't happen with Waterfox so I'm really pleased about that.
> There's two things I haven't been able to solve. How do I get Waterfox in Dutch and how do I install the Dutch dictionary (for spell check)? I can't find a Dutch language pack anywhere and the Firefox site won't let me install the Dutch dictionary.


https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/language-tools/


----------



## EnigmaNL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/language-tools/


That's not helping in any way, did you even read what I wrote?

That page won't let me install the Dutch dictionary and there is no language pack there either.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EnigmaNL*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/language-tools/
> 
> 
> 
> That's not helping in any way, did you even read what I wrote?
> 
> That page won't let me install the Dutch dictionary and there is no language pack there either.
Click to expand...

He read what you wrote, and was just giving you a link to a generic page with language packs on it.

You can install the dictionary anyways (click "Add to Firefox", click "Install Anyways"), and see how well it works with this version.









The Dutch language pack may not simply exist and as of now, I think, Waterfox build is English only.









If you want to use Firefox in Dutch you may have to actually use a Firefox build instead of Waterfox.
Quote:


> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/all.html
> *
> Firefox (Dutch) [Nederlands] v14.0.1*
> 1. Windows
> 2. MAC OS X
> 3. Linux


----------



## jjpjimmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vicpdx19*
> 
> In regards to that I just updated my flash for water fox and got the plugin container has stopped working message. I noticed that with waterfox v13 pl1. Before I updated flash to the newer version I found that it worked fine with water fox.
> Problematic Flash: 11.3.300.262
> Working flash: 11.3.300.257


Thanks, build 257 fixes the "plugincontainer.exe has crashed" when loading a video after another in waterfox. 10.3 wasn't a solution because it doesn't have x64 builds and 11.2 still kept crashing as well.


----------



## dlee7283

anyway to get AVX/AES support?

.I know SSE3 and SSE4 make no sense because they are really for futureproof versions of the internet that use heavy media instructions and Microsoft hasnt published enough for programmers to work with on them in WIndows. According to the PaleMoon guys that is.


----------



## MarcF

I'm having an odd issue that I could use some help with.

Any add-on's that don't need a restart to install (or to enable) seem to randomly not be on when I start the program (Ad block is one of these, as others have mentioned Ad Block.)

I've tried a clean installation with both Firefox and Waterfox removed with any extra folders (minus my profile folders) removed before reinstallation and the issue seems to stick.

After awhile I noticed the only add-on's it happened to were the ones that don't need a restart after installation (as I mentioned above.)

After it started, right after installing Waterfox 14, it appears it carries over to Firefox now (although I'm not sure if that's the randomness, or just the 'state' Waterfox left them in.)

Any help would be appreciated.


----------



## geotek

I love to use waterfox - but V.14.0.1 and 14.0.2 are unusable for me because the master password feature seems to be broken. If you set a master password you are never prompted to enter the password after starting waterfox and browsing a password protected URL. When will this bug be fixed? Is there a workaround for this issue?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjpjimmy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Vicpdx19*
> 
> In regards to that I just updated my flash for water fox and got the plugin container has stopped working message. I noticed that with waterfox v13 pl1. Before I updated flash to the newer version I found that it worked fine with water fox.
> Problematic Flash: 11.3.300.262
> Working flash: 11.3.300.257
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, build 257 fixes the "plugincontainer.exe has crashed" when loading a video after another in waterfox. 10.3 wasn't a solution because it doesn't have x64 builds and 11.2 still kept crashing as well.
Click to expand...

I'm not having any problems with the newest flash version 11.3.300.*270*


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EnigmaNL*
> 
> I just recently found out about Waterfox and I've been trying it for a couple of days. I really like it, it seems to be faster and much more stable than regular Firefox. With Firefox 14 I've been getting a lot of freezes with Youtube (like many other people have experienced as well) and that doesn't happen with Waterfox so I'm really pleased about that.
> 
> There's two things I haven't been able to solve. How do I get Waterfox in Dutch and how do I install the Dutch dictionary (for spell check)? I can't find a Dutch language pack anywhere and the Firefox site won't let me install the Dutch dictionary.


You can use the language packs from here:

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/14.0.1/win32/xpi/

As for the dictionary, there shouldn't be any issues about installing it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> anyway to get AVX/AES support?
> 
> .I know SSE3 and SSE4 make no sense because they are really for futureproof versions of the internet that use heavy media instructions and Microsoft hasnt published enough for programmers to work with on them in WIndows. According to the PaleMoon guys that is.


Waterfox is compiled with SSE3 and AVX:

http://waterfoxproject.org/faq/ under "What makes it fast"

For /arch:SSE3

Quote:


> Code generated with these options should execute on any compatible, non-Intel processor with support for the corresponding instruction set.


For /QaxAVX

Quote:


> May generate Intel® AVX, Intel® SSE4.2, SSE4.1, SSSE3, SSE3, SSE2 and SSE instructions.


SSE3 is a requirement to run Waterfox, but AVX runs only if you have a compatible processor.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarcF*
> 
> I'm having an odd issue that I could use some help with.
> 
> Any add-on's that don't need a restart to install (or to enable) seem to randomly not be on when I start the program (Ad block is one of these, as others have mentioned Ad Block.)
> 
> I've tried a clean installation with both Firefox and Waterfox removed with any extra folders (minus my profile folders) removed before reinstallation and the issue seems to stick.
> 
> After awhile I noticed the only add-on's it happened to were the ones that don't need a restart after installation (as I mentioned above.)
> 
> After it started, right after installing Waterfox 14, it appears it carries over to Firefox now (although I'm not sure if that's the randomness, or just the 'state' Waterfox left them in.)
> 
> Any help would be appreciated.


ABP works fine for me? The issue only occurs once, when installing Waterfox. I haven't heard anyone else with the issue occurring after though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geotek*
> 
> I love to use waterfox - but V.14.0.1 and 14.0.2 are unusable for me because the master password feature seems to be broken. If you set a master password you are never prompted to enter the password after starting waterfox and browsing a password protected URL. When will this bug be fixed? Is there a workaround for this issue?


I'll test out the master password feature.


----------



## Bluefist

I've been having a problem with Waterfox, I've been using it for a couple months now, but recently (I think after v14) some addons are disabled when I start it. Only 2 seem to be disabled, adblockplus, and reddit enhancement suite. To fix this I just go into addons and press "disable" then right after "enable". That fixes the problem, but I'd rather it be fixed by the dev.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gawet*
> 
> Merci c'était bien ça ! Je n'ai pas trouvé comment mettre a jour le language pack alors finalement j'ai gardé en anglais !
> En tout cas c'est encore plus rapide que la version 13 =)


http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/1200_50#post_15686286
http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/1200_50#post_15695611
http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/1350_50#post_16009787


----------



## MarcF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bluefist*
> 
> I've been having a problem with Waterfox, I've been using it for a couple months now, but recently (I think after v14) some addons are disabled when I start it. Only 2 seem to be disabled, adblockplus, and reddit enhancement suite. To fix this I just go into addons and press "disable" then right after "enable". That fixes the problem, but I'd rather it be fixed by the dev.


This seems to match my issue.

Are those the only 2 add-ons you have that can be disabled and enabled without restarting Waterfox?


----------



## Lord Venom

It happens with Pale Moon too. Just disable the extensions then enable them again and they should work. Perhaps it's some kind of Firefox restartless extension bug in Adblock Plus' case?


----------



## MarcF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> It happens with Pale Moon too. Just disable the extensions then enable them again and they should work. Perhaps it's some kind of Firefox restartless extension bug in Adblock Plus' case?


Yeah, but the issue is, it keeps happening, over and over again.


----------



## Deadmauz

Hello folks. I like Waterfox so far, but i´ve got a problem with Youtube lately.

Whenever i´m opening a Youtube Video, i get the Error, that there is a problem loading this page and that the connection was reset.
I tried youtube with IE and it worked. Every other Page runs fine on WF, it´s just Youtube that is making me trouble.

I cleared my cage so far, made a clean reinstall of WF and reinstalled flash etc. but i sill get this error page.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deadmauz*
> 
> Hello folks. I like Waterfox so far, but i´ve got a problem with Youtube lately.
> Whenever i´m opening a Youtube Video, i get the Error, that there is a problem loading this page and that the connection was reset.
> I tried youtube with IE and it worked. Every other Page runs fine on WF, it´s just Youtube that is making me trouble.
> I cleared my cage so far, made a clean reinstall of WF and reinstalled flash etc. but i sill get this error page.


test with a clean profile maybe?


----------



## waltdisneypixar

i have just installed it for the first time and all addons enable, everything is fine

and i had a page with adobe crashing all the time and firefox restarting

and now with Waterfox , i opened that page and opened many tabs from that page and 0 problems!!!













































i recommend all of you reading and thinking about switching


----------



## zgreeeg

I have waterfox, and one from addons are adblock plus.For some reason ( I don't know why) ~ one for week on Waterfox adblock gone and I must reinstal this addon.This is frustrating







. Of course before I install waterfox i had firefox an all setings are from them.


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MarcF*
> 
> I'm having an odd issue that I could use some help with.
> Any add-on's that don't need a restart to install (or to enable) seem to randomly not be on when I start the program (Ad block is one of these, as others have mentioned Ad Block.)
> I've tried a clean installation with both Firefox and Waterfox removed with any extra folders (minus my profile folders) removed before reinstallation and the issue seems to stick.
> After awhile I noticed the only add-on's it happened to were the ones that don't need a restart after installation (as I mentioned above.)
> After it started, right after installing Waterfox 14, it appears it carries over to Firefox now (although I'm not sure if that's the randomness, or just the 'state' Waterfox left them in.)
> Any help would be appreciated.


I saw this this the first time with AdBlock but after the disable/enable it's been fine since, however I also use on one system a test version of FEBE v3 which is only one I'm aware of that I have installed that will update without a restart, but it's randomly not loading between Waterfox sessions even after disable/enable.


----------



## bobwal

has anyone had issues logging in to their t mobile account in the us with waterfox. i have been unable to and after many calls where t mobile say that others have had similar problems on there site. im just wondering if waterfox is the problem.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobwal*
> 
> has anyone had issues logging in to their t mobile account in the us with waterfox. i have been unable to and after many calls where t mobile say that others have had similar problems on there site. im just wondering if waterfox is the problem.


Does the website load properly on other browsers, like Firefox?


----------



## bobwal

i dont know as i dont have any other. the website itself is fine as all others are , its just the log in page. it loads fine and i input my info and password and press log in and it send me to a page saying there was an error in processing your request , go back to home page. dont know what the problem is as i have not had a problem logging in up until one month ago with the same problem. when speaking to t mobile then we thought it was just a glitch at that time , looks like it is not that now. have used waterfox for a while now . according to t mobile others are having same problem


----------



## nodiaque

honestly, Waterfox 14 is worst then 13, and by far! I had some trouble with WF13 and I was "well, I'll wait, 14 will fix everything". But no, it made everything worst!

Adblock, I installed it, uninstalled it, enabled/disabled... It doesn't work. And when it works, it's for a single instance and next time the browser is launch, it doesn't work. I use sync and it's not even syncing properly (and I force the sync).

The middle click work sometime. Flash still have crashing issue where other x64 browser doesn't (and x86).

CTRL+Mouse scroll to zoom, sometime it scroll the page instead of doing the job. I also have a logitech mini dinovo where Function + page up do zoom in, but now it zoom in (sometime) and scroll up. And when I try the zoom ou (page down), it simply page down. Worked perfectly in WF13.

I also have other addons that simply stop working without asking anything (and they aren't disabled) like reddit enhancement suite. It work fine when just installed, but then you might browser reddit and it stop working for no reason.

Honestly, I'm unsure what was done, but since FF14 x64 doesn't have those issue, clearly something was wrong in simply compiling with only x64 code.

Oh, and the download link says 14.0.2, the frontpage says 14.0.2, the install package file name is 14.0.2, but the about page, installation package and uninstall package says 14.0.1...


----------



## BlackThought

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> honestly, Waterfox 14 is worst then 13, and by far! I had some trouble with WF13 and I was "well, I'll wait, 14 will fix everything". But no, it made everything worst!
> Adblock, I installed it, uninstalled it, enabled/disabled... It doesn't work. And when it works, it's for a single instance and next time the browser is launch, it doesn't work. I use sync and it's not even syncing properly (and I force the sync).
> The middle click work sometime. Flash still have crashing issue where other x64 browser doesn't (and x86).
> CTRL+Mouse scroll to zoom, sometime it scroll the page instead of doing the job. I also have a logitech mini dinovo where Function + page up do zoom in, but now it zoom in (sometime) and scroll up. And when I try the zoom ou (page down), it simply page down. Worked perfectly in WF13.
> I also have other addons that simply stop working without asking anything (and they aren't disabled) like reddit enhancement suite. It work fine when just installed, but then you might browser reddit and it stop working for no reason.
> Honestly, I'm unsure what was done, but since FF14 x64 doesn't have those issue, clearly something was wrong in simply compiling with only x64 code.
> Oh, and the download link says 14.0.2, the frontpage says 14.0.2, the install package file name is 14.0.2, but the about page, installation package and uninstall package says 14.0.1...


I think it's something wrong on your end.



Everything you said works for me, only issue i have is plugin container stops working when i switch monitors and maximize videos.....But a simple refresh fixes that.


----------



## MME1122

I'm having multiple issues that seem to be related to hardware acceleration. The first one I noticed was that fraps monitors waterfox in an odd way. It normally doesn't monitor it at all, and the counter appears grayish and washed out. If I turn off hardware acceleration in the options panel it goes away.

The next one is youtube videos, when put in fullscreen mode, have really bad brightness and contrast. This only happens in fullscreen though, in the normal video window everything looks fine. If I disable hardware acceleration for flash player by right clicking the video, the contrast is normal again, but the video looks like it isn't being processed right. It's looks fuzzy and jumpy.

I have a 3570K and I'm running off the igpu right now, everything is at stock. Is this is a known issue? I'd love any tips you guys have.

I'm also planning to order a 670 soon, if the igpu is causing an issue would that fix it?

Edit: I'm having nodiak's issue with adblock as well. Its very sporadic.


----------



## Annihilannic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kxtcd950*
> 
> I'm having difficulties starting Waterfox 14; I'd uninstalled WF13, and ran the WF14 installer with the defaults all accepted - I've done nothing "funny" with the install.
> However, when I start WF from any of the created shortcuts, I get a windows messagebox popup titled "waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found" and with the body text:
> "The procedure entry point [email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@[email protected]@@Z could not be located in the dynamic link library mozjs.dll."
> This message is displayed twice for each attempted start of WF14.
> I've uninstalled WF14 and re-installed it, and additionally installed the Intel x64 redistributable libraries, but no luck, WF14 just refuses to start up; there's no chrome displayed, this is the first UI element that is displayed.
> Any help would be appreciated (this was posted using FF14 instead). I've searched this thread for parts of that text, and couldn't find anything, my apologies if this has been solved before, just point me at the post I should have found


I had the same problem. I installed WF 14.0.2 over 13.0 PL1, and it turned out that the shortcut on my task bar was pointing to firefox.exe from 13.0 PL1. However at some point they have decided to rename firefox.exe to waterfox.exe; so I was still running the old exe but with newer mozjs.dll and so-on. Fix the shortcut and you should be fine.

This also mean that my "default browser" choice was broken.


----------



## wicho58

When I try to open Waterfox instead it opens Firefox
Does anyone know what the problem could be?


----------



## nodiaque

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BlackThought*
> 
> I think it's something wrong on your end.
> Everything you said works for me, only issue i have is plugin container stops working when i switch monitors and maximize videos.....But a simple refresh fixes that.


I do see all of the add-on active, but they don't always work. Weird thing is I get the same behavior on any computer, even without my sync (I though sync might be the problem). It's inconsistent. Sometime everything work, other time it doesn't.

Like right now, adblock is on, but I still have ads that are block normally.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BlackThought*
> 
> I think it's something wrong on your end.
> Everything you said works for me, only issue i have is plugin container stops working when i switch monitors and maximize videos.....But a simple refresh fixes that.
> 
> 
> 
> I do see all of the add-on active, but they don't always work. Weird thing is I get the same behavior on any computer, even without my sync (I though sync might be the problem). It's inconsistent. Sometime everything work, other time it doesn't.
> 
> Like right now, adblock is on, but I still have ads that are block normally.
Click to expand...

What kind of ads? Unless you select the option, ABP allows non-intrusive adverts.


----------



## rumblpak

I'm not sure it applies to 99% of waterfox users but because of faulty hardware detection, 3d content won't play in waterfox. The exact same content does play in firefox. Youtube3d reports an old driver version (my driver is 304.79 and its reporting older than 275.27).

3d content available here: http://www.3dvisionlive.com/content/nvidia-3d-vision-pc-0

Thanks for all the great work.


----------



## rootzreggae

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> honestly, Waterfox 14 is worst then 13, and by far! I had some trouble with WF13 and I was "well, I'll wait, 14 will fix everything". But no, it made everything worst!
> Adblock, I installed it, uninstalled it, enabled/disabled... It doesn't work. And when it works, it's for a single instance and next time the browser is launch, it doesn't work. I use sync and it's not even syncing properly (and I force the sync).
> The middle click work sometime. Flash still have crashing issue where other x64 browser doesn't (and x86).
> CTRL+Mouse scroll to zoom, sometime it scroll the page instead of doing the job. I also have a logitech mini dinovo where Function + page up do zoom in, but now it zoom in (sometime) and scroll up. And when I try the zoom ou (page down), it simply page down. Worked perfectly in WF13.
> I also have other addons that simply stop working without asking anything (and they aren't disabled) like reddit enhancement suite. It work fine when just installed, but then you might browser reddit and it stop working for no reason.
> Honestly, I'm unsure what was done, but since FF14 x64 doesn't have those issue, clearly something was wrong in simply compiling with only x64 code.
> Oh, and the download link says 14.0.2, the frontpage says 14.0.2, the install package file name is 14.0.2, but the about page, installation package and uninstall package says 14.0.1...


The problems must be in your machine, because the browser works very well, best waterfox so far


----------



## jsc1973

I've been using 14.0.1 for about a week and a half now, and haven't had a single issue with it. In fact, it's way more stable than the latest 32-bit Firefox, and feels quite a bit faster, too.

I've actually switched to using this as my default browser on my main rig.


----------



## biatche

How do I set waterfox as default browser using a script?

Previously what worked fine was:

Code:



Code:


"%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\firefox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser

The problem started when the filename changed from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe
hence

Code:



Code:


"%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser

Which doesn't seem to do anything.. I still get the default browser popup warning.

It's currently scripted to install via waterfox*setup.exe /quiet... which isn't properly/correctly/sufficiently documented btw.. had to guess that one.


----------



## vato76

I installed waterfox last night and i just wanted to point out that ive noticed some of my addons arent working. Adblocker being one of them, as mentioned by other posters as well. As well as "search for image by google". Adblocker might be a complicated program, but what about the google image search addon? why would it not work? all it does is automate the image search on their website via a right click menu option. but that option doesnt appear for me. Anyway, i use that and youtube so much im not gonna be using waterfox any more unless i can figure out why both of these addons wont work. As for speed - i dont notice any significant improvement over firefox yet.

K i just wanted to update saying that disabling and re-enabling the addons fixed the issue.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rumblpak*
> 
> I'm not sure it applies to 99% of waterfox users but because of faulty hardware detection, 3d content won't play in waterfox. The exact same content does play in firefox. Youtube3d reports an old driver version (my driver is 304.79 and its reporting older than 275.27).
> 3d content available here: http://www.3dvisionlive.com/content/nvidia-3d-vision-pc-0
> Thanks for all the great work.


plugin 3d vision in 32bit, kick nvidia for 64bit version.


----------



## beerninja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> SSE3 is a requirement to run Waterfox, but AVX runs only if you have a compatible processor.


Is it possible for you to add SSE2 backwards compatibility or is that an impossibility? If you ever add SSE4 I'm guessing all the SSE3 people will need a way to be able to use WF but I don't know anything about how programs run so maybe backwards compatibility is impossible? I just ask because I'm one of those few people with a 64 bit processor that doesn't have SSE3. I loved your previous versions of WF with SSE2.


----------



## scottjay

Been having some troubles with Waterfox 14.

Seems to be detected as a full 3D application, so graphics card by default applied anti-aliasing to text which made it look horrible, fixed by disabling hardware acceleration/changing in graphics control panel. Also, keyscrambler stopped working with waterfox.


----------



## Amigafever

Just installed WF and impressions are very good, seems to run much smoother that FF. The downloaded .exe is named 14.0.2 but help/about says 14.0.1 which is weird. The Facebook page, images and text at first seemed of lesser quality (on ATI 5670, Catalyst 12.6). Maybe something related to what scottjay mentioned - although I'm not 100% sure this quality loss actually exists - I did switch back to FF because of the KeyScrambler issue. If that is fixed, I'm back to WF.
Also, if FF is opened after using WF, the Acrobat plug-in asks for reinstallation every time.

*update:* Also, the excellent F.B. Purity extension seems to have problems between FF/WF sessions. Needs to be re-enabled every time.


----------



## seti

rumblpak - I just wanted to clarify that it has something to do with Nvidia and WF as I can run the movies fine with WF with an AMD card with the link you provided...just wanted to add that nugget of information.


----------



## virtualguy

I have tried to run the Secunia.com online software security inspector in Waterfox, but it doesn't work for me. Works in FF, Chrome and IE, but not Waterfox. Would some of you Waterfox users try it and see if it works for you? Once it starts, pay attention to the page dialog on the left where it says:

Status / Currently Processing:
Java Applet loaded successfully. Press "Start" to begin.

The second line should change as different programs are checked for their version and security status. The animated red echo bars on the right will work, but that doesn't mean anything if the java applet is not actually scanning your program files. You might want to run the Secunia scanner in your 32-bit browser first, the try Waterfox.

Let me know if it works with your Waterfox browser.

VG


----------



## biatche

MrAlex, how do we set waterfox as default browser via command line / silently?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> MrAlex, how do we set waterfox as default browser via command line / silently?


waterfox.exe -silent -setDefaultBrowser


----------



## biatche

Similar to your suggestion I've always been using:

Code:



Code:


"%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser

and I've just tested yours. Doesn't work. It still pops up asking to set as default browser.

Since changing the filename from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe, I haven't been able to silently set waterfox as default browser.

Please confirm yours work. This hasn't been working on a newly formatted pc (several of them)


----------



## bowspearer

Just updated to the latest version and get the following two error messages when starting it up, followed by it immediately crashing:



















If anyone has any ideas on how to fix this, I'd love to hear them.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Deleted.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Amigafever*
> 
> Just installed WF and impressions are very good, seems to run much smoother that FF. The downloaded .exe is named 14.0.2 but help/about says 14.0.1 which is weird. The Facebook page, images and text at first seemed of lesser quality (on ATI 5670, Catalyst 12.6). Maybe something related to what scottjay mentioned - although I'm not 100% sure this quality loss actually exists - I did switch back to FF because of the KeyScrambler issue. If that is fixed, I'm back to WF.
> Also, if FF is opened after using WF, the Acrobat plug-in asks for reinstallation every time.
> *update:* Also, the excellent F.B. Purity extension seems to have problems between FF/WF sessions. Needs to be re-enabled every time.


Its a bummer that Keyscrambler is only 32-bit.

I have the same problem with the Waterfox file numbering.

The files properties state "Waterfox 14.0.2.0"

Process Explorer identifies it as 14.0.1.4586

I'm confused.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bowspearer*
> 
> Just updated to the latest version and get the following two error messages when starting it up, followed by it immediately crashing:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If anyone has any ideas on how to fix this, I'd love to hear them.


ya, I repeat again, read the last posts.


----------



## bowspearer

Renaming the shortcut doesn't fix the problem.


----------



## fearnight2000

Hi all.
I've been using waterfox for some time now without any problems, but when i updated to version 14 i noticed that:
1. I have a "Web/Home" button on my ms keyboard that used to open up waterfox (if not already open) but it doesn't work with Version 14
2. When i click on a link from another application (msn for instance) it doesn't do anything with v 14 (normally it opened up waterfox and directed it to the link).
3. When i try to open the help file from another application (that opens via a web browser) it doesn't work either, while it used to prior to v 14.

Anyone have a solution?

Thanks in advance


----------



## ElQuia

Please does anybody know why KeyScrambler 2.9.2.0 works ok on firefox and PaleMooon x64 but NOT on Waterfox x64?


----------



## Catman51

This is working for me so much better than Firefox, but I do have 2 problems that I cannot figure out. It will not go to Gmail.com, yet Firefox and Chrome will? In Waterfox it says the page isn't redirecting properly.
Also, one forum, which works in Chrome, will not sign in, signs in but when it returns to the board page, I'm signed out again. Very odd. The forum is for Lastpass.
Thanks in advance for any help. I have tried it with Extensions disabled and no go. There are no proxies set and cookies are accepted so I know it's not that.


----------



## vacaloca

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> Similar to your suggestion I've always been using:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> "%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser
> 
> and I've just tested yours. Doesn't work. It still pops up asking to set as default browser.
> Since changing the filename from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe, I haven't been able to silently set waterfox as default browser.
> Please confirm yours work. This hasn't been working on a newly formatted pc (several of them)


I had a similar issue on my Windows 7 laptop -- when I installed Waterfox 14 and pinned it to the taskbar, the pin is created with the "firefox.exe" filename, which does not exist in the new version. The fix for me was to manually edit the pinned icon, located in: %UserProfile%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\User Pinned\TaskBar and change the filename to "waterfox.exe".

That way, when I start it from the pinned icon, it sets itself as default correctly, instead of asking over and over if I do a hard/symlink to the "firefox.exe" file. -- otherwise It would just tell me that the shortcut to the file did not exist and delete the pin. (So yes, I did a fair amount of troubleshooting for this silly issue)

Because of the firefox -> waterfox name change I ran into similar issues like:
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=329555
as well as that previous XULRunner error someone else posted a while back when I did an upgrade instead of uninstalling the app and deleting the entire folder.


----------



## biatche

Yeah I've had various issues pop up after firefox.exe --> waterfox.exe.

I don't see the point changing the filename if that's just going to complicate things and cause additional problems while not giving any performance gain.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Yesterday i updated the AMD graphics driver on Windows 8. Now i have sometimes crashes. Waterfox just closes.
And there is nothing in the windows event viewer...


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bowspearer*
> 
> Renaming the shortcut doesn't fix the problem.


http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-14-0-1-27-july-firefox-64-bit/3000_50#post_17805958


----------



## Lazdaa

Hi Guys i just installed Waterfox but i got fraps with my fps i the corner, how do i remove it? is it fraps or waterfox?


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> It's currently scripted to install via waterfox*setup.exe /quiet... which isn't properly/correctly/sufficiently documented btw.. had to guess that one.


This is good to know, but yet another change that wasn't communicated too well


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> Similar to your suggestion I've always been using:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> "%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser
> 
> and I've just tested yours. Doesn't work. It still pops up asking to set as default browser.
> Since changing the filename from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe, I haven't been able to silently set waterfox as default browser.
> Please confirm yours work. This hasn't been working on a newly formatted pc (several of them)


I confirm that this is also broken, I even tried:

Code:



Code:


"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -setDefaultBrowser

in an admin elevated command prompt and the next time I ran WF it asked me the question.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Ok, if i disable hardware acceleration then Waterfox is stable.


----------



## sfranklin1717

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sfranklin1717*
> 
> I have the exact same problem. I don't have admin rights on my work computer (and can't get them) so it's a deal-breaker for me. The WF 13 installer didn't have this issue. I see this as a bug in the new installer. What was wrong with the old one? Can we get a setup for 14 that uses the old installer?


Just in case anyone was looking for the resolution on this, downloading the latest installer then using the /extract switch worked for me. I did it this way using 14.0.2:

Find your current Waterfox folder.
Rename or delete it.
Create a new folder with the same name.
Download the Waterfox 14 installer and put it in that directory.
Open a command prompt to that directory and do this:
"Waterfox 14.0.2.exe" /extract
Recreate any shortcuts you had to point to the new waterfox.exe in that directory.

Worked like a charm, even though I could neither uninstall WF 13 or run the WF 14 installer, due to not having admin rights.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Ok, if i disable hardware acceleration then Waterfox is stable.


Yes, but h.a. is better, verify your config...


----------



## Lord Venom

Might be a Windows 8 quirk that won't be fixed in Firefox until September.


----------



## biatche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vacaloca*
> 
> I had a similar issue on my Windows 7 laptop -- when I installed Waterfox 14 and pinned it to the taskbar, the pin is created with the "firefox.exe" filename, which does not exist in the new version. The fix for me was to manually edit the pinned icon, located in: %UserProfile%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\User Pinned\TaskBar and change the filename to "waterfox.exe".
> That way, when I start it from the pinned icon, it sets itself as default correctly, instead of asking over and over if I do a hard/symlink to the "firefox.exe" file. -- otherwise It would just tell me that the shortcut to the file did not exist and delete the pin. (So yes, I did a fair amount of troubleshooting for this silly issue)
> Because of the firefox -> waterfox name change I ran into similar issues like:
> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=329555
> as well as that previous XULRunner error someone else posted a while back when I did an upgrade instead of uninstalling the app and deleting the entire folder.


There's something that's seriously annoying me related to this...

tmp-wfannoying.jpg 210k .jpg file


From LEFT to RIGHT

shortcut1 = waterfox start menu created by installer.. notice "Launch Waterfox"
before PROCEEDING further, take a look at the taskbar, notice that there are two pinned waterfox shortcuts. the first is shortcut2 and the second is shortcut3. because clicking shortcut2 for some reason creates a new taskbar icon, i went ahead to pin the newly created one to figure out whats going on. so shortcut3 is the manually newly pinned shortcut.
shortcut2 = my vbs script that pinned waterfox... notice "Launch Waterfox" (HAS ALWAYS BEEN WORKING PRIOR TO v14)
shortcut3 = pinned shortcut from the additional icon created by shortcut2. notice.... no more "launch waterfox"
shortcut4 = ms words well, just testing... was looking for a pattern
shortcut5= %appdata%\microsoft\internet explorer\quick launch

So, can someone tell me where the fault is? I need this scripted properly. I setup everything using a script .... right now, i need to manually click on all these.........

MrAlex can we see a quick fix for these issues please...


----------



## biatche

MrAlex would you consider reverting back to firefox.exe filename rather than use waterfox.exe? I do not see what performance gains whatsoever doing this... it has created multiple issues so far already.


----------



## Lazdaa

Guys you can't play BF3 in this browser.

"Compatible 32-bit (not 64-bit) Web Browser"

Guess imma just switch back to Firefox


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *vacaloca*
> 
> I had a similar issue on my Windows 7 laptop -- when I installed Waterfox 14 and pinned it to the taskbar, the pin is created with the "firefox.exe" filename, which does not exist in the new version. The fix for me was to manually edit the pinned icon, located in: %UserProfile%\AppData\Roaming\Microsoft\Internet Explorer\Quick Launch\User Pinned\TaskBar and change the filename to "waterfox.exe".
> That way, when I start it from the pinned icon, it sets itself as default correctly, instead of asking over and over if I do a hard/symlink to the "firefox.exe" file. -- otherwise It would just tell me that the shortcut to the file did not exist and delete the pin. (So yes, I did a fair amount of troubleshooting for this silly issue)
> Because of the firefox -> waterfox name change I ran into similar issues like:
> http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=329555
> as well as that previous XULRunner error someone else posted a while back when I did an upgrade instead of uninstalling the app and deleting the entire folder.
> 
> 
> 
> There's something that's seriously annoying me related to this...
> 
> tmp-wfannoying.jpg 210k .jpg file
> 
> 
> From LEFT to RIGHT
> 
> shortcut1 = waterfox start menu created by installer.. notice "Launch Waterfox"
> before PROCEEDING further, take a look at the taskbar, notice that there are two pinned waterfox shortcuts. the first is shortcut2 and the second is shortcut3. because clicking shortcut2 for some reason creates a new taskbar icon, i went ahead to pin the newly created one to figure out whats going on. so shortcut3 is the manually newly pinned shortcut.
> shortcut2 = my vbs script that pinned waterfox... notice "Launch Waterfox" (HAS ALWAYS BEEN WORKING PRIOR TO v14)
> shortcut3 = pinned shortcut from the additional icon created by shortcut2. notice.... no more "launch waterfox"
> shortcut4 = ms words well, just testing... was looking for a pattern
> shortcut5= %appdata%\microsoft\internet explorer\quick launch
> 
> So, can someone tell me where the fault is? I need this scripted properly. I setup everything using a script .... right now, i need to manually click on all these.........
> 
> MrAlex can we see a quick fix for these issues please...
Click to expand...

This is all I did:

Installed Waterfox.
Ran it from icon on desktop.
Right-clicked the Waterfox in the taskbar and pinned it.
Deleted icon on desktop.

No issues past that. One Waterfox icon in taskbar at all times.


----------



## biatche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> This is all I did:
> Installed Waterfox.
> Ran it from icon on desktop.
> Right-clicked the Waterfox in the taskbar and pinned it.
> Deleted icon on desktop.
> No issues past that. One Waterfox icon in taskbar at all times.


1. I need this scripted. Silently, without clicking or touching the mouse.
2. It was working before the filename change
3. If you were to right click on the shortcut created by the waterfox installer and pin that, you'd get the same issue I've been talking about.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazdaa*
> 
> Guys you can't play BF3 in this browser.
> 
> "Compatible 32-bit (not 64-bit) Web Browser"
> 
> Guess imma just switch back to Firefox


This is already well known. It's because EA/DICE didn't release a browser plugin for 64-bit browsers.


----------



## Lazdaa

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> This is already well known. It's because EA/DICE didn't release a browser plugin for 64-bit browsers.


Really?... How weak


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lazdaa*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> This is already well known. It's because EA/DICE didn't release a browser plugin for 64-bit browsers.
> 
> 
> 
> Really?... How weak
Click to expand...

Same for Adobe Reader, and Adobe Shockwave. Took a long time for Silverlight to make a 64bit one too.


----------



## Lord Venom

There's no Windows Media plugin either for 64-bit. Right now there's more or less Flash, Java and Silverlight. Maybe a 3rd party PDF or two too. Reason being 64-bit browsers are still far from being mainstream. It took years for Adobe to release a 64-bit Flash plugin.


----------



## MrAlex

Just to let everyone know that I've read all your comments and I'm taking actions to make sure the same problems don't occur next release


----------



## dqwf

Just make sure the installer removes the previous WaterFox as people cant read! That should solve most of the whining.

Also, maybe a window that says that the EA plugin is not 64bit.


----------



## Pierre771

Good evening everybody

Opera 12 64 bits (currently 12.01 1532) takes the 32 bits plugins : oopp (out of process plugins). It seems Opera doesn't recommend this 64 bits edition which, if you install it, is considered as a separate browser.

Nightly 64, Waterfox and IE9 64 bits don't.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Just make sure the installer removes the previous WaterFox as people cant read! That should solve most of the whining.
> 
> Also, maybe a window that says that the EA plugin is not 64bit.


Not that simple since the older installer was completely different. I also don't think it's worth changing around stuff to make Waterfox 'work better'. Just post a tutorial on how to fix the various issues and leave it at that.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Just make sure the installer removes the previous WaterFox as people cant read! That should solve most of the whining.
> 
> Also, maybe a window that says that the EA plugin is not 64bit.


I could have used an external script (either JS or VBS), but most anti-virus software programs don't like that and flag it as suspicious behavior. This problem only occurs from 13 > 14 anyway.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pierre771*
> 
> Good evening everybody
> 
> Opera 12 64 bits (currently 12.01 1532) takes the 32 bits plugins : oopp (out of process plugins). It seems Opera doesn't recommend this 64 bits edition which, if you install it, is considered as a separate browser.
> 
> Nightly 64, Waterfox and IE9 64 bits don't.


There was a version of Firefox 4 (64-Bit) which used 32-Bit plugins. But things have changed since then and it may not be possible (although I don't see why not, and I'll start looking into it.)


----------



## dqwf

If people want to use 32 bit plugins why dont they use FF? All this backward compatibility is exactly why we are in this mess. I wish everything was 64 bit (5 years ago), dont know why it isnt, cant think of any reason.

I use WF, dont even have Flash installed for it. If I need Flash, I open IE, use Flash and then close it (doesnt happen that often anyway). I just dont like Flash and want it gone!

Is it so hard to open FF, use your 32 bit plugin and close it when done? Use WF for TRUE 64 bit browsing.

It is 2012 and we are still running 32 bit crap!


----------



## Lord Venom

Wait 5 more years, perhaps 64-bit browsers will become mainstream then. I'm personally waiting for a 64-bit Google Chrome build.


----------



## Ceadderman

Won't even take that long. FF is only the beginning!









~Ceadder


----------



## Lord Venom

It might be longer, the way vendors drag their heels with 64-bit support of various programs and plugins... that and Microsoft finally stops providing 32-bit builds of Windows.


----------



## dqwf

Why is there a 64 bit version of Chrome for Linux but not Windows? It cant be the FF excuse that extensions wont work. I used to be a Chrome user and moved to WF because it wasnt 64 bit.

Can anyone that actually programs tell me what is so difficult about compiling 64 bit code other than changing a couple of settings on the compiler? If the 32 bit code is there, is it really that hard to compile 64 bit code?

Is it because people cant read instructions, complain about pinning an icon, changing of an executable name or plugins dont work since they are 32 bit?

I can only guess it is because developers dont want to deal with user's complaints.


----------



## Lord Venom

Ask Google why, but it's probably because Chrome won't currently compile a 64-bit binary on Windows. Go ahead, give it a try.


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> There was a version of Firefox 4 (64-Bit) which used 32-Bit plugins. But things have changed since then and it may not be possible (although I don't see why not, and I'll start looking into it.)


Thks for your answer. Interesting.


----------



## helloha

My waterfox currently shows version 14.01 in the About Waterfox tab, but if I click on the Waterfox Updater program, nothing runs even though I see waterfox 14.02 on your website. Am I doing something wrong here, or is the updater in 14.01 broken?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *helloha*
> 
> My waterfox currently shows version 14.01 in the About Waterfox tab, but if I click on the Waterfox Updater program, nothing runs even though I see waterfox 14.02 on your website. Am I doing something wrong here, or is the updater in 14.01 broken?


That's correct. Waterfox 14.0.2 fixed installer problems. The updater is now silent until an update is available.


----------



## InsaneO

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's correct. Waterfox 14.0.2 fixed installer problems. The updater is now silent until an update is available.


My also shows 14.01 but if I click on Waterfox Updater nothing happens. It just does not run.
Where do I get 14.02?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InsaneO*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's correct. Waterfox 14.0.2 fixed installer problems. The updater is now silent until an update is available.
> 
> 
> 
> My also shows 14.01 but if I click on Waterfox Updater nothing happens. It just does not run.
> Where do I get 14.02?
Click to expand...

Waterfox 14.0.2 was an installer fix. The program version still remains 14.0.1.


----------



## Lord Venom

Perhaps it's best to issue hotfix updates like 14.0.1a instead of jumping straight to 14.0.2 to avoid confusion? Or silent updates without changing the version numbers at all and just inform users to re-download.


----------



## Warriorghost123

I just downloaded Waterfox last night, and I must say that it does feel a bit faster. First, I want to thank the developer for creating this, but I do have a suggestion or two. As a somewhat long time Chrome user, I feel that Waterfox is lacking in some aspects, but I feel that it can be improved just a tiny bit. I'm not sure if this is reliant on Firefox itself, but if it can be fixed with Waterfox, that's great! If not, then please ignore this. Features such as PDF files opening in a new tab, instead of downloading. I'm not sure if that's possible, but would be appreciated. Once again, coming from Chrome, I feel that Waterfox is awesome. Keep up the good work!


----------



## Lord Venom

I'm not sure if the Firefox PDF extension does that or not. If not it's probably not possible unless you mess with a tab extension like Tabs Mix Plus or Tab Utilities.


----------



## InsaneO

How do I uninstall V14? There is no option in Installer and there is no registration under Programs installed in Control panel.


----------



## InsaneO

Go to Tools/Option/Applications.
Look for your PDF reader.
Under Actions select "Always Ask"
Now you will have an option to open or save.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Most people i think don't know it. But there is a 64bit Firefox since 2005: http://www.vector64.com/WindowsBuilds.html
I used it a long time and the 64bit stuff goes really slow.
I was waiting years for flash.
It's a shame that such big company's with such expensive Software don't get it and
need such a long time.
Also until today Adobe did not fix the pdf thumbnail preview.
It needs people like him who does it free: http://www.pretentiousname.com/adobe_pdf_x64_fix/


----------



## Lord Venom

Well until the release of Windows 7, 32-bit operating systems were still the most used out there. Since 64-bit has caught on it's only a matter of time people stop using 32-bit browsers in favor of 64-bit. But that'll take time, a few more years at least. It's a good start to have 64-bit Java, Flash and Silverlight plugins but there's many, many to go that's needed like QuickTime, Windows Media and Battlelog for Battlefield 3.

And yes, a proper PDF Acrobat plugin from Adobe. Though if you can wait for Firefox 16, there will be inline PDF support which should work in Waterfox too.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Well until the release of Windows 7, 32-bit operating systems were still the most used out there. Since 64-bit has caught on it's only a matter of time people stop using 32-bit browsers in favor of 64-bit. But that'll take time, a few more years at least. It's a good start to have 64-bit Java, Flash and Silverlight plugins but there's many, many to go that's needed like QuickTime, Windows Media and Battlelog for Battlefield 3.
> 
> And yes, a proper PDF Acrobat plugin from Adobe. Though if you can wait for Firefox 16, there will be inline PDF support which should work in Waterfox too.


Yep. It won't be long and 32bit OS will be flushed out. Once "64 bit" becomes mainstream, everyone will start producing stuff on 64bit architecture.

Right now most programs don't need the 64bit memory perk, but time will quickly put that to an end and Microsoft will probably discontinue its 32bit OS.


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I'm not sure if the Firefox PDF extension does that or not. If not it's probably not possible unless you mess with a tab extension like Tabs Mix Plus or Tab Utilities.


I've been using the dev version of the Mozilla PDF viewer, https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/ and it's been working just great with WF. There were a few PDFs that it didn't display too well but an update a day or so later (which do not need restarts) fixed them. It does occasionally warn you that particular PDFs may not display properly but so far the majority have been fine.


----------



## knasen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I haven't changed any of the hotkeys, but I'll look into it.


Any update on this? Still not working for me, mainly want it to be able to use 4chan more effectively.


----------



## kronckew

re:alt-click

see this thread

about:config, set browser.altClickSave back to true.

default changed to 'false' in firefox a version or so back. nothing to do with any waterfox changes.


----------



## knasen

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> re:alt-click
> see this thread
> about:config, set browser.altClickSave back to true.
> default changed to 'false' in firefox a version or so back. nothing to do with any waterfox changes.


oh okay, thanks a lot


----------



## MrAlex

The Waterfox website is down! For some reason SourceForge removed it!

Argh this doesn't look very professional


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> I've been using the dev version of the Mozilla PDF viewer, https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/ and it's been working just great with WF. There were a few PDFs that it didn't display too well but an update a day or so later (which do not need restarts) fixed them. It does occasionally warn you that particular PDFs may not display properly but so far the majority have been fine.


Oddly(?) my problem is not with PDF's but with Adobe Flash crashing or just consuming a ton of system resources (memory leak?). it doesn't happen often but a lot more than when I was on version 12 or 13.

Another thing I've noticed, and not sure if it's related to Adobe Flash, is that if I go to Facebook and just leave that tab idle, eventually WF will start to get sluggish. Doesn't matter if it's the only tab or if I have multiple tabs. Uninstalling and reinstalling WF including the Adobe Flash doesn't seem to help. Same if I disable hardware acceleration in WF.

I don't see this symptom with MSIE v9, Chrome, FF, or Safari. Just in WF v14.

I really don't have a lot of plugins and extension in WF either. Just Adobe, Shockwave, Java, and SilverLight.

That said, I've reverted back to v12 of WF which seems to be the best for me right now and I'll wait for the next version release of WF and give it a try again.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> I've been using the dev version of the Mozilla PDF viewer, https://github.com/mozilla/pdf.js/ and it's been working just great with WF. There were a few PDFs that it didn't display too well but an update a day or so later (which do not need restarts) fixed them. It does occasionally warn you that particular PDFs may not display properly but so far the majority have been fine.
> 
> 
> 
> Oddly(?) my problem is not with PDF's but with Adobe Flash crashing or just consuming a ton of system resources (memory leak?). it doesn't happen often but a lot more than when I was on version 12 or 13.
> 
> Another thing I've noticed, and not sure if it's related to Adobe Flash, is that if I go to Facebook and just leave that tab idle, eventually WF will start to get sluggish. Doesn't matter if it's the only tab or if I have multiple tabs. Uninstalling and reinstalling WF including the Adobe Flash doesn't seem to help. Same if I disable hardware acceleration in WF.
> 
> I don't see this symptom with MSIE v9, Chrome, FF, or Safari. Just in WF v14.
> 
> I really don't have a lot of plugins and extension in WF either. Just Adobe, Shockwave, Java, and SilverLight.
> 
> That said, I've reverted back to v12 of WF which seems to be the best for me right now and I'll wait for the next version release of WF and give it a try again.
Click to expand...

Don't forget to check for a Plugin updates at least twice a month. A new version of Flash just came out: Adobe Flash Player 11.4.402.265

The Facebook problem I can't help with. Never have nor will create one.
Quote:


> Don't leave your webmail or Facebook open in a browser tab
> 
> If you leave a Facebook and/or webmail tab open all the time, this will slow down your browser to a crawl even if you have a fast computer, so you can imagine how slow it would be on a slower one.
> 
> For Facebook message and email checking, use an instant messenger app, mail client or a simple mail/Facebook checker extension to the browser like these.


I have hardware acceleration with WF14 and it works just fine. There has to be something specific on your machine that is causing the problems.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The Waterfox website is down! For some reason SourceForge removed it!
> 
> Argh this doesn't look very professional


----------



## virtualguy

Google has a new browser JavaScript benchmark for Web browsers: developers.google.com/octane/

Read "The Benchmark" page before running it.

My Firefox 14 score was 7028
My Waterfox 14 score was 6389

Not much difference, but Firefox won. Go figure.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Google has a new browser JavaScript benchmark for Web browsers: developers.google.com/octane/
> 
> Read "The Benchmark" page before running it.
> 
> My Firefox 14 score was 7028
> My Waterfox 14 score was 6389
> 
> Not much difference, but Firefox won. Go figure.


64-Bit browsers perform worse than 32-Bit browsers in anything JS related. But 64-Bit browsers excel in multimedia.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Google has a new browser JavaScript benchmark for Web browsers: developers.google.com/octane/
> Read "The Benchmark" page before running it.
> My Firefox 14 score was 7028
> My Waterfox 14 score was 6389
> Not much difference, but Firefox won. Go figure.


Mine was 6874 for WF and 8104 for FF.

Mr. Alex is right 64bit ones does get a little heavy of JS processes but really excels on multimedia. Also, benchmarks still varies from setup to setup that's why most of it are unreliable. If it feels fast i think that would be enough.









EDIT: ran the test again and FF showed a much higher score. I guess the test still varies from time to time.


----------



## ArtLive

What happened with waterfox site? :-(


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArtLive*
> 
> What happened with waterfox site? :-(


Apparently sourceforge removed it or they're having server problems. If you're downloading the installer it's still up here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/?source=frontpage&position=4


----------



## ArtLive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Apparently sourceforge removed it or they're having server problems. If you're downloading the installer it's still up here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/?source=frontpage&position=4


Thanks, but I'm more worried about the future of the project


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArtLive*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Apparently sourceforge removed it or they're having server problems. If you're downloading the installer it's still up here: http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/?source=frontpage&position=4
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but I'm more worried about the future of the project
Click to expand...

No need to worry. The website is back up and running. If for any reason the website goes down (which it shouldn't anymore!) you can check the twitter feed:

https://twitter.com/Waterfoxproject


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Well until the release of Windows 7, 32-bit operating systems were still the most used out there. Since 64-bit has caught on it's only a matter of time people stop using 32-bit browsers in favor of 64-bit. But that'll take time, a few more years at least. It's a good start to have 64-bit Java, Flash and Silverlight plugins but there's many, many to go that's needed like QuickTime, Windows Media and Battlelog for Battlefield 3.
> And yes, a proper PDF Acrobat plugin from Adobe. Though if you can wait for Firefox 16, there will be inline PDF support which should work in Waterfox too.


Hello

All this is not proper to browsers. There is the same pb with other programs : no 64 bits version of LibreOffice (for example) is previewed. A 64 bits version of MSOffice 2010 does exist but it is not recommended by the authors.

http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/word-help/choose-the-32-bit-or-64-bit-version-of-office-HA010369476.aspx

Firefox 15 will contain a build-in and free PDF reader, formerly PDF.js extension, and will no longer need an Adobe reader/acrobat plugin.

As I said few posts above, a 64 bits browser should not depend on 64 bits plugins : Opera solved the pb with oopp (out of process plugins) method.


----------



## GerdM

I`ve downloaded Version 14.0.2 at your server
My anti virus program, called AVG free, told me the file contains the virus "Luhe.Fiha.A".

Is it true or a false positv?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GerdM*
> 
> I`ve downloaded Version 14.0.2 at your server
> My anti virus program, called AVG free, told me the file contains the virus "Luhe.Fiha.A".
> Is it true or a false positv?


I'm 100% sure that's a false positive.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GerdM*
> 
> I`ve downloaded Version 14.0.2 at your server
> My anti virus program, called AVG free, told me the file contains the virus "Luhe.Fiha.A".
> 
> Is it true or a false positv?


If you've downloaded it from SF.net, then there's nothing to worry about.

http://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/windows_7-security/what-is-luhefihaa-detected-by-avg-antivirus-on-5/39ec50b5-fffb-4ff8-bb77-c7d6f35a6d62?msgId=3ea75d7a-724b-4c46-b5d1-aefda3caf316


----------



## GerdM

Thanks for your answers. Meanwhile I tried Microsofts Essential Security. The result was negativ. So I think too, it`s a false positive and I will use the new version.

Thanks a lot
Gerd


----------



## InsaneO

I still need to know how to uninstall WF 14.
It is not in my Control Panel/Programs.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InsaneO*
> 
> I still need to know how to uninstall WF 14.
> It is not in my Control Panel/Programs.


If it's not there, then you can manually delete the folders/shortcuts. If you're worried about registry entries, there's only two. (Product name and version).


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *InsaneO*
> 
> I still need to know how to uninstall WF 14.
> 
> It is not in my Control Panel/Programs.
> 
> 
> 
> If it's not there, then you can manually delete the folders/shortcuts. If you're worried about registry entries, there's only two. (Product name and version).
Click to expand...

I would like to add that Waterfox is in my control panel after several installs, each time. So this problem shouldn't normally occur.


----------



## Grumpigeek

AVG is well known for false positives.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Don't forget to check for a Plugin updates at least twice a month. A new version of Flash just came out: Adobe Flash Player 11.4.402.265
> The Facebook problem I can't help with. Never have nor will create one.
> I have hardware acceleration with WF14 and it works just fine. There has to be something specific on your machine that is causing the problems.


Plugins are up to date and like I said I've only experienced the problem with WF 14. I don't see it with the two previous versions.

As I also mentioned in my previous message, I don't experience the problem using any of the other browsers. I personally do not think it's anything with my current computer that I am seeing this problem with.

Right now I'm thinking it's something with the Adobe Flash. I start to see WF slow down when I visit a site that uses a lot of Flash. WF begins to slow down slowly the longer I stay on a site with Flash. With FB, I can just leave it there for about 5-10 minutes (idle) and it will start to slow down. No increase in system resources or CPU.

For now I've got myself back on version 13 of WF which appears to be the best performing one - no problems. I await the next release of WF in hopes that it addresses this problem.


----------



## Lord Venom

Or it's Flash, you know. There's a ton of issues with Flash and Firefox these days.


----------



## jgbittar

thanks for the feedback i had to uninstall and reinstall fresh. everything is fine now.


----------



## MrAlex

Time to start saving up for a VPS! Now there's problems with the new host. *Sigh* I need something that can handle the amount of users Waterfox gets. In two days 13GB of bandwidth was used up! Absolutely crazy.


----------



## trunks01

After I upgraded to the latest version, many pages will not display correctly and this has also started happening to my install of Firefox. I disabled all of the add-ons and extensions to see if there was any difference, but it didn't help. I hope that you can help. Thanks.


----------



## trunks01

I want to add that in addition to my previous post, some pictures aren't appearing. It all worked fine before I upgraded so there is either a bug or a setting that I need to adjust. Thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *trunks01*
> 
> I want to add that in addition to my previous post, some pictures aren't appearing. It all worked fine before I upgraded so there is either a bug or a setting that I need to adjust. Thanks.


Is it possible to get a screenshot?


----------



## MrAlex

I know I shouldn't be bumping but I need to know if http://waterfoxproject.org/index.php works for anyone?


----------



## mozproc

Hello Mr Alex, doesn't work here.

However, a BIG thank you for your superb work. I love Waterfox and it works quite well for me


----------



## kxtcd950

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I know I shouldn't be bumping but I need to know if http://waterfoxproject.org/index.php works for anyone?


I'm getting the text:

Server Error
500 - Internal server error.
There is a problem with the resource you are looking for, and it cannot be displayed.

on the returned page.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I know I shouldn't be bumping but I need to know if http://waterfoxproject.org/index.php works for anyone?


doesn't work for me : 500 - Internal server error.


----------



## FortFun

I can't even connect. Sorry.


----------



## Amo

Works for me currently.


----------



## qwerty77

The site is working for me too but i get this text:

EDIT: Working fine for me now. The lengthy text is now gone.


----------



## MrAlex

Thanks for the reports everyone, my host says that the website works fine for them. It's a bit of a pick and mix at the moment!


----------



## Pierre771

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I know I shouldn't be bumping but I need to know if http://waterfoxproject.org/index.php works for anyone?


Yes it does.

Fine for me.


----------



## Lord Venom

Works fine here too.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Great program! Had it running 6 tabs full of videos. all which ran smooth. it loaded faster then firefox ever did.

unno if waterfox was part of the problem last night. had a bunch of tabs open and minecraft running. AND then BAM! Blue Screen o' Death. Had a pyshical memory dump. But restarted windows went back to what I was doing and never saw it again. Might just have been Minecraft taking a nose dive last night over texture pack rendering.


----------



## LORD MADA

2 bugs found in waterfox 14

1. *taskbar icon* is duplicated
2. *touchpad gestures* (back/forward) aren't working anymore

hope you solve it plz


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Thanks for the reports everyone, my host says that the website works fine for them. It's a bit of a pick and mix at the moment!


Looks good.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

firefox 15.0 final out


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> firefox 15.0 final out


not on official distribution yet. firefox.com still gives you 14.01
ftp site for releases still lists betas Linky


should be real soon now tho...


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> not on official distribution yet. firefox.com still gives you 14.01
> ftp site for releases still lists betas Linky
> 
> should be real soon now tho...


EDIT:

It's available on firefox site now. Just changed the 14.0.1 to 15.0 and I was able to download the official one









http://download.cdn.mozilla.net/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/15.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2015.0.exe


----------



## warr10r

Thanks for Waterfox 14.0.2! It works great!


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> firefox 15.0 final out


Waterfox 15.0 soon!


----------



## virtualguy

The big news for FF 15 seems to be better memory management for add-ons. Anything that improves the way FF manages memory is a welcome and worthy update.

Most important changes for average users:

Optimized memory usage for add-ons
Preliminary native PDF support
Support for SPDY networking protocol v3
WebGL enhancements, including compressed textures for better performance

I look forward to WF 15 with these enhanced features.

A couple of features new to the Mozilla browser are included, but not enabled. "Click-to-play" is a built in feature that prevents the automatic running of scripts that require a plugin. "In-content Preferences" displays browser preferences in it's own window, much like Chrome does, rather than a little tabbed preference box. Neither has anything to do with browser performance, and both have to be enabled via the about:config page.

To enable click-to-play:
about:config, filter for "plugins.click_to_play", double-click to change the boolean value from false to true.

In-content Preferences:

about:config, filter for "browser.preferences.inContent", double-click...

These settings are also available in Waterfox 14.0.2. Like the original Firefox, they are not enabled by default. The value of these options will be a matter of preference. They don't change much and have nothing to do with the overall performance of the browser.

VG


----------



## ArtLive

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Waterfox 15.0 soon!


When?


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> The big news for FF 15 seems to be better memory management for add-ons. Anything that improves the way FF manages memory is a welcome and worthy update.
> Most important changes for average users:
> Optimized memory usage for add-ons
> Preliminary native PDF support
> Support for SPDY networking protocol v3
> WebGL enhancements, including compressed textures for better performance
> I look forward to WF 15 with these enhanced features.
> A couple of features new to the Mozilla browser are included, but not enabled. "Click-to-play" is a built in feature that prevents the automatic running of scripts that require a plugin. "In-content Preferences" displays browser preferences in it's own window, much like Chrome does, rather than a little tabbed preference box. Neither has anything to do with browser performance, and both have to be enabled via the about:config page.
> To enable click-to-play:
> about:config, filter for "plugins.click_to_play", double-click to change the boolean value from false to true.
> In-content Preferences:
> about:config, filter for "browser.preferences.inContent", double-click...
> These settings are also available in Waterfox 14.0.2. Like the original Firefox, they are not enabled by default. The value of these options will be a matter of preference. They don't change much and have nothing to do with the overall performance of the browser.
> VG


So they finally got around to adding to desktop browsers what mobile browsers have had for ages? (looks in drawer at HTC/Sprint Titan/Mogul)

In all seriousness, Im really happy to see "on demand" content features, helps a hell of alot when dealing with B/W caps (AT&T worst offender)


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArtLive*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Waterfox 15.0 soon!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When?
Click to expand...

Sometime in the future.


----------



## highstream

I'm using WF 14.0.1 and downloaded the latest, 14.0.2_3, but the install box only shows Add or remove features, Repair and Remove. What am I missing? Thanks,


----------



## MrAlex

Thursday the latest everyone


----------



## Vicpdx19

Hey Mr.Alex,
Great job on waterfox 14 it works very well!. I did find on thing I do need clarification on: Waterfox 14 sets off AVG as containing a bad virus, is this true or just a false positive? And is there a fix yet for flash? I did find out if you watch a flash video or live tv using flash and then go to another website without quiting first it will give me the crash message. any body else getting either of the two problems?


----------



## NoiseTemper

I'm guessing Firefox 15 doesn't come with inline PDF enabled by default. So how do i enable it?


----------



## Lord Venom

Inline PDF is set for Firefox 16.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/Features/Release_Tracking


----------



## NoiseTemper

Never mind found it. Set pdfjs.Disabled to False in about:config.


----------



## 1337xG4M3R

Hey everyone! Just wanted to ask; will I get a message once Waterfox 15 is out? Or do I have to check the site every once and while? Thanks.


----------



## Aximous

It seems my WF14 has some weird memory leak, it doesn't show up in the task manager as memory usage or commit size, actually that is completely normal with ~7-800 MB, but after some time my system memory usage shoots up to ~7GB if I close WF it goes down to ~2,5GB and meanwhile non of the processes show this extreme memory usage.

I'll try reinstalling later today, I thought I'll just post it here because I find this pretty weird.


----------



## lareeth

I have this issue as well, I can load up Resource Monitor and just watch the Working Set and Shareable memory go up at about a 1MB a second, Windows will then close Waterfox due to not having any free memory. I can restart Waterfox and the whole process starts again.


----------



## Mathes

Hello !
I have a problem because i cannot downloaded DAM 4 using Waterfox. Can you help me?
It has a function to integrate with FF or maybe some command in FlashGot will work ?


----------



## ArtLive

Yes, on a memory leak still need to work =)


----------



## warr10r

[Edit fail. Please remove]


----------



## warr10r

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aximous*
> 
> It seems my WF14 has some weird memory leak, it doesn't show up in the task manager as memory usage or commit size, actually that is completely normal with ~7-800 MB, but after some time my system memory usage shoots up to ~7GB if I close WF it goes down to ~2,5GB and meanwhile non of the processes show this extreme memory usage.
> I'll try reinstalling later today, I thought I'll just post it here because I find this pretty weird.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mathes*
> 
> Hello !
> I have a problem because i cannot downloaded DAM 4 using Waterfox. Can you help me?
> It has a function to integrate with FF or maybe some command in FlashGot will work ?


Guys, I think your trouble is Add-ons....

Both my AdBlock Plus and FlashGot had issues after I upgraded. A simple remove and reinstall fixed them both









I think this memory leak is the same issue seeing as Waterfox works fine on my laptop (and its only consuming 300MB)


----------



## JTD121

Hey guys, new forum-goer. Been using Waterfox since I upgraded to 64-bit Windows 7 (along with all other hardware in a hand-me-down C2D laptop), and I was curious; what can I do to help speed along the build and distribution of Waterfox?

I feel kinda left behind when everywhere is putting up 'OMG NEW FIREFOX' but I can't upgrade with them because Waterfox is a week or so behind. Does anyone know if Mozilla is planning their own vanilla 64-bit variant of FF? Haven't seen anything official in a long long time.


----------



## lareeth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *warr10r*
> 
> Guys, I think your trouble is Add-ons....
> Both my AdBlock Plus and FlashGot had issues after I upgraded. A simple remove and reinstall fixed them both
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think this memory leak is the same issue seeing as Waterfox works fine on my laptop (and its only consuming 300MB)


This appears to have fixed it for me, good find


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTD121*
> 
> Hey guys, new forum-goer. Been using Waterfox since I upgraded to 64-bit Windows 7 (along with all other hardware in a hand-me-down C2D laptop), and I was curious; what can I do to help speed along the build and distribution of Waterfox?
> 
> I feel kinda left behind when everywhere is putting up 'OMG NEW FIREFOX' but I can't upgrade with them because Waterfox is a week or so behind. Does anyone know if Mozilla is planning their own vanilla 64-bit variant of FF? Haven't seen anything official in a long long time.


It's a bit more complicated:


Mozilla has automated build systems
They have a whole development team
Just because it compiles for them, doesn't mean it compiles for us (mainly because of Intel's C++ Compiler), in fact there was a bug I was worried wouldn't get fix in time (but thankfully it did) due to ICC)
I have to test it out, make sure everything works, there aren't any bugs etc. I'm only one person


----------



## JTD121

@MrAlex: Right, and I was wondering if there was anything one could do to help out. I wasn't trying to discourage or yell 'HURRY UP MANG', just seeing if there was help I could provide of some sort.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTD121*
> 
> @MrAlex: Right, and I was wondering if there was anything one could do to help out. I wasn't trying to discourage or yell 'HURRY UP MANG', just seeing if there was help I could provide of some sort.


I know, I didn't mean to sound as if I was attacking







at the moment there isn't anything, but if there is anything users can do I post it here anyway.


----------



## lareeth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lareeth*
> 
> This appears to have fixed it for me, good find


The bug has come back, it appeared to be fine for a good half an hour. Till windows closed Waterfox due to using 13GB of ram.


----------



## krazysteve33

Firefox is 32bit, thus memory usage does not exceed 4GB of RAM ever, even with memory leaks caused by addons. This is why you are having issues with Waterfox and not Firefox. Because Water-fox is 64-bit, it can exceed the 4GB barrier that 32it programs have. Firefox 15 is officially out of beta and includes the awesome work of the MemShrink project. My browser instance is using less than 500MB of memory with 100+ tabs open. You can read more about how they eliminated a long-standing problem with problematic add-ons, 'zombie compartments' and more on their blog:

https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2012/07/19/firefox-15-plugs-the-add-on-leaks/

or the excellent Ars Technica article below.

http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2012/08/firefox-15-arrives-supports-compressed-textures-for-impressive-3d-gaming/


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aximous*
> 
> It seems my WF14 has some weird memory leak, it doesn't show up in the task manager as memory usage or commit size, actually that is completely normal with ~7-800 MB, but after some time my system memory usage shoots up to ~7GB if I close WF it goes down to ~2,5GB and meanwhile non of the processes show this extreme memory usage.
> I'll try reinstalling later today, I thought I'll just post it here because I find this pretty weird.


I ran into what I also believed was a memory leak when I went to WF v14. I was able to recreate the problem (quickly) if I went to Facebook and just left it sitting. WF would quickly begin to slow down. Didn't see it with any of my other web browsers. When I reverted it back to WF v13 I did not see the same problem. This lead me to believe that it had something to do with WF 14.

The other day FF v15 was released and one of the things it fixes was a memory leak issue in v14. I've moved off WF v13 (for now....) and started to use FF v15 and so far I've not run into any problems.

I'm hoping that WF v15 will resolve the problem I ran into with v14


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, you could get a Waterfox beta testing team to test pre-releases?


----------



## MrAlex

Two versions of Waterfox:


Standard Installation
Portable

Everything is almost ready, so release tomorrow morning!


----------



## rootzreggae

U da mane MrAlex mane!


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Two versions of Waterfox:
> 
> Standard Installation
> Portable
> *Everything is almost ready, so release tomorrow morning!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *


crap... that means tomorrow I have to update my toolkit...

Well I needed to do it anyway :/

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/cq14nnxdg9xotfx/oXHjNBo-4j

so many outdated packages... and thats just my basics toolkit :/


----------



## Kaninelupus

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser_will_not_start_up#XULRunner_error_after_an_update


Sorry Mr Alex, but it seems to have more to do with the "Waterfox" execution file as opposed to previous versions using the traditional Firefox.exe to run. Still gives grief when Windows is trying to open something to default browser if Waterfox is not already running


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Two versions of Waterfox:
> 
> Standard Installation
> Portable
> Everything is almost ready, so release tomorrow morning!


Saweet!


----------



## Swag

What's the difference between the Standard and Portable? Also, can anyone please help me with this problem? I keep having crashes when watching Flash videos. Like, not all the time but sporadically. As well as slow downs when watching videos with flash or silverlight. It seems like Flash doesn't like Firefox because I installed Chrome and it works perfectly fine with that.


----------



## matada

Standard is installed on your PC
Portable is for use on a USB key.

Update your Flash plugin. Chrome has a copy of Flash installed by default (doesn't use the systems version)


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matada*
> 
> Standard is installed on your PC
> Portable is for use on a USB key.
> 
> Update your Flash plugin. Chrome has a copy of Flash installed by default (doesn't use the systems version)


It's fully updated and it keeps crashing. I thought it was the Flash installation so I installed it and downloaded it via Adobe's website using Waterfox. I hate how this happens. I try to use Crunchyroll or YouTube and sometimes they crash.


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, Chrome's bundled PPAPI and NPAPI Flash plugins are older than the 11.4 version available which you can't update on your own but you *can* disable them and make Chrome use the system-wide installed Flash. I wouldn't recommend doing that as Chrome's PPAPI Flash is sandboxed and more safe than straight Flash. Hopefully Google will update the PPAPI Flash to 11.4 at some point... when Adobe fixes all the other Flash-related issues.

Flash 11.3 and 11.4 are known to cause crashes in Firefox. You can try downgrading Flash to 11.2 or below but be warned that downgrading Flash to an older version you're taking a risk because older Flash versions may contain vulnerabilities that are fixed in newer Flash builds. So keep that in mind.


----------



## Swag

Damn, I wish Adobe would just fix this thing already. I'm thinking its a conspiracy to change everyone to Chrome. I would use IE if IE was just like Firefox.


----------



## MrAlex

Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download

(Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)

Quote:


> What's New in Waterfox 15?
> 
> 
> Support for SPDY networking protocol v3
> WebGL enhancements, including compressed textures for better performance
> Optimized memory usage for add-ons
> JavaScript debugger integrated into developer tools
> New layout view added to Inspector
> High precision event timer implemented
> The CSS word-break property has been implemented.
> New responsive design tool allows web developers to switch between desktop and mobile views of sites
> Native support for the Opus audio codec added
> The https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/audio and https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/video elements now support the played attribute
> The https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/source element now supports the media attribute
> Focus rings keep growing when repeatedly tabbing through elements (720987)
> *Fixed any remaining installer issues*
> *Added optional portable version (useful for users without administrator permissions)*
> *Optional AVG Security Search*
> *Intense Profile-Guided Optimisation*
> 
> *Questions about the AVG addition*
> 
> Many of you will be wondering why Waterfox now has the option to install this feature. To sum it up simply, Waterfox uses expensive software to make it what it is, plus the huge amount of users means expensive hosts. Before I move further on let me say that *Waterfox will ALWAYS remain a free program and will never include spamware, spyware or advertisements*.
> 
> *Why not ask for Donations?*
> 
> While donations are nice, I still feel bad for asking for them from users and this way the users are contributing by just using Waterfox. Also, it would take a lot of donations to cover the costs that Waterfox has.
> 
> *Does this mean Waterfox has bloatware?*
> 
> Absolutely not! The AVG Security Search is completely *optional* and does not impede your browsing experience at all. In fact, while browsing the web I have found that many users would like their anti-virus companies to build Waterfox compatible software.
> 
> I realise some users may not like this but I'm hoping this is the best decision for Waterfox. Nothing about Waterfox has changed, there's now a portable version with no installers and best of all Waterfox as a project will be able to continue!
> 
> *Last thing, what are these "costs"?*
> 
> 
> Digital Certificate
> Installer Software
> Compiler Software
> Web Hosting
> 
> I've tried the reliable free hosts, but the overwhelming amount of user visits to the Waterfox website has had them turn me down (e.g. the web host issues a few days past).


I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> What's New in Waterfox 15?
> 
> Support for SPDY networking protocol v3
> WebGL enhancements, including compressed textures for better performance
> Optimized memory usage for add-ons
> JavaScript debugger integrated into developer tools
> New layout view added to Inspector
> High precision event timer implemented
> The CSS word-break property has been implemented.
> New responsive design tool allows web developers to switch between desktop and mobile views of sites
> Native support for the Opus audio codec added
> The https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/audio and https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/video elements now support the played attribute
> The https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/source element now supports the media attribute
> Focus rings keep growing when repeatedly tabbing through elements (720987)
> *Fixed any remaining installer issues*
> *Added optional portable version (useful for users without administrator permissions)*
> *Optional AVG Security Search*
> *Intense Profile-Guided Optimisation*
> 
> *Questions about the AVG addition*
> 
> Many of you will be wondering why Waterfox now has the option to install this feature. To sum it up simply, Waterfox uses expensive software to make it what it is, plus the huge amount of users means expensive hosts. Before I move further on let me say that *Waterfox will ALWAYS remain a free program and will never include spamware, spyware or advertisements*.
> 
> *Why not ask for Donations?*
> 
> While donations are nice, I still feel bad for asking for them from users and this way the users are contributing by just using Waterfox. Also, it would take a lot of donations to cover the costs that Waterfox has.
> 
> *Does this mean Waterfox has bloatware?*
> 
> Absolutely not! The AVG Security Search is completely *optional* and does not impede your browsing experience at all. In fact, while browsing the web I have found that many users would like their anti-virus companies to build Waterfox compatible software.
> I realise some users may not like this but I'm hoping this is the best decision for Waterfox. Nothing about Waterfox has changed, there's now a portable version with no installers and best of all Waterfox as a project will be able to continue!
> 
> *Last thing, what are these "costs"?*
> 
> 
> Digital Certificate
> Installer Software
> Compiler Software
> Web Hosting
> I've tried the reliable free hosts, but the overwhelming amount of user visits to the Waterfox website has had them turn me down (e.g. the web host issues a few days past).
> 
> 
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.
Click to expand...

I will *ALWAYS* be a fan of Waterfox even though there are a few bugs with Flash. Do you know why? Also, I took and am taking Computer Science and it's been already 4 years since I started. I absolutely hate working with anything but C++. I know some people will disagree and prefer Java, but Java makes it so simple that it's so boring.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.


Cool! WF 15 XD Downloading right now







.

About the donations... hmm... I think it's completely fair to ask for it. It's always optional to donate that's why it's called a donation lol. And if that means helping you then why not? I'll gladly donate







So don't feel burdened about Mr. Alex. Thanks for developing WF as always!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> What's New in Waterfox 15?
> 
> Support for SPDY networking protocol v3
> WebGL enhancements, including compressed textures for better performance
> Optimized memory usage for add-ons
> JavaScript debugger integrated into developer tools
> New layout view added to Inspector
> High precision event timer implemented
> The CSS word-break property has been implemented.
> New responsive design tool allows web developers to switch between desktop and mobile views of sites
> Native support for the Opus audio codec added
> The and elements now support the played attribute
> The https://developer.mozilla.org/en/HTML/Element/source element now supports the media attribute
> Focus rings keep growing when repeatedly tabbing through elements (720987)
> *Fixed any remaining installer issues*
> *Added optional portable version (useful for users without administrator permissions)*
> *Optional AVG Security Search*
> *Intense Profile-Guided Optimisation*
> 
> *Questions about the AVG addition*
> 
> Many of you will be wondering why Waterfox now has the option to install this feature. To sum it up simply, Waterfox uses expensive software to make it what it is, plus the huge amount of users means expensive hosts. Before I move further on let me say that *Waterfox will ALWAYS remain a free program and will never include spamware, spyware or advertisements*.
> 
> *Why not ask for Donations?*
> 
> While donations are nice, I still feel bad for asking for them from users and this way the users are contributing by just using Waterfox. Also, it would take a lot of donations to cover the costs that Waterfox has.
> 
> *Does this mean Waterfox has bloatware?*
> 
> Absolutely not! The AVG Security Search is completely *optional* and does not impede your browsing experience at all. In fact, while browsing the web I have found that many users would like their anti-virus companies to build Waterfox compatible software.
> I realise some users may not like this but I'm hoping this is the best decision for Waterfox. Nothing about Waterfox has changed, there's now a portable version with no installers and best of all Waterfox as a project will be able to continue!
> 
> *Last thing, what are these "costs"?*
> 
> 
> Digital Certificate
> Installer Software
> Compiler Software
> Web Hosting
> I've tried the reliable free hosts, but the overwhelming amount of user visits to the Waterfox website has had them turn me down (e.g. the web host issues a few days past).
> 
> 
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I will *ALWAYS* be a fan of Waterfox even though there are a few bugs with Flash. Do you know why? Also, I took and am taking Computer Science and it's been already 4 years since I started. I absolutely hate working with anything but C++. I know some people will disagree and prefer Java, but Java makes it so simple that it's so boring.
Click to expand...

Thank you, and yes those Flash issues are annoying. It'll be a strange day when Flash and Waterfox work seamlessly together









I dislike C++ as well, I find the constructs very complicated. I prefer nice looking syntax such as C#, BASIC and even Java, but unfortunately C++ is where it's at


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.


Many thanks. Does the installer have command-line parameters for the optional AVG component to allow us to choose whether it gets installed during a silent installation?


----------



## msuguy71

I think it is fine to have the AVG toolbar option. If some people get upset and stop using the software then it is their loss. Running a site like this can get pricey. Just installed WF15 and it seems pretty fast so far.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.
> 
> 
> 
> Many thanks. Does the installer have command-line parameters for the optional AVG component to allow us to choose whether it gets installed during a silent installation?
Click to expand...

I haven't tested a silent install out, but from what I can tell the AVG component isn't installed. I'll contact support to get a definitive answer.


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I haven't tested a silent install out, but from what I can tell the AVG component isn't installed. I'll contact support to get a definitive answer.


Thanks for quick response. BTW, I too understand the need for the AVG addition. Keep up the good work









P.S. did an upgrade from v14 to v15 using the installer - normal install not silent - and all fine so far. QQ: how does the automatic updater work now, is it run elsewhere, from within WF itself or as a service?


----------



## warr10r

Downloading!!!


----------



## qwerty77

Just installed it and 100% working fine on mine! Feels really fast I must say. Another fine release!


----------



## Swag

I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but I have encountered an error. I installed it on multiple PCs to check if the problem was only on one, but it is not. Whenever I install Waterfox 15 and I run CCleaner and clean the registry, when I launch Waterfox, I am greeted with a window that contains only ">>" and I cannot navigate anywhere. It is like a dead page.


----------



## felata

Please please fix windows7 jumplist issue that waterfox newer than 14.0.

Since waterfox 14.0, it changed main program name from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe, jumplist is not working at all.

If you install waterfox into a new system, which the first time installed waterfox, nothing in the jumplist.

Someone can rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe with firefox installed, the jumplist may work. That must be a bug needed fix.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but I have encountered an error. I installed it on multiple PCs to check if the problem was only on one, but it is not. Whenever I install Waterfox 15 and I run CCleaner and clean the registry, when I launch Waterfox, I am greeted with a window that contains only ">>" and I cannot navigate anywhere. It is like a dead page.


Hmm yeah second this. LOL i thought it was working fine but i think the gui bug is back again mr. alex


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> I'm sorry to be the bringer of bad news, but I have encountered an error. I installed it on multiple PCs to check if the problem was only on one, but it is not. Whenever I install Waterfox 15 and I run CCleaner and clean the registry, when I launch Waterfox, I am greeted with a window that contains only ">>" and I cannot navigate anywhere. It is like a dead page.
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm yeah second this. LOL i thought it was working fine but i think the gui bug is back again mr. alex
Click to expand...

This was a previous problem? I have never had this problem before. Hmm, thought it was new. Anyway, I think I'll go back to Waterfox 14 + 11.2Flash for now. I couldn't stand Chrome and I really do not like IE. I mean, what kind of browser doesn't let the user have some flexibility.







So sad.


----------



## warr10r

Its working great for me so far!


----------



## MrAlex

Oh god this is awful. Another Waterfox release botched









Removed the download, recompiling the whole program. Argh that means have to run all those benchmarks again


----------



## rootzreggae

Where can i get the latest version? They removed from the link you previously posted MrAlex


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oh god this is awful. Another Waterfox release botched
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Removed the download, recompiling the whole program. Argh that means have to run all those benchmarks again


Don't worry, a programmer can never tell if his program runs 100% properly until tested. Or so what my teacher told me. I have had my teacher write a program he's written over 100 times for his classes and fail during presentation. Just sad really.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rootzreggae*
> 
> Where can i get the latest version? They removed from the link you previously posted MrAlex


It's bugged, that's why.


----------



## qwerty77

hmm i think the bug occurs when the "webappsstore.sqlite" or the "parent.lock" files gets deleted. But what's weird is firefox runs fine when those two files are deleted.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> hmm i think the bug occurs when the "webappsstore.sqlite" or the "parent.lock" files gets deleted. But what's weird is firefox runs fine when those two files are deleted.


I've tested it on 3 systems without issue, so lets hope it actually IS the old bug from before otherwise I'm going to be in trouble


----------



## qwerty77

I just tested it again and i think those two files are the problem. I removed the check on CCleaner and I'm running WF 15 now w/o problems.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> I just tested it again and i think those two files are the problem. I removed the check on CCleaner and I'm running WF 15 now w/o problems.


Is there a way to exempt those files from being deleted other than not checking entry in CCleaner? Kinda anal that I need everything deleted.







Is there a way to relocate those files somewhere else so they don't get deleted?


----------



## qwerty77

Hmm... wait a minute a showstopper just arose lol. The problem occurred again even if those two files aren't deleted. I'm getting confused now lol maybe we'll just have to wait for a fix from mr. alex XD

EDIT:

I still think that it's the recurring bug Mr. Alex. Sorry for confusing you.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay, I need more testers! Here's the build:

http://www.mediafire.com/?2isqw8t7a11cdw9

PLEASE post screenshots of the bug(s).

Let's hope for an epiphany.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay, I need more testers! Here's the build:
> 
> PLEASE post screenshots of the bug(s).
> 
> Let's hope for an epiphany.


Build isn't quoted. No link or anything.


----------



## qwerty77

Using the build you just posted right now mr. alex and ran ccleaner with the 2 files i mentioned earlier and it runs... fine @[email protected] i think the epiphany has arrived XD


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Using the build you just posted right now mr. alex and ran ccleaner with the 2 files i mentioned earlier and it runs... fine @[email protected] i think the epiphany has arrived XD


But it's the exact same build. What's going on here?









Can anyone else test it out? Maybe it was just an issue qwerty77 was having?


----------



## qwerty77

LOL. this is really confusing me right now because just now the portable one had the same problem again LOL.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Waiting for the reupload of Waterfox 15 installer.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> LOL. this is really confusing me right now because just now the portable one had the same problem again LOL.


Could you post a screenshot?

EDIT: And try a different profile.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Waiting for the reupload of Waterfox 15 installer.


Could you test out the build above? And try opening/closing it a few times? I need to know if I can reupload the installer


----------



## BMT

One thing I was curious about - under _Last thing, what are these "costs"?_ you listed _Installer Software_ - Does that mean you're using some sort of paid installer builder now?

I've always used Inno Setup to make installers for any open source apps I've made in the past - it's completely free of charge and you can also do things like implement optional software installs (such as AVG Security Search) using it.

Of course this might not be much help if you've already paid for a commercial installer builder, but I just thought I'd mention it.

Thanks again for all your work on WF MrAlex.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could you post a screenshot?
> EDIT: And try a different profile.


here's the screenshot from the portable one.


And i just tried it with a separate profile. That little box still pops out.


----------



## mmsandi

First time started OK and then always opens like this:


----------



## MrAlex

Thanks, I think I have an idea of what the problem is.

Back to compiling!


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Thanks, I think I have an idea of what the problem is.
> 
> Back to compiling!










Good luck Mr. Alex!


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could you test out the build above? And try opening/closing it a few times? I need to know if I can reupload the installer


No problems.

Except pinning the waterfox.exe glitch where it pops open another taskbar item (and you have to pin that).

*using windows 8 pro*


----------



## warr10r

I experienced the above problem (icon pinning) in Windows 7 but otherwise its working just fine


----------



## matschmoon108

Hi.

I´ve experienced an error according to the "drop zones" PI. I´m testing waterfox and this seems to be the only problem so far. Link to the PI:

Drag & Drop - Zones

Anyway: It seems, waterfox works faster than firefox! so thanx very much! 

greetz

matschmoon


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matschmoon108*
> 
> Hi.
> I´ve experienced an error according to the "drop zones" PI. I´m testing waterfox and this seems to be the only problem so far. Link to the PI:
> Drag & Drop - Zones
> Anyway: It seems, waterfox works faster than firefox! so thanx very much!
> greetz
> matschmoon


add-ons not update before 2011, it's not strange that he don't works. (ff6)

Last build WF15 approved by me. (1257 O_O)


----------



## MrAlex

http://www.mediafire.com/?2vuoujnx4oa6mia

Fingers crossed!


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?2vuoujnx4oa6mia
> 
> Fingers crossed!


Great! Testing it now...


----------



## dqwf

Mr Alex, why cant we test the installer version?


----------



## qwerty77

Hmm... i think it's okay now Mr. Alex. I tried the same method while the bug was still occurring but i think this time it's gone now







Now you can upload the installer version since the bug is no longer present


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Mr Alex, why cant we test the installer version?


It was just to test the build for the bug. Testing the installer each time would take too long


----------



## MrAlex

Here is the final installer:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download

Let me know of any issues before I blast the homepage with news


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here is the final installer:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> Let me know of any issues before I blast the homepage with news


Just downloaded it and installed. The bug is no longer present Mr. Alex and this time i'm sure of it








Now you can bombard the homepage


----------



## Lord Venom

Optional bundled toolbar, ouch.


----------



## GaryDefiance

Not sure if it's been answered, but the new version doesn't seem to fix the issue from before of browsing for a few minutes, and suddenly not having any memory left.
like, in task manager, it says that it's only using 300Mb, but in performance monitoring, 8 gigabytes are being used, which immediately go away when waterfox is closed.
any answers on that issue?

and, to answer the obvious questions, i only have one tab open, and it increases with every page i go to. takes about 4 minutes to use 8 gigs. I'm using windows7 64 bit.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GaryDefiance*
> 
> Not sure if it's been answered, but the new version doesn't seem to fix the issue from before of browsing for a few minutes, and suddenly not having any memory left.
> like, in task manager, it says that it's only using 300Mb, but in performance monitoring, 8 gigabytes are being used, which immediately go away when waterfox is closed.
> any answers on that issue?
> and, to answer the obvious questions, i only have one tab open, and it increases with every page i go to. takes about 4 minutes to use 8 gigs. I'm using windows7 64 bit.


What addons and plugins do you have installed?


----------



## GaryDefiance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> What addons and plugins do you have installed?


I have:
adblock
image zoom
flashblock

laptop doesnt have this issue. and i didnt have this issue back in version 13, first noticed in 14.
when i installed version 14, i completely erased all forms of firefox/waterfox/addons to do a fresh install.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here is the final installer:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> Let me know of any issues before I blast the homepage with news


Why isn't there a Waterfox icon in the About popup box?

(Not implying there ever was one.)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GaryDefiance*
> 
> I have:
> adblock
> image zoom
> flashblock
> laptop doesnt have this issue. and i didnt have this issue back in version 13, first noticed in 14.
> when i installed version 14, i completely erased all forms of firefox/waterfox/addons to do a fresh install.


If the problem exists on a fresh install with no addons or plugins, then the issue has to do with Waterfox/Firefox itself

If the problem occurs on both Waterfox and Firefox, then the problem has do with the Firefox build itself as Waterfox is based upon Firefox.

If it only occurs on Waterfox bare, then it must be something changed in Waterfox alone that is causing it.

The problem you describe does not occur for me. Therefore I conclude that the problem must be a specific item, on your machine, that is causing the problem.


----------



## GaryDefiance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> If the problem exists on a fresh install with no addons or plugins, then the issue has to do with Waterfox/Firefox itself
> If the problem occurs on both Waterfox and Firefox, then the problem has do with the Firefox build itself as Waterfox is based upon Firefox.
> If it only occurs on Waterfox bare, then it must be something changed in Waterfox alone that is causing it.
> The problem you describe does not occur for me. Therefore I conclude that the problem must be a specific item, on your machine, that is causing the problem.


havent tested on firefox, but other users were talking about a few pages back (before talk of new version coming out)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> I ran into what I also believed was a memory leak when I went to WF v14. I was able to recreate the problem (quickly) if I went to Facebook and just left it sitting. WF would quickly begin to slow down. Didn't see it with any of my other web browsers. When I reverted it back to WF v13 I did not see the same problem. This lead me to believe that it had something to do with WF 14.
> The other day FF v15 was released and one of the things it fixes was a memory leak issue in v14. I've moved off WF v13 (for now....) and started to use FF v15 and so far I've not run into any problems.
> I'm hoping that WF v15 will resolve the problem I ran into with v14


and
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Aximous*
> 
> It seems my WF14 has some weird memory leak, it doesn't show up in the task manager as memory usage or commit size, actually that is completely normal with ~7-800 MB, but after some time my system memory usage shoots up to ~7GB if I close WF it goes down to ~2,5GB and meanwhile non of the processes show this extreme memory usage.
> I'll try reinstalling later today, I thought I'll just post it here because I find this pretty weird.


----------



## lareeth

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GaryDefiance*
> 
> havent tested on firefox, but other users were talking about a few pages back (before talk of new version coming out)


I also still have this issue with 14 and 15. However version 13 was fine. Might roll back to it


----------



## GaryDefiance

in regards to the memory issue, had a bit of an odd breakthrough.
the memory usage seems to increase the most, simply by scrolling up and down on the page.... this page, actually, was what i tested on. goes up drastically. going up and down this page 3 times alone raised it 200MB

also, i tested without add-ons. same issue, with a bare waterfox installation.


----------



## mikiwind

Sorry for my bad english. Can i have waterfox with italian language?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Optional bundled toolbar, ouch.


It's explained in the news post. At any rate something had to be done otherwise Waterfox wouldn't be anymore.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GaryDefiance*
> 
> in regards to the memory issue, had a bit of an odd breakthrough.
> the memory usage seems to increase the most, simply by scrolling up and down on the page.... this page, actually, was what i tested on. goes up drastically. going up and down this page 3 times alone raised it 200MB
> 
> also, i tested without add-ons. same issue, with a bare waterfox installation.


I'll look into this.

Just a quick question - is your system overclocked at all?


----------



## GaryDefiance

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's explained in the news post. At any rate something had to be done otherwise Waterfox wouldn't be anymore.
> 
> I'll look into this.
> 
> Just a quick question - is your system overclocked at all?


hmmmn.... i dont believe so, but it might be automatically done by the hardware.
it SHOULD not be, however.
i attempted to turn off any form of hardware-based overclocking, hoping for a more stable system. whether i succeeded or not is the real question

might be best to ask the other users who had the issue though... hmmn....


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikiwind*
> 
> Sorry for my bad english. Can i have waterfox with italian language?


No. (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/language-tools/)

There is no Italian language pack¹ for Firefox. You would have to use regular Firefox Italian language build² (found here).

¹A language pack can be installed to any build of Firefox, which Waterfox is.
²A language build must be used with that specific application because it is compiled with it.

There is an Italian dictionary file but that is it. (In the link above.)
It will spell check items for you in Italian when you write stuff but the UI will still be in English.

edit: I'm not sure why all the language packs are not listed on mozzila.org. The Italian language pack is found on the releases.mozzila site.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Of course, it is available here:
> 
> http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/win32/xpi/it.xpi
> 
> Type about:config in the address bar.
> Search for *general.useragent.locale*
> Right click>Modify
> Change the value to *it*
> 
> Let me know if you have any issues.


----------



## Jcow

Thanks MrAlex, No problems so far here









Win7
Adobe Flash Plugin 11.4
Adblock plus 2.1.2
Customize about:newtab 1.0.2


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here is the final installer:
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> Let me know of any issues before I blast the homepage with news


Just installed it.

Fingers crossed ...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mikiwind*
> 
> Sorry for my bad english. Can i have waterfox with italian language?


Of course, it is available here:

http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/latest/win32/xpi/it.xpi

Type about:config in the address bar.

Search for *general.useragent.locale*

Right click>Modify

Change the value to *it*

Let me know if you have any issues.


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.


I understand the need for this, however, I have a request!

Can you release in the same fashion Piriform and a few other software providers do? IE when Piriform releases an update, its bundled with things like toolbars, then a week or so later they release a "slim" version without the bundled software?

Im not a fan of bundleware installers, but i understand the need to make some form of revenue, but when using it for myself or fixing PC's for others it gets really annoying having to slow down to uncheck bundleware. i do mean slow down as well... when I worked at a Cyber cafe I had to do installations on 80~ PC's and bios updates as well, I was able after the first week to do it with my eyes closed! (BIOS and Software updates).

I give out the link and address to others for Waterfox to the homepage, but Id still like to see a "slim" version, even if it means waiting a week! (Alternativly paid access to the slim version, definitly willing!)

Thanks for the x64!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hammerfest*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's WF15, I'm releasing it here first to see if anyone gets any issues:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2015.0%20Setup.exe/download
> 
> (Yes the file size is larger due to the compression method, sorry about that!)
> 
> I am slightly nervous about users reaction, but being a student myself I just can't keep on making Waterfox at its current rate of growth, so if I do lose any users I'm sorry to see you go, but I have been giving my best.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand the need for this, however, I have a request!
> 
> Can you release in the same fashion Piriform and a few other software providers do? IE when Piriform releases an update, its bundled with things like toolbars, then a week or so later they release a "slim" version without the bundled software?
> 
> Im not a fan of bundleware installers, but i understand the need to make some form of revenue, but when using it for myself or fixing PC's for others it gets really annoying having to slow down to uncheck bundleware. i do mean slow down as well... when I worked at a Cyber cafe I had to do installations on 80~ PC's and bios updates as well, I was able after the first week to do it with my eyes closed! (BIOS and Software updates).
> 
> I give out the link and address to others for Waterfox to the homepage, but Id still like to see a "slim" version, even if it means waiting a week! (Alternativly paid access to the slim version, definitly willing!)
> 
> Thanks for the x64!
Click to expand...

I see, that seems like a decent idea. Well, there is the portable version available (which is just Waterfox by itself). Also the toolbar doesn't work with Waterfox, so it's just the search provider that is set (which is powered by Google, and in fact looks like Google from a few years ago







).

I'm contacting my installer support to see if the silent UI installs the toolbar (which it shouldn't, because it has to be selected by the user) which means you can create a batch file to install Waterfox without worry. I'll get back to you on this


----------



## fullmoon

extensions are assigned by default to WF15, they screwed up the pin as hotmail.website?


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I see, that seems like a decent idea. Well, there is the portable version available (which is just Waterfox by itself). Also the toolbar doesn't work with Waterfox, so it's just the search provider that is set (which is powered by Google, and in fact looks like Google from a few years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> I'm contacting my installer support to see if the silent UI installs the toolbar (which it shouldn't, because it has to be selected by the user) which means you can create a batch file to install Waterfox without worry. I'll get back to you on this


Thanks!

I generally dont use silent installers because alot of the systems I use block batch files (company PC's)

However ill keep an eye out for a "slim" version paid or unpaid!


----------



## Kirck

I made some test of consumption memory with a clean profile, without addons, between WF15 & FF15. The results are in GB with the sum of browser's memory + Flash plugin.
I use this web to run the test. http://gregor-wagner.com/tmp/mem
Some tips: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Zombie_compartments

_______________FF____WF
MemTest_______2,77___4,18
Closed Tabs ____0,30___1,13

Note: Eset Antivirus 5 detect the WF 15 update like a virus.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

First: I don't have the memory problems and i have 32 add-ons and Windows 8 with 8GB Ram.

Second: Is it not possible to run Firefox and Waterfox ad the same time? If i want to open Firefox i just get a new Waterfox window.


----------



## RobertoR

WT15 take 512MB with 3 tabs...


----------



## RealityRipple

I'd just like to mention that Unizeto Certum gives out free digital certificates for Open Source Developers (I've had one for a couple years now), and that there are lots of great free installer systems, like InnoSetup. There's no reason to pay for either one.


----------



## Jcow

Eset V4.2 Detected WF15 as a virus too, and it looks like WF15 uses more memory than FF15

oh yeh another thing is, when you use the flash plug-in with firefox15, it uses a separate process in the task manager, but with WF15 that doesn't happen.

(Sorry for my bad english)


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Second: Is it not possible to run Firefox and Waterfox ad the same time? If i want to open Firefox i just get a new Waterfox window.


Have you tried using the -noremote switch on the shortcut? That *should* allow it, but I'd really suggest using a different profile for Waterfox as well. Try reading this article if you want Firefox and Waterfox to use different profiles (and run at the same time together).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jcow*
> 
> and it looks like WF15 uses more memory than FF15


This is normal, 64-bit applications (e.g Waterfox) utilize more memory than 32-bit applications (e.g. Firefox).


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Have you tried using the -noremote switch on the shortcut? That *should* allow it, but I'd really suggest using a different profile for Waterfox as well


Sure i have different profiles. I thought running both would just work cause we have now waterfox.exe in the taskmanager.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jcow*
> oh yeh another thing is, when you use the flash plug-in with firefox15, it uses a separate process in the task manager, but with WF15 that doesn't happen.


I have the Plugin Container as always.


----------



## Jcow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> .
> I have the Plugin Container as always.




i don't have any problems with that but i'm just saying that itdoesn't happen with WF.

Before updating to WF15, I updated the flash plug-in from 11.3 to 11.4.


----------



## demoneye

same issue here , ONLY 1 tab open wf15 consuming 320,000 k of my memory


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hammerfest*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I see, that seems like a decent idea. Well, there is the portable version available (which is just Waterfox by itself). Also the toolbar doesn't work with Waterfox, so it's just the search provider that is set (which is powered by Google, and in fact looks like Google from a few years ago
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
> I'm contacting my installer support to see if the silent UI installs the toolbar (which it shouldn't, because it has to be selected by the user) which means you can create a batch file to install Waterfox without worry. I'll get back to you on this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> I generally dont use silent installers because alot of the systems I use block batch files (company PC's)
> 
> However ill keep an eye out for a "slim" version paid or unpaid!
Click to expand...

I'm never going to charge for WF. If you get bored of waiting for me:

http://mike.kaply.com/2012/02/14/customizing-the-firefox-installer-on-windows-2012/

Unpack a Firefox installer, replace Firefox's files with the ones from WF Portable and repack the installer









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kirck*
> 
> I made some test of consumption memory with a clean profile, without addons, between WF15 & FF15. The results are in GB with the sum of browser's memory + Flash plugin.
> I use this web to run the test. http://gregor-wagner.com/tmp/mem
> Some tips: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Zombie_compartments
> 
> _______________FF____WF
> MemTest_______2,77___4,18
> Closed Tabs ____0,30___1,13
> 
> Note: Eset Antivirus 5 detect the WF 15 update like a virus.


It's a false positive which shouldn't be happening because of the digital certificate.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> First: I don't have the memory problems and i have 32 add-ons and Windows 8 with 8GB Ram.
> 
> Second: Is it not possible to run Firefox and Waterfox ad the same time? If i want to open Firefox i just get a new Waterfox window.


Since Waterfox is designed to use the same profile as Firefox, it can't run them both unless they're on separate profiles.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> I'd just like to mention that Unizeto Certum gives out free digital certificates for Open Source Developers (I've had one for a couple years now), and that there are lots of great free installer systems, like InnoSetup. There's no reason to pay for either one.


I had no idea about Unizeto Certum (I searched all over the web for free digital certificates) and the cheapest I could find were from Comodo. That's one reason I had to pay. As for the installer, AI came with an automatic updater (and saved the hassle I had with the built in automatic updater in Firefox). Plus AI is incredibly easy to use and requires little effort. I don't know everything, and WF started off as a personal project for OCN. I had no idea it would blow up so much, and as with anything that goes big, costs are incurred.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jcow*
> 
> Eset V4.2 Detected WF15 as a virus too, and it looks like WF15 uses more memory than FF15
> 
> oh yeh another thing is, when you use the flash plug-in with firefox15, it uses a separate process in the task manager, but with WF15 that doesn't happen.
> 
> (Sorry for my bad english)


Look for plugin-container.exe?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> same issue here , ONLY 1 tab open wf15 consuming 320,000 k of my memory


Waterfox is supposed to use more memory it's a 64-Bit program. Also, it the amount of memory used is proportional to how much RAM you have... the more RAM the more memory. It's to increase performance.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kirck*
> 
> Note: Eset Antivirus 5 detect the WF 15 update like a virus.


I think it comes from the installer and not waterfox.
These antivirus checks risk behaviors, the installer is not very common, it is suspected.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> same issue here , ONLY 1 tab open wf15 consuming 320,000 k of my memory


hm. Since WF v13 (at least with me), it's always been consuming 500-600MB of memory regardless as to how many tabs I have open. I think at one point I saw it go as high as 800MB but it didn't stay there for very long.

With WF v15 it's been hanging around 525MB and I have 5 tabs open. Performance thus far has been *good* but I've only been using it for about 2-3 hours now.


----------



## fullmoon

have you read my last post?
http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-15-0-30-august-firefox-64-bit/3550_50#post_18054592
I have make a clean uninstall, before WF15 install, and .htm, .html, .website,... are assigned to WF15.


----------



## Bearded Geek

Two dumb questions:

1. Do Waterfox autoupdate or not? It did not notify me about the new version today.

2. What is the biggest differences between WF and Pale Moon?


----------



## Swag

So I'm guessing the problem is fixed? I'll try using it and try doing everything I was doing and see if the problem arises again.







Any one know if this browser seems "faster" or "snappier" than Chrome?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> Two dumb questions:
> 
> 1. Do Waterfox autoupdate or not? It did not notify me about the new version today.
> 
> 2. What is the biggest differences between WF and Pale Moon?


Waterfox should automatically update (but it's delayed for a bit).

Pale Moon is compiled with Visual Studio and tries to be its own browser.

Waterfox is compiled with Intel's C++ Compiler and tries to be as much as Firefox as possible (but faster







).


----------



## Bearded Geek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox should automatically update (but it's delayed for a bit).
> 
> Pale Moon is compiled with Visual Studio and tries to be its own browser.
> 
> Waterfox is compiled with Intel's C++ Compiler and tries to be as much as Firefox as possible (but faster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).


Thanks!

I am just asking about Pale Moon because well... back at their page all I get is that it is "unique and optimized with a lot of features" but they won't list the damn features! (At least I can't find them).
I am using Waterfox as my default browser since a week back and I am very pleased, btw.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> Two dumb questions:
> 
> 1. Do Waterfox autoupdate or not? It did not notify me about the new version today.
> 
> 2. What is the biggest differences between WF and Pale Moon?
> 
> 
> 
> Waterfox should automatically update (but it's delayed for a bit).
> 
> Pale Moon is compiled with Visual Studio and tries to be its own browser.
> 
> Waterfox is compiled with Intel's C++ Compiler and tries to be as much as Firefox as possible (but faster
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ).
Click to expand...

As what MrAlex said, Pale Moon is basically a stand-alone browser that looks like Firefox vs Waterfox, which is just Firefox recompiled to become a 64-bit variant, but much faster. Waterfox to me always feels faster than PaleMoon and I don't like how feminine PaleMoon looks like.


----------



## Thomazini

Hi!

I have been using WF since version 13.

I have uninstalled v14 and installed v15 this morning and then I got weird messages about MSVCP100.DLL and MSVCR100.dll being missing, which I did not get with the previous versions.

I have FF15 installed on another machine so I just copied the DLLs from there to WF15 folder and now I get "The application was unable to start correctly (0xc000007b)" error message.

Has anyone run into the same issue? Is there a fix? I noticed the same happens with the Portable release.

Thanks!


----------



## InsaneO

Installed 15.
Finally it is in my Control Panel under Programs.
15 changed my Home page to AVG and search box also to AVG.
I changed it back and uninstalled AVG toolbar.
Search box does not clear anymore.
Only clears if I type something.
Flash problems still remains the same since 13.
First video loads fine but next one cause crash. Have to refresh the page to view next one.
Tried it in Firefox and no problem. So only WF 13-15 causes problems with Flash.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *InsaneO*
> 
> Installed 15.
> Finally it is in my Control Panel under Programs.
> 15 changed my Home page to AVG and search box also to AVG.
> I changed it back and uninstalled AVG toolbar.
> Search box does not clear anymore.
> Only clears if I type something.
> Flash problems still remains the same since 13.
> First video loads fine but next one cause crash. Have to refresh the page to view next one.
> Tried it in Firefox and no problem. So only WF 13-15 causes problems with Flash.


Yea same. Just uninstall and use an older version of Flash. 11.2V. It works for me for now, but we'll see.


----------



## Swag

Ok MrAlex. I have used basically everything I normally used and started deleting files and it still works perfectly.







Good job on this release. Although before announcing it, you should wait and see if there are any more bugs. I have not visited a lot of websites yet and some may prove to be problem-some.

To everyone else, which do you prefer? Chrome or Waterfox?


----------



## Czarnodziej

WF15 still randomly crashes in Windows 8 when hardware acceleration is enabled.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> WF15 still randomly crashes in Windows 8 when hardware acceleration is enabled.


I don't think it's supposed to be used with Win8 since it's not completely made for it or even compiled for it. Try running compatibility mode and see if that works. Can't stand Win8 though, just so ugly and counter-intuitive specially with removing the Win button.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> hm. Since WF v13 (at least with me), it's always been consuming 500-600MB of memory regardless as to how many tabs I have open. I think at one point I saw it go as high as 800MB but it didn't stay there for very long.
> With WF v15 it's been hanging around 525MB and I have 5 tabs open. Performance thus far has been *good* but I've only been using it for about 2-3 hours now.


YES , my bad , i recheck it , open 20 tabs its remain about 500,000 k









good work alex


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Sure i have different profiles. I thought running both would just work cause we have now waterfox.exe in the taskmanager.


Yeah, that's not possible. It'd require Firefox's source to be modified (like Pale Moon) to use a different profile directory in %APPDATA%, etc. I don't foresee that happening though unless some programmer committed to the project.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> To everyone else, which do you prefer? Chrome or Waterfox?


Chrome. It's way, way faster and more responsive than Firefox/Waterfox, Opera, Internet Explorer, etc. Plus there's no ongoing Flash issues like with Firefox and Opera!









People whining about memory usage should know and realize that 64-bit programs, especially web browsers will automatically use more available resources so it's really a moot point in this day and age. If it was using 1GB+ of RAM for no reason, that'd be cause for alarm as that'd probably indicate a memory leak somewhere. 300k for a single tab? That's fine with me!


----------



## matada

I switched from Chrome to Waterfox. Happy I did.


----------



## Lord Venom

I'd switch too, but I really can't stand how unresponsive and bogged down Firefox (and thus its variants) gets when opening multiple tabs at the same time and when switching between tabs. With Chrome I find it's smooth as butter. Mainly because of that, I stick to Chrome as my main browser.

Hoping Mozilla revives the project of making Firefox multi-process like Chrome in the future. Sure, Snappy and Super Snappy has made Firefox come a long way in the last few versions, but I still really notice it and it's very bothersome. Opera's just as bad in this case too.


----------



## TheHunter

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Optional bundled toolbar, ouch.


so that's what it is,.. Nod32 canceled DL saying its a Trojan lol



Ok false alarm, thanks for new rls


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, the whole false positive warning from the optional toolbar is pretty alarming, to be honest.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TheHunter*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Optional bundled toolbar, ouch.
> 
> 
> 
> so that's what it is,.. Nod32 canceled DL saying its a Trojan lol
> 
> 
> 
> Ok false alarm, thanks for new rls
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Yeah, the whole false positive warning from the optional toolbar is pretty alarming, to be honest.


It's not the toolbar, it's the installer. I used an external script and AV programs don't like that.


----------



## Lord Venom

Ah, should be pretty straightforward to fix then.


----------



## k3ntel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thomazini*
> 
> Hi!
> I have been using WF since version 13.
> I have uninstalled v14 and installed v15 this morning and then I got weird messages about MSVCP100.DLL and MSVCR100.dll being missing, which I did not get with the previous versions.
> I have FF15 installed on another machine so I just copied the DLLs from there to WF15 folder and now I get "The application was unable to start correctly (0xc000007b)" error message.
> Has anyone run into the same issue? Is there a fix? I noticed the same happens with the Portable release.
> Thanks!


I have this exact same problem. Just updated to version 15 (i think I was on version 12 or 13) and I can't launch waterfox now. I get the MSVCP100.dll missing error.


----------



## Lord Venom

You need the Intel runtimes that should of been installed/included with the installer.


----------



## JWvanLohuizen

Unable to install Waterfox 15 without AVG malware


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> I don't think it's supposed to be used with Win8 since it's not completely made for it or even compiled for it. Try running compatibility mode and see if that works. Can't stand Win8 though, just so ugly and counter-intuitive specially with removing the Win button.


Working for me, no problems with HW acceleration enabled. WF15, W8 RTM x64.

443 tabs. yes 443, have had 500 opened! not all load at startup but have been CTRL TAB through them to load some of them. WF feels a bit sluggish, start typing and letters take a bit to show, press CTRL TAB and tabs take a bit to change, same with scrolling. No Flash in my laptop. 2.4GB RAM used doesnt seem to bad to me. When it gets too bad I close WF and open it again. I probably should do it now.

Chrome is not worth being my browser without x64!


----------



## Ganni87

Hello MrAlex

Thanks for the awesome new release. I'm not sure if this is intended or a bug, I've installed the latest version and like usual I test it to see if everything's running properly. However when I click on the updater it doesn't open, Nothing happens on my system and in task manager if say I have 40 tasks open it stays the same when I click the updater. Any light on this?

Thanks again for the new release.


----------



## HanFox

I'm not really impressed with that AVG install question.



So, to say "No", you have to select "Custom" and not check the boxes?

There really needs to be a proper "No" option.

This is one of those underhanded things that makes me stop using software regardless of how good it is.


----------



## LBear

Updated to WF 15. The only issue i have is that i cant type anything in my search bar. When i click on the search bar no cursor shows up.


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> I'm not really impressed with that AVG install question.
> 
> So, to say "No", you have to select "Custom" and not check the boxes?
> There really needs to be a proper "No" option.
> This is one of those underhanded things that makes me stop using software regardless of how good it is.


Holy crap!

Havent updated yet, thats nice to know...

Im just going to wait for a slim version, aint in a rush to upgrade


----------



## schwit

This spamware stunt will push people towards the Mozilla version.
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-17.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schwit*
> 
> This spamware stunt will push people towards the Mozilla version.
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-17.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


No one is forcing you to download. And FYI that 64bit version of firefox is a nightly build and is considered unstable.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ganni87*
> 
> Hello MrAlex
> Thanks for the awesome new release. I'm not sure if this is intended or a bug, I've installed the latest version and like usual I test it to see if everything's running properly. However when I click on the updater it doesn't open, Nothing happens on my system and in task manager if say I have 40 tasks open it stays the same when I click the updater. Any light on this?
> Thanks again for the new release.


It's a silent updater. It won't open any window unless an update is available.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schwit*
> 
> This spamware stunt will push people towards the Mozilla version.
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-17.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


You guys need to stop these "lynch mob" comments.

It is an OPTIONAL toolbar put in place to keep revenues up to maintain the project. Otherwise there would be no Waterfox.

This is not maleware or spyware.

Now stop complaining.


----------



## Bearded Geek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> You guys need to stop this "lynch mob" comments.
> It is an OPTIONAL toolbar put in place to keep revenues up to maintain the project. Otherwise there would be no Waterfox.
> This is not maleware or spyware..
> Now stop complaining.


Not to mention that if you choose Custom Install it's default settings are UNCHECKED boxes.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LBear*
> 
> Updated to WF 15. The only issue i have is that i cant type anything in my search bar. When i click on the search bar no cursor shows up.


I have this problem as well. The cursor shows up but you cannot edit the box with the mouse. The cursor will remain at the first place before the "G" in "Google" always. You can only start typing and it will erase "Google" and put in what you type.


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> You need the Intel runtimes that should of been installed/included with the installer.


Seems like these runtimes are missing in the installer and portable versions.

MrAlex, any chance you can release the installer with those? It's been a pain to go over the webs looking for the right ones...

Thx! By the way WF rocks and I prefer WF over Chrome ...


----------



## Fredko

Hello

ESET detected a trojan when downloading to waterfox15


----------



## Conditioned

Eset the king of false positives. Run it through something like virustotal.

Those who dont like the installer can use the portable like me.

MrAlex: THanks for waterfox, I really like its speed. Can you please tell me how I can make a .bat to make an updatechecker? I disabled the auto update in scheduler and cant find it there :/


----------



## Ironcobra

Im getting 97% mem usage since wf 14....starts at 20 or so then goes to 90+ after a minute or so, any one else having this problem? I have never had issues with waterfox or firefox for that matter but lately its unusable, stuck with chrome??


----------



## MrAlex

Guys, *there is no toolbar* for Waterfox. All there is is a search provider (which is powered by Google) and AVG searches every link for malware. It's the same thing as if I were to change the default search provider to Bing. I don't see what's so bad about Google with some extra security?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ganni87*
> 
> Hello MrAlex
> 
> Thanks for the awesome new release. I'm not sure if this is intended or a bug, I've installed the latest version and like usual I test it to see if everything's running properly. However when I click on the updater it doesn't open, Nothing happens on my system and in task manager if say I have 40 tasks open it stays the same when I click the updater. Any light on this?
> 
> Thanks again for the new release.


The installer is meant to be silent (like the one implemented in Firefox 15) and is only supposed to show a message when it becomes available. But I'm contacting installer support to make sure it's running properly.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> I'm not really impressed with that AVG install question.
> 
> 
> 
> So, to say "No", you have to select "Custom" and not check the boxes?
> 
> There really needs to be a proper "No" option.
> 
> This is one of those underhanded things that makes me stop using software regardless of how good it is.


I've explained it countless times. It's in the news post, and the posts in this thread,

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hammerfest*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> I'm not really impressed with that AVG install question.
> 
> So, to say "No", you have to select "Custom" and not check the boxes?
> There really needs to be a proper "No" option.
> This is one of those underhanded things that makes me stop using software regardless of how good it is.
> 
> 
> 
> Holy crap!
> 
> Havent updated yet, thats nice to know...
> 
> Im just going to wait for a slim version, aint in a rush to upgrade
Click to expand...

There's a portable version.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Conditioned*
> 
> Eset the king of false positives. Run it through something like virustotal.
> 
> Those who dont like the installer can use the portable like me.
> 
> MrAlex: THanks for waterfox, I really like its speed. Can you please tell me how I can make a .bat to make an updatechecker? I disabled the auto update in scheduler and cant find it there :/


The updater is part of the installer. The built in Firefox updater never worked properly for me.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*
> 
> Im getting 97% mem usage since wf 14....starts at 20 or so then goes to 90+ after a minute or so, any one else having this problem? I have never had issues with waterfox or firefox for that matter but lately its unusable, stuck with chrome??


That definitely shouldn't be happening. That sounds like an actual memory leak. Is your RAM overclocked? It could be unstable and errors in the memory storage could be occurring. Otherwise I'll have to look into that.


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> I'm not really impressed with that AVG install question.


I have no problem as long as a) it's simple to bypass b) the silent installer for deployment doesn't install it. Both counts satisfied.

Though I find it amusing that the Express will install the toolbar according to the text, but under custom for the same toolbar it says "Only works on 32bit browsers" - WF is 64bit no? LOL


----------



## Taomyn

Been having fun and games with the latest download and silent deployment. Seems the way to install it from the command line is:

Code:



Code:


"Waterfox 15.0 Setup.exe" /exenoui /quiet /passive /qn /log c:\waterfoxinstall.log /norestart

Unfortunately now the command line to set it as the default browser:

Code:



Code:


"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -setDefaultBrowser

no longer fully works. It displays some text before requiring me to press Enter to exit the process - not much use for unattended installs but not a deal breaker.


----------



## Swag

MrAlex, after intensive web-browsing and deleting my registry and temp files many times, I have had no problem. As well as installing it multiple times on different PC and the problem of certain files missing still don't exist to me. Great job on this release! You can probably bombard the homepage with news now.


----------



## Conditioned

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Guys, *there is no toolbar* for Waterfox. All there is is a search provider (which is powered by Google) and AVG searches every link for malware. It's the same thing as if I were to change the default search provider to Bing. I don't see what's so bad about Google with some extra security?
> 
> The installer is meant to be silent (like the one implemented in Firefox 15) and is only supposed to show a message when it becomes available. But I'm contacting installer support to make sure it's running properly.
> 
> I've explained it countless times. It's in the news post, and the posts in this thread,
> 
> There's a portable version.
> 
> The updater is part of the installer. The built in Firefox updater never worked properly for me.
> 
> That definitely shouldn't be happening. That sounds like an actual memory leak. Is your RAM overclocked? It could be unstable and errors in the memory storage could be occurring. Otherwise I'll have to look into that.


I dont use the installer though, this is the portable.


----------



## Swag

Anyone know why "aboutage" leads me to an error screen?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Anyone know why "aboutage" leads me to an error screen?


I believe that page doesn't even exist on the "about" feature embedded in firefox/waterfox. I also tried it on FF15 but it just says that the page is invalid.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Anyone know why "aboutage" leads me to an error screen?
> 
> 
> 
> I believe that page doesn't even exist on the "about" feature embedded in firefox/waterfox. I also tried it on FF15 but it just says that the page is invalid.
Click to expand...

How come on the previous installations, this homepage worked. Like the default homepage for WF15 isn't working anymore. Also when I open a new tab, I get an invalid page.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> How come on the previous installations, this homepage worked. Like the default homepage for WF15 isn't working anymore. Also when I open a new tab, I get an invalid page.


Try restoring the default page on the options window. Or type "about:home". I'm not exactly sure of what your problem is cause i when i installed WF my homepage appeared immediately.

Also there's an addon called "My Homepage". When you open a new tab it will make the tab load your homepage.


----------



## Swag

Yea all of a sudden, that new tab page doesn't work for me anymore. Not sure why...


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't see what's so bad about Google with some extra security?


AVG in general is crapware, IMO. Avast is way, way better. Also, I wouldn't call AVG 'extra security' unless you want it eventually flagging vital system files as malware, like in the past.







It really is the Norton/McAfee of the modern age.


----------



## coolspotover

When I tried installing waterfox 15, I was not going to want AVG to infect my computer with it's own "friendly" spyware/annoyance so like a sensible computer user I opted for custom with the tick boxes unchecked. This SHOULD in theory, if all was right with the world, have meant that AVG toolbar would not have been installed. I was wrong. It got through anyway and bunged up my chrome install. AVG start page, home page and default search provider. I did not want this and ad to uninstall the toolbar from windows and change all the chrome settings back to *MY* personal preferences that *I* had chosen.

Not only that but the waterfox install failed. Missing dll. Deeply irritating. I tried repairing the install, and unistalling and reinstalling but to no avail. I am sure there is some tedious fiddly fix that would make it work again by downloading some suspect thing from some suspect website, but frankly I am not about to go and chase after this. It should just work right? Thankfully I had the old 14.02 or 14.01 installer hanging around my computer and reinstalled this with no problems.

I know that you need a revenue stream from this great project, and you deserve one, but bundling it with software that users *cannot* opt out of is wrong. Simple. Chose different software, chose something that those who want to can say no to. Chose something with a great big "I don't want this" button rather than some unticked tick boxes that don't actually work.

Also fix the dll thing.

Thanks.


----------



## HanFox

RE: AVG options screen:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've explained it countless times. It's in the news post, and the posts in this thread,


No, you've explained WHY it's there and that it's OPTIONAL, but you don't say how to say "No".

You've left it very blurry as to how to fully opt out and a lot of people aren't as likely to work out to click Custom and not check the boxes.

If you don't understand how that's underhanded then I'm at a loss.

Is it really complicated to have "Express", "Custom", "Do not install"?

Surely the revenue from the AVG support is from having the option of the toolbar/search not that people actually opt in? If it's from people opting in it makes the case of having no "No" selection even worse.

By the way, I have no issue with you needing to include an option like AVG, my issue is that you've done it in such a way.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> When I tried installing waterfox 15, I was not going to want AVG to infect my computer with it's own "friendly" spyware/annoyance so like a sensible computer user I opted for custom with the tick boxes unchecked. This SHOULD in theory, if all was right with the world, have meant that AVG toolbar would not have been installed. I was wrong. It got through anyway and bunged up my chrome install. AVG start page, home page and default search provider. I did not want this and ad to uninstall the toolbar from windows and change all the chrome settings back to *MY* personal preferences that *I* had chosen.
> Not only that but the waterfox install failed. Missing dll. Deeply irritating. I tried repairing the install, and unistalling and reinstalling but to no avail. I am sure there is some tedious fiddly fix that would make it work again by downloading some suspect thing from some suspect website, but frankly I am not about to go and chase after this. It should just work right? Thankfully I had the old 14.02 or 14.01 installer hanging around my computer and reinstalled this with no problems.
> I know that you need a revenue stream from this great project, and you deserve one, but bundling it with software that users *cannot* opt out of is wrong. Simple. Chose different software, chose something that those who want to can say no to. Chose something with a great big "I don't want this" button rather than some unticked tick boxes that don't actually work.
> Also fix the dll thing.
> Thanks.


I installed WF15 just fine without the toolbar. Definitely something wrong on your side.

I had no DLL problem, either.

I do agree that the installer should say "Install" and "Don't Install" instead of the "Custom" stuff. A bit odd, I think.


----------



## coolspotover

Don't pin this on me buddy. Others are having the dll issue and the AVG settings and toolbar should NOT have installed. Simple. Don't argue with that, don't dare make it out to be my fault as the dll should be installed along with the rest of the program and it was missing, and I had the correct settings unticked to disallow the AVG bar. Be helpful or stop being an irritation. There are surely a great many things that you have done that I have not done, that does not make you somehow the better one or have the only way. It's not like this for you, so surely it can't be that way for ANYONE? Think before you deride.

I have highlighted a bug, in fact 2 bugs, that should not be a problem.

Missing dll which has been mentioned already by others here and around the net, and AVG sneaking through even with the unobvious options set to not install it.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> Missing dll which has been mentioned already by others here and around the net, and AVG sneaking through even with the unobvious options set to not install it.


Try installing Intel C++ Redistributables: http://registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2025/w_cproc_p_11.1.070_redist_intel64.exe

That maybe the cause of the missing dll files. And please be calm







I'm pretty sure he didn't mean to upset you. About the AVG option make sure you tick Custom and leave the other 3 options unticked too. Mr. Alex would probably revise the installer to have better options including proper boxes to exclude that option.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I installed WF15 just fine without the toolbar. Definitely something wrong on your side.
> I had no DLL problem, either.
> I do agree that the installer should say "Install" and "Don't Install" instead of the "Custom" stuff. A bit odd, I think.


Same here ... I just checked my Chrome and found no traces of AVG installed.









I should also mentioned that after WF v15 installed I went straight to "Control Panel > Program and Features" just to insure AVG wasn't installed. I did this before I launched WF v15 for the first time.

I did get the DLL problem back when v12(?) came out. the fix for me was to uninstall v12 and v11 (taking care not to nuke the profile folder) and then reinstall. I've done that with each version release.


----------



## coolspotover

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> make sure you tick Custom and leave the other 3 options unticked too.


That's exactly what I did, and yet the AVG settings and toolbar installed anyway.

I'm going to wait for waterfox 15 to fix itself before I dive into any fixes. 14 works, what's so broken about 15? I also want 15 to be my browser, but until the AVG toolbar option is fixed, I'm not willing to have it change all my settings _again._


----------



## kpopsaranghae

Just like WF 14, my 3-finger swipe right/left is page up/down instead of back/forward. Was there a change in the WF code that caused this to happen? :/


----------



## jeffreyabr

Getting a weird issue on my task bar. The Waterfox icon which I have pinned to my task bar can be clicked,


http://imgur.com/HautU

 opens up to control the program.

Any suggestions?


----------



## helloha

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jeffreyabr*
> 
> Getting a weird issue on my task bar. The Waterfox icon which I have pinned to my task bar can be clicked,
> 
> 
> http://imgur.com/HautU
> 
> opens up to control the program.
> Any suggestions?


That happened for me too. Just unpin the icon you clicked on to launch waterfox and pin the new icon. It should work after that


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Try installing Intel C++ Redistributables: http://registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2025/w_cproc_p_11.1.070_redist_intel64.exe


Tried that to no avail. WF wouldn't even look for the installed DLL's in c:\windows\syswow64 so I copied both missing DLL's from there to WF15 folder and got that annoying 0xc000007b error again.

Unfortunately I have dumped my WF14 installer. I hope I can find it somewhere and maybe the next release of WF will remedy these stupid gremlins.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> Don't pin this on me buddy. Others are having the dll issue and the AVG settings and toolbar should NOT have installed. Simple. Don't argue with that, don't dare make it out to be my fault as the dll should be installed along with the rest of the program and it was missing, and I had the correct settings unticked to disallow the AVG bar. Be helpful or stop being an irritation. There are surely a great many things that you have done that I have not done, that does not make you somehow the better one or have the only way. It's not like this for you, so surely it can't be that way for ANYONE? Think before you deride.
> I have highlighted a bug, in fact 2 bugs, that should not be a problem.
> Missing dll which has been mentioned already by others here and around the net, and AVG sneaking through even with the unobvious options set to not install it.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> That's exactly what I did, and yet the AVG settings and toolbar installed anyway.
> I'm going to wait for waterfox 15 to fix itself before I dive into any fixes. 14 works, what's so broken about 15? I also want 15 to be my browser, but until the AVG toolbar option is fixed, I'm not willing to have it change all my settings _again._


I wasn't "pinning" anything on you. I was simply stating that the installer works perfectly fine on mine and many others PCs.

With that said, I'm calling troll.

The installer is an item by itself and is the same for any user. It either works of it doesn't.

If it didn't install AVG on mine (a lot of other user's PCs too) then it doesn't. Period.

It seems like you are really pushing that the Waterfox installer just installs stuff if you tell it not to, when it doesn't.


----------



## kxtcd950

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> When I tried installing waterfox 15, I was not going to want AVG to infect my computer with it's own "friendly" spyware/annoyance so like a sensible computer user I opted for custom with the tick boxes unchecked. This SHOULD in theory, if all was right with the world, have meant that AVG toolbar would not have been installed. I was wrong. It got through anyway and bunged up my chrome install. AVG start page, home page and default search provider. I did not want this and ad to uninstall the toolbar from windows and change all the chrome settings back to *MY* personal preferences that *I* had chosen. .


Like the chap quoted above, I too had AVG "install" itself even though I took the custom route in the Waterfox installer, and unchecked the boxes. After installing, Waterfox didn't have the AVG addin installed, but magically Internet Explorer *and* Chrome both had the plugin installed and enabled. I have AVG installed as my AntiVirus package, but I believe that Chrome and IE had the addin disabled in both browsers. I suspect that the AVG part of the Waterfox installer calls into an AVG DLL which "magically" enabled the extensions in the other browsers. I doubt that Mr Alex or the installer did this on purpose. I do however think that Mr Alex does need to go to AVG and ask them what is going on here - something installed the AVG addin to IE and Chrome, and it wasn't me. Perhaps it's a bug in the AVG addin installer that didn't set the IE and Chrome "do not install" flags (it apparently had the Waterfox do not install flag set).

Other than that, great job, Mr Alex, and thanks for all your hard work on Waterfox; WF15 doesn't have any issues (other than the installer) like 14 had - my icons pin correctly and the jumplists work well. I honestly hope that the AVG installer deal covers your outgoings on the project - it's easy enough to opt out of the AVG install on the UI; it's just a shame that the installer installs the addin for other browsers installed on the system (albeit doing exactly what I wanted and *not* installing it into Waterfox).


----------



## coolspotover

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> With that said, I'm calling troll.
> The installer is an item by itself and is the same for any user. It either works of it doesn't.
> If it didn't install AVG on mine (a lot of other user's PCs too) then it doesn't. Period.


Well I am telling you that it DOES install. And so does the guy who just posted. It's obviously something that affects some users but not others. I'm happy for you that your install went through without a problem, but saying that there is no problem because you had no problem is foolish. Clearly there is an issue. You are not right. In fact, you are wrong. Simple. Nothing to argue about, nothing to troll about, just simple that you are wrong. Be more useful or stop saying that we are wrong. We are not lying. We are not making this up.

Waterfox is great, it really is, and I will update it again when these issues are ironed out. Thank you to the team for producing this browser.


----------



## Ispep

Hm. Perhaps AVG is being installed from another installer and is just now rearing itself?

In other words I once had a installer try and install the Yahoo toolbar. I told it not to and it did not appear on my default browser which was Firefox at the time. When I went to open MSIE about a week or so later the Yahoo toolbar was present.

Just a thought?


----------



## coolspotover

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> Hm. Perhaps AVG is being installed from another installer and is just now rearing itself?
> In other words I once had a installer try and install the Yahoo toolbar. I told it not to and it did not appear on my default browser which was Firefox at the time. When I went to open MSIE about a week or so later the Yahoo toolbar was present.
> Just a thought?


Good thought, but I'm afraid that I haven't installed anything else recently and my partner uses chrome the whole time and we haven't seen anything. We also use MSSE not AVG.


----------



## vermouth

After years of using Waterfox, I'm moving on. It can install bloatware/tracking toobars, custom searches, and redirect homepages even if you chose not to during the initial install.

I installed WF, and deselected the AVG option. It didn't start as normal, giving some error. Through Win7 program manager I selected "repair" and the program proceeded to install toolbars (in both mozilla, chrome, and IE) and redirected the homepages. It also added and made default AVG search in IE. Multiple processes requested internet access through my firewall. All of this was done with no prompting or permission. Worse still, the custom search in IE appears to be non-removable.

The sheer fact that AVG is included led me to promptly dump WF from my site, where I recommend software. This kind of tracking bloatware is morally wrong, even if the developers are in need of cash. A very bad decision that will have severe repercussions for the user base.


----------



## kennyparker1337

So much hate over an optional toolbar.

Such shame really.

I will continue using Waterfox. It is a great program.

Thank you Mr. Alex.


----------



## Calleja

Ok, I have a weird problem since installing Waterfox 15 and Google didn't help. My back button is not how I think it should be, round and combined with the forward button, it's back to the "classic" look, no matter what I do. Let me get a screen shot to ilustrate. 

http://i.imgur.com/T1r80.png

As you can hopefully see, I see some ugly back/forward arrows instead of the expected round back button combined with the forward one. Is there anything I can do to reset this? If it's relevant, I was using Waterfox 13 until today an just installed 15. I didn't read the instructions for 14 and first installed 15 over 13 and got the expected error. I uninstalled 13 (WITHOUT personal info) adn then resintalled 15. Everything works fine except for the back buttons and they're kinda driving me insane, any help would be greatly appreciated.


----------



## coolspotover

Have you tried a different theme and then switching back? Or changing the size of the icons by right clicking the toolbar?

If you have, then I'm all out of ideas.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't see what's so bad about Google with some extra security?
> 
> 
> 
> AVG in general is crapware, IMO. Avast is way, way better. Also, I wouldn't call AVG 'extra security' unless you want it eventually flagging vital system files as malware, like in the past.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It really is the Norton/McAfee of the modern age.
Click to expand...

But no actual AV product is installed, just a website is used. (isearch.avg.com). So no flaggin anything









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> When I tried installing waterfox 15, I was not going to want AVG to infect my computer with it's own "friendly" spyware/annoyance so like a sensible computer user I opted for custom with the tick boxes unchecked. This SHOULD in theory, if all was right with the world, have meant that AVG toolbar would not have been installed. I was wrong. It got through anyway and bunged up my chrome install. AVG start page, home page and default search provider. I did not want this and ad to uninstall the toolbar from windows and change all the chrome settings back to *MY* personal preferences that *I* had chosen.
> 
> Not only that but the waterfox install failed. Missing dll. Deeply irritating. I tried repairing the install, and unistalling and reinstalling but to no avail. I am sure there is some tedious fiddly fix that would make it work again by downloading some suspect thing from some suspect website, but frankly I am not about to go and chase after this. It should just work right? Thankfully I had the old 14.02 or 14.01 installer hanging around my computer and reinstalled this with no problems.
> 
> I know that you need a revenue stream from this great project, and you deserve one, but bundling it with software that users *cannot* opt out of is wrong. Simple. Chose different software, chose something that those who want to can say no to. Chose something with a great big "I don't want this" button rather than some unticked tick boxes that don't actually work.
> 
> Also fix the dll thing.
> 
> Thanks.


It shouldn't do that and I'm sure I've tested it but I will look into. Also I forgot to include the Microsoft Redist files.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> RE: AVG options screen:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I've explained it countless times. It's in the news post, and the posts in this thread,
> 
> 
> 
> No, you've explained WHY it's there and that it's OPTIONAL, but you don't say how to say "No".
> 
> You've left it very blurry as to how to fully opt out and a lot of people aren't as likely to work out to click Custom and not check the boxes.
> 
> If you don't understand how that's underhanded then I'm at a loss.
> 
> Is it really complicated to have "Express", "Custom", "Do not install"?
> 
> Surely the revenue from the AVG support is from having the option of the toolbar/search not that people actually opt in? If it's from people opting in it makes the case of having no "No" selection even worse.
> 
> By the way, I have no issue with you needing to include an option like AVG, my issue is that you've done it in such a way.
Click to expand...

Sorry about that, it's the way they wanted me to include it. I'll try and ask to see if I can change the wording.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> Don't pin this on me buddy. Others are having the dll issue and the AVG settings and toolbar should NOT have installed. Simple. Don't argue with that, don't dare make it out to be my fault as the dll should be installed along with the rest of the program and it was missing, and I had the correct settings unticked to disallow the AVG bar. Be helpful or stop being an irritation. There are surely a great many things that you have done that I have not done, that does not make you somehow the better one or have the only way. It's not like this for you, so surely it can't be that way for ANYONE? Think before you deride.
> 
> I have highlighted a bug, in fact 2 bugs, that should not be a problem.
> 
> Missing dll which has been mentioned already by others here and around the net, and AVG sneaking through even with the unobvious options set to not install it.


Guys there's no need to argue, just some simple mistakes that can be easily fixed!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kpopsaranghae*
> 
> Just like WF 14, my 3-finger swipe right/left is page up/down instead of back/forward. Was there a change in the WF code that caused this to happen? :/


There might be something with Firefox? Although the code change I have has nothing to do with any user interaction. I'll submit a bug report. Have you tested with FF15?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Ok, I have a weird problem since installing Waterfox 15 and Google didn't help. My back button is not how I think it should be, round and combined with the forward button, it's back to the "classic" look, no matter what I do. Let me get a screen shot to ilustrate.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/T1r80.png
> 
> As you can hopefully see, I see some ugly back/forward arrows instead of the expected round back button combined with the forward one. Is there anything I can do to reset this? If it's relevant, I was using Waterfox 13 until today an just installed 15. I didn't read the instructions for 14 and first installed 15 over 13 and got the expected error. I uninstalled 13 (WITHOUT personal info) adn then resintalled 15. Everything works fine except for the back buttons and they're kinda driving me insane, any help would be greatly appreciated.


Wow, I haven't seen that UI before. Are you sure there aren't any add-ons? If not I'll ask the Mozilla IRC if that UI is part of Firefox.


----------



## coolspotover

Thank you Mr Alex. I figured it would be simple stuff. You are a star and your work is greatly appreciated.







Let us know if you can get things sorted and I'm jumping up to 15.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coolspotover*
> 
> Thank you Mr Alex. I figured it would be simple stuff. You are a star and your work is greatly appreciated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let us know if you can get things sorted and I'm jumping up to 15.


Okay I've double checked the installer settings:



Each checkbox is name CHECK1 CHECK2 and CHECK3. I can give you a pic of each of the checkboxes on Monday if you'd like. Otherwise the toolbar shouldn't have installed.

Also, I'm reuploading the installer and the changes I made:


Added a note at the bottom of the UI saying: "Note: Select custom installation and leave the boxes blank to not install the AVG product"

So anyone now downloading after the upload finishes (within 2 minutes) will get the note.


----------



## dqwf

People couldnt read that they had to uninstall before installing WF14. Now they cant read the installer and select not to have the AVG Toolbar installed. They dont pay for WF and yet they have the nerve to B***T about it!

Mr Alex, dont know how you can put up with this!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hey! Just wanted to say I'm happy this project's still chugging along - unfortunately I've had to revert back to Firefox because Flash 64bit is no longer supported for Vista (the latest installer refuses to work). But







for you all


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> People couldnt read that they had to uninstall before installing WF14. Now they cant read the installer and select not to have the AVG Toolbar installed. They dont pay for WF and yet they have the nerve to B***T about it!
> 
> Mr Alex, dont know how you can put up with this!


I don't think there are any paid browsers







but either way there's no problem with people voicing their opinions, and I guess things should appear to everyone to be as simple as possible







that's what a good program does anyway.


----------



## Lord Venom

Opera once had a pay version of the browser many years ago.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Ok, I have a weird problem since installing Waterfox 15 and Google didn't help. My back button is not how I think it should be, round and combined with the forward button, it's back to the "classic" look, no matter what I do. Let me get a screen shot to ilustrate.
> http://i.imgur.com/T1r80.png
> As you can hopefully see, I see some ugly back/forward arrows instead of the expected round back button combined with the forward one. Is there anything I can do to reset this? If it's relevant, I was using Waterfox 13 until today an just installed 15. I didn't read the instructions for 14 and first installed 15 over 13 and got the expected error. I uninstalled 13 (WITHOUT personal info) adn then resintalled 15. Everything works fine except for the back buttons and they're kinda driving me insane, any help would be greatly appreciated.


I'm curious now what these buttons are SUPPOSED to look like, as that picture looks very similar to mine and I hadn't realised anything was wrong.


----------



## jeffreyabr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *helloha*
> 
> That happened for me too. Just unpin the icon you clicked on to launch waterfox and pin the new icon. It should work after that


That didn't work. I tried unpinning it and even tracked down the .exe file and tried pinning that to my taskbar, but I still have the same problem. Before I installed WaterFox 15, I uninstalled 14.


----------



## Swag

MrAlex, I'm still having problems with the new tab page. It always come out as an invalid or error page.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Ok, I have a weird problem since installing Waterfox 15 and Google didn't help. My back button is not how I think it should be, round and combined with the forward button, it's back to the "classic" look, no matter what I do. Let me get a screen shot to ilustrate.
> http://i.imgur.com/T1r80.png
> As you can hopefully see, I see some ugly back/forward arrows instead of the expected round back button combined with the forward one. Is there anything I can do to reset this? If it's relevant, I was using Waterfox 13 until today an just installed 15. I didn't read the instructions for 14 and first installed 15 over 13 and got the expected error. I uninstalled 13 (WITHOUT personal info) adn then resintalled 15. Everything works fine except for the back buttons and they're kinda driving me insane, any help would be greatly appreciated.


https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cstbb/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> I'm curious now what these buttons are SUPPOSED to look like, as that picture looks very similar to mine and I hadn't realised anything was wrong.


Firefox changed the UI a bit. They removed the borders on the forward/backward and other addons on the navigation toolbar.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jeffreyabr*
> 
> That didn't work. I tried unpinning it and even tracked down the .exe file and tried pinning that to my taskbar, but I still have the same problem. Before I installed WaterFox 15, I uninstalled 14.


Try launching from the waterfox directory. (Don't drag the waterfox exe in the taskbar.) Then pin the icon.


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> That definitely shouldn't be happening. That sounds like an actual memory leak. Is your RAM overclocked? It could be unstable and errors in the memory storage could be occurring. Otherwise I'll have to look into that.


I did just update my flash, could that have something to do with it? On 11.4... right now, Im having no other memory problems in any other program


----------



## coolspotover

Excellent. All working fine now. I think perhaps the problem was the AVG toobar installs if you repair your installation. There was no option not to, and I repaired as there was a missing dll and I thought that might fix it and another commenter has mentioned this. Something to look into perhaps?

Thank you.


----------



## farmers

I did just notice I have 'AVG Secure Search' in my search engine list, and wondered how it got there - I definitely omitted it during the install. It wasn't set as the default, but it has been added in there. I don't care that much either way, as I certainly wouldn't classify it as 'spyware' like some other people in this thread - it just concerns me that the installer has quite obviously done something I asked it not to do.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> I did just notice I have 'AVG Secure Search' in my search engine list, and wondered how it got there - I definitely omitted it during the install. It wasn't set as the default, but it has been added in there. I don't care that much either way, as I certainly wouldn't classify it as 'spyware' like some other people in this thread - it just concerns me that the installer has quite obviously done something I asked it not to do.


You can just delete it afterwards. See the "search plugins" folder in the waterfox directory you'll see some "avg secure search" delete it and restart waterfox then it will be gone.


----------



## Ghoven

*Bug Report :*
Disable Plugin Container causes the browser will close by itself.

I've tried on Windows XP 64 Bit with 3 GB of RAM (DDR3) using latest version of Java, Flash Player and Silverlight.

You could compare with (original) Mozilla Firefox and Pale Moon.
If plugin container on both (of browsers) disabled, they still run without (any) problem.

*Note :*
I need to disable plugin container since my tweaks (of firefox family) run faster and more responsive with no plugin container.
Beside, plugin container consume (more) memory space, especially if you are playing web-browser game within hours.

Please investigate my report and (if you could) please fix it (if there - any - possible ways).
Thank you.

Regards,

Ghoven


----------



## dcurrey

Strange error on uninstall.

After first installing WF15 i got the torjan error. Guess this is a false positive. My antivirus software won't allow it to install with avg stuff but no issues without it..

But after playing around and testing I noticed if I install waterfox 15 and uninstall it my Gadgets get screwed up. Mainly the CPU Usage and Network Meter. Just have the config button and close button look normal rest is small white box with just couple of items like "> /" in it. Reinstalling of waterfox doesn't help. Shutting down sidebar reinstalling gadgets resetting sidebar to defaults doesn't fix it. Only way to recover is to do restore back to before waterfox was installed.

FF 15 works fine if that helps.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ghoven*
> 
> *Bug Report :*
> Disable Plugin Container causes the browser will close by itself.
> I've tried on Windows XP 64 Bit with 3 GB of RAM (DDR3) using latest version of Java, Flash Player and Silverlight.
> You could compare with (original) Mozilla Firefox and Pale Moon.
> If plugin container on both (of browsers) disabled, they still run without (any) problem.
> *Note :*
> I need to disable plugin container since my tweaks (of firefox family) run faster and more responsive with no plugin container.
> Beside, plugin container consume (more) memory space, especially if you are playing web-browser game within hours.
> Please investigate my report and (if you could) please fix it (if there - any - possible ways).
> Thank you.
> Regards,
> Ghoven


Disabling it while firefox/waterfox are running will sometimes make the browser close down. However there is a way to disable plugincontainer.exe but can be run on-demand.
type "about:config" in the address bar and search for "plugins.click_to_play" set it to true. If you want to disable it completely follow the guide here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Plugin-container_and_out-of-process_plugins


----------



## mhowie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> Not to mention that if you choose Custom Install it's default settings are UNCHECKED boxes.


Spoke too soon with my earlier reply...the inclusion of AVG Search in the Search Bar violates the spirit of not installing any AVG components.


----------



## virtualguy

There is no "Check for Updates" in the About Waterfox window of my WF14.0.1 ... no automatic update. What's up with that?

VG


----------



## jeffreyabr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Try launching from the waterfox directory. (Don't drag the waterfox exe in the taskbar.) Then pin the icon.


Tried launching the .exe from the directory. Same issue.


----------



## JacobKlein

I too have had the problem where one of my gadgets (MSN Weather) looks completely messed up after install/uninstall of Waterfox.
It's possible that something else caused it, but now that it happened, I can't figure out how to fix it.
Does anyone know how to fix it?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> There is no "Check for Updates" in the About Waterfox window of my WF14.0.1 ... no automatic update. What's up with that?


That's never worked for Waterfox so you have to run the separate updater.exe file that's in the same directory as waterfox.exe or manually update.


----------



## dcurrey

I just had to do system restore that was created before my Waterfox installation. All other attempts failed.


----------



## 3ogdy

Hi.

I've just tried Waterfox. I think this is a great idea , especially for 64-bit OSes where people want to take advantage of their RAM be it 4GB, 8GB, 16GB...

BUT I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WATERFOX AND THAT IS:

I CURRENTLY HAVE FIREFOX INSTALLED ON MY COMPUTER.
I'VE INSTALLED WATERFOX WHILE FIREFOX WAS NOT RUNNING.
AFTER OPENING WATERFOX - ALL MY TABS FROM FIREFOX WERE IN WATERFOX - I wanted a new browser , not Firefox with its tabs that I had already opened in the past.

I have various browsers installed such as:
Maxthon
Firefox
Opera
Chrome
Rocketmelt
Waterfox - this one cannot forget about the tabs opened in Firefox!

I mean, Rocketmelt is nothing but Chrome with a Facebook extension but still...you can open other tabs and forget about the ones opened in Chrome, leaving that for Chrome only!

Is there any fix for this? Because it wouldn't make much sense to use Waterfox if it uses all the tabs from Firefox - even if it's 64-bit optimized - Firefox can already take much more than 4GB of RAM with its processes(overall) so I don't really see the need for a 64-bit edition without the capability of having its own tabs.


----------



## Lord Venom

You can setup Waterfox to use its own separate profile away from Firefox's, but it requires you to do some shortcut trickery - that's the only way to do it right now.

If interested, read this: http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/


----------



## Swag

Anyone have an answer to my bug yet?

I keep on getting an invalid page during a new tab or when I start waterfox (the homepage).


----------



## Lord Venom

I think others have reported that, not sure.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I think others have reported that, not sure.


I've reported this for a bit but no one else is reporting it or have an answer to it. I'm not sure why, but this happens to all the installation I do. It's just the new tab page and homepage. It doesn't really bother me too much but it's annoying how I have to reclick the URL thing to start typing rather than "CTRL+T" and then start typing.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Do I need to unistall the old waterfox before I install then new?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nvidiaftw12*
> 
> Do I need to unistall the old waterfox before I install then new?


I installed over the top of WF 14.0.1 and it is working a treat.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> I installed over the top of WF 14.0.1 and it is working a treat.


Well I'm still on 8.0 or 10.0 soo....

E: Went ahead and installed it. Holy crap .


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, you need to uninstall any existing Waterfox builds or else it could cause you very serious issues, especially since you're using WF 8 or 10. A clean install really is recommended.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Yeah, you need to uninstall any existing Waterfox builds or else it could cause you very serious issues, especially since you're using WF 8 or 10. A clean install really is recommended.


Worked fine just updating it.


----------



## xd_1771

Quote:


> Optimized memory usage for add-ons


Since I run a LOT of addons, I really like that







I've already noticed: there's more FPS on the animation that brings out my vertical toolbar. It's now silky smooth all the time









Now tell me... how do I activate this "load mobile site" developer feature?

To the rest: I uninstalled WF14 before instlaling WF15 on top of my existing profile. No problems.


----------



## mktwo

Is there a way to force Waterfox's profile folder to be created in Waterfox Portable folder?

Currently, Waterfox Portable creates profile folder in "%APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\" which will not be carried over when I use Waterfox Portable on another computer. I'd love Waterfox Portable to work like Firefox Portable; everything is saved within its own folder. So that when I used Waterfox Portable on another computer, I'd still have all of my addons and settings.


----------



## Swag

Can anyone help me with my problem or what? I mean, it's sooooo annoying.







I love the speed of this browser and it's so much better than Chrome, but damn, this thing is annoying.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Can anyone help me with my problem or what? I mean, it's sooooo annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the speed of this browser and it's so much better than Chrome, but damn, this thing is annoying.


I found various topics that may help you.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/908165

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/929803

The follwing two topics are kinda old but maybe still help.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=494105

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=474404


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Can anyone help me with my problem or what? I mean, it's sooooo annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I love the speed of this browser and it's so much better than Chrome, but damn, this thing is annoying.
> 
> 
> 
> I found various topics that may help you.
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/908165
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/929803
> 
> The follwing two topics are kinda old but maybe still help.
> 
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=494105
> 
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=474404
Click to expand...

Thanks, I will try this, but how about the new tab page? This only addresses the homepage issue.


----------



## Swag

I get this error whenever I open the homepage, like as in I open the program again and when I open a new tab.


----------



## qwerty77

hmm.. maybe this one? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/928813#answer-338928 and this one https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/929209#answer-340532


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> hmm.. maybe this one? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/928813#answer-338928 and this one https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/929209#answer-340532


Problem fixed. Turns out it's because I uninstalled Chrome and it deleted some files along with it. Don't know why since they're both in different folders... Also, when I'm on the homepage and there's that search bar in the middle for the traditional Mozilla google search, I can't seem to use it. Anyone have an answer?


----------



## JacobKlein

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dcurrey*
> 
> I just had to do system restore that was created before my Waterfox installation. All other attempts failed.


I wanted to confirm that the uninstallation of Waterfox 15 did indeed break the MSN Weather 2.0 gadget (and possibly others).
Alex, can you please fix this?
Also, the only way I could solve the issue was to use System Restore, to a point before Waterfox 15 was installed, as dcurrey recommended.

This has created quite the hassle for me.

Combine this with a custom installer that is unintuitive and confusing, an updater that I didn't want, and an extra 150MB of memory used compared to Firefox (with no explanation in the FAQ to describe why Waterfox would ever use more memory than Firefox)....
I am officially leaving Waterfox and moving back to Firefox.

Good luck with the project. I hope you have success.
... but it sounds like this is no longer just an "x64 compilation of Firefox", as it is now its own program with its own problems.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JacobKlein*
> 
> ...and an extra 150MB of memory used compared to Firefox (with no explanation in the FAQ to describe why Waterfox would ever use more memory than Firefox)....
> I am officially leaving Waterfox and moving back to Firefox.


64bit programs are meant to consume more memory. But the way it handles that memory is more efficient than a 32bit one. I see no problems why WF uses more memory than FF. However I do agree that the FAQ needs some updating. It confused me too when i first saw WF.

Also... what's the use of having 6, 8, 16 or 32 gb of ram if you can't even reach half of it?


----------



## JacobKlein

My wife is running on a laptop, that is hard-pressed for memory. It has 2 GB, and she usually has several powerpoints, word documents, BOINC distributed computing, and other stuff running on it.
I had always concluded that Waterfox was using her memory, as it typically used ~600 MB with her 12 tabs open.

But when I did a side by side comparison with Firefox, I saw Firefox use ~400 MB.

When you're on a machine that's hitting the swap file a lot, those 200 MB are very precious. I would have loved to see Waterfox memory information and details, documented in the FAQ.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JacobKlein*
> 
> My wife is running on a laptop, that is hard-pressed for memory. It has 2 GB, and she usually has several powerpoints, word documents, BOINC distributed computing, and other stuff running on it.
> I had always concluded that Waterfox was using her memory, as it typically used ~600 MB with her 12 tabs open.
> But when I did a side by side comparison with Firefox, I saw Firefox use ~400 MB.
> When you're on a machine that's hitting the swap file a lot, those 200 MB are very precious. I would have loved to see Waterfox memory information and details, documented in the FAQ.


I see. But i think one mistake you did here (Well not literally a mistake) is you installed a 64bit OS on a laptop that only has 2gb of ram. Perhaps you're still on xp? if you're on windows vista/7 it's recommended to have at least 4gb of ram in order to fully benefit the memory usage of WF.

I recommend that you use Firefox (32-bit) instead of waterfox







it will take less stress on your wife's laptop memory since WF really uses a lot.


----------



## JacobKlein

It's actually a 4GB machine (I mis-spoke), but memory is still very crucial, because of the amount of tabs open, programs running, and distributed computing that she does.

But man was she pissed when her weather gadget stopped working.
Despite the fact that I may have fixed it for her, it should never have happened to begin with!
I hope you guys can fix this!


----------



## DooMMarine

This problem is pretty annoying...

I don't remember it too much, but a couple days ago I randomly wondered if there was an update and I found out there was and downloaded it, maybe or maybe not before uninstalling the current version, I was too pissed off to remember.

I remember having fifteen installed and trying to launch it, but it kept giving me the missing .dll error, so I downloaded the file and stuck it in the folder but then it gave me some 0000x0007 or something, so I uninstalled that.

Now I come back today and try to install it, downloading the Microsoft 2010 x64, but not the Intel one as the help instructions weren't clear enough on which to download (IE32, IE-64, or Intel 64). So I skip the Intel C++ thing and try installing Waterfox it but now it says that I must remove an already existing version, even though I removed it two days ago. It might be kinda fudged up, due to installing and removing multiple times I don't know, but I don't know what to do now.

It's like being handed a tissue paper to clean up an entire pitcher of lemonade that's been spilled to the floor, it's not enough...I need help as to what the issue exactly is. Funny how I could still have version 14 running cheery as a whistle...damn the curiousity that killed the cat.

I would appreciate any help, thank you.


----------



## BoomBox

I have a major memory leak when using Waterfox. I have 8gb of RAM yet it is still force closing due to too much memory usage. I only have AdBlock as an extension. I have no other extensions or themes. Is there anyway to fix this?


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoomBox*
> 
> I have a major memory leak when using Waterfox. I have 8gb of RAM yet it is still force closing due to too much memory usage. I only have AdBlock as an extension. I have no other extensions or themes. Is there anyway to fix this?


What memory leak? If you are using about 500k mb of RAM, that's about right. It uses that much because it's a 64-bit browser.


----------



## BoomBox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> What memory leak? If you are using about 500k mb of RAM, that's about right. It uses that much because it's a 64-bit browser.


500k mb? I don't think that's accurate. That's an insane amount of RAM being used by a web browser. Right now my RAM usage is at 99% and I have closed all applications except for Waterfox. Seems like a memory leak to me. The program is using 8GB of RAM by itself. So is there anyway to fix this issue? I send the bug report every time it crashes but is there anything I can do on my end?


----------



## helloha

I'm having issues running waterfox updater... I was able to open and run it and it downloaded the update and said something about an incorrect file size. I closed out of it and tried to run it again and it hasn't opened back up since... What should I do?


----------



## byteninja2

Incorrect file size for me to. I will just download off the site.


----------



## ViperMk2

I'm having a problem with 15 at the moment. If I have, say 8 tabs open, when I click to a tab that's not being displayed it will take probably a second to register then move over


----------



## fullmoon

bug config maybe? start WF15 with shift, select "reset all user preferences to firefox defaults".
And test with add-ons disabled also.


----------



## the0ne12

My one Keeps on crashing. just opennig and letting in the background it eats about 1 gig of ram.
running windows 7 pro x64 4gig of ram.

using waterfox 15
thanks

Edit:
after a restart the next day. it is working ok. no crashes. it went up to 800 mb during sunspider test,and playing youtube at the same time.

seem ok for now


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoomBox*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> What memory leak? If you are using about 500k mb of RAM, that's about right. It uses that much because it's a 64-bit browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 500k mb? I don't think that's accurate. That's an insane amount of RAM being used by a web browser. Right now my RAM usage is at 99% and I have closed all applications except for Waterfox. Seems like a memory leak to me. The program is using 8GB of RAM by itself. So is there anyway to fix this issue? I send the bug report every time it crashes but is there anything I can do on my end?
Click to expand...

Sorry, I meant 500k KB. I use about that.


----------



## Rolandas

Using Waterfox on Win 8 is unstable, change the color, shape, transparency... Horrible sight

waterfox fail in win 8.zip 2422k .zip file
...
I hope the error will be corrected and will appear in Lithuanian localization...


----------



## Ceadderman

I just installed 15 a few hours ago...

I have 17 App Tabs and 33 Web tabs open with 8Gigs of RAM supporting it.



It's using quite a bit but that's cause I have so many tabs open. I had enough RAM available that I am Folding and was playing FO:New Vegas at the same time earlier.

I'm not sure why anyone else is having a problem, but I did uninstall WF13 that I had before installing 14.01 and just installed 15 w/o uninstalling 14.02.

I haven't even had any Flash crashes that seemed to be pretty prevalent in 14.







...

Well I see why the memory usage went up so much. My AVG updated itself and is prompting me for a restart.







lol

~Ceadder


----------



## GaryDefiance

Any new ideas regarding why waterfox 14/15 are having those memory issues Mr. Alex?
i have used waterfox for a long time, and it works fine on my laptop... but i cant use it on my main desktop if i have to close it every 5 minutes.

i dont know if you caught my old post about how scrolling up and down a page seem to increase it the most....

oh, and a note for other users who dont have a clue: read my old posts before making guesses. I dont want random people saying "oh, 64 bit programs use more memory" or "it has to be a problem on your machine" or any of those half-hearted responses.


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry I was away for the weekend, I'll reply to everyone in a bit.


----------



## JacobKlein

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rolandas*
> 
> Using Waterfox on Win 8 is unstable, change the color, shape, transparency... Horrible sight
> 
> waterfox fail in win 8.zip 2422k .zip file
> ...
> I hope the error will be corrected and will appear in Lithuanian localization...


Graphics corruption has been a problem with certain hardware lately.
For my Windows 8 system, I believe updating the graphics drivers fixed the problem.

But here are some things you can try, including settings changes:
- Try to install the latest video card drivers for your OS (even if the drivers are beta)
- Try changing the Firefox/Waterfox setting called "Use hardware acceleration when available" to NOT bet checked, and restart the browser
- Try changing the Firefox/Waterfox setting in about:config, type "2d" in the search box, then change preference "gfx.direct2d.disabled" to be set to value "true", and restart the browser

Jacob


----------



## Calleja

Some other people have reported an issue similar to this, but none of the suggested fixes seemed to work.... I CANNOT for the life of me get Waterfox to pin correctly to my Windows 7 taskbar, it just won't happen. I either get 2 icons every time I launch, or get an error about some version not being compatible. I've tried running waterfox.exe directly from the directory and then pinning THAT, but as soon as I close and try to relaunch, I get the error. This is pretty frustrating, any suggestions would be greatly welcome


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Sorry, I meant 500k KB. I use about that.


Why the compound of units?









500k KB = 500MB.

Before you mixed one unit wrong and had 500k MB = 500GB of memory.









My Waterfox is sitting at 300MB and I never close it. Ever. (Or in your weird units... 300k KB







)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Some other people have reported an issue similar to this, but none of the suggested fixes seemed to work.... I CANNOT for the life of me get Waterfox to pin correctly to my Windows 7 taskbar, it just won't happen. I either get 2 icons every time I launch, or get an error about some version not being compatible. I've tried running waterfox.exe directly from the directory and then pinning THAT, but as soon as I close and try to relaunch, I get the error. This is pretty frustrating, any suggestions would be greatly welcome


Try uninstalling Waterfox (leave preferences). Reinstall it. Don't run it. Reboot. Then pin the desktop icon.

If that still doesn't work, unpin all of Waterfox. Run the desktop icon and pin what comes up on the task-bar and delete the icon.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rolandas*
> 
> Using Waterfox on Win 8 is unstable, change the color, shape, transparency... Horrible sight
> 
> waterfox fail in win 8.zip 2422k .zip file
> ...
> I hope the error will be corrected and will appear in Lithuanian localization...


I run Windows 8 and I get a few graphical problems also.

Sometimes the text will blur and scrolling past it and back to it (redrawing it) will fix it.
Quote:


>


The other problem I get is sometimes (rare) a webpage I go to will have the HTML stripped on it. Meaning everything is just plain text to left and graphics in between. No formatting at all.


----------



## twcinnh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> I'm not really impressed with that AVG install question.
> 
> So, to say "No", you have to select "Custom" and not check the boxes?
> There really needs to be a proper "No" option.
> This is one of those underhanded things that makes me stop using software regardless of how good it is.


Thanks for this headsup. I installed Waterfox 15 today and have no AVG. Frankly, in the past year or so I've become aware I can't 'just' install the way I used to. Actually have to read the prompts, and different software puts their 'freebies' in different places. Stay alert, or you'll have this junk all over the place.

Fortunately, I now have Waterfox 'Custom' (I wanted to check at least one of the custom boxes - but don't).

Regards,

Tom C


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Sorry, I meant 500k KB. I use about that.
> 
> 
> 
> Why the compound of units?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 500k KB = 500MB.
> 
> Before you mixed one unit wrong and had 500k MB = 500GB of memory.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My Waterfox is sitting at 300MB and I never close it. Ever. (Or in your weird units... 300k KB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
Click to expand...

Mostly because I was just looking at task manager and I was trying to just mimic whatever it said on that.







I wasn't really trying to think by then.


----------



## Lord Venom

500MB memory usage isn't really that much these days.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> 500MB memory usage isn't really that much these days.


500mb is like nothing compared so anything else I use. Seriously, you can have 8GB of RAM and think 500mb is huge, but really it's so small. I mean if you had 2GB of ram, maybe you'd have to start worrying about usage.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Ok, I have a weird problem since installing Waterfox 15 and Google didn't help. My back button is not how I think it should be, round and combined with the forward button, it's back to the "classic" look, no matter what I do. Let me get a screen shot to ilustrate.
> http://i.imgur.com/T1r80.png


I had that at one point too, happened after I installed an addon.

There's a simple fix, right click the home button, click Customize..., then click the "Restore Default Set" button, re-add any addons you want visible on the UI then click done.

---
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoomBox*
> 
> Right now my RAM usage is at 99% and I have closed all applications except for Waterfox. Seems like a memory leak to me. The program is using 8GB of RAM by itself. So is there anyway to fix this issue? I send the bug report every time it crashes but is there anything I can do on my end?


Definitely something weird going on there, not normal at all. Personally I'd try creating a new profile - if it's being caused by a dodgy addon or weird setting in your profile, that should fix it.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yeah. As much as I like AVG, I've found myself going back to Microsoft Security Essentials because at least MSE knows how to be relatively unobtrusive and does one thing rreally well: scan for viruses and malware.

AVG tries to do too much.


----------



## Calleja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Try uninstalling Waterfox (leave preferences). Reinstall it. Don't run it. Reboot. Then pin the desktop icon.
> If that still doesn't work, unpin all of Waterfox. Run the desktop icon and pin what comes up on the task-bar and delete the icon.


Thanks, but that did NOT work either. In fact, I think there might be something wrong with the update. This is the exact error I get every time I try to launch Waterfox from a pinned icon (even if it's the exact same one that works perfectly from the desktop):



But, funny thing.... I get the EXACT same error when I try to use the RUNNING icon on the Win 7 taskbar (the jump list I think they call it) to either Open a new tab or enter private browsing. You can even see the icons are wonky for those options:



Uninstalling and reinstalling did nothing. Running from desktop and pinning THAT icon (which always has the malfunctioning jump list items anyway) did nothing. Is this maybe an issue that needs fixing from the source?


----------



## CyberDemonz101

So I am having a problem with waterfox and it not liking Ad Blocker Plus 2.12. It says its enabled but its not working. And a side thing I unno if its from it but it crashes the flashplayer then works. I cant tell if its the new adobe flash player crashing then its able to work or ad blocker is forcing it to crash then comes on. or if its waterfox not being able to use that addon properly.

Sounds confusing but something isnt letting me use my ad blocker.

Edit: I have uninstalled java flash player and reinstalled them and its still doing it.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDemonz101*
> 
> So I am having a problem with waterfox and it not liking Ad Blocker Plus 2.12. It says its enabled but its not working. And a side thing I unno if its from it but it crashes the flashplayer then works. I cant tell if its the new adobe flash player crashing then its able to work or ad blocker is forcing it to crash then comes on. or if its waterfox not being able to use that addon properly.
> 
> Sounds confusing but something isnt letting me use my ad blocker.
> 
> Edit: I have uninstalled java flash player and reinstalled them and its still doing it.


I would remove and re-install AB+ to see if that fixes things.

I would have to say that it's more Adobe Flash having issues on its own. AF is notoriously sketchy to begin with. I doubt that AB+ is interfering with AF unless you unintentionally clicked "block" at the top of a flash link. You can check the settings in your AB+ so if you don't see AF in the list of nonos then uninstall/reinstall AB+ and if you have Java remove it entirely. Adobe Flash is different from Java btw.









~Ceadder


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDemonz101*
> 
> So I am having a problem with waterfox and it not liking Ad Blocker Plus 2.12. It says its enabled but its not working. And a side thing I unno if its from it but it crashes the flashplayer then works. I cant tell if its the new adobe flash player crashing then its able to work or ad blocker is forcing it to crash then comes on. or if its waterfox not being able to use that addon properly.
> 
> Sounds confusing but something isnt letting me use my ad blocker.
> 
> Edit: I have uninstalled java flash player and reinstalled them and its still doing it.


Try using Adobe Flash V11.2. This helped me a lot! No more random crashing actually. Also, if you think an addon is having a problem, hold SHIFT while opening Waterfox to enter Safe Mode and see if you have any problems there.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Try using Adobe Flash V11.2. This helped me a lot! No more random crashing actually. Also, if you think an addon is having a problem, hold SHIFT while opening Waterfox to enter Safe Mode and see if you have any problems there.


Just use 11.2 with caution. It's prone to remote code execution since it's an older version with unpatched vulnerabilities. I'm on 11.4 and I've no crashes whatsoever (yet) so i guess the crashes varies on sites we visit.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> I had that at one point too, happened after I installed an addon.
> There's a simple fix, right click the home button, click Customize..., then click the "Restore Default Set" button, re-add any addons you want visible on the UI then click done.


Here's an add-on to revert it back. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cstbb/


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Try using Adobe Flash V11.2. This helped me a lot! No more random crashing actually. Also, if you think an addon is having a problem, hold SHIFT while opening Waterfox to enter Safe Mode and see if you have any problems there.
> 
> 
> 
> Just use 11.2 with caution. It's prone to remote code execution since it's an older version with unpatched vulnerabilities. I'm on 11.4 and I've no crashes whatsoever (yet) so i guess the crashes varies on sites we visit.
Click to expand...

I usually crash when I'm on Twitch.tv. Don't know why.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Try uninstalling Waterfox (leave preferences). Reinstall it. Don't run it. Reboot. Then pin the desktop icon.
> If that still doesn't work, unpin all of Waterfox. Run the desktop icon and pin what comes up on the task-bar and delete the icon.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks, but that did NOT work either. In fact, I think there might be something wrong with the update. This is the exact error I get every time I try to launch Waterfox from a pinned icon (even if it's the exact same one that works perfectly from the desktop):
> 
> 
> 
> But, funny thing.... I get the EXACT same error when I try to use the RUNNING icon on the Win 7 taskbar (the jump list I think they call it) to either Open a new tab or enter private browsing. You can even see the icons are wonky for those options:
> 
> 
> 
> Uninstalling and reinstalling did nothing. Running from desktop and pinning THAT icon (which always has the malfunctioning jump list items anyway) did nothing. Is this maybe an issue that needs fixing from the source?
Click to expand...

That xulrunner error occurs when you have different versions installed in the same directory. Sometimes an anti-virus also doesn't allow any modifications to that directory and it messes up the installation:

http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser_will_not_start_up#XULRunner_error_after_an_update


----------



## Bearded Geek

Okay, I have had zero problems with WF15.

However, out of curiosity I looked in the scheduled tasks, and there is no task for the WF updater. It wasn't there in version 14 either.
I have now added it manually.


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> Okay, I have had zero problems with WF15.
> However, out of curiosity I looked in the scheduled tasks, and there is no task for the WF updater. It wasn't there in version 14 either.
> I have now added it manually.


There isn't supposed to be.


----------



## Bearded Geek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M8R-grnkig*
> 
> There isn't supposed to be.


Really? Then how does the updater work then? And I have seen Mr Alex mentioning the task scheduler several times in connection with the updater.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *M8R-grnkig*
> 
> There isn't supposed to be.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? Then how does the updater work then? And I have seen Mr Alex mentioning the task scheduler several times in connection with the updater.
Click to expand...

Updater will never work because it doesn't connect to the Waterfox database I believe. You have to use the updater in the Waterfox folder.


----------



## Bearded Geek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Updater will never work because it doesn't connect to the Waterfox database I believe. You have to use the updater in the Waterfox folder.


That's the one I am talking about.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> That's the one I am talking about.


The updater is silent. It will only pop out when an update is available.


----------



## Bearded Geek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> The updater is silent. It will only pop out when an update is available.


My point is that I cannot see it anywhere. What triggers it? There is no information anywhere except that Mr Alex mentions the Windows Scheduler, and I could not find a schedule for it there.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bearded Geek*
> 
> My point is that I cannot see it anywhere. What triggers it? There is no information anywhere except that Mr Alex mentions the Windows Scheduler, and I could not find a schedule for it there.


When WF 14.0.2 was released Mr. Alex made changes to the updater. It now check updates silently (perhaps randomly, I don't know either







i just manually update). The updater in the task scheduler is no longer present thus it got carried over when WF 15 was released.


----------



## GaryDefiance

still no word on the memory usage issues?


----------



## hylianux

I felt the installer was pretty straightforward, EXCEPT for the avg part. If you want to keep an installation simple, I felt this was confusing:



Normally, I'm used to a checkbox at the bottom that simply says "no thanks", but in this case I felt like I was being fooled. There's nothing on this page that specifically says "no, i don't want this".

Also, I think I saw this mentioned, but the repair tool arbitrarily installs avg whether you asked for it or not...

I also noticed one other bug... while i haven't tried this from the included uninstaller, i did try running the downloaded setup.exe file to uninstall waterfox, and even though it gave me a success message, nothing seems to have happened at all. I had to go to add-remove programs to remove it. (Don't worry, I reinstalled it right after... it was the only way to get this screenshot







).

This screenshot, for those that found the installer confusing at first like I did, is how you opt out of installing AVG.


----------



## MrAlex

My mistake on the updater:

You have to put "/checknow" as a switch to the shortcut for the updater. It's been fixed in WF15.

As for memory usage:

It's supposed to be high and is relative to the amount of RAM you have...the more RAM the more memory usage. But if there are any other mem leaks it's nothing I can control (since I don't touch the malloc since Mozilla is working on memshrink project for Firefox).

Also the wording of the AVG selection was nothing I could control, but I did put a message at the bottom to explain.


----------



## BoomBox

I've been using 64-bit IE9 because Waterfox keeps crashing due to high memory use. So I guess I have to wait till the next update for this problem to be solved?


----------



## Swag

Hey guys, I disabled Hardware Acceleration in the Flash config, but I'm wondering should I disable it in the Waterfox settings?


----------



## the0ne12

for me xmarks made it freeze all the time. now that i made not syn automatic it is runnig fine so far.

maybe check the extensions


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BoomBox*
> 
> I've been using 64-bit IE9 because Waterfox keeps crashing due to high memory use. So I guess I have to wait till the next update for this problem to be solved?


Submit a bug report to Mozzila.

Alex just said he won't touch the memory code on Waterfox (for good reasons).
So don't expect the next Waterfox to fix the issue unless Mozilla fixes it also.


----------



## DCY

I keep getting an error message saying, "The older version of Waterfox cannot be removed. Contact your technical support group."

Anyone else ever had this problem?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY*
> 
> I keep getting an error message saying, "The older version of Waterfox cannot be removed. Contact your technical support group."
> Anyone else ever had this problem?


I could make an assumption as to the situation this occurred in, but I won't. Please give more info.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Bug_writing_guidelines


----------



## victoryahoo

Hi, I want to report a bug. My settings are to display a blank page when Waterfox starts. However, when I open new tabs, I DO NOT get a blank page. Instead the browser tries to open an address and displaying "The address isn't valid. The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded."... In Firefox this doesn't happen. One gets a new tab without the browser trying to open an imaginary address.

Could you please fix this?

This bug causes unnecessary problems.

With firefox: Ctrl T followed by "gmail.com"

With Waterfox: Ctrl T- wait for it to display the error- then left click on the URL bar and enter "gmail.com".

Thanks!


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *victoryahoo*
> 
> Hi, I want to report a bug. My settings are to display a blank page when Waterfox starts. However, when I open new tabs, I DO NOT get a blank page. Instead the browser tries to open an address and displaying "The address isn't valid. The URL is not valid and cannot be loaded."... In Firefox this doesn't happen. One gets a new tab without the browser trying to open an imaginary address.
> Could you please fix this?
> This bug causes unnecessary problems.
> With firefox: Ctrl T followed by "gmail.com"
> With Waterfox: Ctrl T- wait for it to display the error- then left click on the URL bar and enter "gmail.com".
> Thanks!


Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> MrAlex, I'm still having problems with the new tab page. It always come out as an invalid or error page.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> I found various topics that may help you.
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/908165
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/929803
> The follwing two topics are kinda old but maybe still help.
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=494105
> http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=474404
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Thanks, I will try this, but how about the new tab page? This only addresses the homepage issue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> hmm.. maybe this one? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/928813#answer-338928 and this one https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/929209#answer-340532
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Problem fixed. Turns out it's because I uninstalled Chrome and it deleted some files along with it. Don't know why since they're both in different folders... Also, when I'm on the homepage and there's that search bar in the middle for the traditional Mozilla google search, I can't seem to use it. Anyone have an answer?
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


----------



## victoryahoo

KennyParker, I appreciate your quick response. This solved it: "I have found a solution that solves my problem. I went into about:config, browser.newtab.url and changed the about:newtab to about:blank. I am very happy that I can add new tabs without errors and the blank page works for me. "

You might consider changing the about:newtab to about:blank by default when one chooses a blank page as startup.

Thanks again.


----------



## DCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I could make an assumption as to the situation this occurred in, but I won't. Please give more info.
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Bug_writing_guidelines


Well there is no previous version of Waterfox installed, but yet it keeps giving me that error message every time I attempt to install the latest version.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY*
> 
> Well there is no previous version of Waterfox installed, but yet it keeps giving me that error message every time I attempt to install the latest version.


It seems like your error might be due to a invalid registry entry left behind.

Try downloading CCleaner and using the Fix Registry tool. Fix all errors it finds. Reboot and try to install again.


----------



## DCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> It seems like your error might be due to a invalid registry entry left behind.
> Try downloading CCleaner and using the Fix Registry tool. Fix all errors it finds. Reboot and try to install again.


Yeah I've done that, and it still says the same thing.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> It seems like your error might be due to a invalid registry entry left behind.
> Try downloading CCleaner and using the Fix Registry tool. Fix all errors it finds. Reboot and try to install again.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I've done that, and it still says the same thing.
Click to expand...

Could I have a screenshot?

Also there isn't supposed to be a message, it's supposed to automatically install over the old version (v14+)


----------



## DCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could I have a screenshot?
> Also there isn't supposed to be a message, it's supposed to automatically install over the old version (v14+)


Sure. Yeah I know, it doesn't make any sense.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could I have a screenshot?
> Also there isn't supposed to be a message, it's supposed to automatically install over the old version (v14+)
> 
> 
> 
> Sure. Yeah I know, it doesn't make any sense.
Click to expand...

Have you tried deleting it manually?

There shouldn't be any registry entries anyway. Also, are you running as admin?


----------



## DCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried deleting it manually?
> There shouldn't be any registry entries anyway. Also, are you running as admin?


Yes, and neither option worked.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried deleting it manually?
> There shouldn't be any registry entries anyway. Also, are you running as admin?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, and neither option worked.
Click to expand...

Time to contact installer support. I'll get back to you on this.

EDIT: Have you tried:

*Solution 1: Try using the Microsoft Fix it wizard. *



The Microsoft Fix it wizard is available at http://support.microsoft.com/kb/971187. The wizard updates the Windows registry so that you can usually uninstall previous versions of the program, or install or update the current version successfully.

Or you could install the version you had previously installed.


----------



## DCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Time to contact installer support. I'll get back to you on this.


Okay, I appreciate your help.


----------



## nizda

I had an odd occurrence with the installation program as well, but I fixed it real quick it didn't seem like a big deal to me. After seeing @Dcy post I had similar issue where when I went to uninstall FF14 in Revo Uninstaller it looked as if it was uninstalling, until I saw how many files and registry entries were left on my system. Although I probably would not of come to that conclusion immediately if I couldn't see what transpired. So then I tried using normal uninstall w/ the plan to use ccleaner after, except it just kept popping up to repair every time I clicked uninstall. So after about 2-3rounds of this, I just deleted the directory structure and ran ccleaner, let it fix the issues. Then I was able to install WF 15 w/o issue.


----------



## iviv

I'm also having the massive memory issues. Open up waterfox, its fine for around 30 seconds. The first time I noticed my system suddenly slow down. Task manager reported physical memory at 96%, but nothing in the processes tab was using anything near that much, it was still on a couple of hundred megabytes. So I loaded up the Resource Monitor, and saw this:
http://i.imgur.com/3S6ca.jpg

As it is, waterfox is totally unusable, so I have just reinstalled Firefox, still using the same profile, and it is completely fine. Waterfox was running fine this morning, it was version 14, then I updated my graphics card drivers to the AMD Catalyst 12.8 drivers for my 6870X2 graphics card and rebooted. Thing is, I thought I'd been using waterfox since the reboot with no issue, at least for a couple of hours before this reared its head. Tried updating to waterfox 15 with no luck as well.
Still, hope this is of use to someone, and that it gets fixed! For now, its back to Firefox for me.

Edit: Firefox had a similar problem afterall, and it looks to be a known issue:
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/934825

Disabled hardware acceleration and Waterfix works now.


----------



## BoomBox

Thanks for the tip. I disabled hardware acceleration and now Waterfox is running smoothly.
+rep


----------



## virtualguy

The "Private Browsing" mode of Firefox (and, therefore, Waterfox) is broken. The browser apparently continues to cache files it's not supposed to while in Private mode. Mozilla is working on a patch. You can expect a Firefox update (15.0.1?) to come out soon.

VG


----------



## Itchywolf

We need more solutions to common problems added to the FAQ section. This forum is ridiculously bloated with answers to questions from long long ago, it is far too frustrating and damn near impossible to search through it without being bombarded with hundreds of results that are just posts with the same question I am asking, with no solutions. It's hit or miss to say the least. We don't mind fixing a few problems here and there ourselves, but the frustration of searching through this forum to figure out those fixes seems unnecessary .

Anyway, here are my problems.

Problem 1. Waterfox is running. I right click on waterfox running in the task bar. Open New Tab, Open New Window, and Start Private Browsing are all white icons and none of them work. They all seem to be referencing firefox.exe. This was something I brought up back when WF 14 was released, but apparently it hasn't been addressed.

Problem 2. When I 1st updated to WF 14, it successfully updated to 14.01, and then never updated again. Waterfox 15 has been available for like 7 days, and by chance I came here to see my updater had not informed me of its release. I had more luck with the old updater, what the heck is going on? Why is the task not being created for some people? Is this a UAC, or User profile issue? Do you need to do a "Run as administrator" when installing waterfox? Perhaps instructions for creating the task should be put in the faq section, I wasn't sure how to get updater to run when waterfox is started, it may surprise you to know that not many people use the task scheduler often, and it is kind of complicated for novice users. Mr. Alex gave this solution:

My mistake on the updater:
You have to put "/checknow" as a switch to the shortcut for the updater. It's been fixed in WF15.

That's pretty vague. Where does the /checknow switch go? What shortcut? Waterfox? The updater? Do I add the switch in task scheduler? We need detailed instructions please. Thank you very much for the hard work and your patience.

I am not happy about the AVG crap. The lack of a "No thanks, I don't want this ridiculous bloatware, as I already have a virus program that scans everything, including web links, I don't want to slow my computer or browsing down by adding another useless layer of "protection" " button was disturbing. It sounds like it wants to install a toolbar or something. I almost didn't finish the install as it didn't seem very clear as to what exactly it was going to do. Oh well, apparently the bottom option with everything unchecked makes it not install anything except for a new search engine in the search bar, which I still don't care for, but whatever, you've got bills to pay, apparently. More people should donate to you.


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> The "Private Browsing" mode of Firefox (and, therefore, Waterfox) is broken. The browser apparently continues to cache files it's not supposed to while in Private mode. Mozilla is working on a patch. You can expect a Firefox update (15.0.1?) to come out soon.
> VG


I hope this propagates to WF very soon after Mozilla releases the fix or I'll have to revert to FF on a few systems


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Itchywolf*
> 
> ...I wasn't sure how to get updater to run when waterfox is started, it may surprise you to know that not many people use the task scheduler often, and it is kind of complicated for novice users. Mr. Alex gave this solution:
> My mistake on the updater:
> 
> You have to put "/checknow" as a switch to the shortcut for the updater. It's been fixed in WF15.
> That's pretty vague. Where does the /checknow switch go? What shortcut? Waterfox? The updater? Do I add the switch in task scheduler? We need detailed instructions please. Thank you very much for the hard work and your patience.


You need to manually edit the updater.ini file located at the WF folder.

bfdf.png 58k .png file


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Itchywolf*
> 
> We need more solutions to common problems added to the FAQ section. This forum is ridiculously bloated with answers to questions from long long ago, it is far too frustrating and damn near impossible to search through it without being bombarded with hundreds of results that are just posts with the same question I am asking, with no solutions. It's hit or miss to say the least. We don't mind fixing a few problems here and there ourselves, but the frustration of searching through this forum to figure out those fixes seems unnecessary .
> 
> Anyway, here are my problems.
> 
> Problem 1. Waterfox is running. I right click on waterfox running in the task bar. Open New Tab, Open New Window, and Start Private Browsing are all white icons and none of them work. They all seem to be referencing firefox.exe. This was something I brought up back when WF 14 was released, but apparently it hasn't been addressed.
> 
> Problem 2. When I 1st updated to WF 14, it successfully updated to 14.01, and then never updated again. Waterfox 15 has been available for like 7 days, and by chance I came here to see my updater had not informed me of its release. I had more luck with the old updater, what the heck is going on? Why is the task not being created for some people? Is this a UAC, or User profile issue? Do you need to do a "Run as administrator" when installing waterfox? Perhaps instructions for creating the task should be put in the faq section, I wasn't sure how to get updater to run when waterfox is started, it may surprise you to know that not many people use the task scheduler often, and it is kind of complicated for novice users. Mr. Alex gave this solution:
> 
> My mistake on the updater:
> You have to put "/checknow" as a switch to the shortcut for the updater. It's been fixed in WF15.
> 
> That's pretty vague. Where does the /checknow switch go? What shortcut? Waterfox? The updater? Do I add the switch in task scheduler? We need detailed instructions please. Thank you very much for the hard work and your patience.
> 
> I am not happy about the AVG crap. The lack of a "No thanks, I don't want this ridiculous bloatware, as I already have a virus program that scans everything, including web links, I don't want to slow my computer or browsing down by adding another useless layer of "protection" " button was disturbing. It sounds like it wants to install a toolbar or something. I almost didn't finish the install as it didn't seem very clear as to what exactly it was going to do. Oh well, apparently the bottom option with everything unchecked makes it not install anything except for a new search engine in the search bar, which I still don't care for, but whatever, you've got bills to pay, apparently. More people should donate to you.


1) The shortcut issues should be fixed, as it works for most people.

2) You put /checknow on the updater shortcut. Installer support didn't mention that that parameter needed to be used with the silent installer.

3) I had to use their wording, but am trying to change it to be nicer. I'd rather my users didn't have to pay anything. Also there is no toolbar for Waterfox, only a search page.

Sorry if you're not happy about it but I can't please everyone


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Itchywolf*
> 
> We need more solutions to common problems added to the FAQ section. This forum is ridiculously bloated with answers to questions from long long ago, it is far too frustrating and damn near impossible to search through it without being bombarded with hundreds of results that are just posts with the same question I am asking, with no solutions. It's hit or miss to say the least. We don't mind fixing a few problems here and there ourselves, but the frustration of searching through this forum to figure out those fixes seems unnecessary .


Agree with this. You have to read 50 pages to find your problem or ask about it again. A FAQ with the top 5 problems should help a lot and leave this post for new problems. Once a solution is found, move to it the FAQ.

Mr Alex, why not have a forum where people can create their problems? It is easier to find a problem and solution than having to read 377 pages (understand not all pages are for the current version but where does it start?).


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Itchywolf*
> 
> We need more solutions to common problems added to the FAQ section. This forum is ridiculously bloated with answers to questions from long long ago, it is far too frustrating and damn near impossible to search through it without being bombarded with hundreds of results that are just posts with the same question I am asking, with no solutions. It's hit or miss to say the least. We don't mind fixing a few problems here and there ourselves, but the frustration of searching through this forum to figure out those fixes seems unnecessary .
> 
> 
> 
> Agree with this. You have to read 50 pages to find your problem or ask about it again. A FAQ with the top 5 problems should help a lot and leave this post for new problems. Once a solution is found, move to it the FAQ.
> 
> Mr Alex, why not have a forum where people can create their problems? It is easier to find a problem and solution than having to read 377 pages (understand not all pages are for the current version but where does it start?).
Click to expand...

There's a support forum on the SourceForge page. Also there's a search function here.


----------



## Jarkko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> 1) The shortcut issues should be fixed, as it works for most people.


Should be, but it isn't











Just out of curiosity I also gave test run to Pale Moon 15, and it seems to be much better and more mature. Jump list shortcuts also work despite .exe not being "firefox.exe".


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jarkko*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> 1) The shortcut issues should be fixed, as it works for most people.
> 
> 
> 
> Should be, but it isn't
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just out of curiosity I also gave test run to Pale Moon 15, and it seems to be much better and more mature. Jump list shortcuts also work despite .exe not being "firefox.exe".
Click to expand...

Pale Moon uses MSVC and is on its way to becoming its own browser. Also could you upload the shortcut?


----------



## Jarkko

Waterfox_shortcut.zip 1k .zip file


Here you go, default shortcut created by installation from "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Waterfox"

Waterfox started from Start menu by the same shortcut, and doesn't make any difference whether Waterfox is default browser or if shortcut is pinned or not. Also behaves exactly same if WF is started straight from installation folder.


----------



## qwerty77

Firefox 15.0.1 has been released.

FIXED

Sites visited while in Private Browsing mode could be found through manual browser cache inspection (787743)
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/new/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jarkko*
> 
> Waterfox_shortcut.zip 1k .zip file
> 
> 
> Here you go, default shortcut created by installation from "C:\ProgramData\Microsoft\Windows\Start Menu\Programs\Waterfox"
> 
> Waterfox started from Start menu by the same shortcut, and doesn't make any difference whether Waterfox is default browser or if shortcut is pinned or not. Also behaves exactly same if WF is started straight from installation folder.


The shortcut works fine for me, so it can't be that. I'll have a look into this for you.


----------



## Jarkko

So those references to "...\Windows\Installer\...\firefox.exe" are there fo reason?


----------



## Taomyn

In updater.ini

Code:



Code:


DownloadsFolder=C:\Users\UserNameWithheld\AppData\Roaming\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox\updates\

I think this will be a big issue if the browser is used by multiple accounts - it should probably use a shared area like "ProgramData" for this


----------



## StarWolf

Anyway for the next build of Waterfox to run both Firefox and Waterfox in the same instance? I have Google Chrome, Iron, and Google Chrome Canary all able to run along side each other, but I cannot run any version of firefox together because they use the same profile.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *StarWolf*
> 
> Anyway for the next build of Waterfox to run both Firefox and Waterfox in the same instance? I have Google Chrome, Iron, and Google Chrome Canary all able to run along side each other, but I cannot run any version of firefox together because they use the same profile.


http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/internet/firefox/use-multiple-firefox-profiles-at-the-same-time/


----------



## Swag

Some one should PM me when there's a fix to some of the more "critical" bugs. I have resorted to using IE9 because I can't stand the crashes I get from Waterfox. Sorry MrAlex, I may actually end up using an older version of WF because the new ones may have more features but the reliability is just down the drain.


----------



## sp4zzj4zz

I have somewhat of a strange error going on here.

The top border of my Watefox has disappeared along with the minimize, restore and close buttons. This is just something that has started today. There were no changes made to my Waterfox and I dont have Firefox installed. I have tried reinstalling Waterfox using the same profile. I have no themes installed except the default Firefox theme, which just so happens was updated today. I have done some investigating and here is what I have come up with on my own.

In safe mode, everything seems to be ok. (picture 2 - included)

When I, instead of going into safe mode, disable ALL extensions and plugins, the border and buttons are still missing. (the only thing I cant disable on my own seems to be the default theme)

In normal mode, when I add "Menu bar" the border and buttons come back, but along with the unwanted menu bar.

When I change from Aero to Windows 7 Basic or the Classic windows theme/visual in the personalization options Waterfox seems to be ok,

If anyone has any ideas or has seen this before, please let me know. Thanks in advance.

Here are the pics depicting the problem.

Normal Waterfox, with buttons and borders missing.



Safe Mode



Windows 7 Basic windows visual theme, normal Waterfox


----------



## bsmith781

In Google Plus, clicking the links to expand a long post or to show/hide all comments does not work in Waterfox 15.  These features work fine in 32-bit Firefox, but it runs too slowly on my system.  I’m switching back to Google Chrome for now.  I hope these issues get fixed because I prefer the feature set of Firefox/Waterfox over any other browser.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sp4zzj4zz*
> 
> I have somewhat of a strange error going on here.
> The top border of my Watefox has disappeared along with the minimize, restore and close buttons. This is just something that has started today. There were no changes made to my Waterfox and I dont have Firefox installed. I have tried reinstalling Waterfox using the same profile. I have no themes installed except the default Firefox theme, which just so happens was updated today. I have done some investigating and here is what I have come up with on my own.
> In safe mode, everything seems to be ok. (picture 2 - included)
> When I, instead of going into safe mode, disable ALL extensions and plugins, the border and buttons are still missing. (the only thing I cant disable on my own seems to be the default theme)
> In normal mode, when I add "Menu bar" the border and buttons come back, but along with the unwanted menu bar.
> When I change from Aero to Windows 7 Basic or the Classic windows theme/visual in the personalization options Waterfox seems to be ok,
> If anyone has any ideas or has seen this before, please let me know. Thanks in advance.
> Here are the pics depicting the problem.
> Normal Waterfox, with buttons and borders missing.
> 
> Safe Mode
> 
> Windows 7 Basic windows visual theme, normal Waterfox


Disable hardware acceleration. Also are you using a AMD graphics card? Seems like hardware acceleration is somewhat broken on AMD graphics .


----------



## sp4zzj4zz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Disable hardware acceleration. Also are you using a AMD graphics card? Seems like hardware acceleration is somewhat broken on AMD graphics .


I'll be damned. It instantly worked.

But no, I'm using an Nvidia GeForce GTX 670

Thank you!


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sp4zzj4zz*
> 
> I'll be damned. It instantly worked.
> But no, I'm using an Nvidia GeForce GTX 670
> Thank you!


Oh well XD. I thought AMD graphics are causing it but by the looks of it Nvidia also have problems on hardware acclelaration







Glad you have it sorted out.


----------



## Trommy

Wow! Thnx for the Portable Version of 15.0build







Lets test!


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sp4zzj4zz*
> 
> I'll be damned. It instantly worked.
> But no, I'm using an Nvidia GeForce GTX 670
> Thank you!


no, desable FXAA, FXAA isn't compatible with firefox


----------



## Trommy

Hmmm...portable version don`t have profile at root-folder WF....It create profile on ".../AppData/Roaming/Mozilla". And i`ll dont see any differences with installer-version. The most great feature of Portable-Proggs is a "sand-box" or "all-in-one-folders", all the more so for browsers, IMHO


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> Hmmm...portable version don`t have profile at root-folder WF....It create profile on ".../AppData/Roaming/Mozilla". And i`ll dont see any differences with installer-version. The most great feature of Portable-Proggs is a "sand-box" or "all-in-one-folders", all the more so for browsers, IMHO


For 15.0.1 I'll fix that.

Alright, can anyone give me anything I should put in the FAQ? Since most of the issues occur in Firefox as well, I don't want to fill it up with useless stuff.


----------



## EliasAlucard

Waterfox 15 still doesn't have a unique user agent string, but uses the Firefox user agent:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0

^^ Please fix this, so that it can be identified how many people are actually using Waterfox. This is what the UA in PaleMoon looks like:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110619 Firefox/3.6.18 (Palemoon/3.6.18)

I see no good reason why Waterfox shouldn't have its own user agent string.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Waterfox 15 still doesn't have a unique user agent string, but uses the Firefox user agent:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0
> 
> ^^ Please fix this, so that it can be identified how many people are actually using Waterfox. This is what the UA in PaleMoon looks like:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110619 Firefox/3.6.18 (Palemoon/3.6.18)
> 
> I see no good reason why Waterfox shouldn't have its own user agent string.


It's because Waterfox is just a recompilation of Firefox and PM is basically a separate program that looks like Firefox. I think I read somewhere that since no one is getting paid for this program, it takes a lot of time and money to be able to create Waterfox as a stand-alone project.


----------



## Jarkko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The shortcut works fine for me, so it can't be that. I'll have a look into this for you.


Maybe related, seems that Waterfox is also unable to set itself as default browser.

It keeps asking to set itself as default at every startup, unless relevat option is unticked. Keeps doing the same even if defaults are all set (6/6) from Windows Control Panel.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Waterfox 15 still doesn't have a unique user agent string, but uses the Firefox user agent:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0
> 
> ^^ Please fix this, so that it can be identified how many people are actually using Waterfox. This is what the UA in PaleMoon looks like:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110619 Firefox/3.6.18 (Palemoon/3.6.18)
> 
> I see no good reason why Waterfox shouldn't have its own user agent string.
> 
> 
> 
> It's because Waterfox is just a recompilation of Firefox and PM is basically a separate program that looks like Firefox. I think I read somewhere that since no one is getting paid for this program, it takes a lot of time and money to be able to create Waterfox as a stand-alone project.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Waterfox 15 still doesn't have a unique user agent string, but uses the Firefox user agent:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0
> 
> ^^ Please fix this, so that it can be identified how many people are actually using Waterfox. This is what the UA in PaleMoon looks like:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110619 Firefox/3.6.18 (Palemoon/3.6.18)
> 
> I see no good reason why Waterfox shouldn't have its own user agent string.


It's nothing to do with that. I could change the string to look like:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Waterfox/15.0

But when I did that, the add-on website would show incompatible browser so I decided to leave it as is for the moment. A complete rebrand brought a few issues so I though I'd do a partial rebrand (as Mozilla does with Aurora and Beta).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jarkko*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The shortcut works fine for me, so it can't be that. I'll have a look into this for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe related, seems that Waterfox is also unable to set itself as default browser.
> 
> It keeps asking to set itself as default at every startup, unless relevat option is unticked. Keeps doing the same even if defaults are all set (6/6) from Windows Control Panel.
Click to expand...

I haven't got that issue...it shouldn't be happening. There has to be something conflicting. So I'll look and see if there's anything I can do.


----------



## dcurrey

Had the same problem after reinstall waterfox 15. Could no longer set itself as default browser.

Original problem was uninstall of waterfox cased my gadgets to screw up. Only fix was restore point before waterfox 15 install.


----------



## krazysteve33

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jarkko*
> 
> Maybe related, seems that Waterfox is also unable to set itself as default browser.
> It keeps asking to set itself as default at every startup, unless relevat option is unticked. Keeps doing the same even if defaults are all set (6/6) from Windows Control Panel.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dcurrey*
> 
> Had the same problem after reinstall waterfox 15. Could no longer set itself as default browser.
> Original problem was uninstall of waterfox cased my gadgets to screw up. Only fix was restore point before waterfox 15 install.


Seems to me to be a conflicting issue between firefox(15.01) and waterfox(15.0). Testing this, I installed firefox, set it as the default browser, and then uninstalled it. Waterfox could not reclaim the "default browser" status properly after having set firefox as the default browser, even though it was removed from my computer.

I fixed this issue easily by reinstalling firefox, running it and setting it as the default browser. Closed firefox and ran waterfox again to set it as the default browser. It then kept the default browser setting properly.

Defaults can be set manually via...
Tools> Options> Advanced Tab> System Defaults


----------



## EliasAlucard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's nothing to do with that. I could change the string to look like:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Waterfox/15.0
> 
> But when I did that, the add-on website would show incompatible browser so I decided to leave it as is for the moment. A complete rebrand brought a few issues so I though I'd do a partial rebrand (as Mozilla does with Aurora and Beta).


It should work fine if you set the user agent string like this:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0 Waterfox/15.0

I've added support for Waterfox in this vBulletin plugin I'm coding:

http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=285373

So that way, Waterfox will get more recognition and be noticed by other people. All Waterfox needs now is an identification in the user agent string so that it'll actually get noticed in the statistics.


----------



## frankc

Hi is there a compatible 64 bit plug in for this ?

HTML5 Extension for Windows Media Player Firefox Plug-in or for the WMP11 plug in ?


----------



## Lord Venom

Nope, there isn't an x64 Windows Media Player plugin.

As for the user agent, it's simple. Like EliasAlucard posted just take the default Firefox one and add Waterfox to it and volia. Plain and simple and won't cause any issues as long as mention of Firefox is intact in addition to Waterfox.


----------



## virtualguy

Hey, fellow Waterfox users. If you didn't know already, (Fire/Water)fox has a built in PDF reader that is not enabled by default... yet.

The advantage to having a built-in PDF reader is two fold. First, it speeds up the process of opening PDF files in your browser. Usually, your PDF program installs a browser plug-in, such as the Adobe PDF Reader, into the browser. Secondly, using the Mozilla built-in reader should offer more security against infected PDF file attacks. The most popular PDF readers, mainly Adobe Reader, is notorious for it's security issues. With Mozilla's built-in reader, we hope to get a more stable and secure way to view these files online.

To enable this feature, you have to be running Firefox 15 or higher (including betas). In the address bar, do the "about:config" thing and hit "Enter". I assume you are aware of the risks with tinkering here.
In the search bar type "pdfjs.disabled" and then right click this option. In the context menu choose "Toggle" to change the setting from "True" to "False". You can alternatively double-click the entry.

pdfjs.disabled

You have now enabled the the PDF reader in Firefox. Browse to a site that has a ".PDF" extension and try it out. Perhaps this will solve the security woes that sometimes come with Adobe and perhaps make the browsing experience a bit faster as well.

I don't know why this is not being enabled by default yet, but, there is probably a good reason. It may not be ready for Prime Time yet.

VG


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, inline PDF has been posted here before in the past. Inline PDF is on track for being enabled by default in Firefox 16.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hopefully they'll continue to offer options to read PDFs using an external reader. I prefer to use PDF X-Change and have the browser download/execute/open in separate PDF window.

I used to experience a lot of annoyingg issues when my browser would freeze up trying to display PDFs inline using Adobe's reader.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, I'm sure pdfjs.disabled will still exist in Firefox 16 and above.


----------



## biatche

MrALEX

"%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser

still doesn't set as default browser

and

taskbar pin is still acting up (since firefox.exe --> waterfox.exe)


----------



## iu1nguoi

I am trying to import bookmarks AND SETTINGS from Waterfox to Chrome using this instruction http://browsers.about.com/od/googlechrome/ss/import-firefox-bookmarks-to-google-chrome_3.htm, but somehow my Chrome can't see Waterfox in list of browsers. Is there any way to fix it? Thank you.


----------



## Lord Venom

Doubt you can fix that unless Google supports Waterfox, which I doubt they will. Also, I've found using imported bookmarks and settings from Firefox to Chrome tends to screw things up. I'd suggest manually exporting your bookmarks from Firefox and importing them in Chrome, then spending a few minutes setting Chrome's settings to match Firefox's.


----------



## MrAlex

I think quite a few issues can be solved by registry entries. So I'll be testing out the installer soon and it should fix the shortcut issues and the likes everyone gets.


----------



## Lord Venom

It'd also help if people uninstall before upgrading.







Many of the issues are from updating from older Waterfox builds to the newer ones.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> It'd also help if people uninstall before upgrading.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Many of the issues are from updating from older Waterfox builds to the newer ones.


Any build before v14 otherwise there should be no issues


----------



## Jarkko

Probably also related to these problems with default browser etc.



Error given by Thunderbird when trying to open http-link from email.

"Open new windows in a new tab instead" is of course selected in WF options.


----------



## Lord Venom

Usually that just means either a) you're attempting to run Waterfox at the same time as Firefox or vice versa or b) the waterfox.exe or firefox.exe executables are still running while trying to start another instance. If that's the case then you can fix it by ending the running processes via task manager and trying again.


----------



## cyclistefou

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> [...]
> The advantage to having a built-in PDF reader is two fold. First, it speeds up the process of opening PDF files in your browser. Usually, your PDF program installs a browser plug-in, such as the Adobe PDF Reader, into the browser.


Completely agree, this will be faster if only by avoiding the load time of Adobe Reader, or any other browser. Also, another speed advantage is that there will be much less inefficient IPC (Inter Process Communication) between 2 completely separate processes: Adobe Reader and Firefox + Adobe Reader Plugin (replace Adobe Reader by any other external PDF reader you may use). Finally, with JavaScript being so efficient in recent browsers including Firefox, and the pdf.js viewer being lighter than full-blown PDF reader (reuses lots of Firefox for displaying things and focuses on mere PDF reading) the actual pdf.js implementation is likely to more than hold its own against Adobe and others.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Secondly, using the Mozilla built-in reader should offer more security against infected PDF file attacks. The most popular PDF readers, mainly Adobe Reader, is notorious for it's security issues. With Mozilla's built-in reader, we hope to get a more stable and secure way to view these files online.


I couldn't disagree more here however. Firefox by itself is not a secure browser, it is currently the less secure browser available, even slightly worse than Internet Explorer. Why? Because it is a monolithic process, without isolation / sandboxing (all tabs from all sites are in the same execution & memory space) and without privileges minimized (since there is only one process, that process has to hold all the privileges that are needed for the execution of the sum of all features, including add-ons. Also, Firefox doesn't have strict add-ons authentication system (possible to install any add-on you may wish) and the add-ons run in the same space as the rest of Firefox (again). So if any component becomes corrupt (rendering engine, protocolizer, add-ons, javascript etc) then there is no barrier to prevent the corruption to spread in the easiest way to the other components. Which also means that if a tab becomes corrupt due to browsing malicious resource (and no, nobody can ever filter out malicious resources just for being smart, legit sites get infected too) then if any other open tab is dealing with sensitive private data of yours (e-banking being the prime example) then you're screwed.
Too bad, Firefox project Electrolysis has been put on hold, it was the only credible answer to Firefox security woes. Now Firefox enjoys a reputation of security in the crowd because years ago, all the browsers had the same monolithic insecure design and Mozilla was at least coming on top when it came to reactivity (security patches). But that is only acting as a fireman; you are on reactive mode, rather than proactive mode.
Now for PDF.js, the PDF specification is really in the same ballpark as HTML5 + Javascript + image formats (JPG, PNG etc) when it comes to complexity. And all of this is implemented in JavaScript, a language that doesn't even have typing by default and is really not meant for implementing secure SW. All of this tracing too FF's JIT JavaScript engine, which I agree provides some exceptions (type inference etc) that may help for security but in no means, allow JavaScript to become a secure language (it takes more than that for it). Therefore displaying PDF from the web (untrusted location by excellence) in the browser execution space, in JavaScript, is the opposite to security. At least Adobe is trying to patch their browser often and they have a real sandboxing in Adobe Reader X, that limits the damage that can be done if a corruption occurs.
The best example on the opposite, for a secure browser (by design) is Chrome.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> [...]
> Browse to a site that has a ".PDF" extension and try it out. Perhaps this will solve the security woes that sometimes come with Adobe and perhaps make the browsing experience a bit faster as well.


As said above, yes for speed, but a BIG NO, NO, regarding security
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I don't know why this is not being enabled by default yet, but, there is probably a good reason. It may not be ready for Prime Time yet.


Functionally and stability wise I believe Firefox developers don't think it is ready for Prime Time yet, indeed.


----------



## Jarkko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Usually that just means either a) you're attempting to run Waterfox at the same time as Firefox or vice versa or b) the waterfox.exe or firefox.exe executables are still running while trying to start another instance. If that's the case then you can fix it by ending the running processes via task manager and trying again.


Could be, but in this case it just means that WF isn't working as it should.


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Waterfox 15 still doesn't have a unique user agent string, but uses the Firefox user agent:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0
> ^^ Please fix this, so that it can be identified how many people are actually using Waterfox. This is what the UA in PaleMoon looks like:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110619 Firefox/3.6.18 (Palemoon/3.6.18)
> I see no good reason why Waterfox shouldn't have its own user agent string.


I think it is better to keep the user string as FF. Some websites will say they dont support this browser as they dont know about it.


----------



## MrAlex

Well 15.0.1 is a picky one:


Can't compile with pymake
If compiling with jemalloc, WebGL crashes unless compiled with VC
Compiling with QaxAVX results in corrupted GUI (due to 1 file, xunxun1982 has a fix from back in FF10).


----------



## JTD121

So is 15.0.1 the mainline Firefox source, or are you adding fixes and calling it 15.0.1? It's strange that a slight update or two would cause such problems. Any idea on an ETA for 15.0.1?

So far I haven't seen any browser-breaking bugs, or even annoyances, reported by others. Still loving the 64-bitness, even though the benefits seem to be more placebo than anything. Like bragging rights


----------



## jsc1973

Updated from 14 to 15 about a week ago, no problems with it yet. Still seems more stable than regular Firefox.


----------



## MPqO

Is there any reason for when i click on the waterfoxproject.org link in the 'About waterfox' page, to take me to http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/ ?


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Unno if its a bug or just my water fox but I have noticed on the URL/search bar when I click it you don't see the cursor blinking there. Until I write something in it do I see the cursor there. Its a small lame one but thought I'd say something if no one else has.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MPqO*
> 
> Is there any reason for when i click on the waterfoxproject.org link in the 'About waterfox' page, to take me to http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/ ?


Because that part of the source isn't modified. I'm actually not sure if any of the source is modified.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MPqO*
> 
> Is there any reason for when i click on the waterfoxproject.org link in the 'About waterfox' page, to take me to http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/ ?
> 
> 
> 
> Because that part of the source isn't modified. I'm actually not sure if any of the source is modified.
Click to expand...

Here's what's modified:

http://waterfoxproj.git.sourceforge.net/git/gitweb.cgi?p=waterfoxproj/waterfoxproj;a=blob;f=README+%26+CHANGES.txt;h=380992d81bac35c8e22ab63c342faa8602c29d76;hb=be9331b5e222b3b7ebdde8fd09cc397971ddf96b


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, there you go.


----------



## pierredupont17

Mozilla published Firefox 15.0.1.
This version fixed bug like private surf.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTD121*
> 
> So is 15.0.1 the mainline Firefox source, or are you adding fixes and calling it 15.0.1? It's strange that a slight update or two would cause such problems. Any idea on an ETA for 15.0.1?
> So far I haven't seen any browser-breaking bugs, or even annoyances, reported by others. Still loving the 64-bitness, even though the benefits seem to be more placebo than anything. Like bragging rights


Mozilla has published 15.0.1
This version fix bugs, like private surf bugs


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> I think it is better to keep the user string as FF. Some websites will say they dont support this browser as they dont know about it.


Yes I am agree, I think it's the best solution


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pierredupont17*
> 
> Mozilla has published 15.0.1
> This version fix bugs, like private surf bugs


Yeah, Alex knows about it, but there's issues with compiling 15.0.1 as mentioned on the previous page.


----------



## JackBassV

Finally, a 64bit version of firefox that actually works.

Minefield was a disaster. Virtually nothing worked. This works perfectly. In fact I've gotten rid of firefox.

Add to that, Opera has also released a superb 64 bit version. I've kept the 32 bit version for now, but that'll be going too.

Both go to prove that 32 bit is dead. Almost every remark (on other sites) have stated that a 64 bit browser is pointless. These two prove the opposite: They out perform their 32 bit versions, not just in benchmarks, but in the real world - you can see the difference in performance during screen rendering times.

Now to persuade LibreOffice and WinAmp to release Win 64 bit versions...


----------



## Lord Venom

Considering Minefield was a nightly build, I'd think it'd be prone to breakage.









I rather Google and Apple release 64-bit versions of Chrome and iTunes.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

So I have been play BF3 and I have to switch back to Firefox 32 bit for the web browser to work. Is this cause of the way EA wrote there webpage or can something be done on the waterfox side? Kinda dislike having to close out WF to open FF to get my game to work.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDemonz101*
> 
> So I have been play BF3 and I have to switch back to Firefox 32 bit for the web browser to work. Is this cause of the way EA wrote there webpage or can something be done on the waterfox side? Kinda dislike having to close out WF to open FF to get my game to work.


This EA problem. They haven't made a 64bit program yet.


----------



## Lord Venom

It's EA/DICE's doing, as they haven't (and/or they won't) release a 64-bit Battlelog plugin.


----------



## MrAlex

There's a way to have a 32-Bit plugin container with a 64-Bit browser as defined here:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=595053

But I don't know how stable it is etc. I'll probably release a test build in the future.

Or you can download Firefox 4 Beta 12 to see what it's like:

http://wiki.mozilla-x86-64.com/Firefoxownload


----------



## Taomyn

Does anyone else have an issue when closing down WF15 that it doesn't actually close down the main exe?

I leave one of my machines logged in and locked every night after closing all my apps down, and most times when I come back in the morning, running WF again causes the pop up that it's already running. I check in task manager and the waterfox.exe process is still there, hogging 900MB+

Weird


----------



## JTD121

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Does anyone else have an issue when closing down WF15 that it doesn't actually close down the main exe?
> I leave one of my machines logged in and locked every night after closing all my apps down, and most times when I come back in the morning, running WF again causes the pop up that it's already running. I check in task manager and the waterfox.exe process is still there, hogging 900MB+
> Weird


I've had that happen with vanilla 32-bit FF, but way back in the pre-4.0 days. Are you running any plugins or addons that might be hanging and not ending correctly?


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taomyn*
> 
> Does anyone else have an issue when closing down WF15 that it doesn't actually close down the main exe?
> I leave one of my machines logged in and locked every night after closing all my apps down, and most times when I come back in the morning, running WF again causes the pop up that it's already running. I check in task manager and the waterfox.exe process is still there, hogging 900MB+
> Weird


The only time that happens to me is when a tab is frozen/not responding and I attempt to exit WF cleanly in an attempt to restart WF.

Maybe you have an add-on or some other service that is preventing WF from shutting down completely?


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTD121*
> 
> I've had that happen with vanilla 32-bit FF, but way back in the pre-4.0 days. Are you running any plugins or addons that might be hanging and not ending correctly?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> The only time that happens to me is when a tab is frozen/not responding and I attempt to exit WF cleanly in an attempt to restart WF.
> Maybe you have an add-on or some other service that is preventing WF from shutting down completely?


Not a lot has changed since I had WF14 which didn't have this issue, but then many of the extensions I use have updated so maybe it's one of them.

I've had to reboot my system now after yesterday's updates so I'll see what happens in the next few days.


----------



## frankc

Waterfox isn't opening urls in Outopok 2007 - is it beacause Outlook only opens 32 bit browsers and not 64 bit ?


----------



## frankc

Edited Double post


----------



## frankc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *frankc*
> 
> Waterfox isn't opening urls in Outopok 2007 - is it beacause Outlook only opens 32 bit browsers and not 64 bit ?


Fixed it set Waterfox as my default via the non microsoft settings in Control Panel


----------



## Pascal666

Anyone else getting the below error at about:memory?

WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pascal666*
> 
> Anyone else getting the below error at about:memory?
> WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should.


Yes, I get the same message here.


----------



## Lord Venom

Probably doesn't work with 64-bit compiles of Firefox? Someone should check Pale Moon x64.


----------



## Pascal666

Worked fine before 15.


----------



## 4GHz

Hello,

I need help. I updated to Waterfox 15 and now Google doesn't work any more. The site works, I also don't have any problems with other sites that use Javascript, but when I try to search something, it just shows a white page. Can anyone help me with that?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *4GHz*
> 
> Hello,
> I need help. I updated to Waterfox 15 and now Google doesn't work any more. The site works, I also don't have any problems with other sites that use Javascript, but when I try to search something, it just shows a white page. Can anyone help me with that?


I had that problem with Youtube. My problem just went away after time. Not sure how else to help you. :/


----------



## Zhuer

Since I upgrade waterfox to 15, I could not play the embedded video, like the video at CNN sites. I still can play the youtube video from youtube web.

Any suggestion for this bug, THx


----------



## Warriorghost123

Is there any way to have the icon not displayed twice in the task bar? For example, I have Waterfox as a shortcut in the taskbar next to my Windows Start button. When I click on that, it opens up another icon which is the actual browser itself. If I remember correctly, Chrome just opened it up on the icon itself. If that is possible, I would like to have it like that.

Also, the website images don't load at all sometimes. What I mean is when you open a new tab, it shows you all the recent websites you've visited, and I'm assuming there's supposed to be a picture of the website there. I only see 1 of the multiple websites that I visit, and that one only has the image of it? How do I enable it for other websites? The addons that I run are: NoScript, Adblock Plus, and Web of Trust. Thank you.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warriorghost123*
> 
> Is there any way to have the icon not displayed twice in the task bar? For example, I have Waterfox as a shortcut in the taskbar next to my Windows Start button. When I click on that, it opens up another icon which is the actual browser itself.


How did you put Waterfox into the taskbar; drag-and-drop? If so, that is not the proper way to place something permanently into the taskbar.

Delete Waterfox from the taskbar, then open Waterfox, right-click on the taskbar icon and select 'Pin this program to the taskbar'.


----------



## Warriorghost123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> How did you put Waterfox into the taskbar; drag-and-drop? If so, that is not the proper way to place something permanently into the taskbar.
> Delete Waterfox from the taskbar, then open Waterfox, right-click on the taskbar icon and select 'Pin this program to the taskbar'.


Awesome that worked! Thanks so much! Also, what about the other problem with the website images not loading? Thanks!


----------



## Amigafever

I haven't figured out if WF 15 automatically checks for updates or not, it's missing the option. Is this necessary? I've just reinstalled it (without Firefox present) and always get the "...is not default browser" warning at startup. I had to disable default-state check.


----------



## Lord Venom

Auto-updates are now handled in the background silently by an external executable. People were having too many problems with the built-in updater that Alex opted for the external updater. If you look in the Waterfox install directory, you should see the updater executable which you can run yourself at anytime to manually check for updates.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

How do you stop WF from consistently checking to make sure addons are up to date then post the WF main page. Pretty much every time i open WF after boot it wants to check addons.


----------



## Swag

Anyone still having issues with Waterfox and Flash?


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Anyone still having issues with Waterfox and Flash?


yes me .

and its not about wf and flash its about mozilla with flash , its run UGLY under any ff based browser , that the main reason i switch (







) to google chrome , any flash related site and video playing smooth like hell.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

I believe the adobe flash player was bad this time around. I have the same problem when I switch from fullscreen to embeded size then switch to another page with flash on it. My flash player crashes then I have to wait a few seconds then reload the page and its fine. I hope adobe does a bug fix on this.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Anyone still having issues with Waterfox and Flash?


i still am. it acts like a memory leak only it's not leaking.







if I go to a site that has a bunch of Flash, WF will slowly start to slow down. Memory and CPU usage does not go up, however.. It eventually gets to a point where it feels like it's about to lockup.

I can visit the same site with MSIE, Safari, and Chrome and not have any problems.

All of my add-ons are current and I've got it to the point where I only have 4 add-ons installed.

I've started to experience this problem when WF 14 came out. I thought it had been resolved with WF 15 came out but it just took a bit longer for the problem to show itself.









Other than that WF 15 is zippy fast.


----------



## zersansantos

sorry i have problem with waterfox 14, 14.1 15
currently i use waterfox 13
my problem
---long time "acces mediafire folder" (~folder usualy have 15 files or less)
---can't acces "mediafire folder" (~folder usualy have 15 files or less)

i use 384kbps internet
and still waterfox 13 best for me,,,(waterfox 13 can accses mediafire folder quickly)

anyway thank for developing waterfox for free,,,


----------



## Tarnix

Using WaterFox 15.0 here on AMD Phenom II X6 (yeah, pretty much like using a shover to eat tea, but oh well...) and the Jumplist doesn't work no matter what.
Thanks for devlopping it nonetheless, I love it.


----------



## Swag

I really want to use Waterfox but those Flash crashes are just too unbearable! Tell me when a fix comes up! PM me!


----------



## Lord Venom

Downgrading Flash to a vulnerable 10.3 is a temp workaround. Other than that, tell Adobe to fix their buggy Flash.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Downgrading Flash to a vulnerable 10.3 is a temp workaround. Other than that, tell Adobe to fix their buggy Flash.


When I go to 10.3, Youtube won't let me watch any videos.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

I only have crashes if i turn on "Use hardware acceleration when available" in the Waterfox options.

But its Windows 8 and the AMD FirePro drivers are beta.


----------



## demoneye

as far as i see this flash issue , it is not about flash being buggy , since same flash works 100% when using google chrome (chrome build in flash is disabled). its more look like mozilla bad implement flash in its firefox browser.


----------



## Viski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Anyone still having issues with Waterfox and Flash?


Yes, I've had the flash crashing issue for like months now... or something


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zersansantos*
> 
> sorry i have problem with waterfox 14, 14.1 15
> currently i use waterfox 13
> my problem
> ---long time "acces mediafire folder" (~folder usualy have 15 files or less)
> ---can't acces "mediafire folder" (~folder usualy have 15 files or less)
> i use 384kbps internet
> and still waterfox 13 best for me,,,(waterfox 13 can accses mediafire folder quickly)
> anyway thank for developing waterfox for free,,,


384Kbps?! I'll take a wild guess, you're from the Philipppines, right? Lol.


----------



## sfranklin1717

Thank you for the portable ZIP download! That's a time-saver for those of us without admin rights.

Now, if we could also get a way to install Flash without admin rights, I'd be all set.


----------



## sardi

Hi,

I just installed windows 7 and waterfox on any page characters are blurred, also had 15 and now firefox firefox I get 14 and not let me update giving me an error

In Firefox and other browsers that I have installed on the characters change and the pages are normal

Any ideas?


----------



## dlee7283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> as far as i see this flash issue , it is not about flash being buggy , since same flash works 100% when using google chrome (chrome build in flash is disabled). its more look like mozilla bad implement flash in its firefox browser.


Adobe has developed and tweaked 32 bit flash for much longer than 64 and I believe chrome is 32 bit unless its Chromium build so its basically 64 bit flash issue when it comes down to it

basically Waterfox is in a punching match with Chrome 21 for me. Chrome is faster but it its built in DNS needs daily flushing in order for it to maintain a smooth experience through the week as it will hang for me even on google.com sometimes.

Waterfox has the disadvantage of being 64 bit which is still not optimized in the browser world along with 64 bit flash which has random crashes, yet its having SSE3 and AVX instruction sets along with the Firefox add-on library brings its pretty much on par with Chrome.

If I was to rate the main browsers out there....

*
Safari* (Weaker implementation of the Webkit engine compared to Chrome, stable, but sort of slow except on Macs)

*Opera*- (Better on Mobile platform, but loads most major news pages very fast. Great for long Wikipedia reads)
*
IE9*- ( Built into Windows so its has that speed advantage. Vulnerable to Javascript error hell, Mosaic needs to be abandoned and a whole new browser built in house but still maintain Gecko legacy support )
*
Firefox/Netscape legacy*- (Cold boots and memory usage make its slow on Pre Core 2 Duo computers with less than 2gb of ram. Best Add On Library by far on any browser by a large margin and is which caused it to be slightly overrated until Firefox 3.6)

*Waterfox* ( True Enthusiast Browser, SSE3 and AVX support are super nice, 64 bit has room to grow once HTML5 is also optimized.Still hasn't reached its potential.

*Chrome* ( Highly optimized from the ground up and lower memory footprint than Firefox, but eventually turns into IE where it start messing up randomly like IE)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sardi*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I just installed windows 7 and waterfox on any page characters are blurred, also had 15 and now firefox firefox I get 14 and not let me update giving me an error
> 
> In Firefox and other browsers that I have installed on the characters change and the pages are normal
> 
> Any ideas?


about:config -> gfx.direct2d.disabled -> set to true

Does that solve the issue?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> as far as i see this flash issue , it is not about flash being buggy , since same flash works 100% when using google chrome (chrome build in flash is disabled). its more look like mozilla bad implement flash in its firefox browser.


No, the issue is in regards to Flash with the protected mode feature that Adobe developed for Firefox. Since Chrome has its own sandboxing, it doesn't use Flash's protected mode and thus doesn't encounter the various issues that Firefox + Flash does. Ultimately it's up to Adobe, not Mozilla to fix the issues people are having with Firefox and Flash. Also keep in mind that Chrome's using an older 11.3 build of Flash for PPAPI.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> basically Waterfox is in a punching match with Chrome 21 for me. Chrome is faster but it its built in DNS needs daily flushing in order for it to maintain a smooth experience through the week as it will hang for me even on google.com sometimes.


I don't have this issue and I run Chrome all the time. Did you try toggling the Built-in Asynchronous DNS feature found in chrome://flags/ and seeing if that makes any difference? To me Chrome's the fastest all-around browser (in terms of responsiveness, page loading, multiple tab loading and switching, etc.).


----------



## sardi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> about:config -> gfx.direct2d.disabled -> set to true
> 
> Does that solve the issue?


Yes, it's the solution

Thank you very much


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> i still am. it acts like a memory leak only it's not leaking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if I go to a site that has a bunch of Flash, WF will slowly start to slow down. Memory and CPU usage does not go up, however.. It eventually gets to a point where it feels like it's about to lockup.
> I can visit the same site with MSIE, Safari, and Chrome and not have any problems.
> All of my add-ons are current and I've got it to the point where I only have 4 add-ons installed.
> I've started to experience this problem when WF 14 came out. I thought it had been resolved with WF 15 came out but it just took a bit longer for the problem to show itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that WF 15 is zippy fast.


I have now stopped using WF on my one computer that has been experiencing the slowdown.







I've now gone to Chrome as the default browser for this particular computer. I had thought about going back to version 11 or 12 but felt it would be best to just leave it "as-is", use another browser and monitor the development of WF









On my other computer, WF 15 works fine









Mr. Alex, please keep up the great work! It's very much appreciated


----------



## dlee7283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> No, the issue is in regards to Flash with the protected mode feature that Adobe developed for Firefox. Since Chrome has its own sandboxing, it doesn't use Flash's protected mode and thus doesn't encounter the various issues that Firefox + Flash does. Ultimately it's up to Adobe, not Mozilla to fix the issues people are having with Firefox and Flash. Also keep in mind that Chrome's using an older 11.3 build of Flash for PPAPI.
> I don't have this issue and I run Chrome all the time. Did you try toggling the Built-in Asynchronous DNS feature found in chrome://flags/ and seeing if that makes any difference? To me Chrome's the fastest all-around browser (in terms of responsiveness, page loading, multiple tab loading and switching, etc.).


chrome://flags/ solved all my problems. How did I not know about this feature until now. Its supports GPU Hardware accelerations?


----------



## mdo254

I'm very sorry I meant to say Waterfox wouldn't start with my last opened tabs.
I have selected in Tools > Options > General for Waterfox to show last opened windows and tabs but it always starts blank. Is there anyway to fix this? If there is please let me know.


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdo254*
> 
> I'm very sorry I meant to say Waterfox wouldn't start with my last opened tabs.
> I have selected in Tools > Options > General for Waterfox to show last opened windows and tabs but it always starts blank. Is there anyway to fix this? If there is please let me know.


Are you using the Tab Mix Plus addon? If so, configure it to use Water/firefox's internal session system, tab mix plus' own system is sadly broken for at least me and a friend.

Also, anyone got the jumplist to work with Waterfox 15 ?


----------



## mdo254

I'm not using the Tab Mix add on. Would using it help fix my problem?


----------



## Tarnix

Nope.


----------



## mdo254

Is there anyway to fix this problem?


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mdo254*
> 
> Is there anyway to fix this problem?


Can not reproduce. Sorry.


----------



## mdo254

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tarnix*
> 
> Can not reproduce. Sorry.


Oh well. I'll just have to deal with it then.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, just tried and can't reproduce it either. Have you tried a new profile?


----------



## GreenArchon

I know Mr.Alex had issues with compiling version 15.0.1 a week and a half ago, so I was wondering if there were still plans for a Waterfox 15.0.1 release someday?

The regression that was fixed in ff 15.0.1 is quite important, as it basically makes private browsing useless...


----------



## Lord Venom

Could wait for Waterfox 16?


----------



## mdo254

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Yeah, just tried and can't reproduce it either. Have you tried a new profile?


What do you mean by try a new profile?


----------



## Lord Venom

Here you go: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Creating_a_new_Firefox_profile_on_Windows

If you do this, make sure you backup your bookmarks first.


----------



## zersansantos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> 384Kbps?! I'll take a wild guess, you're from the Philipppines, right? Lol.


i am indonesian
internet acces here quite expensive
~10$ for a month up to 384kbps
i hope next release waterfox fix my problem,,,
>_


----------



## mdo254

It's started saving my tabs now for some reason. I don't know why but it's working perfectly now. Thank you for all the help everyone.


----------



## Swag

Any ETA on WF16?


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Any ETA on WF16?


Firefox 16 is still on Beta 4. It will be released on Oct. 9 after that probably wait for 2 days or a week for WF16.


----------



## Czarnodziej

After driver update for AMD GPU (120904a) in Windows 8 Waterfox does not crash anymore while Hardware Acceleration is enabled.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> After driver update for AMD GPU (120904a) in Windows 8 Waterfox does not crash anymore while Hardware Acceleration is enabled.


Cool, hopefully also on my FirePro - but have to wait for the new Windows 8 driver.


----------



## Zerwan

Hello,

I've started using Waterfox a couple of days ago, and I have a problem regarding the Waterfox updater. Of course, there aren't any updates available yet, but since this looks like a bug,I would like to report it.

This post explains what happens to me: http://www.overclock.net/t/1308687/waterfox-updater#post_18217940

Cheers!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Zerwan*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I've started using Waterfox a couple of days ago, and I have a problem regarding the Waterfox updater. Of course, there aren't any updates available yet, but since this looks like a bug,I would like to report it.
> 
> This post explains what happens to me: http://www.overclock.net/t/1308687/waterfox-updater#post_18217940
> 
> Cheers!


Hi there, I've replied in the thread. Basically a forward slash (/) is missing in front of the checknow parameter.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:
Originally Posted by *zersansantos* 

i am indonesian
internet acces here quite expensive
~10$ for a month up to 384kbps
i hope next release waterfox fix my problem,,,
>_

Oh ok. Would you believe if I say that it's around $15 for 384Kbps connection here?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Oh ok. Would you believe if I say that it's around $15 for 384Kbps connection here?


$20 for 3mbps isn't exactly peachy.

I mean we live in America, the land of opportunity. Yet we get slightly better prices than you.


----------



## MKANET

Im a long time firefox user. Im currently using Waterfox 15. I dont have any issues with Firefox except for flash freezes up with hardware acceleration enabled using my very new Nvidia GT640 display card. This didn't happen before on my older Nvidia display card. I was hoping for a way to enjoy the benefits of Flash hardware acceration without completely disabling it by using a less drastic tweak. I am also, of course, using 64bit Flash Player.

*Google Chrome:*
I've heard a lot of good things about Chrome. I just recently installed Chrome on my test machine to see for myself. Good thing I only installed it on my test machine!! The first things I noticed was it didn't display some webpages correctly. Also, it looks like Google installs a malware called, "Google Updater". Even after I do a full uninstall of Chrome, I see a bunch of orphaned files, directories, at least one windows google service left on my machine; and, my Windows registry was infested with google/chrome related information.

Can someone either recommend a way to make Chrome display webpages as reliably as Firefox; and, uninstalls cleanly or offers a portable version. Or...

Recommend a way to make firefox flash hardware acceleration as stable as possible.


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, you might have to wait for Nvidia/Mozilla/Adobe to issue fixes for hardware acceleration crashes and Flash-related crashes.

As for Google Chrome, the Chrome Updater service does exactly that, it'll update Google Chrome in the background when an update is issued - it's not malware at all. Firefox does the exact same thing via the maintenance server it installs too.


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> $20 for 3mbps isn't exactly peachy.
> I mean we live in America, the land of opportunity. Yet we get slightly better prices than you.


Lol. I live just above (canada) and for 20$ all you'll get from internet provider is either dial-up or a flipped finger.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tarnix*
> 
> Lol. I live just above (canada) and for 20$ all you'll get from internet provider is either dial-up or a flipped finger.


http://www.electronicbox.net/en/quebec/residential/internet.html

A simple search shows that Electronic Box Inc. is one of 20+ ISPs in Quebec.
EBI provides (one of many tiers) a 30.95$/month, DSL 6 Mbits with 75 GB + unlimited from 2am to noon.

They also provide a 40.95$/month, DSL 15 Mbits with 125 GB + unlimited from 2am to noon.
*This is not only $15 cheaper than my service, but also 3Mb faster.
edit: For a dryloop (DSL only) they charge $10 a month. Still $5 cheaper than my service and faster.
edit2: For a 250GB cap (same as my ISP) they charge $5 more. Bringing the price to the same per month, but faster speeds.*

_Its reviews also indicate that they provide a no contract service (same as me) and also don't force a rental gateway on its customers (my ISP forces its customers to pay a rental fee for its non-negotiable gateway)._

You may live in a rural area and get what you say above, but so do people living in rural America.
You have to go by what is possible for the entire region.


----------



## MKANET

There seems to be some alternate solution to getting Flash Player to behave better. I just haven't explored any of them yet. Just using an older version seems to affect the behavior. I was hoping there were some people who have already experimented with this already here.

Yes, it's obvious Google Updater is used for updating Chrome. However, Google Updater is actually much closer to malware than some people may realize. Just try uninstalling it.







Guess what? You can't. Google Updater, just like malware, installs software components without the user having a choice and not offering any way to uninstall the active process/service in memory and the respective files it leaves behind. This is much different than Firefox updater which is conveniently builtin to Firefox; and, cleanly uninstalls.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Yeah, you might have to wait for Nvidia/Mozilla/Adobe to issue fixes for hardware acceleration crashes and Flash-related crashes.
> As for Google Chrome, the Chrome Updater service does exactly that, it'll update Google Chrome in the background when an update is issued - it's not malware at all. Firefox does the exact same thing via the maintenance server it installs too.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MKANET*
> 
> There seems to be some alternate solution to getting Flash Player to behave better. I just haven't explored any of them yet. Just using an older version seems to affect the behavior. I was hoping there were some people who have already experimented with this already here.
> Yes, it's obvious Google Updater is used for updating Chrome. However, Google Updater is actually much closer to malware than some people may realize. Just try uninstalling it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what? You can't. Google Updater, just like malware, installs software components without the user having a choice and not offering any way to uninstall the active process/service in memory and the respective files it leaves behind. This is much different than Firefox updater which is conveniently builtin to Firefox; and, cleanly uninstalls.


I'm using Chrome one one my machines and WF v15 on the other. The one with Chrome was due to problems I experienced with release 14 of WF (and it may have also been in v13, just not as bad or noticeable).

Flash crashing wasn't really the issue I was having, though I had noticed that sites that had a lot of Flash did cause WF to slow down considerably. RAM and CPU usage wasn't high either. Visiting the same sites using MSIE, Safari, etc. did not yield the same problems.

Rather than revert back to an older version of WF I decided t just use Chrome on the one machine and wait and see how v16 plays out.









I selected Chrome because it is Flash optimized. Since it's tied with Google, searching, GMail and YouTube services are much faster







( at least it feels that way







).

As for sites not displaying pages correctly, I haven't really run into many of those. The few that I have were really old sites using some sort of DHMTL from way back in the day. The problem that I do run into the most are sites with some sort of secure forms or pages. They respond by telling me that I'm on Chrome and that I need to be on MSIE, Mozilla/Firefox or Safari.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MKANET*
> 
> Yes, it's obvious Google Updater is used for updating Chrome. However, Google Updater is actually much closer to malware than some people may realize. Just try uninstalling it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guess what? You can't. Google Updater, just like malware, installs software components without the user having a choice and not offering any way to uninstall the active process/service in memory and the respective files it leaves behind. This is much different than Firefox updater which is conveniently builtin to Firefox; and, cleanly uninstalls.


Ummm, no it's not malware. You can easily disable the service from starting using msconfig or CCleaner and you can manually remove the Google Updater files itself and it works fine. But if it really bothers you, I guess you could ask Google to make it optional. ALSO after you uninstall Chrome Google Update will remove itself an hour after you've removed Chrome or any other Google programs that use an updater. I mean I wouldn't recommend removing the update service so you're always up-to-date, but to each his/her own.

http://support.google.com/installer/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=98805

Disable tutorial video: 




As for Flash crashes, I don't have any problems with Flash crashing at all in Firefox or Waterfox and I'm using the latest Flash too.


----------



## sirmatto

So I've been having an issue where, I'll set Google Maps to use MapsGL, which works beautifully. However, sometimes Google Maps unsets itself from MapsGL back to the regular Maps interface. It seems to be random and definitely happens after closing and reopening the browser (note that MapsGL will sometimes persist across browser sessions). I can always turn it back on and it will work like a charm until it randomly unsets itself. I can't confirm whether this is a Waterfox issue or a Google Maps issue, as I don't use any other browsers, but has anyone else experienced this?

Also, the new built in reader pdf.js also works perfectly. I have to set under Options>Applications>PDF to use "Preview in Waterfox" for it to work first. But alas, this is plagued by a similar problem as MapsGL, where Waterfox will randomly unset "Preview in Waterfox". I can always reset it, but it would be nice if this setting were persistent. Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## Warriorghost123

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Warriorghost123*
> 
> Also, the website images don't load at all sometimes. What I mean is when you open a new tab, it shows you all the recent websites you've visited, and I'm assuming there's supposed to be a picture of the website there. I only see a couple of the multiple websites that I visit, and they have images of it. How do I enable it for other websites? The addons that I run are: NoScript, Adblock Plus, and Web of Trust. Thank you.


I'm still having this problem. Does anyone know of a solution?


----------



## ander

Hi guys,

I've just speed-tested Waterfox 15.0 and Firefox 15.01 on two systems. I used this test:

*Speed Battle*
http://www.speed-battle.com

The test's homepage says:
Quote:


> SPEED-BATTLE measures online the JavaScript speed of your browser and compares it with the results of all other visitors.
> 
> Test results depend on different parameters (like CPU, browser, plugins/addons, operating system, system memory, number and kind of processes running in parallel and many more). The test will give you a reference value for the performance of your soft- and hardware. For consistent results run it when all other activity of your computer is low.


I ran the tests several times on two Toshiba notebooks running 64-bit Windows 7. I monitored Windows Task Manager to be sure I tested when each system was idle.

To my surprise, *Firefox was consistently faster than Waterfox* by around 20%. Does this make sense?


----------



## Kmaster

Russkey extension is not working on 15.0. Seems like the last version has problems with cyrilic alphabets.


----------



## fullmoon

it originates from the difference in performance between 32-bit and 64-bit. to what is calculated (decoding, encoding), 64 bits is better. When it comes to managing characters, the 32-bit is better.


----------



## Czarnodziej

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ander*
> 
> Hi guys,
> I've just speed-tested Waterfox 15.0 and Firefox 15.01 on two systems. I used this test:
> *Speed Battle*
> http://www.speed-battle.com
> The test's homepage says:
> I ran the tests several times on two Toshiba notebooks running 64-bit Windows 7. I monitored Windows Task Manager to be sure I tested when each system was idle.
> To my surprise, *Firefox was consistently faster than Waterfox* by around 20%. Does this make sense?


Left: Waterfox 15
Right: Latest Chrome


----------



## Swag

What's the least problematic Flash version for Waterfox? I really want to know!


----------



## ander

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> Left: Waterfox 15
> Right: Latest Chrome


Left: *Waterfox 15*
Right: *Firefox 15.01*



Okay, sometimes it's more than 20%. Try it yourself, though!


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> What's the least problematic Flash version for Waterfox? I really want to know!


What kind of problems do you have? I have no problems with 11.4.402.278 (nor did I have problems with any previous version).

Haven't tried 11.5 beta yet (which is mainly planned as a bug-fix release).

Details on FP 11.5 beta: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplatformruntimes/flashplayer11-5/


----------



## Czarnodziej

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ander*
> 
> Left: *Waterfox 15*
> Right: *Firefox 15.01*
> 
> Okay, sometimes it's more than 20%. Try it yourself, though!


I replicated that issue. FF 15.01is faster than both Chrome and Waterfox in this benchmark by a pretty large margin.


----------



## 4GHz

Sorry, I don't want to double-post, but I still have the problem in post #3843 on page 385. Google is behaving strange...

Edit: I got the "bad" add-on. It's a shame I can't use it anymore...


----------



## Czarnodziej

Clear cache/cookies/history. If it persists, change profile to new one.


----------



## fullmoon

or maybe one or many add-ons; test: start with shift press, select disable add-ons, after enable flash plug-in and test. also disable history maybe.


----------



## Swag

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> What's the least problematic Flash version for Waterfox? I really want to know!
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of problems do you have? I have no problems with 11.4.402.278 (nor did I have problems with any previous version).
> 
> Haven't tried 11.5 beta yet (which is mainly planned as a bug-fix release).
> 
> Details on FP 11.5 beta: http://labs.adobe.com/technologies/flashplatformruntimes/flashplayer11-5/
Click to expand...

Flash tends to crash a lot when viewing any Flash video!


----------



## Vertig0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> As for Flash crashes, I don't have any problems with Flash crashing at all in Firefox or Waterfox and I'm using the latest Flash too.


What the hell, it crashes for me randomly and my Windows installation is rock-solid.

Seriously.

















































:


----------



## Swag

Can anyone verify for me if getchromium.org is a safe site? (It's for the Chromium Browser) I want to benchmark it versus Waterfox.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vertig0*
> 
> What the hell, it crashes for me randomly and my Windows installation is rock-solid.


Have you tried disabling Hardware Acceleration?

Have you tried updating your graphics drivers?

See also How do I troubleshoot Flash Player's protected mode for Firefox?

See also How do I report a Flash Player crash to Adobe?


----------



## mhowie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Czarnodziej*
> 
> I replicated that issue. FF 15.01is faster than both Chrome and Waterfox in this benchmark by a pretty large margin.


Is this true for most people, that is, Firefox is faster than Waterfox?


----------



## BlackThought

Is it just me or does WF open a lot slower than usual?


----------



## tatianalarina

When I try to open the page http://www.centrum24.pl (my internet bank page) I get the error message "the connection to the server was reset while the page was loading". I have to go to the main page of the bank http://www.bzwbk.pl, follow the link to the internet banking there and then I can reach the desired page without any problem. The bank's IT support just told me that ":Waterfox is not on the list of the supported browsers, please use a recommended browser", and indeed, the problem doesn't occur in IE9. Still, I would like to fix this issue because it seems to me that my Waterfox is configured exactly according to the bank's recommendations. Also I don't think the problem occurred in Waterfox 13, I started to notice it only after the update.


----------



## Lord Venom

If that site supports Firefox, it automatically supports Waterfox. Anyways, that page loads fine here in Waterfox, so perhaps it's something on your side causing it? Did you try flushing your DNS? Emptying your cache? Clean profile?


----------



## tatianalarina

I had tried cleaning my cache before, but as it turned out, cleaning both my cache and flushing dns did the trick. Thank you for your help.


----------



## Lord Venom

No problem, glad it helped!


----------



## MKANET

I was finally able to fix the bug where flash videos would hang and eventually crash by upgrading to Flash Player 11.5 (64bit). This was the only issue I had related to my web browser. So, no reason to use any other browser than Waterfox 15 for me.


----------



## Lord Venom

Interesting, anyone else try the Flash 11.5 beta yet that has had Flash issues?


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Interesting, anyone else try the Flash 11.5 beta yet that has had Flash issues?


like to point out that crashing does still happen in 11.5 beta but its less frequent and less annoying. like crashes won't take 2 minutes to crash, 10 seconds and then it will notify you.

i tend to crash on justin.tv , twitch.tv and nvidias front page alot; but now nvidia doesn't crash, twitch tv stopped crashing and justin tv crashes instantly (its just the front page part of the flash) so its alot better, but still think it crashes just alot less.

edit: guessing ETA on a new update to waterfox will be when FF16 comes out? :X


----------



## Lord Venom

I can't get Firefox nor Waterfox to crash with Flash at all, it's very odd. And yes, FF16 has to come out first (usually) before there's a new WF build.


----------



## JTD121

Is anyone else having trouble using LinkedIn with WF15? Anything I click just sits at a blank "Redirecting..." page while the URL seems to jump through a few iterations of gobbledy-****, before I stop it. It seems to work just fine in IE9 on Windows 7.....I looked at my addons and plugins, and nothing stands out as 'I will fux0r your LinkedIn'......Only Flash is enabled as plugin, I Have a bunch of standard Add-ons, Flashblock, NoScript, Stylish....

Any ideas?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTD121*
> 
> Is anyone else having trouble using LinkedIn with WF15? Anything I click just sits at a blank "Redirecting..." page while the URL seems to jump through a few iterations of gobbledy-****, before I stop it. It seems to work just fine in IE9 on Windows 7.....I looked at my addons and plugins, and nothing stands out as 'I will fux0r your LinkedIn'......Only Flash is enabled as plugin, I Have a bunch of standard Add-ons, Flashblock, NoScript, Stylish....
> Any ideas?


Yes, test with clean all cache (cookies, hdd, history, and download).


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vertig0*
> 
> What the hell, it crashes for me randomly and my Windows installation is rock-solid.
> Seriously.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :


Is there a particular site that causes Flash to crash? One that will crash it consistently?

I've been struggling with Adobe Flash and WF on one computer but not another.. The one that I'm having problems with doesn't crash (sometimes but not often) but instead causes what feels like a memory leak although it's not; WF begins to slow down to where it's almost non-responsive. I can use other browsers and never experience the problem. Never had this problem with WF v11 or v12. It wasn't until v13, v14 and now v15.

I'm pretty sure the problem I am having is how WF and Adobe Flash is interacting with my hardware. Does not matter if I have acceleration on or off either and if I create a different profile I get the same problem. As mentioned earlier, I can use another browser and the same version of Adobe Flash and never have a problem.

That said, I'm sitting tight, monitoring this forum/thread, and hope for the best when WF 16 comes out.


----------



## JTD121

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Yes, test with clean all cache (cookies, hdd, history, and download).


Yep, just tried that, and still does it. I must be missing something somewhere....a setting? Couldn't be a plugin that's missing, could it?


----------



## Viski

I just tried Chrome actually, and man it crashes a lot. Open a couple of flash sites and BAM it crashes. Don't know what's going on. Sticking with WW for now, because it doesn't crash as nearly as often.


----------



## Lord Venom

Really? I've used Chrome for years now and never had a single crash. =\ Never had Firefox/Waterfox crashing either with Flash. Very odd.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JTD121*
> 
> Yep, just tried that, and still does it. I must be missing something somewhere....a setting? Couldn't be a plugin that's missing, could it?


And by resetting your preferences (start with shift).


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Really? I've used Chrome for years now and never had a single crash. =\ Never had Firefox/Waterfox crashing either with Flash. Very odd.


maybe the computer components? I have 2 PC, on the desktop PC no problem with flash (good GC and CPU), with my laptop, crash and freeze are frequently.


----------



## kxtcd950

I'm still having issues with opening links from other programs; using Waterfox 15.0, and also the pinned menu items being default icons and not working.

I've dug around in the registry, and I've found (I think) a smoking gun:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxURL\shell\open\command

has it's default value set to:

"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe" -requestPending -osint -url "%1"

This would, on the face of it appear to be a bit of a problem. I don't have a firefox.exe in that folder. However, if I create a symbolic link to waterfox.exe from firefox.exe, everything starts working correctly.

I think that although the Waterfox branding inside the executable itself is good, it seems that there's a string substitution missing in the installer, making it point to firefox.exe instead of the (correct) waterfox.exe.

If I change the text "firefox.exe" in this registry entry to "waterfox.exe" then URLs clicked from other applications start working again.
The only way I can get the jumplist from the taskbar working correctly is by creating the aforementioned symlink from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe in the porgram's install directory.

I'll assume (but haven't dug for yet - as I'm unsure how they work) that the jumplists are likewise a little wrong, thanks to the installer.

Other keys I've found which reference firefox (I don't have firefox installed on my computer) are:

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ftp\Defaultcon
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ftp\shell\open\command
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\DefaultIcon
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\shell\open\command
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\https\DefaultIcon
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\https\shell\open\command

HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MacromediaFlashPaper.MacromediaFlashPaper\DefaultIcon
HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MacromediaFlashPaper.MacromediaFlashPaper\shell\open\command

Similarly, all these values in HKEY_CURRENT_USER.

HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Clients\StartMenuInternet has a Default value of "FIREFOX.EXE"

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\firefox.exe has a default value containing "c:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Waterfox\13.0 (en-US)\Main has a value "PathToExe" which contains "c:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Waterfox\13.0\bin has a value "PathToExe" which contains "c:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Clients\StartMenuInternet\FIREFOX.EXE\Capabilities has a value "ApplicationIcon" with the value: "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe,0"

There are a fair number of places where the string "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\Firefox.exe" appears; too many to list here, but I give you this list as an indication that something seems to have gone wrong with the installer somewhere.


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 16 will be released next week, with fixed registry entries.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kxtcd950*
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: post reply
> 
> 
> 
> I'm still having issues with opening links from other programs; using Waterfox 15.0, and also the pinned menu items being default icons and not working.
> I've dug around in the registry, and I've found (I think) a smoking gun:
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxURL\shell\open\command
> has it's default value set to:
> "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe" -requestPending -osint -url "%1"
> This would, on the face of it appear to be a bit of a problem. I don't have a firefox.exe in that folder. However, if I create a symbolic link to waterfox.exe from firefox.exe, everything starts working correctly.
> I think that although the Waterfox branding inside the executable itself is good, it seems that there's a string substitution missing in the installer, making it point to firefox.exe instead of the (correct) waterfox.exe.
> If I change the text "firefox.exe" in this registry entry to "waterfox.exe" then URLs clicked from other applications start working again.
> The only way I can get the jumplist from the taskbar working correctly is by creating the aforementioned symlink from firefox.exe to waterfox.exe in the porgram's install directory.
> I'll assume (but haven't dug for yet - as I'm unsure how they work) that the jumplists are likewise a little wrong, thanks to the installer.
> Other keys I've found which reference firefox (I don't have firefox installed on my computer) are:
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ftp\Defaultcon
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\ftp\shell\open\command
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\DefaultIcon
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\shell\open\command
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\https\DefaultIcon
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\https\shell\open\command
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MacromediaFlashPaper.MacromediaFlashPaper\DefaultIcon
> HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\MacromediaFlashPaper.MacromediaFlashPaper\shell\open\command
> Similarly, all these values in HKEY_CURRENT_USER.
> HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Clients\StartMenuInternet has a Default value of "FIREFOX.EXE"
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\App Paths\firefox.exe has a default value containing "c:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Waterfox\13.0 (en-US)\Main has a value "PathToExe" which contains "c:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Mozilla\Waterfox\13.0\bin has a value "PathToExe" which contains "c:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe"
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Wow6432Node\Clients\StartMenuInternet\FIREFOX.EXE\Capabilities has a value "ApplicationIcon" with the value: "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\firefox.exe,0"
> There are a fair number of places where the string "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\Firefox.exe" appears; too many to list here, but I give you this list as an indication that something seems to have gone wrong with the installer somewhere
> 
> 
> .


For your problem, clean uninstall (delete folders, Ccleaner, ...) and instal again. I know, but it's the better for resolve this problem.


----------



## DCY

13.0 was the only version I could actually install. v14.0, 14.2, and 15.0 just kept giving me an error message about a version of Waterfox either currently already installed or can't be deleted. So I'm thinking the issue is with the new installer that gives you the option to add AVG for the installation because when I installed that version using the same setup installer as Firefox there wasn't an issue.


----------



## matada

I was just made aware of a video plugin that doesn't work on Waterfox (but works just fine in firefox) Widevine Used by Showtime Anywhere. Never heard of that plugin until I got the e-mail from my mom about it.


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *matada*
> 
> I was just made aware of a video plugin that doesn't work on Waterfox (but works just fine in firefox) Widevine Used by Showtime Anywhere. Never heard of that plugin until I got the e-mail from my mom about it.


most plugins aren't made for 64bit browsers; some do have a 64bit counterpart, some don't. So sadily unless theres a 64bit version of the plugin it won't work in waterfox.


----------



## Goghen

Hi guys,
i got this error installing Waterfox on Windows 7, 64 bit. This is the first time i try to install WF.

Code:



Code:


[SEH_AV_DEP_BADPTR] ACCESS_VIOLATION (0xc0000005) at address [0x00fd14e9]

*** Stack Trace (x86) ***

[0x00fd14e9]  -----
[0x6f2ae59b]  MsiLoadStringW()
[0x6f2ae537]  MsiLoadStringW()
[0x6f30a58e]  MsiInvalidateFeatureCache()
[0x6f365d12]  MsiGetPropertyW()
[0x01466286]  -----
[0x0147a035]  -----
[0x0147340d]  -----
[0x0147101e]  -----
[0x0146ff9d]  -----
[0x01476f44]  -----
[0x0147bdc9]  -----
[0x7782030a]  LdrGetProcedureAddressEx()
[0x77820382]  LdrGetProcedureAddressEx()
[0x7781e1b2]  RtlFreeAnsiString()
[0x77820358]  LdrGetProcedureAddressEx()
[0x778201e2]  LdrGetProcedureAddress()
[0x0142548d]  -----
[0x01425c05]  -----
[0x014300e2]  -----
[0x77829ef2]  RtlInitializeExceptionChain()
[0x77829ec5]  RtlInitializeExceptionChain()

What's wrong?

Ciao
Andrea


----------



## Goghen

I tried to repair it and now it seems to work.

Let's test it for few days.









Ciao
Andrea


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DCY*
> 
> 13.0 was the only version I could actually install. v14.0, 14.2, and 15.0 just kept giving me an error message about a version of Waterfox either currently already installed or can't be deleted. So I'm thinking the issue is with the new installer that gives you the option to add AVG for the installation because when I installed that version using the same setup installer as Firefox there wasn't an issue.


As I recall, the v14 release was the one that was accompanied by a warning that any previous release must be removed before installing it.


----------



## charleskane

I just wanted to say what a joy it has been using Waterfox.

Anyone holding back for whatever reason should go ahead and jump right in.
It wont break anything, it uses your current Firefox profile and it just may fix those niggling unfixable Firefox issues that have been bumming you.

Is it faster? Don't know, seems a little faster. BUT Waterfox does seem to be an overall smoother experience for me. I have never come across a single Waterfox problem. It runs complex javascript pages like Newsblur and Hootsuite faultlessly (and I have these two open permanently), closing tabs which was giving me the willies in Firefox works as it should using Waterfox, all my addons work and I haven't notice plug-ins falling over.

Great work the developer. Hope he makes some money from AVG.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Great to hear that WF 16 is next week! And it fixes alot of issues. But now I have another question.

Ever since I installed WF 15 both my FF & WF keep doing an addon check then post WF or FF main page. As if its a first install. How do I get this to stop?


----------



## DCY

I didn't realize that, but that version I did have had been removed months ago and I've also done a factory restore since then. So it still doesn't make sense.


----------



## mrsmiles

ok so i just installed waterfox 15 and i get the following error:

waterfox.exe - entry point not found
the procedure entry point malloc could not be located in the dynamic link library mozglue.dll

so what do i need to do to fix this?

[EDIT]

nevermind im just going to uninstall firefox and waterfox then do it from scratch, have all my plugins and preferences backed up.

[EDIT2]
after taking a second look at the addons and preferences it seems to have restored everything, only thing missing is to find my userscripts and userstyles i had installed as well as a few addons that didnt get installed.


----------



## charlir

I have been a fan of waterfox till the 14+ came out... alas as of late went to IE.. it is fast.. it sucks cause it wont save pw no matter what I have tried.. still.. Waterfox (or its pluugins) hangs and hangs.. thanks so much MrAlex but I use it less and less now - you did a wonderful job no idea what is going on.. but it hangs so much etc.. I go to a page and nothing happens.. I watch the net it isnt even pagin it .. granted could be the site but well IM testing --- at the moment IE is winnning .. althouigh I hate it .. so sucks bish can not remember a pw or sing on for anything

Sorry


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> As I recall, the v14 release was the one that was accompanied by a warning that any previous release must be removed before installing it.


Actually, back when I went from v13 to v14 it installed without informing me to uninstall v13. And though it went through the installation just fine I did get an error message upon launching it. I forget what the error was but I was able to fix it by uninstalling WF and then reinstalling.

Since then I've always removed the previous version. The uninstall doesn't take long and just don't nuke the profile(s) in the process and you're golden.


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> I have been a fan of waterfox till the 14+ came out... alas as of late went to IE.. it is fast.. it sucks cause it wont save pw no matter what I have tried.. still.. Waterfox (or its pluugins) hangs and hangs.. thanks so much MrAlex but I use it less and less now - you did a wonderful job no idea what is going on.. but it hangs so much etc.. I go to a page and nothing happens.. I watch the net it isnt even pagin it .. granted could be the site but well IM testing --- at the moment IE is winnning .. althouigh I hate it .. so sucks bish can not remember a pw or sing on for anything
> Sorry


just wait for waterfox 16,might fix your issues?

speaking of which firefox 16 final just got released

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/16.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2016.0.exe

(atleast on there ftp, about a hour ago)


----------



## zephiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> just wait for waterfox 16,might fix your issues?
> speaking of which firefox 16 final just got released
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/16.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2016.0.exe
> (atleast on there ftp, about a hour ago)


Awaiting the release of Waterfox 16.0


----------



## mrsmiles

roughly how long does waterfox project take to release a new version after mozilla releases its new version of firefox?


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mrsmiles*
> 
> roughly how long does waterfox project take to release a new version after mozilla releases its new version of firefox?


within a week or two, possibly longer depending if theres issues compiling, where there sometimes are
think the longest i've waited for a update was a week? around the time the program went "independent" (wf 13 i think) (independent being not relying on firefox.exe)

edit: fixed some grammatical errors


----------



## InsaneO

Found another small problem starting with WF 14.
Those little icons I think called mavicons do not appear in the stack of sites at the running program stack of WF.
This stack is located at the bottom of the screen on the left if multiple WF tabs are open. Some icons appear and some are just blank yet they
on the tabs themselves. In fact this site does not have mavicon. It is just blank.
Anyone has a fix?


----------



## pwillener

Favicons: Mozilla has killed them off Firefox, so they are gone from Waterfox as well. Don't know when it started (ended); around Firefox 13 or 14?


----------



## MrAlex

Just to let you all know WF16 is on its way. Things have been hectic since Uni started this week.


----------



## InsaneO

Firefox did not kill them. Just few of them don't show up. Most of them do.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Just to let you all know WF16 is on its way. Things have been hectic since Uni started this week.


Thank you again for your continued support!


----------



## zephiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Just to let you all know WF16 is on its way. Things have been hectic since Uni started this week.


Take your time, it is a free project after all.


----------



## momoko

while waiting for wf16 you can use this nice build:
http://www1.plala.or.jp/tete009/en-US/software.html#FX160_VC8PGO
(not mine)


----------



## Lord Venom

Those are just 32-bit builds it looks like.


----------



## kennyparker1337

I hope this fixes the memory leak.

I'm having Waterfox take up 1.2GB of memory with 5 tabs open (with disk caching enabled and not full).


----------



## fullmoon

FF16.0 stop, wait for FF16.0.1. A problem of security has been detected.


----------



## RevZ

Upgraded from WF 13.0 to 15.0, first I got a XULRunner error because there was a firefox.exe still left in the folder that gave that error. Then I started waterfox.exe instead and it gave me notifications of it not being my standard browser. Now it's unusable, I have to wait for a whole second for anything I type to appear in any text box, and if I type in the address bar or move anything at all it shudders horribly and sometimes just plain disappear! Just great. A clean reinstall (registry and all) doesn't change anything either.
The scroll bar disappears as well, and scrolling any page is completely impossible because it;'ll turn into a strobe fest and plain not show where I want to go. It took me 5 minutes to get to this damn reply box!

Please fix this ****, for I refuse to use any other browser. I can handle a bug or two (Used to play around with nightly/test builds plenty often) but this is just stupid.

EDIT: Just found the 13.0 PL1 installer again, which works without these issues like it did before (thankfully). Still pissed off.


----------



## Lord Venom

You have to do a complete clean uninstall of Waterfox 13, then install Waterfox 15 or else you'll run into issues. If you install 14 or 15 over 13 or below, you'll have issues.


----------



## InsaneO

Found another bug and this time it is serious one.

Lately because of the SPAM I am trying to change my email address everywhere.
Tried to login in to one site yesterday and change my email address.
It would not let me.
Called the company and they changed my email.
Now I tried to change my password.
Nope.
I click on my account and instead of going to my account it goes to the same log-in screen.
So I tried using IE and it works there.

This is not the first time this happening after WF 13.

One of the sites I had problem with before was Amazon.

This is like third time I encounter this problem with secure log-ins.
Amazon thing was fixed on WF15 but it still has problems apparently.


----------



## RevZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> You have to do a complete clean uninstall of Waterfox 13, then install Waterfox 15 or else you'll run into issues. If you install 14 or 15 over 13 or below, you'll have issues.


Like I said, I did do complete uninstallation of Waterfox and moved away the profiles and after the first attempt proved abysmal, on top of uninstalling it I even removed all of the registry items associated to it. Still the same issues persist.


----------



## Lord Venom

Usually the XULRunner errors are caused by leftovers from previous installs.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 16.0.1 is out now!


----------



## RevZ

Yeah, I'm talking about the latter now, the first time I noticed that that error was caused by the old firefox.exe still being referenced. The rest of the issues remained throughout all reinstalls and cleans though..


----------



## Lord Venom

Have you tried turning off hardware acceleration in Waterfox?


----------



## RevZ

Yup, doesn't help anything.









The fact that it's not only on rendered pages but the UI itself too is what boggles my mind.


----------



## ipollesion

New website coming soon!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ipollesion*
> 
> New website coming soon!


That's right, ipollesion designed the new website, and also WF16 compilation is currently in progress


----------



## fullmoon

lol, One new site by version of WF


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's right, ipollesion designed the new website, and also WF16 compilation is currently in progress


Hello,

Which version ? WF 16.0.1 ?


----------



## zephiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pierredupont17*
> 
> Hello,
> Which version ? WF 16.0.1 ?


I would assume so.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pierredupont17*
> 
> Hello,
> Which version ? WF 16.0.1 ?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zephiK*
> 
> I would assume so.


Yes the new Waterfox is always based on the latest Firefox build.


----------



## Targor

The portable version stores its profile in the Appdata-Folder, which denies the portable feature. It should be changeable through the profile-manager, but I'd consider to change the profile directory to the Program-folder for the portable download of Waterfox, because with its profile on C:\ it's not really portable.


----------



## Sethos88

Just decided to download it and give it a try.

However I have this problem where i constantly need to force refresh for pictures to show up, pages load correctly or even display up-2-date content. Keep seeing huge barebone pages with just text, after a CTRL + F5 it shows up, random images disappear etc.

How do you fix that?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Just wanted to clarify whether WF16 will include the recent security fix? So effectively being 16.0.1.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Just wanted to clarify whether WF16 will include the recent security fix? So effectively being 16.0.1.










Even I would like to know that. I am dying to upgrade.


----------



## LORD MADA

I'm facing two main problems since waterfox 13.0

1. Touchpad geusters were set for baxk/forward , but since waterfox 13 it came up/down
(something relates to re-mapping in the new waterfox)

2. icon on taskbar is duplicated incase of pinned waterfox icon

please somebody help me....


----------



## Ceadderman

I used to get notifications of mass memory usage. As much as 4Gigs Every day it seemed like.

Turned off Hardware Acceleration where Applicable and haven't had a single notification since.

If you're getting barebones (happens occasionally) I think that's more a Flash issue than Browser issue. I get them occasionally but it's only one page of my 20+ pages that happens to while loading. I just let it go its course and it generally course corrects itself. Rarely do I have to refresh to fix it. If you're having this issue and it's not correcting itself check the Downloads section in OP to see that you have the correct version of Flash installed.

Not that it's gonna matter long cause FFox is on 16 now so there will probably be a new Waterfox soon.









~Ceadder


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Hey all ...

Sorry if this has been posted (didn't read the last gazillion posts) ... but I wanted to know if there is a way to return the default search to normal google and not that new AVG rubbish ?


----------



## zephiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emissary of Pain*
> 
> Hey all ...
> Sorry if this has been posted (didn't read the last gazillion posts) ... but I wanted to know if there is a way to return the default search to normal google and not that new AVG rubbish ?


go to your browser and change the default search engine.


----------



## Lord Venom

The trick is to not install the AVG stuff in the first place.


----------



## LORD MADA

how to re-map shortcut keyboard and touchpad keys and geusters in waterfox?? highly needed...


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> The trick is to not install the AVG stuff in the first place.


That is the scary thing ... I never installed it in the first place ... but when I search something it brings up my google results with the annoying AVG logo and it doesn't have the usual google advanced search options

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zephiK*
> 
> go to your browser and change the default search engine.


I have selected the default search engine but it hasn't helped

*:: EDIT ::*

After retrying to change the default browser (numerous times) I finally got it by setting the keyword url (in about:config) to https://www.google.co.za/search?q=


----------



## Lord Venom

No AVG logo here, and I didn't install the AVG stuff either.


----------



## ArtLive

When 16.0?


----------



## dnyanesh

Mr. Alex,

When is the 16.0.1 WF build going to be released to the public?

Can we expect quicker updates in the future?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Guys, just be patient, he has already said that he's busy with uni at the moment. If i were him I'd also be putting my studies as first priority.


----------



## Lord Venom

If you guys are really in a hurry to get a x64 build of the latest Firefox, you could always set up your own build environment and build your own.







Otherwise, patience is a virtue!


----------



## zephiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> If you guys are really in a hurry to get a x64 build of the latest Firefox, you could always set up your own build environment and build your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, patience is a virtue!


Or just use the official Firefox for now.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zephiK*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> If you guys are really in a hurry to get a x64 build of the latest Firefox, you could always set up your own build environment and build your own.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Otherwise, patience is a virtue!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or just use the official Firefox for now.
Click to expand...

Or Waterfox 15.0


----------



## zephiK

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Or Waterfox 15.0


Firefox 16 is faster than Waterfox 15 for me


----------



## schwit

If you can't wait try this ...
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-19.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


----------



## Lord Venom

Well, sure, you can use the bleeding edge Nightly builds. But keep in mind they're not compiled using the optimization flags Waterfox is and they might be a tad bit unstable.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schwit*
> 
> If you can't wait try this ...
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/firefox-19.0a1.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe


yes . i am already using it , its fast but got some addons issue ....


----------



## Lord Venom

You can easily fix addon issues yourself if they're related to compatibility.


----------



## Vertig0

Is the Waterfox homepage borked or is it just me ?


----------



## ArtLive

New site - ok. New WF - ...?


----------



## zephiK

New website looks very clean!


----------



## fullmoon

The new site of WF is lousy.







.


----------



## Lord Venom

Actually it's simple and clean now, I like it.


----------



## tek2005

simple, clean, small and compact. Definitely love the new website, now just need to wait for the new update :C


----------



## pwillener

I like the new website layout. All that's missing is a link to this discussion...


----------



## MrGlasspoole

The new site is much better - looks more professional and clean. But why all that div's - Waterfox can do html5 without any problems


----------



## HanFox

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> The new site is much better - looks more professional and clean. But why all that div's - Waterfox can do html5 without any problems


Divs are still part of HTML5 and should be used for reasons of presentation whilst all other block elements (such as section) should be used appropriately.

True, though, the Waterfox site isn't really HTML5









The design is just the pidgin website re-coloured though (says so in the meta tags). Hope it's not breaking any copyrights and I hope the new Waterfox design wasn't paid for.


----------



## ipollesion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> Divs are still part of HTML5 and should be used for reasons of presentation whilst all other block elements (such as section) should be used appropriately.
> True, though, the Waterfox site isn't really HTML5
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The design is just the pidgin website re-coloured though (says so in the meta tags). Hope it's not breaking any copyrights and I hope the new Waterfox design wasn't paid for.


Hi there guys, the new website has a doc type of XHTML 1.1, not HTML5, so technically it wasn't meant to be HTML5, as there is no need, but this could be a quick change at a later date if we choose to go that route.

While it may be true that the design is based off of pidgin, it is completely customized, I did this project for free and we did discuss what could work, when we compared what layouts seem to work and what we like, we decided the pidgin website does a pretty good job at presenting the software, although their website could use some updating on the CSS side of things, I've made sure every little nook and cranny of the website had some good visual representation and there were no errors. A majority (mostly all re-written) of the CSS is custom to the Waterfox website, such as the web colors, PHP server-side scripting, JavaScript scripting, Twitter counter, logos, backgrounds, news, footer etc. and the commenting is using a social trend called Disqus, the news uses the FusionNews system.

The images were edited in Adobe Photoshop and made uniformly consistent with the theme of the new website, and some logos and sprites were added, believe it or not, this took dedicated amounts of work.

Also mainly all the old links are 301'd to the new pages, so I'm sure some of you saw broken things when I was doing that.

No worries about the licensing, we talked to the fellas at pidgin









I'll probably be adding a donation button to the website sometime in the future, Alex is also really busy.


----------



## ipollesion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> I like the new website layout. All that's missing is a link to this discussion...


See http://www.waterfoxproject.org/support.php


----------



## Ispep

I like the layout too. It has a nice clean look to it. This makes the site load up quicker when viewing from a mobile device on 3G.
















If a discussion board of some sort can be added as it suggests on the site, that would be really cool. Much better than having to read through the 400+ pages of a single thread


----------



## Pascal666

I like the simple layout of the new website, but it would be nice if all of the errors were fixed:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterfoxproject.org
http://www.htmlhelp.com/cgi-bin/validate.cgi?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterfoxproject.org%2F&warnings=yes


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ipollesion*
> 
> See http://www.waterfoxproject.org/support.php


Thank you. I went to that page yesterday, but didn't see the link. But it's clearly there...


----------



## helliace

A Japanese compiles 64bit Firefox Nightly (with AVX support) every day: http://fbuild.com/
You can use this (though it has addon compatibility issues) if you can't wait for Waterfox 16


----------



## nodiaque

Big problem with the waterfox 15 installation.

At first, if you have firefox 13 installed, it will corrupt the installation and nothing will work.
Then, while the installation, if you select to make a custom install without AVG, avg will still be installed and default web page will be AVG...

After that, if you go into add/remove, it will remove ld waterfox 13, but 15 won't work. Running setup again and selecting Remove will do nothing. The program will disapear from add/remove but no file will be remove and avg will be reinstalled!

Then, running the setup and selecting "add/remove feature", it will install avg even if you don't select them and change default web page to avg.

Seriously, it's the most bugged setup program I've seen...


----------



## Lord Venom

You should always uninstall old versions first.


----------



## nodiaque

that's no real excuse. Software now a day are able to detect older version and uninstall the other version if it doesn't support multiple installation or upgrade installation. Like when installing ff16 over ff13, the uninstall is sleemless.

But worst, after uninstalling 13, the 15 is simply not uninstallable. The setup always detect it as installed even when selecting to remove it (which does nothing).

And the fact that avg toolbar and avg as default search and webpage are configured/installed even if not selected make it even worst and have nothing to do with the fact that wf13 is installed.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> that's no real excuse. Software now a day are able to detect older version and uninstall the other version if it doesn't support multiple installation or upgrade installation. Like when installing ff16 over ff13, the uninstall is sleemless.
> 
> But worst, after uninstalling 13, the 15 is simply not uninstallable. The setup always detect it as installed even when selecting to remove it (which does nothing).
> 
> And the fact that avg toolbar and avg as default search and webpage are configured/installed even if not selected make it even worst and have nothing to do with the fact that wf13 is installed.


then I don;t believe you've completely uninstalled it. I'm not criticizing you, but I uninstalled mine(other than the profile) and my 15 installed with zero issues. It's not the program that much is certain.









What the problem is exactly I couldn't say since I don't have it in front of me. I just don't believe that the installer is the issue.









~Ceadder


----------



## nodiaque

Problem is, tried it on 3 different pc now and always same problem.

Install WF 13. Then, start the WF 15 installation, it won't detect WF 13 and overwrite everything. Now, try to launch WF, no go.

Go into add/remove, uninstall WF. WF13 uninstall will start.

Then uninstall WF15 from add/remove, you'll see it disapear from the list, but when you run setup again, it will say it's already here (and the file in program file are still there).

And worst, the avg installation issue that get install anyway...


----------



## ipollesion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nodiaque*
> 
> that's no real excuse. Software now a day are able to detect older version and uninstall the other version if it doesn't support multiple installation or upgrade installation. Like when installing ff16 over ff13, the uninstall is sleemless.
> But worst, after uninstalling 13, the 15 is simply not uninstallable. The setup always detect it as installed even when selecting to remove it (which does nothing).
> And the fact that avg toolbar and avg as default search and webpage are configured/installed even if not selected make it even worst and have nothing to do with the fact that wf13 is installed.


AVG has been removed according to Alex in the next release and as far as uninstalling goes, you should always use the uninstaller that came with the software if you plan on installing an incremental update (e.g. 10 > 15), no matter if you uninstall something, traces are always usually left behind on the system.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ipollesion*
> 
> AVG has been removed according to Alex in the next release and as far as uninstalling goes, you should always use the uninstaller that came with the software if you plan on installing an incremental update (e.g. 10 > 15), no matter if you uninstall something, traces are always usually left behind on the system.


gotta reboot/log out and in as well after an uninstall so you get a fresh registry in memory...


----------



## MrAlex

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/Waterfox%2016.0.1%20Portable%20%28test%29.zip/download

Who'd like to give it a whirl and let me know if everything works?

Also, the AVG Secure package has been removed.

Sorry for the delay. University lectures started this week and I had a few 9-5's this week


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/Waterfox%2016.0.1%20Portable.zip/download
> 
> Who'd like to give it a whirl and let me know if everything works?
> 
> Also, the AVG Secure package has been removed.
> 
> Sorry for the delay. University lectures started this week and I had a few 9-5's this week


why was the AVG secure package removed? I have AVG so it's not like it really matters but I kina like having the AVG secure in the browser.









~Ceadder


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> why was the AVG secure package removed? I have AVG so it's not like it really matters but I kina like having the AVG secure in the browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


Because most users are content with WF minus the crapware?


----------



## Heresy86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/Waterfox%2016.0.1%20Portable.zip/download
> 
> Who'd like to give it a whirl and let me know if everything works?
> 
> Also, the AVG Secure package has been removed.
> 
> Sorry for the delay. University lectures started this week and I had a few 9-5's this week


"The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem."


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Heresy86*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/Waterfox%2016.0.1%20Portable.zip/download
> 
> Who'd like to give it a whirl and let me know if everything works?
> 
> Also, the AVG Secure package has been removed.
> 
> Sorry for the delay. University lectures started this week and I had a few 9-5's this week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem."
Click to expand...

I didn't include any of the .dll's. Just copy them over from the other version.


----------



## Pascal666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Who'd like to give it a whirl and let me know if everything works?


about:memory is still broken. It worked in WF 14 but not 15.


----------



## momoko

WF16 works great, much faster than tete009 32-bit.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Fantastic. Stress tested it for a few minutes now, everything seems to be working fine for me. I will keep using it as my default browser and report back if any issues arise


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *M8R-grnkig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> why was the AVG secure package removed? I have AVG so it's not like it really matters but I kina like having the AVG secure in the browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because most users are content with WF minus the crapware?
Click to expand...

So lemme get this straight AVG is crapware? I fail to see how when it helps protect you during browser sessions. Norton? McAffee? Yeah I would agree with the Crapware Comment. But if AVG were "crapware" I doubt that Facebook would be collaborating with them. I mean it\s not impossible but I've never had a problem with a file in the 10+ years I've used AVG. Some people have I'm sure but I don't mind an AVG plugin. It's not like we cannot turn it off if we don't want it, is it? I'm pretty sure I can remove it from my browser if I don't want it.









Besides I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mr. Alex.









~Ceadder


----------



## alienstorexxx

very nice! i see the same image/video quality that made me change definetly from firefox to your dev. for some reason, in one version it disappeared, but now i see that difference again.
also i feel it really fast.

thank you! congrats for the new web design, looks awesome.


----------



## alienstorexxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienstorexxx*
> 
> very nice! i see the same image/video quality that made me change definetly from firefox to your dev. for some reason, in one version it disappeared, but now i see that difference again.
> also i feel it really fast.
> thank you! congrats for the new web design, looks awesome.


i've to report 1 error. after installing language pack, i reset wf, used it normally. then closed. when i opened it a few minutes later. a tiny "1 line*40 pixels" window with ">>" simbol on it, everything else white. no menu bar, nothing but close, minimize, maximize icons, and wf icon. closed it. open again, the same. i figured to solve it, replacing the 16.0.1 files again. if the error appears again i will remember to take a screen.

edit: happened again.but not a the "open before first close". i'm tweaking some games and i close wf every five minutes, play, and then open again.


----------



## Vicpdx19

Hey Mr.alex,

I tried WF16 after moving some .dll's from WF15 over and it works fine. Did notice it will mess with WF 15 and kill the plugin list so you will have to reinstall 15 but so far 16 works great. Note for about:memory, I typed it in and I got the the page with memory usage so it works for me. Anyways keep up the great work you are doing and get WF16 out once you have the time. I did want to donate to the waterfox project if that is still allowed? If so where can I?


----------



## tek2005

Quick suggestion, why not have 2 installers one with AVG and one without. So people can still support you even if others don't want to. :C


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Quick suggestion, why not have 2 installers one with AVG and one without. So people can still support you even if others don't want to. :C


No. That's just a complete waste of time. If people are so hard up about this just have a simple screen to advertise and select 'Yes. I want it'. However, I believe people should read installers thoroughly rather than clicking next, next and next. While the installer was a bit confusing, i managed to not install the avg add on without any hassle.

Quite frankly, if your someone on this forum and/or looking for a 64bit version of Firefox i'd imagine you have somewhat of an intellectual to do what i did.

Sorry for being blunt, i'm not targetting you alone but rather all who is complaining about this. No offense intended


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> No. That's just a complete waste of time. If people are so hard up about this just have a simple screen to advertise and select 'Yes. I want it'. However, I believe people should read installers thoroughly rather than clicking next, next and next. While the installer was a bit confusing, i managed to not install the avg add on without any hassle.
> Quite frankly, if your someone on this forum and/or looking for a 64bit version of Firefox i'd imagine you have somewhat of an intellectual to do what i did.
> Sorry for being blunt, i'm not targetting you alone but rather all who is complaining about this. No offense intended


btw im not someone that was having issues with installing avg lol. im just saying sucks that people are too dumb to uncheck such things. aka why i want a version to support him. (guess i could keep using waterfox 15)

edit: i posted my message because he removed AVG in waterfox 16. >.>


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> btw im not someone that was having issues with installing avg lol. im just saying sucks that people are too dumb to uncheck such things. aka why i want a version to support him. (guess i could keep using waterfox 15)
> edit: i posted my message because he removed AVG in waterfox 16. >.>


I understand. I was just putting it out there


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/Waterfox%2016.0.1%20Portable%20%28test%29.zip/download


Do I assume correctly that there will be an installable WF16 eventually?


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> Do I assume correctly that there will be an installable WF16 eventually?


yeah he's just busy and this is mainly a test build to see if everything is working properly before he releases the installable version.

On a side note: 16.0.1 is working like a charm as far as i can tell. No issues here.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Reporting back, seems to be a solid release Alex. Good job!









Now, lets just hope i don't jinx myself as i seem to often do.


----------



## Pascal666

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Vicpdx19*
> 
> Note for about:memory, I typed it in and I got the the page with memory usage so it works for me.


Did the page it displayed say "WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should." at the top?


----------



## ipollesion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pascal666*
> 
> I like the simple layout of the new website, but it would be nice if all of the errors were fixed:
> http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterfoxproject.org


Done, http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.waterfoxproject.org%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline&group=0&user-agent=W3C_Validator%2F1.3

I converted it from XHTML to HTML5, I'm only using the W3C validator as any other I don't really trust.


----------



## Magik

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> yeah he's just busy and this is mainly a test build to see if everything is working properly before he releases the installable version.
> On a side note: 16.0.1 is working like a charm as far as i can tell. No issues here.


Working without a problem here as well, thanks.









The only issue I had was the following files where missing from the test zip.
It wouldn't start without them.


libiomp5md.dll
libmmd.dll
svml_dispmd.dll
msvcp100.dll
msvcr100.dll


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Magik*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> yeah he's just busy and this is mainly a test build to see if everything is working properly before he releases the installable version.
> On a side note: 16.0.1 is working like a charm as far as i can tell. No issues here.
> 
> 
> 
> Working without a problem here as well, thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only issue I had was the following files where missing from the test zip.
> It wouldn't start without them.
> 
> 
> libiomp5md.dll
> libmmd.dll
> svml_dispmd.dll
> msvcp100.dll
> msvcr100.dll
Click to expand...

See MrAlex's previous post
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Heresy86*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/Waterfox%2016.0.1%20Portable.zip/download
> 
> Who'd like to give it a whirl and let me know if everything works?
> 
> Also, the AVG Secure package has been removed.
> 
> Sorry for the delay. University lectures started this week and I had a few 9-5's this week
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't include any of the .dll's. Just copy them over from the other version.
Click to expand...


----------



## headcleaner

No issues found yet in waterfox 16.0.1 portable -
many thx MrAlex for your great work!
The new website is clear and charming


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *M8R-grnkig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> why was the AVG secure package removed? I have AVG so it's not like it really matters but I kina like having the AVG secure in the browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because most users are content with WF minus the crapware?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So lemme get this straight AVG is crapware? I fail to see how when it helps protect you during browser sessions. Norton? McAffee? Yeah I would agree with the Crapware Comment. But if AVG were "crapware" I doubt that Facebook would be collaborating with them. I mean it\s not impossible but I've never had a problem with a file in the 10+ years I've used AVG. Some people have I'm sure but I don't mind an AVG plugin. It's not like we cannot turn it off if we don't want it, is it? I'm pretty sure I can remove it from my browser if I don't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mr. Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
Click to expand...

It wasn't really working for them, because lets be honest most people using Waterfox are quite computer literate. No worries though as I wasn't very comfortable including it in the first place.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienstorexxx*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *alienstorexxx*
> 
> very nice! i see the same image/video quality that made me change definetly from firefox to your dev. for some reason, in one version it disappeared, but now i see that difference again.
> also i feel it really fast.
> thank you! congrats for the new web design, looks awesome.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i've to report 1 error. after installing language pack, i reset wf, used it normally. then closed. when i opened it a few minutes later. a tiny "1 line*40 pixels" window with ">>" simbol on it, everything else white. no menu bar, nothing but close, minimize, maximize icons, and wf icon. closed it. open again, the same. i figured to solve it, replacing the 16.0.1 files again. if the error appears again i will remember to take a screen.
> 
> edit: happened again.but not a the "open before first close". i'm tweaking some games and i close wf every five minutes, play, and then open again.
Click to expand...

There are some issues with the language packs at the moment. Have you tried any of the language packs from here:

https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/

Also have you set the language in about:config?

Alright so if it's working for everyone I assume it's safe to release WF16. No GUI issues for anyone I hope, I can't deal with another disastrous release


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Alright so if it's working for everyone I assume it's safe to release WF16. No GUI issues for anyone I hope, I can't deal with another disastrous release


Yes please









Oh btw. On the dl page of the WF site i think the grammar is wrong. The "Operation" there should be "Operating"


----------



## alienstorexxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It wasn't really working for them, because lets be honest most people using Waterfox are quite computer literate. No worries though as I wasn't very comfortable including it in the first place.
> 
> There are some issues with the language packs at the moment. Have you tried any of the language packs from here:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/
> Also have you set the language in about:config?
> 
> Alright so if it's working for everyone I assume it's safe to release WF16. No GUI issues for anyone I hope, I can't deal with another disastrous release


i've set the language from about:config, yes. what is the difference between language from original firefox (above) and yours?
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/16.0.1/win32/xpi/

i will report later if problem solves/persists.


----------



## fullmoon

Warning, a language pack works only with corresponding version.


----------



## InsaneO

This is getting ridiculous.
WF16 does not have "Send Link" if I right click on the page.
Why was it removed?


----------



## ipollesion

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Yes please
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh btw. On the dl page of the WF site i think the grammar is wrong. The "Operation" there should be "Operating"


Thanks, I've fixed it.

If you see any other problems with the site, please let me know as soon as possible.

Regards,
iPollesion


----------



## demoneye

i cant add babylon OCR and spilling into waterfox15 (or what ever ver) , but under ff16 its install its self automatic after i install babylon ...anyone can assist me?

10x


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I didn't include any of the .dll's. Just copy them over from the other version.


Hey Mr. Alex, the dll's will be included with the final WF16 installation program, right?

If you are not planning to, may I ask you to reconsider? I had a hard time trying to install WF15 which appears to be missing them as well. Followed every instruction posted on here about installing Microsoft's packages but all to no avail...

I'm currently using WF14 which has the dll's within the installation program. I was never able to use WF15 because of the missing dlls....

Other than that you have been doing a great job with Waterfox. I hope you can keep the project up after graduation and the multi million dollar contract you get from Google









Thank you very much!


----------



## alienstorexxx

https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/

didin't work for me.. any idea of what is that provoques this problem? if i replace the files with the original, it works perfectly. so i don't know where the issue is. i've looked when replacing files one by one, there is no file diferent than the "broken" ones. not even date of modification.

also i think this didn't happen before, when i change language from about:config, every new window or pop-ups like "you are about to close 5 tabs..." appears like when wf brokes. so i have to supress the .exe to close it, language switchs ok before reset, but this error may be connected with languege crashing wf start up.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

So instead of diving through all the forum posts. Where is the link to the new WF 16.01 or which ever that doesn't have the issues in it? I did notice that the download on page 1 doesn't work either.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

WF 16 hasn't been released yet (just a test version for now) MrAlex said his lectures have started so I'm sure he up WF 16 when he gets a chance.

It looks like he has dropped the s off the end of the downloads URL here is the download page http://www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php


----------



## Yengoshi

Just want to say thank so much for Waterfox, i've always had hanging issues and crashing with Firefox but Waterfox works flawless apart from one issue and that is certain sites (mostly YouTube) keep crashing Flash. (I get the Flash has crashed message appear then click Ok then vid changes to Flash has crashed then loads in a sec?) Not a massive issue but more of a annoyance.


----------



## MrAlex

Who wants to give the installer a whirl?

http://www.mediafire.com/?nv2i6bzytx6k5wd

Should include all the proper registry settings too


----------



## fullmoon

wait the next version or try the beta.








EDit: lol after...


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Who wants to give the installer a whirl?
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?nv2i6bzytx6k5wd
> 
> Should include all the proper registry settings too


Trying it out now. Thanks ^_^


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Is it suggested to uninstall the old version of WF then install the new one while keeping the saved settings? or just overwrite it with a new one?


----------



## JRuxGaming

Waterfox 16 install works well, and I love the new installer GUI. It is very crisp and clean. I will let you know if I run into any issues.


----------



## Yengoshi

Will it save bookmarks and stuff or do I need to save them manually?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDemonz101*
> 
> Is it suggested to uninstall the old version of WF then install the new one while keeping the saved settings? or just overwrite it with a new one?


Not unless you're using a version earlier than v14

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Yengoshi*
> 
> Will it save bookmarks and stuff or do I need to save them manually?


Everything should be in your Firefox Profile (not program related)


----------



## Yengoshi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not unless you're using a version earlier than v14
> Everything should be in your Firefox Profile (not program related)


OK great. I'll give it ago and see if it solves my Flash issue.


----------



## fullmoon

works on w8


----------



## Yengoshi

Sorry for the double post but I couldn't edit my last. No I still get the Flash error.


----------



## Krahe

Installer seemed to work fine here, went without a hitch and no errors whilst surfing my regular sites.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> works on w8


^This


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

The installer worked fine for me on Windows 7 64 bit.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Works great on 7 ultimate. Only hic-up I had was when it tried to remove the old shortcut. It gave an error and as I clicked the screen to come back to it. The error went away and the process finished with no problems.


----------



## pwillener

Waterfox 16.0.1 installer works perfectly (and yes, I love the new GUI).

Waterfox 16.0.1 itself also does not appear to have any problems.


----------



## tamngoman

im not sure if its just me, but after installation it works great. but after closing it and reopening it a couple of times, it opens in a tiny window with ">" not sure how to fix it, except opening up firefox, closing it, reopening waterfox.


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tamngoman*
> 
> im not sure if its just me, but after installation it works great. but after closing it and reopening it a couple of times, it opens in a tiny window with ">" not sure how to fix it, except opening up firefox, closing it, reopening waterfox.


I'm also experiencing this.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Working fine for me.


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Working fine for me.


Same here!


----------



## alienstorexxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> I'm also experiencing this.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tamngoman*
> 
> im not sure if its just me, but after installation it works great. but after closing it and reopening it a couple of times, it opens in a tiny window with ">" not sure how to fix it, except opening up firefox, closing it, reopening waterfox.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienstorexxx*
> 
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/
> didin't work for me.. any idea of what is that provoques this problem? if i replace the files with the original, it works perfectly. so i don't know where the issue is. i've looked when replacing files one by one, there is no file diferent than the "broken" ones. not even date of modification.
> also i think this didn't happen before, when i change language from about:config, every new window or pop-ups like "you are about to close 5 tabs..." appears like when wf brokes. so i have to supress the .exe to close it, language switchs ok before reset, but this error may be connected with languege crashing wf start up.


my problem stills, it isn't the language, i've uninstalled and cleaned every old file on appdata. fresh install, i get the same error


----------



## BT Shogun

16.01 work fine here !...


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> There are some issues with the language packs at the moment. Have you tried any of the language packs from here:
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/
> Also have you set the language in about:config?
> 
> Alright so if it's working for everyone I assume it's safe to release WF16. No GUI issues for anyone I hope, I can't deal with another disastrous release


This didn't work for me. I did not mess with any language files but I still got that error. I then installed the lang file you linked to and still got the '>>' error. Moving back to WF15.


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tamngoman*
> 
> im not sure if its just me, but after installation it works great. but after closing it and reopening it a couple of times, it opens in a tiny window with ">" not sure how to fix it, except opening up firefox, closing it, reopening waterfox.


I have the same problem here except I don't have Firefox installed so I went back to 15.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Who wants to give the installer a whirl?
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?nv2i6bzytx6k5wd
> 
> Should include all the proper registry settings too


Just installed it and so far everything seems good.









The installer is also cleaner which I think is very important. It's sort of like "first impressions". It's the first thing, and experience, a person has with a piece of software. If that experience is bad then that already sets a negative tone for the software.

For the new person who has never seen or used WF, they're first experience will be with the installer. The installer for v15 was, to put it simply, "horrid" for some. For the great many of us who have been with WF 5+ versions ago vented our dislike of the WF 15 installer (it personally did not bother me and my installations went fine, not the same for some...). I believe that experience even caused a few people (new and old) to drop WF all together, or at least wait for the next release.

Anyway, nice work Mr. Alex







and thank you again for your continued support of the product!. BTW, the installer sort of has the same look and feel as the recently revamped website.









Cheers!


----------



## MrAlex

Anyone who gets the GUI problem:

http://www.mediafire.com/?5i8ib8bmwhyrrbc

Does this build solve it? If it does then WF16 is ready to go gold.


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I have the same problem here except I don't have Firefox installed so I went back to 15.


I am also experiencing this. The only way I found to fix it is to run the installation program and select "Repair".


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thomazini*
> 
> I am also experiencing this. The only way I found to fix it is to run the installation program and select "Repair".


----------



## Lord Venom

Looks like Firefox 16.0.2 was just released to fix security vulnerabilities.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Looks like Firefox 16.0.2 was just released to fix security vulnerabilities.


Aww noes, by the time WF 16.0.2 gets released FF 17 will be out! hehe sorry alex


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Thomazini*
> 
> I am also experiencing this. The only way I found to fix it is to run the installation program and select "Repair".


Did it fix it permanently?


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Aww noes, by the time WF 16.0.2 gets released FF 17 will be out! hehe sorry alex


ahhh dag nabbit...


----------



## qwerty77

The new build fixed the gui bug for me... but crap 16.0.2 already? lol.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Anyone who gets the GUI problem:
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?5i8ib8bmwhyrrbc
> 
> Does this build solve it? If it does then WF16 is ready to go gold.


I also experienced the problem this morning, but the new build seems to have fixed it.

Anyway, I think "gold" will have to be 16.0.2


----------



## pwillener

But I've got a new problem: "Application not found" when clicking on a hyperlink in an email message (Windows Live Mail 2012 on Windows 7).

notfound.PNG 14k .PNG file


----------



## Ghoven

Is that possible to request Waterfox on latest version using AMD Math tcmalloc algorithm ?

I'm very satisfied on Waterfox 9 that using AMD Math tcmalloc algorithm which is the development stop since next version.

Any answers or comments are welcome and please correct me if I'm wrong.


----------



## Thomazini

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Did it fix it permanently?


No it didn't... It thought it did when WF16 opened after the Repair operation, but as soon as I closed and tried to reopen it, the same annoying tiny little window showed up again with just ">>" in it.

Everytime I close WF and try to open it again, the same darn thing happens. I have been repairing and reusing ever since. Will do that way until I get enough of it and fallback to WF14 (WF15 never worked for me because of the missing dll's) or wait for WF 16.0.2 hoping it will fix this bug.


----------



## rickmave

Right click on Waterfox in status bar +

Open new tab
Open new window
Enter private browsing

=



This is for latest (2nd) test version.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> I also experienced the problem this morning, but the new build seems to have fixed it.
> Anyway, I think "gold" will have to be 16.0.2


Yes I think so too because FF 16.0.2 fixes security bugs


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Looks like Firefox 16.0.2 was just released to fix security vulnerabilities.
> 
> 
> 
> Aww noes, by the time WF 16.0.2 gets released FF 17 will be out! hehe sorry alex
Click to expand...

I'll get on it right away. *Sigh* It's because builds now take a good 2 hours each and every time something goes wrong I have to recompile


----------



## demoneye

running wf 16 for some hours NO issue from my side . great job!









EDIT

IMO alex u better focus on cleaning wf 16 issue since 16.02 fix only 1 security matter

Code:



Code:


https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html


----------



## mkauto

I really need WF16, waiting so long..


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

A little problem, the Lastpass add-on is incompatible with Waterfox 16.0.1 on Windows 8 but is compatible with Waterfox 15.0.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll get on it right away. *Sigh* It's because builds now take a good 2 hours each and every time something goes wrong I have to recompile


Waiting patiently...


----------



## alienstorexxx

all problems fixed for me


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> A little problem, the Lastpass add-on is incompatible with Waterfox 16.0.1 on Windows 8 but is compatible with Waterfox 15.0.


Ignore this, a little testing with a fresh install of Windows 7 has shown me it was user error. I need to install WF 15 then upgrade to 16.0.1 for the Lastpass add-on to work.


----------



## kevindd992002

Can I install WF16 OVER WF15 without any uninstallation?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Yep.


----------



## seaephpea

Hi, is there anything that can be done on Waterfox's side to enable Zotero support? The details from the Zotero side are here:

http://forums.zotero.org/discussion/21378/making-winword-plugin-work-with-waterfox/

Thanks in advance,

Tom


----------



## Lord Venom

Doubtful until Mozilla releases official x64 builds.


----------



## xd_1771

I was using the latest Nightly up until now because of the Metro-style app feature for Windows 8, which I have now determined to be useless for me.

So I jumped up to Waterfox 16. I've immediately noticed it's smoother than that Nightly








Waterfox 16 is really fast, everyone! Working great on Windows 8 with my 81-addon profile.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *M8R-grnkig*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> why was the AVG secure package removed? I have AVG so it's not like it really matters but I kina like having the AVG secure in the browser.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because most users are content with WF minus the crapware?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So lemme get this straight AVG is crapware? I fail to see how when it helps protect you during browser sessions. Norton? McAffee? Yeah I would agree with the Crapware Comment. But if AVG were "crapware" I doubt that Facebook would be collaborating with them. I mean it\s not impossible but I've never had a problem with a file in the 10+ years I've used AVG. Some people have I'm sure but I don't mind an AVG plugin. It's not like we cannot turn it off if we don't want it, is it? I'm pretty sure I can remove it from my browser if I don't want it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Besides I wasn't asking you, I was asking Mr. Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It wasn't really working for them, because lets be honest most people using Waterfox are quite computer literate. No worries though as I wasn't very comfortable including it in the first place.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the answer Mr. Alex. I noticed that it wasn't you that removed it, rather that it was Mozilla that did. Found this out after trying unsuccessfully to get FB Video Call to work(bug ridden POS that it is) and decided to DL and Install FF which I hadn't done since what WF 6 or 7? Well anyway I went to Mozilla got the file and noticed right off that it was lacking the AVG app/plugin. Which is fine with me, I would have liked to have it with my browser and turn it off than not, if you catch my meaning.









Well anyway thanks for updating the browser and I will continue to use the best browser until hell freezes over and the Penguin league Hockey season starts.









~Ceadder


----------



## Taomyn

Can we have v16.0.2 soon?

http://isc.sans.edu/diary.html?storyid=14398&rss


----------



## Grumpigeek

Since upgrading to Waterfox 16.0.1 I can't get search to work from the address bar. It still works in Firefox

Any ideas?


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grumpigeek*
> 
> Since upgrading to Waterfox 16.0.1 I can't get search to work from the address bar. It still works in Firefox
> Any ideas?


Working fine for me


----------



## Route66

Why in http://www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php portable version is not 16.0.1 but still 15.0?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xd_1771*
> 
> I was using the latest Nightly up until now because of the Metro-style app feature for Windows 8, which I have now determined to be useless for me.
> So I jumped up to Waterfox 16. I've immediately noticed it's smoother than that Nightly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waterfox 16 is really fast, everyone! Working great on Windows 8 with my 81-addon profile.
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/content/type/61/id/1105386/


Your browser looks weird.


----------



## Keiao

Whenever i visit this site

http://www.infinitystreamers.com/stream/

it will work wonders until i click the implemented chatango chat, of which then the chat and the stream, even if it's an auto-play or an advert will then proceed to lag, i've updated flash, shockwave, java, everything possible, however it still persists to happen, i've tried it on multiple computers too and had the same issue, as well as friends have also tested it.. Any idea on what the issue may be? Youtube, twitch.tv and other video based sites work perfectly fine.

It wouldn't bother me as such but i use this site on a regular basis.


----------



## GoGoris

Should it be possible to port a dutch languagepack to waterfox? I find the speed fantastic, but like it to have my browser in my own language.
I can only find a dutch firefox installer package but no language pack. Or is it possible to copy a sort of dedicated language file from my dutch x86 firefox install directory to my waterfox directory?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Route66*
> 
> Why in http://www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php portable version is not 16.0.1 but still 15.0?


It's showing 16.0.1 for both the installer and portable
http://www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php


----------



## Truffel71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoGoris*
> 
> Should it be possible to port a dutch languagepack to waterfox? I find the speed fantastic, but like it to have my browser in my own language.
> 
> I can only find a dutch firefox installer package but no language pack. Or is it possible to copy a sort of dedicated language file from my dutch x86 firefox install directory to my waterfox directory?


http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/
choose nl.xpi
The following steps should be done once (if this is the first time that you install the nl.xpi)

After installation, type in the address bar "about: config", press enter and confirm any warning.
Scroll to "general.useragent.locale" and double click with the left mouse button,
Fill in the now open window "nl " (ATTENTION: NO capitals)
Restart the browser

Good luck


----------



## rickmave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> It's showing 16.0.1 for both the installer and portable
> http://www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php


The link is downloading Portable 15.


----------



## Route66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> It's showing 16.0.1 for both the installer and portable
> http://www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php


Yes, but portable is still 15.


----------



## rickmave

This still not working in final 16.0.1:

Right click on Waterfox in status bar *+*

Open new tab
Open new window
Enter private browsing

*=*


----------



## tsunami231

Well after multiple attempts at trying this build over the officials and never seeing any difference from the 2 i figure I try to use this build for week to month and see if i see and difference, and honestly i still see no difference between the 2 speed or other wise. Or is all cause I have my FF profile on my HDD and not my SSD like the actual program or cause I have FF set to use Ram instead of disk for cache.

That or my verizon 3mbit dsl really is that slow haah


----------



## kennyparker1337

Just wanted to chime in and say thanks for the new Waterfox!

Keep updating it, but at the pace you can.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsunami231*
> 
> Well after multiple attempts at trying this build over the officials and never seeing any difference from the 2 i figure I try to use this build for week to month and see if i see and difference, and honestly i still see no difference between the 2 speed or other wise. Or is all cause I have my FF profile on my HDD and not my SSD like the actual program or cause I have FF set to use Ram instead of disk for cache.
> That or my verizon 3mbit dsl really is that slow haah


If your computer is speed as with a SSD or i7, the gain of WF is not visible. WF is 20% global faster that FF...


----------



## GoGoris

Maybe you can put advertising on your site, so that every user will sponsor you in that way when downloading a new version, or something like that








It's sad that you make a loss with a beautiful project like this.


----------



## tsunami231

Well i have I7 and SSD so i guess that explains it


----------



## JoeSanders

I use Roboform and have for many years, and installed Waterfox only to find out Roboform doesn't work.

I found this site, but am suspicious. Does anyone know if it's legit?

http://www.x64bitdownload.com/download/t-64-bit-ai-roboform-download-rqrriyos.html

Thanks.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> But I've got a new problem: "Application not found" when clicking on a hyperlink in an email message (Windows Live Mail 2012 on Windows 7).
> 
> notfound.PNG 14k .PNG file


Somehow Waterfox has lost its 'Default browser' attribute. After setting Waterfox 16.0.1 as the default browser, everything works as expected.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeSanders*
> 
> I use Roboform and have for many years, and installed Waterfox only to find out Roboform doesn't work.
> 
> I found this site, but am suspicious. Does anyone know if it's legit?
> 
> http://www.x64bitdownload.com/download/t-64-bit-ai-roboform-download-rqrriyos.html
> 
> Thanks.


Quote:


> Yes, RoboForm does work in 64-bit Internet Explorer (and 32-bit IE), starting with RF ver 7.6.8.


So I'll assume that version will also work with Waterfox? As for that website, I can't tell you how reliable it is.


----------



## Route66

Mr.Alex,
there's no 16.0.1 portable version available?

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/portable/


----------



## sirmatto

It appears the portable version is missing libiomp5md.dll and refuses to start. I was able to extract a new program directory running the installer with the /extract switch from the command line, but this should be rectified in the portable archive.


----------



## Ispep

So far I've been on WF 16.0.1 for the past 2-3 days and everything seems to be perfect!









The problems I was experiencing with WF 15 seemed to have been resolved - I've enabled hardware acceleration and will continue to test.


----------



## virtualguy

Quick... if you hurry, you can get 16.0.2 on the server before Mozilla announces v.17.


----------



## rickmave

Sorry, double post.


----------



## rickmave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> So far I've been on WF 16.0.1 for the past 2-3 days and everything seems to be perfect!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The problems I was experiencing with WF 15 seemed to have been resolved - I've enabled hardware acceleration and will continue to test.


Is right click on program in status bar and New Tab, New Window or Private browsing working for you? Or error as above?


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> But I've got a new problem: "Application not found" when clicking on a hyperlink in an email message (Windows Live Mail 2012 on Windows 7).
> 
> notfound.PNG 14k .PNG file


I believe this was caused by Waterfox now being installed in a different folder* than previous versions

previously: *C:\Program Files\Waterfox*
new: *Crogram Files\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox*
This probably also caused the Waterfox icon pinned to the Taskbar no longer to function.

*) Thanks to *_nullptr* for pointing it out in the Majorgeeks forum.


----------



## Route66

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sirmatto*
> 
> It appears the portable version is missing libiomp5md.dll and refuses to start. I was able to extract a new program directory running the installer with the /extract switch from the command line, but this should be rectified in the portable archive.


Same to me...


----------



## DCY

How do you update the Portable Version? I just started using it (since I can't manually install it, because it's still giving me the error saying that it can't remove the older version).


----------



## Ganni87

Great update - Thanks!!

So far no issues but when I close multiple tabs it asks me for confirmation even if the "Warn me when closing multiple tabs" option is unticked. It's a minor annoyance and can live with it but does anyone else have same thing?


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rickmave*
> 
> Is right click on program in status bar and New Tab, New Window or Private browsing working for you? Or error as above?


Yes.









FWIW, I did not have any of those problems with the past versions either.


----------



## rickmave

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I did not have any of those problems with the past versions either.


Thanks.








"Fix" it by reinstalling and changing the name from _waterfox.exe_ to _firefox.exe_. Icons for _Tasks_ commands still not show but at least can open _New tab_, _window_ or _Private browsing_ from status bar.
If Firefox is not installed, too, there are no _Tasks_ or _Frequent_ links in context menu in status bar.
Many quirks since name of exe was changed.


----------



## Calleja

I tried searching the thread but found nothing about this... Ever since installing 16.0.1, I can't see embedded YouTube videos, instead I get a simple "Advertisement" text, and YouTube videos won't load annotations. Both load fine on Chrome so I thought it might be an Adblock error, but it's not, even with it disabled I get the same issue. I Googled a bit and apparently the latest Flash Player update was causing some issues, I uninstalled it and installed an older version and it's still not working. Any help would really be appreciated.


----------



## Calleja

Alright, I sort of traced the problem. It's my profile. I created a new profile and the youtube embeds were loaded flawlessly. So now I need help finding out how to make my default profile show embedded flash.. or at least create a new one and merge my functioning extensions/bookmarks. Any tips or help?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Every time I start a flash video, or open a new tab. The video and browser freeze for 2-3 seconds.

This did not happen on Waterfox 15.

I think it's my GPU doing it instead.


----------



## verticalgr

Hello everyone. First post here even though I am following this topic for a long time and I am hardcore Waterfox user. As a software developer myself, I really appreciate what MrAlex does, ie giving us one of the best if not the best web browser out there. 16.0.1 works great for me except one thing... File association and default icon. File associations works fine, however, the .html extension (and probably all related web file associations) are missing the proper icon. This is what I get



I believe something is missing from registry entries. For example (not sure if it is related)

HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\FirefoxURL\DefaultIcon has the value

C:\Program Files (x86)\Waterfox\waterfox.exe,1

this is completely wrong, apparently. Hope for a solution to the problems. Thanks for all you work.


----------



## DCY

Portable version is up now. Just installed it, and it's running smoothly so far.









Thanks, MrAlex.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\FirefoxURL\DefaultIcon has the value
> C:\Program Files (x86)\Waterfox\waterfox.exe,1
> this is completely wrong, apparently.


Where did Waterfox install on your system:

Program Files\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox ?
Program Files\Waterfox ?
If the former, then you may need to re-set Waterfox as the default browser.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> Where did Waterfox install on your system:
> 
> Program Files\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox ?
> Program Files\Waterfox ?
> If the former, then you may need to re-set Waterfox as the default browser.


It is installed in Program Files\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox and it is re-set as the default browser. I also did the following:

-Made IE9 as the default browser, the htm/html icons changed properly to IE icons. Then I opened Waterfox 16.0.1, I was greeted with the 'make default' window, clicked ok but icons remained white. They open with Waterfox but do not display the Waterfox icon.

-Uninstalled Waterfox 16.0.1, installed Waterfox 15, htm/html icons are now showing as they should, ie the waterfox logo

-Uninstalled Warerfox 15, installed again Waterfox 16.0.1, same problem, no waterfox icon image for htm. They open with Waterfox but do not display the Waterfox icon.

-Cleaned Icon Cache, restarted PC, no luck.

-Used CCleaner to check for references to the old installation path (C:\Program Files\Waterfox) but didn't find any

-CCleaner showed two more registry keys associated with Edit and Print of HTML, but they both reference something that doesn't exist in my PC and if I remember well, it is relating to Microsoft Office. Mind you, I never installed MS Office in my PC at home, I use AOO... (I will post the keys later when I get back home).

As I see it, just the fact that reverting back to WF15 solves the problem, it shows that something is missing from the registry in WF16.0.1. Also, the references to Program Files (x86) in Registry should not be there. I fixed all of them myself (I think) but still no icons. And since I am currently working on web projects, not being able to see the icons is a pain in the bum.

Can people here test this and give some feedback if they have the same issue? Just create a blank text document, rename it to myfile.html or htm and see if it displays the icon.


----------



## verticalgr

Ok, I connected remotely to my PC at home so here are the two keys pointing to MS Office:

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell\Edit\command]
@="\"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Microsoft Office\\Office14\\msohtmed.exe\" %1"

[HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\FirefoxHTML\shell\Print\command]
@="\"C:\\Program Files (x86)\\Microsoft Office\\Office14\\msohtmed.exe\" /p %1"

As I said, I never installed MS Office in my PC at home.


----------



## fullmoon

Ccleaner does not do everything. Try with Wise registry cleaner .


----------



## Czarnodziej

HTML5 videos on Youtube are not working with latest edition of Waterfox.


----------



## sp4zzj4zz

fixed somehow


----------



## Grumpigeek

I had a related problem when I installed Waterfox 16.0.1.

I found it stopped two of my desktop Gadgets, All CPU Meter and Network Meter from displaying.

After much infuriating research I found that I had to go to:

Control Panel > Default Programs > Set Program Access and computer defaults

and select the "Microsoft Windows" radio button.

This got the gadgets back.

I agree that something is wrong with the 16.0.1 installer.


----------



## RealityRipple

Oh, is that what made all my AddGadget meters stop working? I thought it was a corruption caused by a power failure.


----------



## nullptr0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> ~snip~
> Can people here test this and give some feedback if they have the same issue? Just create a blank text document, rename it to myfile.html or htm and see if it displays the icon.


The problem is caused by the registry entry

Code:



Code:


[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\FirefoxHTML\ShellEx\IconHandler]
@="{42042206-2D85-11D3-8CFF-005004838597}"

Backup the HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Classes\FirefoxHTML key first, then delete the IconHandler subkey.
Rebuild the IconCache, then reboot.


----------



## verticalgr

Fantastic! Many thanks, worked like a dream!


----------



## venepor

I had the same problem with some desktop gadgets not working anymore when restart. after Waterfox upgrade from 15 to 16.0.1
I tried to uninstall and reinstall the gadgets with no success. So, Thank you for posting your solution!


----------



## hrockh

any feedback with waterfox 16 on Windows 8?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hrockh*
> 
> any feedback with waterfox 16 on Windows 8?


No difference with w7.


----------



## Lord Venom

Works fine on Windows 8.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hrockh*
> 
> any feedback with waterfox 16 on Windows 8?


No problems what-so-ever.


----------



## Trommy

Hello, guys! Again you portable version is not fully portable, becouse profile created in "Document and settings" folder on disc C...
At this moment i sit on Waterfox Portable 15.0, downloaded from "portableappz" http://portableappz.blogspot.ru/2012/07/mozilla-firefox-150-beta-2-multilingual.html
That is fully portable build of you mod) Profile is in the *source folder* not anywhere else.
Thnx for the consideration


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I have the same problem here except I don't have Firefox installed so I went back to 15.


Ok, so I was going to backup my bookmarks and such and try to install from scratch but before I did, on a hunch based on nothing at all, I installed again and have had no problem since.


----------



## biatche

mralex: how do i set waterfox 16.0.1 as default browser via command line?

Code:



Code:


"%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser

does not work


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *biatche*
> 
> mralex: how do i set waterfox 16.0.1 as default browser via command line?
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> "%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser
> 
> does not work


Program Files\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox


----------



## ChaosBlades

I noticed that about:home homepage does not let persona / themes change its theme. Is there any way to correct that?

It is suppose to look like the second picture here but it still has the default theme.
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ft-deepdark/?src=userprofile


----------



## kennyparker1337

Holy cow.

Ever time I clicked on something it would freeze for 2 seconds. Thought it was Waterfox but nope it was GPU drivers.

They worked fine for ages but then this weird problem started happening just as I installed the Waterfox.

Well then my drivers started crashing and it was locking to 2D mode so I figured it wasn't Waterfox.

Updated to new BETA drivers and BOOM fixed. No issues anymore.

*System: GTX 480, Windows 8 x64

Old Driver: 306.97 - WHQL
New Driver: 310.33 - BETA*


----------



## Ceadderman

Geezus Firefox is trash right now. I had to close my Waterfox so I could cam chat with my girl. None of the programs (FB, Google) recognize Waterfox so the only option is Firefox and stupid browser has dropped out on me 4 times today alone. Anyone that says another bad thing about Waterfox is gonna get net slapped big time. I have the latest Firefox. It's got a HUGE hole in it that sucks up to half my RAM in usage. Currently have my board maxed at 16Gigs in 2 slots. (2x8) is the max I can run. Twice I'd been warned by my AVG that FF was running 2GB total usage and twice it's been wrong since I've had no other applications running.









~Ceadder


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> I noticed that about:home homepage does not let persona / themes change its theme. Is there any way to correct that?
> It is suppose to look like the second picture here but it still has the default theme.
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ft-deepdark/?src=userprofile


Have you tried to remove Persona and then adding it back? Or perhaps setup another profile and see if the problem follows?

FWIW, I haven't had an issue with Persona with any of the versions of WF.


----------



## Ispep

So far v16.0.1 has been very stable for me I've been using it for the past 2+ weeks and have had no problems


----------



## virtualguy

Your add-ons are probably causing the problems you are experiencing. There is nothing inherently wrong with the browser, itself. It is well known that a poorly crafted add-on will cause problems with other add-ons, causing a frustrating user experience. Try disabling all add-ons and re-enable one at a time to find which one causes the problem.


----------



## kevindd992002

Why is it that until now Adobe Flash is crashing with the latest Waterfox?


----------



## Cal-The-Man

Could someone tell me how to transfer all my installed addons from Firefox to Waterfox please?

Thanks


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Why is it that until now Adobe Flash is crashing with the latest Waterfox?


Since 16.0.0.1 and the latest Flash i have no crashes anymore with hardware acceleration.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Cal-The-Man*
> 
> Could someone tell me how to transfer all my installed addons from Firefox to Waterfox please?
> Thanks


Since Waterfox uses the same profile (the set of files Firefox creates with all your settings etc) as Firefox itself, all the addons you've installed in Firefox will still be present when you fire up Waterfox. That doesn't apply to Plugins (such as Java & Flash), although in the case of Flash recent versions automatically install 32-bit and 64-bit plugins.


----------



## DArra

Okay..
Since the link to "Frequently Asked Questions" in the first post is invalid, I will ask it here..
Ever since starting from version 13.1 PL, whenever I tried to update Waterfox, after installation and upon trying to launch the browser,
I get a nag-box stating:

waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found

The procedure entry point malloc could not be located in the
dynamic link library mozglue.dll.

I tried a dozen times,downloading the installation package and re-installing,it's always the same..
Is there somekinda workaround for this,or do I need to stick with v13.0 ?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Since 16.0.0.1 and the latest Flash i have no crashes anymore with hardware acceleration.


That's weird. I already did a "clean" install of Firefox and Waterfox and the latest Flash still crashes? Clean install as in I even deleted my Profile folder.


----------



## Digikid

NONE of your links are working......


----------



## Lexviticus

This is concerning those plagued by corrupted sidebar gadgets. I had the same problem uninstalling v15 and just restored back to when things worked. Updating to v16 caused the same corruption in gadgets upon next restart or restart of the sidebar. I had the idea to backup the entire registry, installed v16, then merged back the export of the registry, and restarted sidebar. All is well. I sure would like to know what causes this and how to resolve it in an easier fashion. My guess is some sort of javascript related issue.


----------



## Ceadderman

I sleep very close to my system so imagine my shock when I woke up to an AVG notification telling me that a Trojan was blocked and I deleted the files containing the trojan and no sooner did it do it that 2 temperature desktop gadgets were deleted. Be VERY careful getting gadgets. I now know why Microsoft got rid of them from their homepage. The only desktop gadgets I am running now are specifically from MS now except I do still have GPU gadgets but they seem to be clean, gonna be mad as hell if I wake up to another alert.









~Ceadder


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I already did a "clean" install of Firefox and Waterfox and the latest Flash still crashes?


How does it crash? When doing what?

Does it crash here too: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html or can you see the Flash animation?

What is your display adapter, device driver version & date? Sometimes an outdated graphics driver can cause crashes.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lexviticus*
> 
> This is concerning those plagued by corrupted sidebar gadgets. I had the same problem uninstalling v15 and just restored back to when things worked. Updating to v16 caused the same corruption in gadgets upon next restart or restart of the sidebar. I had the idea to backup the entire registry, installed v16, then merged back the export of the registry, and restarted sidebar. All is well. I sure would like to know what causes this and how to resolve it in an easier fashion. My guess is some sort of javascript related issue.


I had the same problem when I installed Waterfox 16.0.1.

I found it stopped two of my desktop Gadgets, All CPU Meter and Network Meter from displaying.

After much infuriating research I found that I had to go to:

Control Panel > Default Programs > Set Program Access and computer defaults

and select the "Microsoft Windows" radio button.

This got the gadgets back.

I think something is wrong with the 16.0.1 installer.


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grumpigeek*
> 
> I had the same problem when I installed Waterfox 16.0.1.
> I found it stopped two of my desktop Gadgets, All CPU Meter and Network Meter from displaying.


I note that those gadgets were recently updated to address the following bug: "Fixed white box with the < problem".


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> How does it crash? When doing what?
> Does it crash here too: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/find-version-flash-player.html or can you see the Flash animation?
> What is your display adapter, device driver version & date? Sometimes an outdated graphics driver can cause crashes.


Well, it will start by making Waterfox very very laggy in such a way that I cannot even move it. And after about two minutes or so, the flash video I am playing will say that Flash has crashed.

No it doesn't crash with the link you gave. Actually, the crash is random so I could not reproduce it on the spot.

My video card is a GeForce GTX 560M with 306.97 NVIDIA driver so I am updated.


----------



## biatche

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Program Files\Waterfox Limited\Waterfox


I do not see any Waterfox Limited directory..

MRAlex Please help!


----------



## qwerty77

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Well, it will start by making Waterfox very very laggy in such a way that I cannot even move it. And after about two minutes or so, the flash video I am playing will say that Flash has crashed.
> No it doesn't crash with the link you gave. Actually, the crash is random so I could not reproduce it on the spot.
> My video card is a GeForce GTX 560M with 306.97 NVIDIA driver so I am updated.


Try updating to the latest beta drivers. Sometimes OEM releases are crappy and the Beta ones are the most efficient ones









http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/310.54/310.54-desktop-win8-win7-winvista-64bit-international-beta.exe


----------



## Ceadderman

KK now I know what I said but I am actually having issues with 16.0.1.

Gonna Defrag even though my system don't need it and am gonna remove and reinstall Firefox into its own folder to see if that clears the issue. But with 16Gigs of RAM this thing should not be hanging while I'm typing. It hangs an I have to stop to know where the cursor is so I can type out a complete thought. On top of that the window freezes an the screen shades white over the browser and it says "Not Responding" in the top of the tool bar. Funny thing is that earlier versions did not do this very much if at all. An I had less RAM on board by 50%.. 16.0.1 seems to be trash MrAlex. No offense meant but there is indeed something wrong with this one.









~Ceadder


----------



## chorse

I am getting "error:wrong file size" whenever I try to update waterfox 15 to 16.1 using the waterfox updater. Is there an issue here? Or a workaround?


----------



## Ceadderman

That's it I'm not gonna screw around with Mozilla anymore. I'm tired of my browser crashing. Tired of the slug text input. Tired screwing around with it. I uninstalled and reinstalled it. I'm backing down to Waterfox 16.0 and that's that. Only reason I was even using the Mozilla browser at all was so I could webcam with my girl. Screw the BS, Mozilla has turned into a turd an I refuse to be a part of it anymore. I'm pretty sure that WF 16.0.1's issues are directly caused by Mozilla 16.0.2 because before I had it onboard WF ran fine. As soon as I put that junk piece of doo doo on my system not only was IT having issues but WF developed the exact same issues. Effage to the noage will I use that doo doo browser ever again. I am currently using my Safari browser while I remove that extraneous piece of trash off my system.









It got so bad I was thinking that I was overtaxing my RAM. But the more I pared down my tabs the worse and more unresponsive it became. Kiss my booty Mozilla!









~Ceadder


----------



## Malcolm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> That's it I'm not gonna screw around with Mozilla anymore. I'm tired of my browser crashing. Tired of the slug text input. Tired screwing around with it. I uninstalled and reinstalled it. I'm backing down to Waterfox 16.0 and that's that. Only reason I was even using the Mozilla browser at all was so I could webcam with my girl. Screw the BS, Mozilla has turned into a turd an I refuse to be a part of it anymore. I'm pretty sure that WF 16.0.1's issues are directly caused by Mozilla 16.0.2 because before I had it onboard WF ran fine. As soon as I put that junk piece of doo doo on my system not only was IT having issues but WF developed the exact same issues. Effage to the noage will I use that doo doo browser ever again. I am currently using my Safari browser while I remove that extraneous piece of trash off my system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It got so bad I was thinking that I was overtaxing my RAM. But the more I pared down my tabs the worse and more unresponsive it became. Kiss my booty Mozilla!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


You okay man? Take a deep breath. Slowly. All better?

I do find Chrome to be more stable than stock FF, and WF is about on par with Chrome in terms of stability. FF will crash on me once in a blue moon, but the issues you're having are not typical.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Malcolm*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> That's it I'm not gonna screw around with Mozilla anymore. I'm tired of my browser crashing. Tired of the slug text input. Tired screwing around with it. I uninstalled and reinstalled it. I'm backing down to Waterfox 16.0 and that's that. Only reason I was even using the Mozilla browser at all was so I could webcam with my girl. Screw the BS, Mozilla has turned into a turd an I refuse to be a part of it anymore. I'm pretty sure that WF 16.0.1's issues are directly caused by Mozilla 16.0.2 because before I had it onboard WF ran fine. As soon as I put that junk piece of doo doo on my system not only was IT having issues but WF developed the exact same issues. Effage to the noage will I use that doo doo browser ever again. I am currently using my Safari browser while I remove that extraneous piece of trash off my system.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It got so bad I was thinking that I was overtaxing my RAM. But the more I pared down my tabs the worse and more unresponsive it became. Kiss my booty Mozilla!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You okay man? Take a deep breath. Slowly. All better?
> 
> I do find Chrome to be more stable than stock FF, and WF is about on par with Chrome in terms of stability. FF will crash on me once in a blue moon, but the issues you're having are not typical.
Click to expand...

Yeah I am done with all forms of Mozilla. There is no way that my tabs usage is so bad that it slows down my text when I'm replying to anyone here. It really pisses me off when I type at a halfway decent average and half to stop to allow the cursor to catch up or watch it hang in the middle of a thought. That's like trying to pass along information to someone and they constantly interrupt you with stupid statements.

MrAlex no offense to you sir but I'm not gonna be using Mozilla ever again. You do what you can, you did what you could but Mozilla has borked everything up. There is a Memory leak in the browser that I could drive a truck through. Before they removed he AVG safe search from the setup I thought it might be that but in fact it got worse after they did that. They're gonna keep mucking things up an I'm afraid that you cannot do much more to it with each passing version. Soon as I transfer all my tabs to Safari I am done with Mozilla for good. I tried running 15 again cause it was very good for me in the past. Even in 15 the system was hanging badly. Hanging and "Not Responding" just as bad as though I were running 16.0.1. The only way to save it is to uninstall EVERYTHING and start over from scratch. I don't have the time or the patience to start over from scratch in that regard. Too many important items that will be lost forever if I do that. So if I'm gonna be transferring them, I'm doing it for good. Was fun while it lasted.










~Ceadder


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *qwerty77*
> 
> Try updating to the latest beta drivers. Sometimes OEM releases are crappy and the Beta ones are the most efficient ones
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://us.download.nvidia.com/Windows/310.54/310.54-desktop-win8-win7-winvista-64bit-international-beta.exe


Tried that already even before posting here. The latest beta driver is causing BSOD in my system which is why I reverted to the latest OEM. I really doubt that the driver is responsible for my problem here. It's got to be the Flash - Waterfox combination as usual.


----------



## pjBSOD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> ~snip~


I hate to be 'that guy', but my Firefox rarely crashes, so it may be something on your end. The only time it does is if I'm endlessly scrolling through something that's constantly caching images without a page refresh.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pjBSOD*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> ~snip~
> 
> 
> 
> I hate to be 'that guy', but my Firefox rarely crashes, so it may be something on your end. The only time it does is if I'm endlessly scrolling through something that's constantly caching images without a page refresh.
Click to expand...

Yeah ummm no. Page refresh is not the issue. I've been using Waterfox since 6. So I'm well aware of the issue. Firefox 16.0.1 is trash. Until I installed it Waterfox was working perfectly well with everything I had going. Over 20 pages up and running and no crashes. So it's okay to be that guy. But I'm just fed up with Mozilla altogether. I didn't use a Beta build. I stay away from Betas for the very reason that I don't care to waste the better part of my day trying to get a Beta file to behave. I am currently using Safari to communicate this through. No hang ups no glitches and works just fine. Of course I don't have 20+ pages up atm but I have specific pages that I keep open at all times and Waterfox handled them all like a champ. But I have an important trip coming up I have research that I have done toward that goal and I don't have the patience to make an OEM build work properly. Oh I don't mind going into Tools > Options and making changes. I don't mind removing AddOns and Apps. I do mind having to completely uninstall everything(that's where I am at right now) and starting fresh. It's one thing on a Fresh OS when I'm building a system for a client. It's another when I shouldn't have to do this at all. I even had both Browsers in their proper locations. They should not have co mingled their files at all because my FF was 32bit and WF is 64bit. But they did and now they're both glitchy as hell.

Not gonna go through this again since I cannot GoogleCam with my girl using WF. I had all the drivers up to date. My GPU driver is working fine. I removed all my desktop Gadgets. I removed all of FF except for personal settings. I removed WF completely except Personal settings. I re Installed FF first to remove any possible conflicts from impeding proper operation. I then re Installed WF. The same BS kept happening. This never happened in the past. If I'm gonna have 3 Browsers on my system(besides Exploder) I'm not gonna do Mozilla again. Takes up too much room, too much of my time trying to break the issue and too much of my patience. I was chatting with my girl via FB can the stupid Browser kept hanging like my RAM was overtaxed which should not be possible because I just maxed it out for my Board. 16GB of RAM should be plenty for Windows Ultimate 64bit and 50 tabs while Folding. I'm folding right now and am typing this out without issue. No I don't have 20 tabs open atm but I haven't started transferring my bookmarks over yet either.

I've done everything to this short of throwing the whole system out the window from sheer frustration.









~Ceadder


----------



## pjBSOD

As far as I can tell in your posts, you're mentioning that most of these hangs and such happen when you're webcamming and such with your girlfriend. Have you tried disabling HWA (hardware acceleration) in Options > Advanced within FF?


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pjBSOD*
> 
> As far as I can tell in your posts, you're mentioning that most of these hangs and such happen when you're webcamming and such with your girlfriend. Have you tried disabling HWA (hardware acceleration) in Options > Advanced within FF?


Nope, they are text hangs. It only happens when I'm typing(PM'ing) and the windows become unresponsive at times when changing one tab to another.









Doesn't happen at all in Firfox when we're camming thankfully but I've since removed WF and am starting the tediously slow process of copying and pasting them into my Safari browser.









~Ceadder


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Before they removed he AVG safe search from the setup I thought it might be that but in fact it got worse after they did that. They're gonna keep mucking things up an I'm afraid that you cannot do much more to it with each passing version. Soon as I transfer all my tabs to Safari I am done with Mozilla for good.
> ~Ceadder


Mozilla have never bundled the AVG safe search in Firefox, so they certainly haven't removed it. You must be thinking of Waterfox - MrAlex bundled it in the last release I believe, and it produced so many complaints he dropped it again.


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Before they removed he AVG safe search from the setup I thought it might be that but in fact it got worse after they did that. They're gonna keep mucking things up an I'm afraid that you cannot do much more to it with each passing version. Soon as I transfer all my tabs to Safari I am done with Mozilla for good.
> ~Ceadder
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mozilla have never bundled the AVG safe search in Firefox, so they certainly haven't removed it. You must be thinking of Waterfox - MrAlex bundled it in the last release I believe, and it produced so many complaints he dropped it again.
Click to expand...

Firefox has the ability to turn it on so yes they most certainly have bundled it with Firefox in the past. MrAlex removed it from the Waterfox build. I could always be wrong but I ran FF for years before I ever ran WF. It was only recently in the last 3 where I used something else besides WF.









~Ceadder


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> Firefox has the ability to turn it on so yes they most certainly have bundled it with Firefox in the past. MrAlex removed it from the Waterfox build. I could always be wrong but I ran FF for years before I ever ran WF. It was only recently in the last 3 where I used something else besides WF.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


I too have used it for many years - long before it even reached Version 1.0 in fact - and I've never known Mozilla bundle anything with it, let alone the AVG search. Bear in mind that by default Waterfox uses the same user profile as Firefox, so if Waterfox installed the AVG Search, it would then also appear when you opened Firefox. The same works both ways of course - any addons you install in Firefox will appear in Waterfox - unless you specifically create a separate profile for one of them and configure it to open that profile instead.

That's why it can sometimes get a little strange if you run one version of Firefox and a different version of Waterfox, if neither of them has been told to use a different profile. At the very least in that scenario, you'll get messages each time you switch from one to the other, as the version of the software is recorded in the profile so you're effectively opening a different version each time. More seriously, you could even get one version making settings changes that the other version didn't like.


----------



## Ispep

I just encountered a weird problem now and I have it isolated to just WF 16.

The problem is with YouTube. When I log into my account I can watch other videos just fine. It's only when I go to any of my YouTube options; Playlists, Favorites, Subscriptions, etc. These all come up with a blank display. The URL is correct and I can copy and paste it into MSIE, Chrome, Safari and it displays,

Done the obvious, signed out and signed back in, signed out, shutdown WF, signed back in, cleared the cache and did the aforementioned. The ony plug-ins I have are the basics, Java (I would prefer not to have it but I do have a couple of network appliances that require it), Flash, and Microsoft Sliverlight. All are current and I did not have any problems yesterday.

Nothing has changed on this computer since yesterday either.

Anyone else run into this?

I'll keep poking away at this ....


----------



## Ispep

Hah ... fixed it ...







deleted the cookies.


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> I am getting "error:wrong file size" whenever I try to update waterfox 15 to 16.1 using the waterfox updater. Is there an issue here? Or a workaround?


Any ideas on this issue?


----------



## DArra

Okay..
Since the link to "Frequently Asked Questions" in the first post is invalid, I will ask it here..
Ever since starting from version 13.1 PL, whenever I tried to update Waterfox, after installation and upon trying to launch the browser,
I get a nag-box stating:

waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found

The procedure entry point malloc could not be located in the
dynamic link library mozglue.dll.

I tried a dozen times,downloading the installation package and re-installing,it's always the same..
Is there somekinda workaround for this,or do I need to stick with v13.0 ?

^^^
any help on this please? running windows 7 home premium 64-bit,i7 quad core machine..


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DArra*
> 
> Okay..
> Since the link to "Frequently Asked Questions" in the first post is invalid, I will ask it here..
> Ever since starting from version 13.1 PL, whenever I tried to update Waterfox, after installation and upon trying to launch the browser,
> I get a nag-box stating:
> waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found
> The procedure entry point malloc could not be located in the
> dynamic link library mozglue.dll.
> I tried a dozen times,downloading the installation package and re-installing,it's always the same..
> Is there somekinda workaround for this,or do I need to stick with v13.0 ?
> ^^^
> any help on this please? running windows 7 home premium 64-bit,i7 quad core machine..


Just shooting in the dark here, but if memory serves me right I believe Version 14 of Waterfox was the one that required users to uninstall any previous version. I'm guessing that would also apply if trying to go straight from v13 to v16. Maybe if you try downloading the current one first, uninstalling your v13.0, and then installing the new one. Obviously remembering NOT to remove your data files too when uninstalling. Oh, I believe there was also a suggestion to run a registry cleaner after uninstalling and before reinstalling, although it wasn't necessary in my case.


----------



## DArra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Just shooting in the dark here, but if memory serves me right I believe Version 14 of Waterfox was the one that required users to uninstall any previous version. I'm guessing that would also apply if trying to go straight from v13 to v16. Maybe if you try downloading the current one first, uninstalling your v13.0, and then installing the new one. Obviously remembering NOT to remove your data files too when uninstalling. Oh, I believe there was also a suggestion to run a registry cleaner after uninstalling and before reinstalling, although it wasn't necessary in my case.


Thanks. Atleast someone decided to give an answer.
I will try your suggestions and let know whether it worked or not.
Thaks again.


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DArra*
> 
> Okay..
> Since the link to "Frequently Asked Questions" in the first post is invalid, I will ask it here..
> Ever since starting from version 13.1 PL, whenever I tried to update Waterfox, after installation and upon trying to launch the browser,
> I get a nag-box stating:
> waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found
> The procedure entry point malloc could not be located in the
> dynamic link library mozglue.dll.
> I tried a dozen times,downloading the installation package and re-installing,it's always the same..
> Is there somekinda workaround for this,or do I need to stick with v13.0 ?
> ^^^
> any help on this please? running windows 7 home premium 64-bit,i7 quad core machine..


I had this problem in win64. I had to uninstall both Firefox and Waterfox16 first, then re- install Firefox, then Waterfox 15. That fixed everything, but I am getting the following update error when trying to install Waterfox 16.1 :I am getting "error:wrong file size" whenever I try to update waterfox 15 to 16.1 using the waterfox updater.

Lots of people are seem to be having stability issues and inability to play Flash with Waterfox 16. WF15 is working like a charm, so I am just going to wait for WF17 before I upgrade.


----------



## Ceadderman

I'll wait until the next one is available. Unfortunately I cannot dl and intstall the current version. Completely uninstalled all Mozilla from my system.









~Ceadder


----------



## holygamer

In Waterfox Portable 16.0.1 can someone please tell me where I'm supposed to put my userChrome.css file? In Firefox portable I put it in this folder: Firefox Portable\Data\profile\Chrome. However I can't find any folder like that in Waterfox.


----------



## mhowie

Where is 16.0.2?


----------



## M8R-grnkig

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mhowie*
> 
> Where is 16.0.2?


Firefox 17 is due out in a couple of days, so it'll probably be skipped.


----------



## Ceadderman

Can't say that I like Chrome better(WF/FF have a better bookmark system) but I have 23 open tabs and the most memory usage that AVG shows a warning for is ~250MB. The last time I used Waterfox it showed 2GB of system usage. frankly I think that Mozilla needs to get this figured out. I haven't changed my Browsing history. Still the same windows open that I had going with Waterfox/Firefox. So yes indeed there was a BAD memory leak inherent within those two browsers. I want to go back because it's a faster browser... well except when there is a huge leak in system RAM when I'm running it. Hope the leak gets fixed soon. Maybe someone can tear into Chrome to see what they did and can mimic the build to some degree.









~Ceadder


----------



## venepor

What a difference... In my case using Chrome with aronud 20 pages uses much more memory (around 1,5 GB) that Waterfox (around 650 MB) with same pages opened... How to understand those differences between your system and mine...?


----------



## DArra

Okay..
Since the link to "Frequently Asked Questions" in the first post is invalid, I will ask it here..
Ever since starting from version 13.1 PL, whenever I tried to update Waterfox, after installation and upon trying to launch the browser,
I get a nag-box stating:

waterfox.exe - Entry Point Not Found

The procedure entry point malloc could not be located in the
dynamic link library mozglue.dll.

I tried a dozen times,downloading the installation package and re-installing,it's always the same..
Is there somekinda workaround for this,or do I need to stick with v13.0 ?

^^^
any help on this please? running windows 7 home premium 64-bit,i7 quad core machine..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Just shooting in the dark here, but if memory serves me right I believe Version 14 of Waterfox was the one that required users to uninstall any previous version. I'm guessing that would also apply if trying to go straight from v13 to v16. Maybe if you try downloading the current one first, uninstalling your v13.0, and then installing the new one. Obviously remembering NOT to remove your data files too when uninstalling. Oh, I believe there was also a suggestion to run a registry cleaner after uninstalling and before reinstalling, although it wasn't necessary in my case.


Thanks Farmers.
Everything works now fine!
Uninstalled waterfox 13.0 with "Your uninstaller!" and removed all traces from it off the computer.
Now I'm running the latest Waterfox and everything works smoothly.
Sweet..
Thanks again for your reply.

THE AUTHOR OF WATERFOX SHOULD MAKE THE UNINSTALL HAPPEN PRIOR INSTALLING NEWER WATERFOX, ON HIS/HER INSTALLER.. :-/


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *venepor*
> 
> What a difference... In my case using Chrome with aronud 20 pages uses much more memory (around 1,5 GB) that Waterfox (around 650 MB) with same pages opened... How to understand those differences between your system and mine...?


Yeah sorry but I have to say that my WF/FF windows used a ton more Memory than Chrome does. Same windows open it uses 3/4 less RAM than my WF did.









~Ceadder


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Tried that already even before posting here. The latest beta driver is causing BSOD in my system which is why I reverted to the latest OEM. I really doubt that the driver is responsible for my problem here. It's got to be the Flash - Waterfox combination as usual.


BUMP!


----------



## RealityRipple

Hello Firefox 17. Goodbye Flash Player.


----------



## virtualguy

We never got the security improvements of 16.0.2. How long will it take to get 17? I'm beginning to lose interest...


----------



## momoko

WF17? I want! I want! I want! I want!


----------



## biatche

MrAlex: Please fix commandline setdefaultbrowser ...


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> We never got the security improvements of 16.0.2. How long will it take to get 17? I'm beginning to lose interest...


too be fair, it was around alex's exam time, so he was busy. (not like he gets paid to make waterfox) and really there was only 1 "security" fix in 16.0.2, which if you had noscript plugin you wouldn't run into this issue ever.
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2012/mfsa2012-90.html (known fix in 16.0.2) and thats the only one they list on their site which you can find here. https://www.mozilla.org/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox.html

I'm sure waterfox 17 will be out within a couple of days unless alex is still busy. Keep up the good work


----------



## dnyanesh

Although, I respect Mr. Alex's dedication behind this project; it pains whenever a stable version of FF is released and you realize that you have to wait 2 more weeks for the WF release.


----------



## Lord Venom

You can always get the tools needed and compile your own builds you know.


----------



## MrAlex

I'm already testing the builds. I already explained the delays before









Edit: Also the jumplists are finally properly fixed thanks to Moonchild (Palemoon) and I've made sure the links in about lead to waterfoxproject.org


----------



## Lord Venom

Apparently no more 64-bit Windows builds from Mozilla: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/11/22/mozilla-quietly-kills-firefox-64-bit-for-windows-despite-an-alleged-50-of-testers-using-it/?fromcat=all


----------



## MrAlex

Ok, so here's an update as to what's happening:


I was compiling Waterfox with the Beta version of ICC 13. The license has now expired (since the final product has been released), so I've bought a new one, but it'll arrive within the next several hours. Once it does I'm free to release Waterfox


----------



## momoko

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Apparently no more 64-bit Windows builds from Mozilla: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/11/22/mozilla-quietly-kills-firefox-64-bit-for-windows-despite-an-alleged-50-of-testers-using-it/?fromcat=all


Geez, what plugins are lacking 64-bit versions? Flash 64 works perfectly, what else do you need? That's a lame excuse and a way treating users as brainless sheep (when Fx clearly has the most number of tech-savvy users).


----------



## Grumpigeek

Smedberg's decision strikes me as being incredibly short-sighted.









Especially when Opera 64-bit is coming along nicely.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Maybe this project was the exact reason they stopped it.







They probably know that as soon as someone wants a 64bit version of firefox they google firefox 64bit and bam (a wild) Waterfox appears.


----------



## Krahe

Looking forward to the new release Mr Alex, as always your work is appreciated.


----------



## DarkAngel-MWAP

Greetings all.... loving the Waterfox.... but got one question....

im starting to see a addon failure more and more often..... Java platform failing... known to cause issues... error popup...

IS this a known issue or can it be caused by one of the scripts im running....

WF 16.01


----------



## CyberDemonz101

I got that failure box yesterday. I didnt even use java or have multi tabs open. I did have steam running at max downloading bunch of black friday games.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DarkAngel-MWAP*
> 
> Greetings all.... loving the Waterfox.... but got one question....
> im starting to see a addon failure more and more often..... Java platform failing... known to cause issues... error popup...
> IS this a known issue or can it be caused by one of the scripts im running....
> WF 16.01


I believe that's because Mozilla have put some kind of block on Java 7 update 7 or earlier versions, due to vulnerabilities. All you need to do is install the latest one, which is Java 7 update 9.


----------



## fullmoon

MrAlex, can you try a version with WebGL disabled in build settings ?
WebGL use directx9 (juin2010).
When I disable WebGL in settings FF, I have a simple lost of 5%.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Whereo Whereo Where is Alex!


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 17.0.1 should be out at any time fixing a blurry font issue apparently.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Firefox 17.0.1 should be out at any time fixing a blurry font issue apparently.


----------



## MrAlex

Why oh why Intel. Its been 3 days


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Why oh why Intel. Its been 3 days


Well it was the weekend. Hopefully comes in time for 17.0.1


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Apparently no more 64-bit Windows builds from Mozilla: http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/11/22/mozilla-quietly-kills-firefox-64-bit-for-windows-despite-an-alleged-50-of-testers-using-it/?fromcat=all


Excuse me for the innocent question - but if Mozilla axes their own 64 builds (I've been using 64bit NIghtly up to now) doesn't that mean they dump the infrastructure for 64bit builds, too and continuing to build 3rd party browsers like Waterfox won't be possible w/o too much workload in the future?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Excuse me for the innocent question - but if Mozilla axes their own 64 builds (I've been using 64bit NIghtly up to now) doesn't that mean they dump the infrastructure for 64bit builds, too and continuing to build 3rd party browsers like Waterfox won't be possible w/o too much workload in the future?


I don't think there is any "64bit infrastructure" in the stable builds. Mr. Alex takes the current stable release which of course is 32bit and re compiles the whole thing.


----------



## MrAlex

Turns out orders aren't processed during the thanksgiving holiday period, which caused the delay. Sorry about that everyone! Either way, the latest you should be getting WF17 is tomorrow.


----------



## BT Shogun

It's ok Alex... we can wait !... no problem !... Thank you for your excellent job on Waterfox


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> I don't think there is any "64bit infrastructure" in the stable builds. Mr. Alex takes the current stable release which of course is 32bit and re compiles the whole thing.


Wait a minute... You sure about that? I thought the 64-bit builds were being recompiled to remove certain features for speed.

Alex?


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> I don't think there is any "64bit infrastructure" in the stable builds. Mr. Alex takes the current stable release which of course is 32bit and re compiles the whole thing.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a minute... You sure about that? I thought the 64-bit builds were being recompiled to remove certain features for speed.
> 
> Alex?
Click to expand...

Well that's what is said on the about page of the Waterfox website aswell him saying it on the very first page of this thread.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Turns out orders aren't processed during the thanksgiving holiday period, which caused the delay. Sorry about that everyone! Either way, the latest you should be getting WF17 is tomorrow.


You should've known that!







hehe Thanks for keeping us updated


----------



## Ceadderman

All good MrAlex. I'm not running anything Mozilla based atm. But I will get 17.0.1 when you launch it and give it a thorough testing.









~Ceadder


----------



## Kalashnikov

Guys, I can't open *New Tab/New Window/Enter Private Browsing* from taskbar like I do on Firefox. Sb please help me solve this. Thanks.









*Firefox*










*Waterfox*


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kalashnikov*
> 
> Guys, I can't open *New Tab/New Window/Enter Private Browsing* from taskbar like I do on Firefox. Sb please help me solve this. Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Firefox*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Waterfox*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm already testing the builds. I already explained the delays before
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Edit: Also the jumplists are finally properly fixed thanks to Moonchild (Palemoon) and I've made sure the links in about lead to waterfoxproject.org


think this is what he was talking about here in the edit (so it's fixed in wf 17, whenever intel decides to give him the license -flips tables-)


----------



## Marsu24

Concerning the flash plugin: The link on http://www.waterfoxproject.org/plugins.php points to the official site with only the 32bit-installer (at least that's what I'm getting), for 64bit ff I had to pull the 64bit version as a dll from some other site and manually place it into ,,,/appdata/roaming/mozilla/plugins :-o


----------



## Viski

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Concerning the flash plugin: The link on http://www.waterfoxproject.org/plugins.php points to the official site with only the 32bit-installer (at least that's what I'm getting), for 64bit ff I had to pull the 64bit version as a dll from some other site and manually place it into ,,,/appdata/roaming/mozilla/plugins :-o


It should point to the 64-bit version if you're using a 64 bit browser (Waterfox).


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Viski*
> 
> It should point to the 64-bit version if you're using a 64 bit browser (Waterfox).


Doh - it got mixed up because of I changed the user agent, I entirely forgot about that (99% of the sites don't care if how many bits your browser has) - sorry, forget about it


----------



## lewisje

I for one hope that Waterfox 17 comes out today.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *holygamer*
> 
> In Waterfox Portable 16.0.1 can someone please tell me where I'm supposed to put my userChrome.css file? In Firefox portable I put it in this folder: Firefox Portable\Data\profile\Chrome. However I can't find any folder like that in Waterfox.


Make the chrome directory in the profile directory: By default, Firefox 4+ doesn't make it anymore but will still read it if it exists.


----------



## Kalashnikov

Another thing is the facebook API and the auto update feature in Waterfox, they don't work. Please fix it on next version. Thanks


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kalashnikov*
> 
> Another thing is the facebook API and the auto update feature in Waterfox, they don't work. Please fix it on next version. Thanks


... or just release v17 now and fix bugs in 17.0.0.1 - I for one could do with a broken facebook api for some time instead of a delayed release :-o


----------



## sfranklin1717

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Concerning the flash plugin: The link on http://www.waterfoxproject.org/plugins.php points to the official site with only the 32bit-installer (at least that's what I'm getting), for 64bit ff I had to pull the 64bit version as a dll from some other site and manually place it into ,,,/appdata/roaming/mozilla/plugins :-o


Do you have some links to where to get the 64-bit Flash version? I've tried several that I found by googling and none seem to work for me by just copying the DLLs into the plugins directory. I can't run installers due to not having admin access.


----------



## lewisje

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sfranklin1717*
> 
> Do you have some links to where to get the 64-bit Flash version? I've tried several that I found by googling and none seem to work for me by just copying the DLLs into the plugins directory. I can't run installers due to not having admin access.


You'll need to copy more than just the DLLs: http://portableapps.com/node/34169


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sfranklin1717*
> 
> Do you have some links to where to get the 64-bit Flash version? I've tried several that I found by googling and none seem to work for me by just copying the DLLs into the plugins directory. I can't run installers due to not having admin access.


Search for "flash portable 64bit"  ... http://portableappz.blogspot.de/2011/03/flash-1021531-10318042-plugins.html


----------



## Kalashnikov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sfranklin1717*
> 
> Do you have some links to where to get the 64-bit Flash version? I've tried several that I found by googling and none seem to work for me by just copying the DLLs into the plugins directory. I can't run installers due to not having admin access.


I think when u're using a 64bit Windows system along with Waterfox, u could go to adobe to download and install the 64bit Flash version. The website auto recognizes & directs u to the appropriate version of Flash.


----------



## mktwo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sfranklin1717*
> 
> Do you have some links to where to get the 64-bit Flash version?


http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe
This file includes both 32 and 64 bit version.


----------



## lewisje

The problem is that he can't run installers, because he lacks admin access; also, the DLLs and other necessary files cannot be extracted from the installers by normal means, I mean I've tried.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> The problem is that he can't run installers, because he lacks admin access.


Thanks for noting the missing admin access, I wonder why people don't bother to read whole posts before replying 
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> also, the DLLs and other necessary files cannot be extracted from the installers by normal means, I mean I've tried.


That's because the installers you're getting are just stubs and download the latest version from the net, and Adobe afaik even added an online check to the "full" installers to prevent outdated installations - preventing easy extraction of the contents should most likely achieve the same objective.


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry about being a day late guys, run into a compilation error:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/342326








Seems to be a compiler bug as well. Hopefully a downgrade will fix this.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seems to be a compiler bug as well. Hopefully a downgrade will fix this.


"Undefined symbol" looks more like an Intel compiler quirk to me if you didn't declare something as extern and the compiler refuses to be smart enough to look for it itsself ... or maybe there's some code missing for the vp8/webp decoder that isn't in your source? Well, good thing I don't have to look for the bug, these things are really annoying :-o - Thanks for doing it for us!


----------



## sirmatto

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> The problem is that he can't run installers, because he lacks admin access; also, the DLLs and other necessary files cannot be extracted from the installers by normal means, I mean I've tried.


http://notepad.patheticcockroach.com/2243/flash-11-for-portable-browsers-32-and-64-bits/ This usually has the latest versions of Flash in a zip file for both 32 and 64-bit. Just extract the appropriate .dll and .xpt file to %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Plugins\ and you're good to go!


----------



## momoko

I never used webm video in Fx, youtube is all flash anyway. Is it possible to just drop this library for now and compile Waterfox without it?


----------



## mzhg

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *momoko*
> 
> I never used webm video in Fx, youtube is all flash anyway.


Actually, youtube make use of html5 video capability if available. You can turn this On here:
http://www.youtube.com/html5

Right click on video to check if she's played by flash or html5


----------



## Calisto

html5 is not available for all videos on youtube. Especially those that with embedded ads.


----------



## NiGHTsC

Nevermind, just realized it's a Nightly version.

Thank you!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mzhg*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *momoko*
> 
> I never used webm video in Fx, youtube is all flash anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, youtube make use of html5 video capability if available
Click to expand...

... but the flash h264 encodes have visibly higher image quality, at that even a slightly lower bitrate - webm/vp8 was mainly the lever to force the h264 patent owners to allow free non-commercial usagme, but google's codec is simply not as efficient.


----------



## Ispep

If this has been asked before, I apologize: Is there any plans to have a Linux/Ubuntu version made? In my 64-bit Ubuntu machine I use FireFox which works but would be nice to use WaterFox as well.


----------



## sfranklin1717

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sirmatto*
> 
> http://notepad.patheticcockroach.com/2243/flash-11-for-portable-browsers-32-and-64-bits/ This usually has the latest versions of Flash in a zip file for both 32 and 64-bit. Just extract the appropriate .dll and .xpt file to %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Plugins\ and you're good to go!


Worked like a charm! Flash runs now with my Waterfox 16.0.1 portable install. Thanks, everyone that posted.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> If this has been asked before, I apologize: Is there any plans to have a Linux/Ubuntu version made? In my 64-bit Ubuntu machine I use FireFox which works but would be nice to use WaterFox as well.


Linux already has a 64bit version of Firefox. The point of Waterfox is to have a 64bit version for windows.


----------



## Screemer

Any news about the 17.0 release?
Can't wait for it much longer..


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Any news about the 17.0 release?
> Can't wait for it much longer..


The developer, Mr.Alex, is having issues with the latest Intel compiler as mentioned in this post, your going to have to wait sorry.


----------



## lewisje

^Here's a link for those of us who don't want to register on VirtualCustoms: http://sourceforge.net/projects/cyberfox/
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> That's because the installers you're getting are just stubs and download the latest version from the net, and Adobe afaik even added an online check to the "full" installers to prevent outdated installations - preventing easy extraction of the contents should most likely achieve the same objective.


I actually downloaded the full (15MB) installers for both ActiveX and NPAPI, and as I said earlier, the files cannot be extracted by normal means, but only by Adobe's proprietary algorithm; the person at the link that someone else posted probably installs the latest version of Flash Player and copies the necessary files into an archive before distributing it on his blog.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> The developer, Mr.Alex, is having issues with the latest Intel compiler


I know, I was kind of asking Mr.Alex.








But thx for answering.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> The developer, Mr.Alex, is having issues with the latest Intel compiler


Actually it's not only the latest, but all Intel C/C++ compilers - I tried them as a plug-in replacement for MSVC some time ago, and it simply isn't as "plug-in" as Intel wants to make people believe - there always pop up strange errors that take ages to work around, so Kudos to MrAlex to get it running at all and doing this work for free!


----------



## Commissar

hey, i don't know if anyone else is having issues, but earlier, WF was hanging alot, but supposedly still responding. then, this morning, flash was crashing every 5 minutes or so....
I did an installation repair, and it seeps to have stopped hanging, and flash isn't crashing, but still getting js errors in the console....
chrome was having an issue wit flash as well, so it might just be flash...
plugins: adblock plus, personas, smartvideo (helps a ton with YT), a whois lookup plugin, trend micro AV extension..... plus the usuall stuff like flash and java... 64bit where available, and all up-to-date... java is on the 8 beta from a while ago, i think....

anyways, here's an error taken off the error console
http://pastie.org/5459445
put it in a pastie, rather than spamming the thread....


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Commissar*
> 
> this morning, flash was crashing every 5 minutes or so....


Hardware problem? A browser with many tabs open and esp. flash is quite a strain to the system. Run a burn-in test to be sure...


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 17.0.1 is out.


----------



## Commissar

it's a laptop..... it makes burn-in testing literal.....
that said, I highly doubt it's hardware... I just fixed a bluescreen issue just a month or 2 ago, in doing so, i did run it through the standard battery of hardware tests....
and I used to have 60 tabs open all the time... didn't notice any slowdown....
flash and WF have been stable since i did an install repair....


----------



## Ceadderman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Firefox 17.0.1 is out.


32bit only. Firefox is no longer supporting 64bit Browser. But they have Waterfox (thanks to MrAlex) for that. Just be patient he's trying to get it done. Nobody pays him for this service you know.









~Ceadder


----------



## Commissar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> 32bit only. Firefox is no longer supporting 64bit Browser. But they have Waterfox (thanks to MrAlex) for that. Just be patient he's trying to get it done. Nobody pays him for this service you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


yeah, it kinda seems like mozzila is going backwards.... but then again, there are quite a few plugins that don't support 64bit browsers, unfortunately....


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> Wow That Cyberfox Guy Already Has 17.0.1 Out im Still waiting on Waterfox to see which one is better so far Cyberfox 17.0.1 is even faster the cyberfox 17 i hope mr alex releases soon or im gunna stay with cyberfox


Not to sound rude, but if your happy with Cyberfox then stick with that and leave Mr. Alex alone.









I personally will keep on rooting for Waterfox just like I have with Firefox vs Chrome. Even though the other may be arguably better than the other.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Not to sound rude, but if your happy with Cyberfox then stick with that and leave Mr. Alex alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I personally will keep on rooting for Waterfox just like I have with Firefox vs Chrome. Even though the other may be arguably better than the other.


This.









P.S. This got me away from Chrome and back to Firefox.


----------



## lewisje

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ceadderman*
> 
> 32bit only. Firefox is no longer supporting 64bit Browser. But they have Waterfox (thanks to MrAlex) for that. Just be patient he's trying to get it done. Nobody pays him for this service you know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ~Ceadder


FTR, Mozilla has never _supported_ 64-bit browsers on Windows; all 64-bit Windows builds released by the team have been nightlies, and all stable 64-bit Windows builds have been third-party (like Pale Moon, Waterfox, and this odd upstart Cyberfox).

Also, Mozilla has not ruled out eventually releasing 64-bit builds of Firefox for Windows, but because the Nightlies have been so broken lately and stable 64-bit builds really aren't on the map right now, the developers decided to save themselves the headache of all those x64-specific crash reports until they have a date certain to start releasing stable 64-bit builds.

BTW, for those who are using Cyberfox (and those sticking with Waterfox, for when Mr. Alex upgrades VS), the latest download links for the Visual Studio 2012 redistributables (Update 1, but once installed, Windows Update will keep them up-to-date) are found here: http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30679
(The "prerequisites" checker may balk at not finding the exact version of the redistributables; just skip that installation step.)

As for the latest Intel redistributables, they are here (Composer XE 2013, currently at Update 1 but the link will have the latest updates as they are released): http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/redistributable-libraries-for-intel-c-and-visual-fortran-composer-xe-2013-for-windows

I for one hope that Mr. Alex can figure out what's causing the problem with compilation; maybe an examination of the Cyberfox source can uncover a solution.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> but because the Nightlies have been so broken lately


That's not correct, I've been using 64-bit Nightly for a long time up to now - there were always some days with broken Nightly in between, but the that's about it and it certainly didn't get worse lately. The reason for abandoning 64bit is simply that Mozilla wants/has to focus their resources, same reason why Thunderbird development got dumped.


----------



## Screemer

Perhaps the compilation will go better based on 17.0.1 source?
I am certain that Mr.Alex i doing his best to make it happen for us all..


----------



## Krahe

Me thinks the people from cyber fox are trolling this site, anyway Ive had no problems with WF and am looking forward to the next release.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Krahe*
> 
> Me thinks the people from cyber fox are trolling this site, anyway Ive had no problems with WF and am looking forward to the next release.


Maybe, maybe not - but after Mozilla abandoned their 64bit future a lot of people will look for a reliably updated 64bit browser version, and I hope the people currently working on their own (and most probably duplicating work) will not fight each other but hopefully join and work together on one distribution?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> Wow That Cyberfox Guy Already Has 17.0.1 Out im Still waiting on Waterfox to see which one is better so far Cyberfox 17.0.1 is even faster the cyberfox 17 i hope mr alex releases soon or im gunna stay with cyberfox


See the thing is, if I'm not mistaken Cyberfox will be compiled the same way Waterfox and pcxfirefox are. Considering xunxun1982 and I have released quite a few notes on how to compile Mozilla with ICC:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=784309

http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/wiki/MozillaBuiltICC

http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/?source=navbar

So "even faster" is just the placebo effect.

Also I'm studying a very intense degree (Electronics Engineering) with around 30 contact hours a week (not including study hours), yet I dedicate most of my free time compiling Waterfox.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Also I'm studying a very intense degree (Electronics Engineering) with around 30 contact hours a week (not including study hours), yet I dedicate most of my free time compiling Waterfox.


Not to sound rude but if you just posted a daily update with an ETA, it will be good enough for people like me who come here everyday expecting the build to be out.

I appreciate your work.


----------



## safari801

Actually Pale Moon just came out with a new version ( 15.3.1 ) And it's updated frequently and I can't tell a lot of difference between PM or WF. That being said we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Alex and Moonchild for all they do.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Actually Pale Moon just came out with a new version ( 15.3.1 ) And it's updated frequently and I can't tell a lot of difference between PM or WF. That being said we owe a debt of gratitude to Mr Alex and Moonchild for all they do.


pm 15.3.1 based on mozilla 15 and will remain like it for sometime till a major firefox is out there (like 18 or 19 according to its owner moonchild ).


----------



## safari801

He's just waiting to see if ionmonkey is stable. But he at least stays on top of his work.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Not to sound rude but if you just posted a daily update with an ETA, it will be good enough for people like me who come here everyday expecting the build to be out.
> I appreciate your work.


Having you ever been through college, with a contract job? The only free time he spends is giving us an amazing browser that works. Juggling a job, college, and working on Waterfox isn't a simple thing to do.
Yes, I do come here everyday to check it 17 is released, but I don't rag on him because it hasn't been release yet. Just calm down and wait for his release like everyone else.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Also I'm studying a very intense degree (Electronics Engineering) with around 30 contact hours a week (not including study hours), yet I dedicate most of my free time compiling Waterfox.


Keep up the good work, MrAlex. You are a very busy man, and most of us understand this.


----------



## Rayce185

Hmm, I'm tempted. But I'm on Nightly 20.0a1 right now and quite happy...


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Having you ever been through college, with a contract job? The only free time he spends is giving us an amazing browser that works. Juggling a job, college, and working on Waterfox isn't a simple thing to do.
> Yes, I do come here everyday to check it 17 is released, but I don't rag on him because it hasn't been release yet. Just calm down and wait for his release like everyone else.
> Keep up the good work, MrAlex. You are a very busy man, and most of us understand this.


Amen, what's the big deal 16.0.1 works well anyway.


----------



## kevindd992002

What is the advantage of Waterfox over Cyberfox? This is the first time I've heard Cyberfox and I thought I will give it a look.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Having you ever been through college, with a contract job? The only free time he spends is giving us an amazing browser that works. Juggling a job, college, and working on Waterfox isn't a simple thing to do.
> Yes, I do come here everyday to check it 17 is released, but I don't rag on him because it hasn't been release yet. Just calm down and wait for his release like everyone else.


I already said that I appreciate his work and dedication towards the project. I know how busy he is. I am not asking him to hurry up. I am just asking for a daily update on the ETA. It takes a second to do that and will be useful to many guys here (even those who are not registered and come here everyday to check).


----------



## Lord Venom

Just compile builds yourself, then you don't have to wait... except for it to compile.


----------



## MrAlex

The bug has been found:

https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=817346

Turns out it's a problem with the core and not ICC, since VC9 gets this error too.

As for browser, like I tell everyone it's personal preference!


----------



## alienwithin

let me start off by saying I typically do not join forums or discussions. I have a intense social phobia so typically keep away from conversations with strangers.

I come here each day, not for updates on the browser but to see how Mr Alex is coming along with issues and what other people are saying. I don't expect updates, they are time consuming when a person has a busy life and is trying to compile some software free for the community. Which is why coming here the past few days I have felt rather sad seeing people complaining. Plain and simple people, if you have not anything nice to say then don't say it. This person has gone out of their way to provide a free alternative to us and some of you are down right ugly to him.

Now, Mr Alex. Can I just please say thank you for all the work you do, I appreciate it and enjoy using waterfox. I personally respect your work and the time you put into it


----------



## Rayce185

Can you compile the current Nightly release?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is the advantage of Waterfox over Cyberfox? This is the first time I've heard Cyberfox and I thought I will give it a look.


Well, this is probably not the most appropriate place but I am currently using Cyberfox because of the Waterfox delay, and personally I don't see any difference at all (except for the installer)... I didn't run benchmarks though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The bug has been found:


I hope the fix has also been discovered :-> ... I really appreciate your work, but don't let c compiler bugs stand in the way of your studies or other real life - if push comes to shove and you're not finding the time there is always the option for a (temporal) pause instead of dealing with unrealistic users' expectations... still, from a users' perspective it is interesting to know if a project is and will be reliably maintained.


----------



## rickmave

Wait an complain no more. *Firefox x64* is there: *Cyberfox 17.0.1*. Released day after Mozilla Firefox, available on *SourceForge* (link will probably be removed). Working _perfectly_.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> ...
> Who cares if you don't use Waterfox anymore or tell your friends.
> -JRuxGaming


For software projects, yes *it does count* when "...you don't use Waterfox anymore or tell your friends."

Thanks to _MrAlex_ for the time when used *Watefox*.


----------



## Pandemacia

Quick off-topic question

I have only one monitor, and I was wondering if it was possible to watch a video in full screen in one browser, while using another browser to actually browse the web ?

Thanks in advance


----------



## lafingman0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienwithin*
> 
> let me start off by saying I typically do not join forums or discussions. I have a intense social phobia so typically keep away from conversations with strangers.
> I come here each day, not for updates on the browser but to see how Mr Alex is coming along with issues and what other people are saying. I don't expect updates, they are time consuming when a person has a busy life and is trying to compile some software free for the community. Which is why coming here the past few days I have felt rather sad seeing people complaining. Plain and simple people, if you have not anything nice to say then don't say it. This person has gone out of their way to provide a free alternative to us and some of you are down right ugly to him.
> Now, Mr Alex. Can I just please say thank you for all the work you do, I appreciate it and enjoy using waterfox. I personally respect your work and the time you put into it


^This









And another thank you from me Mr. Alex. Can't wait for the next release


----------



## alienwithin

your actions are the reason why i wont be trying the browser you are promoting.


----------



## pierredupont17

Hi everybody,

I don't understand this war between Waterfox and Cyberfox.

Some people said there are trolls and promotion for Cyberfox. Are they very serious ?

Waterfox and Cyberfox are two interesting FREE projects, that's all.

I use and i like Waterfox but I can't wait for new WF 17 ( 17.0.0 or 17.0.1 ? ) because there are critical security bugs in 16.0.1

Mr Alex have no time and need to study ? Like Marsu24 i think he can make a pause with the waterfox project


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienwithin*
> 
> your actions are the reason why i wont be trying the browser you are promoting.


I tried it.. it's not bad.. doesn't seem to have the memory leak but that could be FF 17...been running it 3 days with about 25 tabs across 7 windows and it's only used 1.3gb... waterfox 16 climbed to over 2gb in barely a day...
the memory leak/not releasing memory, has really been my only complaint with Firefox (32 and 64 bit and variants) for a long time...


----------



## Screemer

Hey, kidz..
Stop fighting.. This is after all a place of joy..
I am as I said before most certain that Mr.Alex is working on the compilation as much as he can. And us fighting and nagging wont achieve a thing. At least nothing more than he losing his interest. He's doing us all a great service.. Thanks a billion times Mr.Alex..


----------



## seti

This is a feeble attempt to hijack dedicated Waterfox users to use a browser that I am sure is using the publicly available code of Waterfox. Trying to take advantage of a dedicated person like Mr Alex's busy life and it is sad. I will stand by Waterfox throughout...not saying I won't use any other browser in conjunction, but that is what I do anyway whether Waterfox were in the picture or not. However, to come and promote endlessly and complain not out of interest of the project, but for the sole purpose of promoting another alternative is ridiculous and more representative of what that alternative is really all about. Most here know of quite a few alternatives and yet still make the trip here to check on things...whether registered or not that speaks volumes to the quality of software that is being dispensed here and most that come here know that. More importantly we have access to the developer himself...whom is always considerate and never condescending to anyone even though he doesn't garner the same respect due to release dates. That aspect alone is virtually non-existent in other software and when it is most developers take the line "it will be done when it is done" or not really care what the user wants. Those that do complain can go and do it alone if they don't like the timeline...the source is readily available. Mr Alex owes no one here a single thing...eta timeline or anything...this is a free project...no one loses anything whether updates are released timely or not, but Mr. Alex. I am sure he wants the best for this project and whether he admits it or not it can be overwhelming. We see the requests that are in the forum...imagine the requests in PM, email, and any other means of communication. I can't imagine and then to have the ever nagging presence of expectations from users and ones own need to not disappoint those that ridicule, flame, and all the rest. It's nuts when you consider all these other aspects of providing a free alternative that isn't always appreciated by all...some of which think they are owed something, which ultimately they are not. Mr Alex and Waterfox is doing fine by me and I will gladly wait for the next release, as I am sure it will be a quality release as many of the past have been.


----------



## seti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alienwithin*
> 
> let me start off by saying I typically do not join forums or discussions. I have a intense social phobia so typically keep away from conversations with strangers.
> I come here each day, not for updates on the browser but to see how Mr Alex is coming along with issues and what other people are saying. I don't expect updates, they are time consuming when a person has a busy life and is trying to compile some software free for the community. Which is why coming here the past few days I have felt rather sad seeing people complaining. Plain and simple people, if you have not anything nice to say then don't say it. This person has gone out of their way to provide a free alternative to us and some of you are down right ugly to him.
> Now, Mr Alex. Can I just please say thank you for all the work you do, I appreciate it and enjoy using waterfox. I personally respect your work and the time you put into it


Well said!


----------



## demoneye

anyway , if u want the firefox 17 new feature , u can always use mozilla firefox till alex cook for us waterfox 17.
sec ! alex is a long time provide a support and answer users question for long time when this project start , in other words we can TRUST HIM!!!
about this cyberfox project , most of us never heard of it , not saying it got no suitable place like this place , WE DONT KNOW THE OWNER !!

so a fast conclusion , be smart stay with alex and its waterfox









and yes .. i try this cybererfox , in the moment when i press my firefox icon (mozilla) and cyberfox run instead , i remove it!!! no take over in my computer


----------



## dqwf

I do appreciate Mr Alex's effort in bringing us into the 21st century with a 64 bit browser as incompetent Mozilla doesnt want to do it because of useless excuses. I do understand he is busy and does this on his own time without being paid so I dont B I T C H about releases (I do wish they came out faster though).

I actually welcome this guy's suggestion of Cyberfox. Just like someone else recommended Waterfox in another forum which brought me here and have been using it as my main browser since. I use several browsers at the same time as I have to log into the same website with different accounts at the same time. I currently use Waterfox, Palemoon and Opera (I want to replace Opera with Cyberfox as Opera sucks). The problem I have is that if I open Waterfox and try to open Cyberfox it only opens a New Waterfox window so I cant have them open at the same time. I have a profile for each but this happens. I am hoping someone can tell me how to do this.

I wish WF was a separate browser to FF and CF, like Palemoon is. We got it to having its own executable but it should store its config and profile on its own.

I dont think it has to be a war between 64bit FF browsers as they all benefit from one another. Try them choose the one you prefer or use them all like myself and support them!


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> anyway , if u want the firefox 17 new feature , u can always use mozilla firefox till alex cook for us waterfox 17.
> sec ! alex is a long time provide a support and answer users question for long time when this project start , in other words we can TRUST HIM!!!
> about this cyberfox project , most of us never heard of it , not saying it got no suitable place like this place , WE DONT KNOW THE OWNER !!
> so a fast conclusion , be smart stay with alex and its waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and yes .. i try this cybererfox , in the moment when i press my firefox icon (mozilla) and cyberfox run instead , i remove it!!! no take over in my computer


have to agree with demon on this. I know this is a personal issue for myself, but i had a hard time even starting to use waterfox. Using 3rd party programs i tend to stay away from since their is alot of shady programs out there. Especially browsers that can do stuff that they aren't telling you. (log into your bank account with a custom browser, don't know what they do with that information, if its passed around, etc.) So starting a new browser that someone that joined at the end of last month just posted that no ones heard about is kinda eh.... idk how to put it without sounding rude. Alex kind of has a backing with alot of users so if there was something shady about his browser im sure it'd be well known by now, while a new browser that just has popped up is kind of scary to just start using. Again no offense to the author of that program, just won't see me using it unless its been out for years and has been used by several hundred people. Hell i use to use palemoon but once the author said he was going to basically make his own browser, i kind of backed off, nothing to the author of palemoon either.

But yeah, whatever you want to use, use it.


----------



## demoneye

my last words on this subject and i hope to remain cool since i got already mod warning for my words









*if any user depending on his browser security fixes to protect him against any evil out there on the net than he is...( F words triple )*


----------



## nooboc2012

Never heard of waterfox until I came to OCN. Why use it over firefox?


----------



## Kalashnikov

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nooboc2012*
> 
> Never heard of waterfox until I came to OCN. Why use it over firefox?


Cuz it's a 64bit application, more secure, faster....


----------



## JRuxGaming

I love how it is obviously the same person making several accounts, or a friend of his.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nooboc2012*
> 
> Never heard of waterfox until I came to OCN. Why use it over firefox?


I was using the 64bit Nightly up to now, and running some browser benchmarks myself Waterfox (and probably other icc custom compiles which shall never be named in this forum ) are decisively faster, even though they are based on older code than Nightly.[/quote]


----------



## Marsu24

[dupe deleted] ... surely Cyberfox was the reson that the form was submitted twice :->


----------



## sfranklin1717

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandemacia*
> 
> Quick off-topic question
> I have only one monitor, and I was wondering if it was possible to watch a video in full screen in one browser, while using another browser to actually browse the web ?
> Thanks in advance


Not on a two monitor setup right now, but I don't see why not. Best way would be to open two windows (Ctrl+N does this in most browsers), drag one window to the second monitor, then start up your full screen video in whichever monitor you prefer. Then you should still have a browser window available on the other monitor.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sfranklin1717*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Pandemacia*
> 
> Quick off-topic question
> I have only one monitor, and I was wondering if it was possible to watch a video in full screen in one browser, while using another browser to actually browse the web ?
> Thanks in advance
> 
> 
> 
> Not on a two monitor setup right now, but I don't see why not. Best way would be to open two windows (Ctrl+N does this in most browsers), drag one window to the second monitor, then start up your full screen video in whichever monitor you prefer. Then you should still have a browser window available on the other monitor.
Click to expand...

Although, I have run into an issue with some online video players. If your primary monitor is set at a lower resolution, if you try to full screen the video in the second monitor, the video will run at that resolution covering only a portion of the second monitor screen. This works vise-verse if your primary monitor is a higher resolution. In other words, it is a scaling issue. This doesn't happen with YouTube, Hulu, or any other popular video sites.


----------



## Pandemacia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Although, I have run into an issue with some online video players. If your primary monitor is set at a lower resolution, if you try to full screen the video in the second monitor, the video will run at that resolution covering only a portion of the second monitor screen. This works vise-verse if your primary monitor is a higher resolution. In other words, it is a scaling issue. This doesn't happen with YouTube, Hulu, or any other popular video sites.


What I want is to do it on *one monitor*. I have a 23' screen, and I want one window looking at a video in full-screen (Half of my monitor), and another window where I can browse Overclock.net







(Other of my monitor)

Any add-on or options I can use ?


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandemacia*
> 
> What I want is to do it on *one monitor*. I have a 23' screen, and I want one window looking at a video in full-screen (Half of my monitor), and another window where I can browse Overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Other of my monitor)
> Any add-on or options I can use ?


I don't believe there is anyway to do that.

You would just have to snap window 1 to the side, and window 2 to the other side.


----------



## Pandemacia

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> I don't believe there is anyway to do that.
> You would just have to snap window 1 to the side, and window 2 to the other side.


Yeah that's what I currently do. I was still wondering, since I was watching a stream that needed more definition.

Thank you


----------



## brettjv

Thread cleaned.

Please keep ON TOPIC everyone. The discussion should center on Waterfox (not Cyberfox or other browser projects), and please keep any 'criticism' limited to that which is clearly of the 'constructive' variety.

Thank you ...


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> Thread cleaned.
> Please keep ON TOPIC everyone. The discussion should center on Waterfox (not Cyberfox or other browser projects)


I keep visiting this thread like when you cannot make yourself look away from a train wreck... so on a constructive note: Until the said bug is fixed by a 3rd party (and there's nothing happening in the ticket) there won't be a new Waterfox version, though other unnamed browsers seem to compile - correct? If so, I guess a daily visit over here doesn't make much sense atm.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pandemacia*
> 
> What I want is to do it on *one monitor*. I have a 23' screen, and I want one window looking at a video in full-screen (Half of my monitor), and another window where I can browse Overclock.net
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Other of my monitor)
> Any add-on or options I can use ?


tile your windows

it's different for different versions of windows but like say vista/win 7.. on the taskbar right click and click show windows side by side...
IF you just have the browser and a video player running they will automatically fill the screen side by side as 2 windows


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brettjv*
> 
> Thread cleaned.
> Please keep ON TOPIC everyone. The discussion should center on Waterfox (not Cyberfox or other browser projects), and please keep any 'criticism' limited to that which is clearly of the 'constructive' variety.
> Thank you ...


Thank you. was trying to figure out how to get mod attention and get rid of that troll.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> any ideas on how to fix please thanks


The first step to fix this is to track the bug: 1) Does the official 32bit Firefox work with Flash? 2) Does another 64bit Firefox (Nightly or Cyberfox) work with Flash?


----------



## jaromanda

I'm surprised how often people feed the troll

Anyway, a big thank you to MrAlex for making what I consider the best 64bit Fox flavour. And yes, I've tried them all.


----------



## MetaBolicTroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> The first step to fix this is to track the bug: 1) Does the official 32bit Firefox work with Flash? 2) Does another 64bit Firefox (Nightly or Cyberfox) work with Flash?


Thanks atleast someone cares to help wroks fine in firefox, nightly, fox and auroa just issue with waterfox i tried earlier version of flash still no luck please any help.

also since i got that .dll error when installing im having issues trying to isntall other programs seems to have messed up windows installer please

i need help to fix it or i will have to format


----------



## julystork

my last disappointment with waterfox64 browser

I minimized a browser session & put my win7 PC to sleep, then resume, found that browser cannot maximize again
So I ended task in task manager, restarted waterfox64

now restore previous session is gone from the waterfox start page
about:sessionrestore is also blank

Is there any way to restore that crashed previous session?


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julystork*
> 
> Is there any way to restore that crashed previous session?


no


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> i need help to fix it or i will have to format


If it's really a Waterox bug then you're out of luck since the dev hasn't even got time to compile it (i.e. find the bug that's hindering him).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julystork*
> 
> Is there any way to restore that crashed previous session?


Hint: Use Tabmix plus, imho it has superior session save/restore features.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *julystork*
> 
> my last disappointment with waterfox64 browser


You do understand Waterfox is a spare time project by a single person, don't you? While it is ok to bash stability problems of free open source software, it should be somehow in line with the capacity of the person or organization you're addressing. And your bug report is the opposite of constructive, no way to track that down. And how would you know 32bit stable Firefox wouldn't have shown the same bug and Waterfox or a plugin is the problem? So, in a less elaborate way: please don't bother the dev with something like this.

Btw - bug reports like this are the exect reason why Mozilla stopped doing 64bit builds.


----------



## lewisje

^hear hear







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> the installer has an error and wont install some .dll error


The links to some relevant redistributable files in my previous post should help: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-16-0-1-28-october-firefox-64-bit/4290#post_18724105


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> alos the installer has an error and wont install some .dll error


Have you tried to use the Flash Player Auto-Updater to verify that you really have the latest flash? Sound like you are running one of the 11.3 releases of flash that didn't really work to great.. Download the updater here
Install it, run it as admin with all browsers closed. There also is an option under the Settings tab to let the updater auto silent install flash, browsers have to be closed then also.
Good luck


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> i have this version of flash Adobe Flash Player 11.5.502.110 i also tryed the portable flash too thanks for the help


Just to make sure, did you try uninstalling both 32 and 64 bit flash and also waterfox?
Asking since I have absolutely no crashes at all since flash 11.5 was installed.


----------



## mafutha

I'm using cyberfox at the moment but when Alex gets the new waterfox compiled I'll be back to waterfox. I just like the feel of it plus I rather be faithful to a developer who doesn't hid his thoughts from us and gives great support. With all the bickering I feel we should be patient. Alex is a student and needs time for that. I know when he gets back to waterfox it will be better than ever. I use firefox, waterfox, cyberfox, plus the nightly versions. So I don't play favorites or give insults to others who do. Any version of firefox is worth using. Keep the faith!!!!!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mafutha*
> 
> I'm using cyberfox at the moment but when Alex gets the new waterfox compiled I'll be back to waterfox.


And *if* he gets it compiled :->


----------



## nimitz87

just switched back to waterfox and have a question

when I hover over the icon on the taskbar it won't show multiple windows preview, is there a way to enable this?

thanks

Chad


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nimitz87*
> 
> just switched back to waterfox and have a question
> when I hover over the icon on the taskbar it won't show multiple windows preview, is there a way to enable this?
> thanks
> Chad


Options, Tabs, Show Tab Previews in Windows Task bar - of course, this assumes you have Aero enabled


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The bug has been found:
> 
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=817346
> 
> Turns out it's a problem with the core and not ICC, since VC9 gets this error too.
> 
> As for browser, like I tell everyone it's personal preference!


Looks like the regression that initially caused the compiler error may have been fixed now?
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=817346#c4

Thanks for all your hard work on Waterfox MrAlex!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Looks like the regression that initially caused the compiler error may have been fixed now?


If you actually have a look at the bug ticket, you'd notice it hasn't changed since 2012-12-02 06:13:09 PST and the status still is...

Keywords: regression
Status: UNCONFIRMED → NEW
Ever confirmed: true

Knowing how long obscure compiler bugs take to be fixed if it isn't a mainstream problem, I doubt if there'll be a Waterfox 17, at least not if MrAlex doesn't copy the source workaround or compiler method of the other unnamed 64bit browser that obviously does compile...


----------



## verticalgr

Well, I am a web developer and I love getting those updates. Waterfox is my main web browser in both work and home. Not getting WF17 is a let down for me but so far, I am loyal to WF and haven't installed anything else. I would really like to ask MrAlex if it is possible to have an alternative building environment that WF actually compiles. Maybe something like DirectX SDK 9.29.xxxx, MS Visual C++ 2010, MS Windows SDK v7 etc. I managed to compile the Firefox code without any error using MS SDKs. Considering that in the past, MrAlex had a similar problem with compilation, I think that having an alternative building environment for such cases is essential. The project has gained enormous fanbase and I read comments in various forums from disappointed users about this delay. I think, and since we are talking about free software, for WF to keep its current fanbase, there should some alternatives in building the project and releasing it without delays.


----------



## Lord Venom

Why not compile your own version if you want a x64 Firefox 17 build so badly?


----------



## Lord Venom

Then I'd suggest exercising patience and some understanding. Alex has a very busy life, plain and simple.


----------



## djkilla

Thought I would pop my head in to see how Waterfox is doing. I'm getting ready to test all the Firefox 64bit browsers to see which has the highest performance. Noticed that a new player has popped-up, Cyberfox, to join in the 64bit browsers offered. Have to add this to the list of browsers to test. Anyway, I'm still using the very powerful HTGuard Firefox 64bit browser ( http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~htguard/ ) and I'm happy to see Waterfox and others continue to offer 64bit builds of Firefox.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Thought I would pop my head in to see how Waterfox is doing. I'm getting ready to test all the Firefox 64bit browsers to see which has the highest performance. Noticed that a new player has popped-up, Cyberfox, to join in the 64bit browsers offered. Have to add this to the list of browsers to test. Anyway, I'm still using the very powerful HTGuard Firefox 64bit browser ( http://www1.ocn.ne.jp/~htguard/ ) and I'm happy to see Waterfox and others continue to offer 64bit builds of Firefox.


Which do you think is the best 64bit browser?


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Which do you think is the best 64bit browser?


The HTGuard one he mentions has worked well for me in the past, and usually appears the same day Firefox goes official - as do the weekly Beta builds. Having said the above, I should also mention I've never personally been affected by any of the strange Flash problems that some people complain about, so don't read too much into my own opinion.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

dj for some reason both my cyberfox and ht buld keep crashing


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> Thought I would pop my head in to see how Waterfox is doing. I'm getting ready to test all the Firefox 64bit browsers...


Yes, WF is still being offered. Unfortunately, MrAlex doesn't seem to have time to keep up with the updates. Or, he's losing interest.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> Yes, WF is still being offered. Unfortunately, MrAlex doesn't seem to have time to keep up with the updates. Or, he's losing interest.


With compilation being blocked by a single bug, nothing happening in that ticket (I guess for the lack of people having that problem) and the Waterfox dev not having time or interest to work around it I guess it's safe to say Waterfox is dead in the water :-o


----------



## Seitman

I guess that Mr Alex seeing all those troll posts feels some kind of frustration. If I was him I would send to hell some [email protected]@[email protected] (yes, yes the famous greek word with the a's







)


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Seitman*
> 
> I guess that Mr Alex seeing all those troll posts feels some kind of frustration. If I was him I would send to hell some [email protected]@[email protected]


I know a lot of posts got deleted, but from the remaining ones I can only see genuine concern, interest in Waterfox as a spare time and unpaid project, and of course the discussion what to do in the meantime up to when or if a new Waterfox version can be compiled.


----------



## virtualguy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> With compilation being blocked by a single bug, nothing happening in that ticket (I guess for the lack of people having that problem) and the Waterfox dev not having time or interest to work around it I guess it's safe to say Waterfox is dead in the water :-o


I don't know that Waterfox is considered a development project. It is the compilation of a 32-bit program into a 64-bit program. Whether or not it's a dead project remains to be seen. I think MrAlex would let us know if he decided to abandon it. He hasn't.


----------



## salamachaa

I really like waterfox. I hope Alex keeps on keepin on.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Then I'd suggest exercising patience and some understanding. Alex has a very busy life, plain and simple.


It's not about patience. It is about being brave and taking some brave decisions. If the 'bug' is not fixed in 2-3 versions of Firefox, then basically the Waterfox project is dead. Alex is busy but posting in the forum a small update is not wasting all his time. After all, I am busy, you are busy etc etc. I left my PC compile the Firefox code overnight a few days back, in the morning, I had the final build. I mentioned that I used Microsoft SDKs and I had it. Intel fails. I recommended that Alex should have an alternative. If not him, he can ask a friend and work as a team. With great power comes great responsibility and the Waterfox fanbase is huge.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *virtualguy*
> 
> I don't know that Waterfox is considered a development project. It is the compilation of a 32-bit program into a 64-bit program.


Obviously there is more to it than ticking the "64bit" box and then clicking "compile", or Waterfox wouldn't be stalled - thus I think "development" is an appropriate term since you are required to patch out bugs that only concern 64bit.

I don't know what changed went into Waterfox since I only used it a short time until v16 was outdated, but other "whose name shall never me uttered" alternatives have a custom installer & updater which does require coding.


----------



## RealityRipple

You could always use the Latest from Mozilla Central - Firefox 20 x64.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> You could always use the Latest from Mozilla Central - Firefox 20 x64.


Is this an official x64 release of ff?


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is this an official x64 release of ff?


No, it's a nightly build, not a release, but it is an "official" a build of x64 FF as you're likely to find... You can always root around in their public FTP and find little treasures like that


----------



## chilinmichael

Funny, I just read how Mozilla has all but killed x64. They demanded that all nightly x64 builds cease, google it. I was thinking maybe they've asked everyone to stop, but who knows, it's all speculation past that and should be treated as such. Mr. Alex here has done phenominal work. Even on Waterfox 16 (as people cry for 17) I'm running my high end PC with Win8Pro and it's the best browser bar none out of the big three (latest chrome, IE10 and FF). It loads pages quickest on here, displays the best (as far as proper format) and the other odd thing, it's the only browser to properly get upmixed to 5.1 via my Xonar Phoebus sound card. So, kudos to Mr. Alex and I hope you continue on with this project soon!


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> Funny, I just read how Mozilla has all but killed x64. They demanded that all nightly x64 builds cease, google it. I was thinking maybe they've asked everyone to stop, but who knows, it's all speculation past that and should be treated as such. Mr. Alex here has done phenominal work. Even on Waterfox 16 (as people cry for 17) I'm running my high end PC with Win8Pro and it's the best browser bar none out of the big three (latest chrome, IE10 and FF). It loads pages quickest on here, displays the best (as far as proper format) and the other odd thing, it's the only browser to properly get upmixed to 5.1 via my Xonar Phoebus sound card. So, kudos to Mr. Alex and I hope you continue on with this project soon!


Yes, I am aware, but that was literally built this morning (around 7 AM). There are no Aurora or Beta x64 releases, but their nightly (so-called, as they're no longer every night) still have x64 builds, as you can see...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> any news on the compiler bug do you think they will fix the bug before x-mas because waterfox 17 would make for a killer x-mas present


Here we go again. Day after day after day.


----------



## chilinmichael

Hey I've got an idea, let's fill up the support forum with cries for the next version! *facepalm*

Be thankful for what he's done for the community, thank him, and be happy if/when the next one comes out. Unless you are going to donate your time and effort, it's time for you to sit down. 

I for one, am blown away with how much he's done already and how well he's done it.


----------



## lewisje

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> Installation operation failed msiexec.exe Errorcoder 1033 failed to register vbscript.dll what ever that means i managed to extract the installer but the installer gives that error thanks for the help


Try the fixes mentioned here (BTW 1033 refers to the language code en-US, not the actual error code): http://csi-windows.com/blog/all/27-csi-news-general/161-fixing-windows-installer-error-2738


----------



## MetaBolicTroll

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> Try the fixes mentioned here (BTW 1033 refers to the language code en-US, not the actual error code): http://csi-windows.com/blog/all/27-csi-news-general/161-fixing-windows-installer-error-2738


hi thanks but still no luck whats a 1033.mst file thats where the error is comming from when it trys to register something to the vbscript.dll but since trying to install waterfox with the installer and getting that error it wont let me install anythings else any ideas. thanks for the help.


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> Hey I've got an idea, let's fill up the support forum with cries for the next version! *facepalm*
> Be thankful for what he's done for the community, thank him, and be happy if/when the next one comes out. Unless you are going to donate your time and effort, it's time for you to sit down.
> I for one, am blown away with how much he's done already and how well he's done it.


Let's leave Mr Alex alone. When it's done it's done. Sheesh It's not like we've got no waterfox at all. 16.0.1 works pretty well for me.


----------



## Ausylon

this is the first time i've heard of Waterfox, installing it now.. thanks!


----------



## Lord Venom

At this point it's probably best to wait for Firefox 18 anyways since it's said it'll have some nice performance improvements.


----------



## chilinmichael

...and how would it achieve that, eh? More of the program left on the hard drive? Sometimes less ram usage isn't the best thing because it may just be paging data back to the drive until needed whereas it would be faster if more was left running on ram.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2


----------



## chilinmichael

Go ahead and try it, let us know how it works out for you


----------



## InsaneO

There is a setting somewhere to use only ram and no HD at all. Google it.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

for some reason i cant make waterfox stick as my default browser anymore


----------



## Freakie

Popping in to voice some support for Mr. Alex. Being a student myself and having finals week, I say any time spent on WF development over your GPA is wasted time







I'm quite thankful for all WF updates when they come, no matter when that is


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> for some reason i cant make waterfox stick as my default browser anymore


Using Waterfox itself or the Default Programs panel?


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Using Waterfox itself or the Default Programs panel?


both


----------



## jaromanda

as there is no source for "waterfox" per se, I doubt metabolic's statement that he is now running waterfox 17


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> both


Have you tried choosing "Microsoft Windows" in the Set program access and computer defaults, then re-customizing the settings? You can also check HKEY_CLASSES_ROOT\http\shell\open\command, though the way newer Microsoft OS's associations work, I doubt messing about in the registry will help.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> and copied Mr alexs modifications


I didn't realise these changes were available somewhere (I've looked, my google-foo failed me)
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> i can upload waterfox 17 if you dont beleave me


a) I doubted you because I didn't think MRAlex's changes were available
b) No disrespect intended, but I wouldn't download a text file from you


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> b) No disrespect intended, but I wouldn't download a text file from you


+1000!!!!!

Like to the max!


----------



## GoGoris

Am I right and is v17 skipped and will the next release be waterfox 18?
Or is Alex still busy on wf 17?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> as there is no source for "waterfox" per se, I doubt metabolic's statement that he is now running waterfox 17
> 
> 
> 
> actually i used the ( Unamed browsers source ) http://code.google.com/p/pcxfirefox/wiki/MozillaBuiltICC and copied Mr alexs modifications and it worked i can upload waterfox 17 if you dont beleave me
Click to expand...

What you have is yourownfox17, just because you copy what Alex may or may not have done with the FF17 source does not mean you have WF17.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GoGoris*
> 
> Am I right and is v17 skipped and will the next release be waterfox 18?
> 
> Or is Alex still busy on wf 17?


Alex is busy with college so I expect if FF18 isn't released when he gets a chance then we will get WF17.


----------



## dnyanesh

Since yesterday, Waterfox is acting weird. It crashes whenever I try to watch a video on YouTube or Vimeo (I don't know if it crashes on other video sites too..). I uninstalled it and re-installed but the problem didn't go away so I reinstalled Flash but still it crashes.

I'm now using Firefox but I want to know what's causing the crashes.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Since yesterday, Waterfox is acting weird. It crashes whenever I try to watch a video on YouTube or Vimeo (I don't know if it crashes on other video sites too..). I uninstalled it and re-installed but the problem didn't go away so I reinstalled Flash but still it crashes.
> I'm now using Firefox but I want to know what's causing the crashes.


Something must've changed in your system, install something? Updates?


----------



## Towik

Hi , i haven;t been around this thread for like 2 months , i was wondering if i can get a new version , but it seems the downloads are not available at this moment or i don't know [error 404]









edit
Nevermind i opened the page and did downloads .


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Something must've changed in your system, install something? Updates?


A new version of Adobe flash was made available on the 12th. v11.5.502.135. Maybe the patch was applied and caused a crash... Maybe dnyanesh can try an older version.


----------



## Screemer

I only hope Mr.Alex don't work himself to death.
School is important for sure but sometimes one need a break.









I sure hope he's ok.

I think it's really sad that he don't have the time to build WF17 but now I have started hoping for a nice fresh WF18 instead.









Have fun and be nice and good things will come to you all.


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> both


What web browser does your computer keep defaulting back to if not WF?

Is this a personal (home) computer or is it on a corporate type network where it may have a group policy in place?

Another thing you can try, assuming you have local Administrator rights, is to create another account on the computer then log in with the new account and see if the problem follows. If it does then that suggests to me that a local or group policy is in place. If the problem does not follow then we have to look at something with your local profile.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Something must've changed in your system, install something? Updates?


I am running Windows 8 and yes, I installed some updates but I think the prob was existent even before the updates.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> A new version of Adobe flash was made available on the 12th. v11.5.502.135. Maybe the patch was applied and caused a crash... Maybe dnyanesh can try an older version.


I have no idea if the flash was auto-updated. I don't want to use the old version of Flash as there might be some security vulnerabilities that might have been fixed in the latest release. I'll continue using Firefox until there is a new release of WF.


----------



## Crusty Danish

So I just recently downloaded Waterfox and I really like it but I have noticed that the browser flickers on my pc. I will just be browsing and out of nowhere it will just flicker. Anybody know a fix for it?


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> I am running Windows 8 and yes, I installed some updates but I think the prob was existent even before the updates.
> I have no idea if the flash was auto-updated. I don't want to use the old version of Flash as there might be some security vulnerabilities that might have been fixed in the latest release. I'll continue using Firefox until there is a new release of WF.


+1 same here
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> What web browser does your computer keep defaulting back to if not WF?
> Is this a personal (home) computer or is it on a corporate type network where it may have a group policy in place?
> Another thing you can try, assuming you have local Administrator rights, is to create another account on the computer then log in with the new account and see if the problem follows. If it does then that suggests to me that a local or group policy is in place. If the problem does not follow then we have to look at something with your local profile.


ie and it does it for any email links or updater type programs such as filehippo....

home comp

tooo much work too do this lol beyond lazy lol


----------



## Stilez

I'm missing something about getting the "update" item to work in Waterfox? Recent posts say to either add items in about:config, or a separate "Waterfox updater". Meantime I click "about" and can't see a "Check for updates" option. Should it be there?

Any hints what I've missed and how auto-update works and is configured now, would be really good


----------



## TFL Replica

Please do not harass MrAlex for updates. Be patient. A new version will be released when it's done.


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> sorry them wont ask again but what about this issue how do i solve this can someone assure me its safe to use waterfox 16.0.1 that this security issue is nothing to worry about please thank you


Stop using WF if you're worried and leave.


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> hey guys i just found out some alarming new's about 16.0.1 and 16.0.2 for 16.0.1 is at huge risk of remote code execution and is highly compromised security issues leaving you in hot water
> http://www.securityweek.com/mozilla-patches-firefox-again-releases-version-1602 that,s just one artical was just wanting to know did alex patch tho's issues in waterfox to stop (Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) or code execution.) i hope so.
> 
> 
> 
> sorry them wont ask again but what about this issue how do i solve this can someone assure me its safe to use waterfox 16.0.1 that this security issue is nothing to worry about please thank you
Click to expand...

It's tempting...

Yes of course you're at risk. Alex compiles firefox code - if something's not fixed in the version he compiles, then the risk's still there. However..... how significant is the risk, depends a lot on you, for example sites you go to, security awareness, malware/antivirus software etc. It's like 'flu, if it's going round town a lot of people will get it - but far from everyone in all but the most vicious cases. Cross scripting means, someone who puts "bad" code on a web page can make the browser do things it shouldn't, including malicious activity on your system. Will antivirus catch it? Is anything out there doing this? Are you personally vulnerable? Are the websites you visit the kind that might be vulnerable (FYI a major vector these days is via poorly protected bona fide websites). I have no idea.

But yes, one of the side effects is you get patches later than Mozilla sends them out for "vanilla" x32 Firefox. Apparently alex's issues here are about the compiler, more than anything. I'm sure he will fix as soon as he can. Meanwhile - it's a tough call if you are worried. Take a system and data backup maybe? Use Firefox 32 for a while? Not much else to say. What do others think


----------



## Ispep

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> sorry them wont ask again but what about this issue how do i solve this can someone assure me its safe to use waterfox 16.0.1 that this security issue is nothing to worry about please thank you


There will always be security risks regardless which browser you use. MSIE is riddled with potential security holes yet millions still use it.

Just be sure to use a decent AV/Anti-MalWare program, make sure the definitions are current and don't forget to run scans. Many people assume that just because they have an AV in place that they don't have to scan their system.

FWIW, whenever my AV/Ant-MalWare blocks or catches something I immediately close my apps and run a scan; usually a quick scan will suffice and then I'll schedule a full scan later.









That said, I've been running WF 16.0.1 since it came out.







I actually love this version. v13, v14 and v15 were all horrid on my computer and I actually went to Chrome until v16 came out.


----------



## dnyanesh

Mozilla brings back the 64-bit builds of Firefox for Windows: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.dev.apps.firefox/DOihL2429NM/discussion

Source: HN


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> There will always be security risks regardless which browser you use. MSIE is riddled with potential security holes yet millions still use it.


Not true anymore, msie even has a very secure protected mode nowadays. It's true msie supposedly has as many 0 day holes as any other software, it's just that it's more widely used and thus more holes are discovered and exploited. If you want a secure browser and system, use lynx for qnx, nobody will write an exploit for it (unless you're the government in Iran). I really like Firefox, but spreading old fud about msie really doesn't help on the long run.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ispep*
> 
> Just be sure to use a decent AV/Anti-MalWare program, make sure the definitions are current and don't forget to run scans.


Very bad advice, look at the av tests - scanners only catch a small to medium part of web malware (the more the older), flash/java exploits are seldom found and behavior analysis doesn't help much because malware engineers are perfectly able to work around that - or a too aggressive av system throws too many false positives so nobody cares.

The best malware protection is to use one's brain and "click to play" and noscript - thus enable javascript & plugins only on trusted sites. The best option is to use a restricted account & win vista+ security zones (like msie protected mode), but that needs some configuration work with Firefox.

Sorry I cannot comment specifically on Waterfox, all relevant posts get removed.


----------



## Sovereign108

Hi, just curious - is Waterfox also optimized for AMD processors? Or just strictly Intel???


----------



## demoneye

interesting news about x64 firefox continued









http://thenextweb.com/apps/2012/12/22/mozilla-backpedals-on-firefox-64-bit-for-windows-will-keep-nightly-builds-coming-after-all/


----------



## killian6pk

I can't get Adobe Flash Player to show up in my Plugins section. Also I am getting an error message that says that my NetScape Portable Runtime software needs to be downloaded.

I have downloaded Flash Player from your website link and also from Adobe's link and neither one will show up in Waterfox as a Plugin. Also at ESPN3 when I try to watch a game it comes up with an error message that says I need to download Adobe Flash Player. I have tried twice to download Adobe Flash Player and both times I have gotten a message that Flash Player was working.

The netscape problem shows up at the bottom of my screen in the Taskbar as a PC Issue that I need to solve. It sends me to the Mozilla Website to download the latest version.


----------



## MetaBolicTroll

yes im also having issues with flash player
it stoped working i tried older version even portable no luck

also getting random crashes with waterfox not responding frezzing and locking up my pc
even getting javascript error with javascript becomming unresponsive

i downloaded 15 and extracted it so i didnt have to uninstall 16
and kaspersky found 3 trojans all to do with search plugin and toolbar not sure if flase positive but formated pc

any way yet 16 still not working please help


----------



## dnyanesh

The Waterfox crashing issue has been solved on my end. Earier I thought it's Flash that's making it crash (it rhymes!) but the culprit was IDM. IDM issued an update today that fixed compatibility issues with Waterfox on Win8. The update fixed my problem.


----------



## chilinmichael

An update for all so everyone can stop asking for updates (lol). This comes from Waterfox's main site under the "development" tab.

Quote:
_Just a news post to wish everyone happy holidays!

Unfortunately Waterfox 17 won't be released, but Waterfox 18 will.

There were many contributing factors to the delay of WF17, including changes to the Firefox code that rendered it unable to be compiled by ICC and VC9, but due to exams, assessments and work I didn't manage to find any time to fix it. Thanfully the holiday season is here allowing me time to work on WF18.

Have a wonderful time!

Thanks,

Alex_


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> Thanfully the holiday season is here allowing me time to work on WF18.


Interesting news, and besides the post provides that the information I was looking for concerning if regular updates are to be expected in the future (or not, "holiday season") for people who want their browser up to date - though putting studies before compiling is of course a sound decision.


----------



## ExtraCrispy

I'm happy Alex found the time to continue work on Waterfox, no doubt many people will be happy to hear this.

All this talk of which is better is in the end counterproductive, and in some ways insults the work of all these people who do all the hard work unpaid, using their own free time, to help all of us. The truth is it doesn't matter which variant you end up using - the difference in performance if any is too small. And it pales in comparison to the effect your addons and setup will have - that is what really makes the difference.


----------



## killian6pk

I don't know if this is a problem with Waterfox or Adobe Flash Player. There is a patch on Adobe's site. I downloaded it, but I am getting these scripting error windows poping up. I have gone back to regular firefox until something is done to fix this. Interestingly I am getting the same popup boxes in Firefox as I was in Waterfox. Wonder if that means it is a Adobe problem?


----------



## joe222

Hi

This is a long thread. Sorry, I didn't read all the posts to see if a solution had already been offered.

In my waterfox installation, the flash does not work everytime.

eg. it worked

__
https://38872464310%2Faviva-premiership-2012-2013-london-wasps-v-sale
 but not

__
https://38871933852%2Faviva-premiership-2012-2013-bath-rugby-v-saracens
.

Did anyone else face the same problem? How did you find ar way around it?

=============

Next,

I am unable to install firefox and waterfox on the same pc. Can it be done?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joe222*
> 
> Hi
> This is a long thread. Sorry, I didn't read all the posts to see if a solution had already been offered.
> In my waterfox installation, the flash does not work everytime.
> eg. it worked
> 
> __
> https://38872464310%2Faviva-premiership-2012-2013-london-wasps-v-sale
> but not
> 
> __
> https://38871933852%2Faviva-premiership-2012-2013-bath-rugby-v-saracens
> .
> Did anyone else face the same problem? How did you find ar way around it?
> =============
> Next,
> I am unable to install firefox and waterfox on the same pc. Can it be done?


This problem come with FF also. Youtube use codec not present in FF.

Please check with FF before posting issue WF.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MetaBolicTroll*
> 
> yes im also having issues with flash player
> it stoped working i tried older version even portable no luck
> also getting random crashes with waterfox not responding frezzing and locking up my pc
> even getting javascript error with javascript becomming unresponsive
> i downloaded 15 and extracted it so i didnt have to uninstall 16
> and kaspersky found 3 trojans all to do with search plugin and toolbar not sure if flase positive but formated pc
> any way yet 16 still not working please help


AVG Toolbar&co is always detected as Trojan because is dangerous for private life. Don't install this.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

No WF17 due to the problem MrAlex was having but he will release WF18
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chilinmichael*
> 
> An update for all so everyone can stop asking for updates (lol). This comes from Waterfox's main site under the "development" tab.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Just a news post to wish everyone happy holidays!
> 
> Unfortunately Waterfox 17 won't be released, but Waterfox 18 will.
> 
> There were many contributing factors to the delay of WF17, including changes to the Firefox code that rendered it unable to be compiled by ICC and VC9, but due to exams, assessments and work I didn't manage to find any time to fix it. Thanfully the holiday season is here allowing me time to work on WF18.
> 
> Have a wonderful time!
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex
Click to expand...


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *killian6pk*
> 
> I don't know if this is a problem with Waterfox or Adobe Flash Player. There is a patch on Adobe's site. I downloaded it, but I am getting these scripting error windows poping up.


I don't know of any patch at the Adobe site; can you provide a link?

Also, can you tell us what scripting errors you get?


----------



## seriousam

Hi, I upgraded waterfox from v12 to v16 on an old computer running windows 7 x64 ultimate and after that moment waterfox wont open.
I tried uninstall-reinstall, tried waterfox portable...but nothing.
At the moment I'm using firefox which is running without any problems..

This is what happens.
14:53:28 Starting waterfox.exe...
14:53:29 Create Folder C:\Users\George\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\dszje11e.default\startupCache
14:53:29 Create File C:\Users\George\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\dszje11e.default\prefs-1.js
14:53:29 Process Created C:\Users\George\Desktop\Waterfox 16.0.1 Portable\Waterfox 16.0.1 Portable\waterfox.exe
14:53:29 Create Folder C:\Users\George\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\dszje11e.default\startupCache
14:53:29 Create File C:\Users\George\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\dszje11e.default\prefs-1.js
14:53:29 Process Killed C:\Users\George\Desktop\Waterfox 16.0.1 Portable\Waterfox 16.0.1 Portable\waterfox.exe
14:53:29 Create File C:\Users\George\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\dszje11e.default\localstore-safe.rdf
14:53:30 Process Killed C:\Users\George\Desktop\Waterfox 16.0.1 Portable\Waterfox 16.0.1 Portable\waterfox.exe

Any help?


----------



## chilinmichael

Happy New year! Also folks I want to remind you, please don't take what I copied off the Development tab of his site out of context. He said he was WORKING on WF18, not a promise of release. Don't start badgering him, posting endlessly on here "when is it going to be released, etc", he's never really asked for help, so don't go asking him when it's coming out. If you are so concerned, read up on coding and give him a hand (well, offer to do so). Thanks and have a great 2013!

I am in no way affiliated with Mr. Alex, I am just trying to knock some sense into complainers.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

I just wanted to thank you Mr Alex for all your hard work keeping this going despite the pain in the ass of school combined with this..Godo things for those who wait and hopefully Waterfox 18 will be just as great if/when you release it


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> I just wanted to thank you Mr Alex for all your hard work keeping this going despite the pain in the ass of school combined with this..Godo things for those who wait and hopefully Waterfox 18 will be just as great if/when you release it


Amen, lots of work goes into this and most of us appreciate it.


----------



## tek2005

firefox 18 (on ftp) final just released 2 hours ago. looking forward to the waterfox 18 release







keep up the great work alex.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

Ohhh great work Mr. Alex. Hope to see more and thanks for putting the time in to give us such a great browser.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> firefox 18 (on ftp) final just released 2 hours ago. looking forward to the waterfox 18 release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> keep up the great work alex.


Me, too - after the announcement that there will be a Waterfox 18 it's worth checking this site again, I'm sure we won't be disappointed after waiting so long!


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Me, too - after the announcement that there will be a Waterfox 18 it's worth checking this site again, I'm sure we won't be disappointed after waiting so long!


Alex will surely be hoping to get it out, but if there are issues, then everyone will have to be patient and appreciate he's doing the work, not us.


----------



## Screemer

I think everyone here is appreciating Alex work..
I know for a fact he's putting allot of work into this project and I also think it's the best x64 FF there is.
But we all get very carried away when there are new releases and want to stay in front having the latest always.









I hope Mr.Alex are well and that school works out for him and that he has the time to get Waterfox 18 out to the masses really soon.


----------



## mauritos

is it posible to move tabs under adress bar,from this



to this



i gett used to have tabs under adress bar.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mauritos*
> 
> is it posible to move tabs under adress bar,


about:config
navigate to *about:config*
serach for *browser.tabs.onTop*
set to *false*


----------



## JoeF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> about:config
> navigate to *about:config*
> serach for *browser.tabs.onTop*
> set to *false*


Much easier: Right click on the menu bar, uncheck the line "Tabs on Top".
Edit: Sorry, that only works with the "Configuration Mania" extension installed: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/configuration-mania-4420/
Highly recommended.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeF*
> 
> Much easier: Right click on the menu bar, uncheck the line "Tabs on Top".


Yeah, that's the first place I looked







I think that was a "standard" option in earlier incarnations of firefox


----------



## NoiseTemper

I'm a bit disappointed about Mozilla not enabling in-line PDF by default in version 17, which means it's still not completely ready after being proposed to be enabled in version 15. Also version 19, has only one extra feature according to their wiki. Makes me question their dedication and motivation.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> I'm a bit disappointed about Mozilla not enabling in-line PDF by default in version 17, which means it's still not completely ready after being proposed to be enabled in version 15. Also version 19, has only one extra feature according to their wiki. Makes me question their dedication and motivation.


I question their decision to follow Google's path on releasing a new version every 1-2 months. I never missed anything before they go this path. Most browsers are expanding on a evolutionary basis and currently, most of them cover 99.9% of user needs, so I find this to be an overkill.

Anyways, I am looking forward for this release of Waterfox. And I hope that the registry keys will be ok this time.


----------



## shashilx

Firefox 18 was out yesterday.. Is there any estimates when Waterfox 18 will be out?


----------



## mauritos

i installed configuration mania but where are tweaks to speed up loading and refershing web pages,and other usefull tweaks.


----------



## BT Shogun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shashilx*
> 
> Firefox 18 was out yesterday.. Is there any estimates when Waterfox 18 will be out?


+1


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shashilx*
> 
> Firefox 18 was out yesterday.. Is there any estimates when Waterfox 18 will be out?


Just keep visiting this thread and soon you'll get the answer.


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shashilx*
> 
> Firefox 18 was out yesterday.. Is there any estimates when Waterfox 18 will be out?


takes usually a week or two for a waterfox release after the official release.
reason why?
1. hes not making money from waterfox
2. hes solo
3. it takes awhile to compile every waterfox version (as any version of a 64bit browser would) think its like 3 hours to compile or more i forget. and if it fails he needs to go back and fix whatever is causing the issue unless its like waterfox 17 and its a problem with the compiler. Then you're pretty much out of luck at that point but one error= means another couple of hours compiling.

patience! patience is key


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

WHats the big deal with inline pdf just use pdf xchange viewer problem solved


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PocketAcesDMB*
> 
> WHats the big deal with inline pdf just use pdf xchange viewer problem solved


It's nicer to have things integrated, as well as better for new users who don't know about extensions and how to use them.


----------



## dutch1791

I've download and am using the "portable" version of Waterfox 16.0.1. When I try to use a separate "portable" instance of Waterfox, it uses all my info from the original instance - not entirely "portable". Is there some way to use two (or more) instances of "portable" Waterfox without sharing data? I do it with portable Firefox all the time.

I apologize if this has already been addressed in this thread - I didn't look through all 444 pages of it.


----------



## vijayd

One way to do it is:
1) Download "portable firefox" (from portableapps.com) and install/unzip in a folder
2) Replace Firefox folder in App folder with Waterfox and rename the folder as Firefox
3) Rename the waterfox.exe to firefox.exe


----------



## dutch1791

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vijayd*
> 
> One way to do it is:
> 1) Download "portable firefox" (from portableapps.com) and install/unzip in a folder
> 2) Replace Firefox folder in App folder with Waterfox and rename the folder as Firefox
> 3) Rename the waterfox.exe to firefox.exe


Wow, I feel like you should be saying, "DUH!" Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I should have thought of it.


----------



## dutch1791

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dutch1791*
> 
> Wow, I feel like you should be saying, "DUH!" Thanks! That makes a lot of sense. I should have thought of it.


Well I should have tested first. That didn't work. :-(


----------



## killian6pk

Sorry, have not been on in a while. I will get the info for you and let you know what it says. I just had it happen to me a few minutes ago. Before I read this. Might be tomorrow before I get back to this forum.


----------



## Electric Rider

I'm trying to set up StartPage as my default search engine in Waterfox ( Windows 8 retail) I can get the StartPage search engine icon to show up in the search engine box, (I even told it to start using it right away) but when i search it still uses Google. I actually have two of them.. " Startpage HTTPS" and "Startpage (SSL)" and neither of them work. Thank you for your reply in advance.


----------



## vijayd

@dutch1791, what error do you see? I have been using the same setup for more than a year now. It works flawlessly for me.


----------



## dutch1791

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vijayd*
> 
> @dutch1791, what error do you see? I have been using the same setup for more than a year now. It works flawlessly for me.


I don't get an error message, it just uses all the addons from my other instance, as well as cache, history, etc. I need two distinct instances that don't share anything, and that's not what I'm getting.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> takes usually a week or two for a waterfox release after the official release.


I'm really looking forward to it, though fyi the other 64bit Firefox compile that shall not be named there is now available as v18 in a portable and installer version, it might help shorten the time until thje real Waterfox 18 is available.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I'm really looking forward to it, though fyi the other 64bit Firefox compile that shall not be named there is now available as v18 in a portable and installer version, it might help shorten the time until thje real Waterfox 18 is available.


You mean ONE of the other 64bit compiles. The HTGuard one was available for download on Tuesday.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> You mean ONE of the other 64bit compiles. The HTGuard one was available for download on Tuesday.


Didn't even know that, thanks for the information - though HTGuard seems to be compiled with MS but Cyberfox with the Intel compiler just like Waterfox? The Intel-compiled Waterfox is clearly faster than the official Mozilla release, I'd expect Cyberfox to perform about the same, don't know about HTGuard. But all of this of course is just a temporary diversion until the one and only Waterfox is out!


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> but Cyberfox with the Intel compiler just like Waterfox? !


no

it's compiled using VS2012

HTGuard compiled using VS2010


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> it's compiled using VS2012
> HTGuard compiled using VS2010


Thanks, I found it hard to figure that out - as soon as Waterfox 18 is out I'd like to run some web and js benchmarks, if Waterfox is the only one to use the optimized Intel compilers it'll be awesome and I'll stay a loyal user!


----------



## pantomime horse

This is my primary browser. It has one issue, though, that is bugging me. If I have a couple or more tabs open and I click one to activate it I sometimes see that tab closed and opened in a new browser window. I looked through the settings but may have missed something. Is there any way to stop Waterfox from doing this?


----------



## Swag

Does the flash problem still exist? I had to stop using Waterfox due to that sole reason.







It was such a good browser too! Also, anyone got benchmarks on Firefox/Waterfox vs Chrome?


----------



## dutch1791

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vijayd*
> 
> @dutch1791, what error do you see? I have been using the same setup for more than a year now. It works flawlessly for me.


OK. I found my problem. I had the original instance just set up in the Waterfox folder, and set the second instance up the way you said. when I set them all up the way you said, everything is good.

Thanks!


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swag*
> 
> Does the flash problem still exist?


Since WF 16 i have no problems with flash (sure always the latest) and hardware acceleration turned on - no crashes since 16...


----------



## verticalgr

I would like an update on behalf of Mr.Alex about the current state of WF18. I appreciate his work but an update only takes a few seconds. In the past there was a constant communication through this board (and of course we knew if there are any issues with compilation) but currently we are left in dark. Thanks in advance.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> I would like an update on behalf of Mr.Alex about the current state of WF18.


He already announced he'll be releasing wf18, there is no doubt in my mind about it, so please don't put any pressure on him while he's working on it (other posts will be removed anyway). From http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=55
Quote:


> Unfortunately Waterfox 17 won't be released, but Waterfox 18 *will.*


----------



## verticalgr

Thanks. I've seen that, but I prefer an update from Mr. Alex. And of course I am asking in case he needs any help with regard to testing so that the WF18 will be released ASAP.


----------



## Electric Rider

I'd like to bump this from two pages back as i haven't gotten any reply.

I'm trying to set up StartPage as my default search engine in Waterfox ( Windows 8 retail) I can get the StartPage search engine icon to show up in the search engine box, (I even told it to start using it right away) but when i search it still uses Google. I actually have two of them.. " Startpage HTTPS" and "Startpage (SSL)" and neither of them work. Thank you for your reply in advance.


----------



## JRuxGaming

The start page is just Google I believe.


----------



## headcleaner

look here https://startpage.com/eng/aboutstartpage

"On Startpage the privacy of Ixquick is combined with the Web search results from Google. The combination of these two features is what makes Startpage so special. You can continue using the Web results from the world's most popular search engine but now under the privacy protection of Ixquick, the world's most private search engine."


----------



## Electric Rider

This is what i was trying to do. make Startpage the default search .

"Q: Can I also use Startpage through the Firefox or SeaMonkey or Flock Internet Keywords search?
Using the Firefox or SeaMonkey or Flock browser it is possible to perform a web search just by entering your search term into the Location Bar and hitting "enter".
By default these browsers use Google, but you can easily change it to Startpage. Here's how:

*NOTE: Please make sure to follow the below directions exactly, as changing the "about:config" preferences can influence the behavior of your browser negatively.

Type 'about:config' in the browser location bar and hit 'enter'.
Accept the warning message to be careful.
Enter 'keyword.URL' in the filter on top of the page.
Double-click on the 'keyword.URL'- line that shows up.
In the pop-up window replace the Google string with: https://startpage.com/do/search?language=english&cat=web&query=
Click on 'OK'.
Close the window or tab.

Now, you are ready to search. If you type your search term into the Location bar, Firefox or SeaMonkey or Flock will submit a search query to Startpage since your search term is not a valid URL.
Every entry without a clear match to a URL will display the Startpage search results page for the entry and any settings you had saved before will be respected.

If you rather use the settings you generated in a URL you will need to amend https://startpage.com/do/search?language=english&cat=web&query= as follows:
Replace 'language=english' with 'prf=[complete prf-value]' or with 'prfh=[complete prfh-value]' from the generated url, and make sure there is no space before continuing with &cat=web&query= .
"

Found here. https://www.startpage.com/eng/company-faq.html#q13


----------



## kevindd992002

I really don't understand. I have the latest Firefox and the latest Adobe Flash Player but every single time I play a Flash video in this browser, everything just slows down until I close that tab that contains the Flash video. This was happening to me even with the previous versions of WF. I have no problems playing the same video with IE9 32bit.


----------



## JoeF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> This is my primary browser. It has one issue, though, that is bugging me. If I have a couple or more tabs open and I click one to activate it I sometimes see that tab closed and opened in a new browser window. I looked through the settings but may have missed something. Is there any way to stop Waterfox from doing this?


I had that for a while, but it was some obscure setting with a specific keyboard/mouse combination, with Shift or Ctrl accidentally pressed, resulting in the move of the tab to a new window.
Do you have TabMix Plus installed, by chance? That's where I eventually found the issue.


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeF*
> 
> I had that for a while, but it was some obscure setting with a specific keyboard/mouse combination, with Shift or Ctrl accidentally pressed, resulting in the move of the tab to a new window.
> Do you have TabMix Plus installed, by chance? That's where I eventually found the issue.


I appreciate your thoughts on this. I don't have TabMix Plus installed. I don't have any other 'tab' add-ons installed, either. As for Ctrl or Shift being pressed, I am not pressing either when this happens, but even when I do nothing happens out of the ordinary. What is odd, though, is that my browser is set to not switch automatically to a new tab when opened, but sometimes it does. Perhaps I need to uninstall and reinstall from scratch? I like this browser, but the tab to window thing is pretty annoying.


----------



## vijayd

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dutch1791*
> 
> OK. I found my problem. I had the original instance just set up in the Waterfox folder, and set the second instance up the way you said. when I set them all up the way you said, everything is good.
> 
> Thanks!


Glad it worked out.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I really don't understand. I have the latest Firefox and the latest Adobe Flash Player but every single time I play a Flash video in this browser, everything just slows down until I close that tab that contains the Flash video. This was happening to me even with the previous versions of WF. I have no problems playing the same video with IE9 32bit.


Anybody?


----------



## tsigarid

Moved forward to firefox. Although I highly appreciate Mr. Alex's work, being two versions back is too much, with publicly announced vulnerabilities. I will probably come back to waterfox when it will become available, but felt that the risk of waiting with an ancient version and relying on a vague 3 week old post that says "v18 will be delivered", makes me feel very uncomfortable. I do agree with others, that same as we respect Dr. Alex, he should also respect us, and announce his progress, even if there is none. Sorry for my bitterness, but I feel I had waited for too long in the dark. I fear that the compiler issue is not resolved. I see no reason why mozilla will downgrade a part of its code, just to accommodate a buggy (?) compiler, so I'd bet my money on the problem still being around us.


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Anybody?


Try this:

http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/08/22/how-to-fix-flash-video-performance-in-firefox/

I have no problems with flash myself, but since you do you may need to use another browser if you can't fix it using the method I've linked to in this post. Good luck. I hope you can fix this issue.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> Try this:
> 
> http://downloadsquad.switched.com/2009/08/22/how-to-fix-flash-video-performance-in-firefox/
> 
> I have no problems with flash myself, but since you do you may need to use another browser if you can't fix it using the method I've linked to in this post. Good luck. I hope you can fix this issue.


Thanks, I'll try that. But what I don't understand is why other people don't experience the same Flash problems that I'm having?


----------



## kevindd992002

By the way, I'm both experiencing this Flash problem with WF16 and FF18. I have many tabs opened and I'm using a RAMDisk software for the FF/WF cache. I've tried using a different RAMDisk software and the problem still persists.

EDIT: I tried the simple hack and I can't believe that it seems to be working! It's been about a year since I had this problem and finally a solution! The solution makes perfect sense because I have several tabs and the default snapshot interval of FF18 is set to 15secs which is too much. I don't understand why Mozilla can't do something about this.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsigarid*
> 
> I will probably come back to waterfox when it will become available, but felt that the risk of waiting with an ancient version and relying on a vague 3 week old post that says "v18 will be delivered", makes me feel very uncomfortable.


Surely the dev would have posted any information about further potential problems or even delays? Come on people, don't let him down now, keep the faith - and looking at the forum there are mostly positive reactions and comments, so I'm still checking this thread because no way it's showing the pattern of a stalling or even dead project!


----------



## medicom

Hi everyone
As Mr Alex keep us in the dark I start to worry that the project is DEAD. Waterfox was the best think I ever had.


----------



## silverstar23

Hello,

there is the Waterfox already in a new version?
Firefox is already existing in 18.0.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsigarid*
> 
> Moved forward to firefox. Although I highly appreciate Mr. Alex's work, being two versions back is too much, with publicly announced vulnerabilities. I will probably come back to waterfox when it will become available, but felt that the risk of waiting with an ancient version and relying on a vague 3 week old post that says "v18 will be delivered", makes me feel very uncomfortable. I do agree with others, that same as we respect Dr. Alex, he should also respect us, and announce his progress, even if there is none. Sorry for my bitterness, but I feel I had waited for too long in the dark. I fear that the compiler issue is not resolved. I see no reason why mozilla will downgrade a part of its code, just to accommodate a buggy (?) compiler, so I'd bet my money on the problem still being around us.


+1. I give a few days, maybe until the end of week and I will move to another x64 build. No feedback, no news, nothing. As I said, it only takes a minute to post an update. I really like Waterfox, but life goes on.


----------



## dqwf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> +1. I give a few days, maybe until the end of week and I will move to another x64 build. No feedback, no news, nothing. As I said, it only takes a minute to post an update. I really like Waterfox, but life goes on.


What other options do we have? Have used WF for a while and have encourage others to do as well but now it feels like the project is not a priority.
In today's world having a project like this in your CV is more important than a degree. If it is a money thing, I was ok with AVG in the installer (which was optional to install) but a bunch of whiners who couldnt read made Mr Alex remove it. This would have at least give him more incentive to carry on with the project. Maybe now AVG doesnt look as bad?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Have used WF for a while and have encourage others to do as well but now it feels like the project is not a priority.


The question is if the wf18 announcement is still valid since MrAlex wrote "the holiday season is here allowing me time to work on WF18" - but now the holidays have probably gone by. But if the project would be stalled and the compiler bug blocking wf17 would be still unsolved, I'm sure he would have told us to just have a little more patience, maybe it would be a good idea to skip wf18 and go straight to wf19?


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> What other options do we have?


Pale Moon. It even has its own forum. And it doesn't include the useless social nonsense Firefox is being stuffed with every other release.


----------



## ChaosBlades

I just tried to use Firefox 18 instead of WF16 and it crashed after a few minutes every time I used it. Not to mention I can tell it is slower even starting up. Really hope we get an update or something soon. I would hate for this project to die.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Pale Moon. It even has its own forum.


Could you please write about the differences between Cyberfox (my current browser) and Pale Moon? Other than they are certainly inferior to Waterfox that is, this is a Waterfox thread after all :-o

Edit: Does the Pale Moon version number 15.3.2 mean it's based on an older Mozilla version, unlike Cyberfox which is at the latest stable v18?


----------



## dnyanesh

At the time of writing this post, MrAlex was online on this forum. The only thing I expect is a small update each week about the status.


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> By the way, I'm both experiencing this Flash problem with WF16 and FF18. I have many tabs opened and I'm using a RAMDisk software for the FF/WF cache. I've tried using a different RAMDisk software and the problem still persists.
> 
> EDIT: I tried the simple hack and I can't believe that it seems to be working! It's been about a year since I had this problem and finally a solution! The solution makes perfect sense because I have several tabs and the default snapshot interval of FF18 is set to 15secs which is too much. I don't understand why Mozilla can't do something about this.


Happy to hear my suggestion worked.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> Happy to hear my suggestion worked.


And thank you very much mate! No one could help me for one year but you. All was suggested including updating/downgrading to a lower Flash version, turning off Hardware Acceleration both in Flash and in my video card settings, updating/downgrading video card drivers, reinstalling FF/WF cleanly by removing profile, resetting to default, and tweaking FF/WF about:config parameters but your suggestion alone did the trick


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> At the time of writing this post, MrAlex was online on this forum. The only thing I expect is a small update each week about the status.


The thing about expectations is...

Stop having them an you'll never be disappointed.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *djkilla*
> 
> *Waterfox speed tweaks*:
> Do you want Waterfox to scream with speed! Here's my favorite about:config settings to tweak Waterfox!
> 
> *NOTE*:
> The settings within Firefox by default is to be used with ALL types of OS's and CPU's. My settings are best with newer hardware (last few years) and a speedy broadband connection. If you have older hardware or slower internet connection, then you can experience lag because your hardware and browser won't be able to handle the amount of data being received. So the browser will bottleneck the data. It's best to use the default settings if using a slower internet or older hardware (mainly CPU).
> 
> *Reduce the amount of RAM Waterfox uses for its cache feature*
> 1. Type "about:config" (no quotes) in the adress bar in the browser.
> 2. Find "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers"
> 3. Set it's value to "-1"
> 
> browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers [Integer] - This option determines how many pages to store in memory to speed up the back and forward buttons in Firefox. The default of -1 automatically determines the amount based on your system RAM, and is generally recommended. At 512MB of RAM, 5 pages are held in memory, while 1GB or more of RAM holds 8 pages. You can set this value to 0 to hold no pages in RAM (only recommended for very low RAM or troubleshooting purposes), or increase the value if you often use the back and forward functions for more than 8 pages.
> 
> additional info: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers
> 
> *Increase the Speed at Which Waterfox loads pages*
> 1. Type "about:config" into the address bar and hit Enter.
> (Normally the browser will make one request to a web page at a time. When you enable pipelining it will make several at once, which really speeds up page loading.)
> 
> 2. Alter the entries as follows:
> Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"
> Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"
> Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to "8". (This means it will make 8 requests at once.)
> Set "network.http.max-connections" to "256"
> Set "network.http.max-connections-per-server" to "24"
> Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" to "8"
> Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" to "8"
> Set "network.http.pipelining.firstrequest" to "true" (new boolean value) (This was an earlier setting but may no longer be needed in recent versions of Firefox but no harm is done by including it)
> 
> Set "network.http.spdy.enabled" to "true" (This is a new setting in Firefox 11 and will be on (true) by default starting with Firefox 13 or 14. It speeds up the loading of web sites if they code their web site to use this feature. It was originally created by Google and is quickly being adopted by all web browsers and the internet. Google is working to make this standardized with all browsers and the internet. The default is false but I have it set to true. Not all web sites include this but a handful like Google, Twitter, Facebook and a few others include this.)
> 
> 3. Lastly, right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer. Name it "nglayout.initialpaint.delay" and set its value to "25". ((Default is 250 but my setting of 25 is perfect for a high speed broadband connection. Otherwise 125-200 is fine)
> 
> This value is the amount of time the browser waits before it acts on information it receives. If you're using a broadband connection you'll load pages faster now.
> Optionally (for even faster web browsing) here are some more options for your about:config (you might have to create some of these entries by Right Click -> New- > Interger or Boolean
> 
> "network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false"
> "content.notify.backoffcount": set "5"
> "plugin.expose_full_path": set "true".
> "ui.submenuDelay": set "0
> 
> *Security Tweaks*
> 1) Set "network.prefetch-next" to "false" (If set to 'True' then it will prefetch files like Chrome does so when you click a link, the page opens faster. I have this set to 'False' so files won't be prefetched until you choose to click the link and open the page (Also to prevent malware, adware, etc. that could also be prefetched). The default is 'True' to speed up web browsing. User can decide what's best for them.)
> 
> *Spell Checking*
> 1) Set "layout.spellcheckDefault" to "2" (Will determine which text will be checked using the spell checker. The default is 1, which means only some areas will be examined. If you'd like Firefox to perform spell check on all text, change the value to 2)
> 
> *Waterfox about:config*
> For those wanting to understand exactly what you're tweaking and additional info, read the section 'Preference Format' on page 10-11 at this location:
> 
> http://www.tweakguides.com/Firefox_1.html
> 
> Ever wonder what are those Waterfox settings in about:config and what they do? In addition to the last link, there's also an add-on for Waterfox!
> 
> http://lifehacker.com/5326224/prefse...onfig-settings
> 
> *Is Waterfox crashing? A lot of the time it's due to the Adobe Flash plug-in.*
> 
> Check to see if you have the latest version Adobe Flash 11.2.202.233: http://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/
> 
> Try reinstalling Adobe Flash by doing the following:
> 
> 1) Download and run the 'Official Adobe Flash Uninstaller'
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/uninstall_flash_player_64bit.exe
> 
> 2) (Optional) Open Windows Explorer and delete the following folders:
> C:\Windows\System32\Macromed
> C:\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed
> 
> **If you can't find/locate the folders, then skip this step.
> 
> 3) Reinstall the latest Adobe Flash Player 64bit:
> For Internet Explorer 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_64bit.exe
> 
> For Waterfox and other browsers 64bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_plugin_64bit.exe
> 
> **You can install both 64bit. That's what I do. I don't use 32bit browsers but if you do, continue installing the 32bit versions.
> 
> If you want to also install Flash 32bit:
> For Internet Explorer 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_11_active_x_32bit.exe
> 
> For Firefox and other browsers 32bit - http://fpdownload.macromedia.com/get/flashplayer/current/licensing/win/install_flash_player_10_plugin.exe
> 
> 4) You're done! Using these steps will properly remove Adobe Flash and reinstall a fresh copy. Hopefully this will fix any issues you have with flash content.
> 
> *Clearing Waterfox favicons (bookmark icons)*
> Ever open up your list of bookmarks and wish you could reset/clear/delete those icons (favicons) beside the bookmarks and start over? Well now you can:
> 
> Install 'Delete Bookmark Icons' addon http://www.sephiroth-j.de/1/mozilla/index_en.php
> 
> None of your bookmarks will be touched; they will all still be there. Each time you visit one of your bookmarks, an icon (favicon) will be added next to the bookmark.
> 
> With Delete Bookmark Icons you are able to delete the icon of just one or all of your bookmarks. Right click on the bookmark with the icon to be deleted and select Delete Site Icon(s). To delete the icons of all of your bookmarks, select Bookmarks at the top of the Firefox browser and select Organize Bookmarks. Select the folder/location of your bookmarks and in the right side window, right click and choose Delete All Site Icons from the pop-up menu.
> 
> *Looking for a FAST DNS?* (Advance users)
> There's lots of free public DNS severs such as Google DNS, Open DNS, Ultra DNS and many more. Picking the right DNS can speed up your connection by more than 50%. Keep in mind that DNS servers DO NOT filter internet content unless you choose too with various levels of filtering on the DNS servers website.
> 
> How do you know what's the fastest DNS server to use? There's two programs (probably more) that can determine the best DNS server for you. I prefer the following which always gives accurate detection:
> 
> DNS Benchmark
> http://www.grc.com/dns/benchmark.htm
> 
> Another program which has made the scene, is the following program. Unlike the DNS Benchmark program, this one gives the best recommendations on the first run. I find it to be a little less accurate but some people prefer this one:
> 
> Namebench
> http://code.google.com/p/namebench/
> 
> Namebench instructions:
> http://code.google.com/p/namebench/wiki/UsingNameBench
> 
> As a tech tip, I always recommend for best results you enter/run the cmd prompt. Once at the cmd prompt, type and run the following before running the above programs --> ipconfig /flushdns


The default value of *network.http.pipelining.maxrequests* is *32*. Why is it recommended to set it to 8? I thought a higher number is better? Isn't this counter-productive?

The default value of *network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy* is *32*. Why is it recommended to set it to 8? I thought a higher number is better? Isn't this counter-productive?

The default value of *network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server* is *6*. Is it recommended to set it to 8?

There is no *network.http.max-connections-per-server* in FF18, do I still need to add a new Integer value for this?

Lastly, do I still need to add a new Boolean value for *network.http.pipelining.firstrequest* in FF18? Or is it already integrated by default?


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> And thank you very much mate! No one could help me for one year but you. All was suggested including updating/downgrading to a lower Flash version, turning off Hardware Acceleration both in Flash and in my video card settings, updating/downgrading video card drivers, reinstalling FF/WF cleanly by removing profile, resetting to default, and tweaking FF/WF about:config parameters but your suggestion alone did the trick


The trouble with turning off features or services that are supposed to provide you with the experience you have come to expect when surfing the web is that is downgrading you unnecessarily. If these services and features work for most others then they should work for you.

I'm new here, but I do like to solve problems. Especially ones like these.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> The trouble with turning off features or services that are supposed to provide you with the experience you have come to expect when surfing the web is that is downgrading you unnecessarily. If these services and features work for most others then they should work for you.
> 
> I'm new here, but I do like to solve problems. Especially ones like these.


Yeah. My problem is actually solved by this tweak but I still have problems where Flash video stutter in FF and WF. This tweek was supposed to address that also but it didn't. Any more ideas?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> At the time of writing this post, MrAlex was online on this forum. The only thing I expect is a small update each week about the status.
> 
> 
> 
> The thing about expectations is... stop having them an you'll never be disappointed.
Click to expand...

Correct, and probably my next satisfying approach to Waterfox if nothing keeps happening - I still absolutely trust the wf18 announcement and MrAlex on this until hearing otherwise, but some comforting words to the loyal users would be warmly appreciated, even if the next wf version will be 19 or 20.


----------



## JoeF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> I appreciate your thoughts on this. I don't have TabMix Plus installed. I don't have any other 'tab' add-ons installed, either. As for Ctrl or Shift being pressed, I am not pressing either when this happens, but even when I do nothing happens out of the ordinary. What is odd, though, is that my browser is set to not switch automatically to a new tab when opened, but sometimes it does. Perhaps I need to uninstall and reinstall from scratch? I like this browser, but the tab to window thing is pretty annoying.


BTW, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with Waterfox.
I had the same problem again yesterday with Firefox 18 on Linux. Very hard to reproduce. I clicked on a tab, the browser didn't switch to the tab, then I clicked again, and all of a sudden, the tab opened in a new window. I tried to repeat it, but couldn't.


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yeah. My problem is actually solved by this tweak but I still have problems where Flash video stutter in FF and WF. This tweek was supposed to address that also but it didn't. Any more ideas?


You may have to tweak the same setting again. Change it again and again until you no longer notice any flash video stuttering. In this case, you're setting a longer interval for the session restore setting in the browser.

1. type *about:config* in your address bar

2. Adjust *browser.sessionstore.interval* to a higher number.

Hope that helps.

BTW, mine is set at 15000


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeF*
> 
> BTW, this doesn't seem to have anything to do with Waterfox.
> I had the same problem again yesterday with Firefox 18 on Linux. Very hard to reproduce. I clicked on a tab, the browser didn't switch to the tab, then I clicked again, and all of a sudden, the tab opened in a new window. I tried to repeat it, but couldn't.


Yes, I can't seem to re-create it either. Though it does happen every day. I'm still at a loss as to why it happens...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> You may have to tweak the same setting again. Change it again and again until you no longer notice any flash video stuttering. In this case, you're setting a longer interval for the session restore setting in the browser.
> 
> 1. type *about:config* in your address bar
> 
> 2. Adjust *browser.sessionstore.interval* to a higher number.
> 
> Hope that helps.
> 
> BTW, mine is set at 15000


I'll try this. Mine is set to 120000 and I think 2 minutes is more than enough not to produce any stutter in any Flash video.

Yours is set at 15000 which is the default of FF, right?


----------



## pantomime horse

Wow. That's a high setting. Perhaps you should try turning it off and see if that helps. If not, turn it back on and try another value. 2 minutes should be more than enough time...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> Wow. That's a high setting. Perhaps you should try turning it off and see if that helps. If not, turn it back on and try another value. 2 minutes should be more than enough time...


Well, that's the one recommended in the link you've sent me, two minutes.

I cannot turn off sessionrestore becuase I use it very much so because of my tabs.


----------



## pantomime horse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Well, that's the one recommended in the link you've sent me, two minutes.
> 
> I cannot turn off sessionrestore becuase I use it very much so because of my tabs.


It's just a way to test this. If you turn it off and you can watch the videos without stuttering then you know it's just the sessionrestore setting and not a combination of that and something else.

Have you tried reducing the size of the browser window/closing other open tabs? Just as a troubleshooting measure, not for a permanent solution mind you.


----------



## pantomime horse

Additionally, you might want to try upping the video quality of the video you are watching. See if that helps.


----------



## dnyanesh

Try this for stuttering flash video:

Right-Click on the volume icon in the sys tray.
Click on Playback devices
Select the device which you are currently using (default)
Click the properties button
Go to the Enhancements tab
Check "Disable all Enhancements"
Ok and Apply.

This trick worked for me.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Correct, and probably my next satisfying approach to Waterfox if nothing keeps happening - I still absolutely trust the wf18 announcement and MrAlex on this until hearing otherwise, but some comforting words to the loyal users would be warmly appreciated, even if the next wf version will be 19 or 20.


If the next version 19 or 20, there won't be any loyal users left by then. There are alternatives and people are already heading towards these alternatives.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> It's just a way to test this. If you turn it off and you can watch the videos without stuttering then you know it's just the sessionrestore setting and not a combination of that and something else.
> 
> Have you tried reducing the size of the browser window/closing other open tabs? Just as a troubleshooting measure, not for a permanent solution mind you.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantomime horse*
> 
> Additionally, you might want to try upping the video quality of the video you are watching. See if that helps.


Hmm, I'll try these. But if I turn off sessionrestore then I lose all my tabs! That I can't do









What do you mean "reducing the size of the browser window/closing other open tabs"?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Try this for stuttering flash video:
> 
> Right-Click on the volume icon in the sys tray.
> Click on Playback devices
> Select the device which you are currently using (default)
> Click the properties button
> Go to the Enhancements tab
> Check "Disable all Enhancements"
> Ok and Apply.
> 
> This trick worked for me.


I'll try that. Thanks!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Try this for stuttering flash video:
> 
> Right-Click on the volume icon in the sys tray.
> Click on Playback devices
> Select the device which you are currently using (default)
> Click the properties button
> Go to the Enhancements tab
> Check "Disable all Enhancements"
> Ok and Apply.
> 
> This trick worked for me.


I've already tried it mate, it doesn't work. Any more ideas?


----------



## MrGlasspoole

One word about all this tweaking stuff.
I use Firefox since years and all this stuff exist since years.
I don't know what Internet speed others have but fast sites load within a second here.
How fast can it be? Seeing a site before i click a link?
Changing stuff like "pipelining" or "max-connections-per-server" can make it slower.
Not all servers like this. In the past there where allot of sites that don't load completely if you set it.
Most of this settings are already higher on default then they where in the past cause Internet connections getting faster and pc have more power.
If you set "max-connections-per-server" high and your connection is slow or your PC is slow then you make sites loading slower. Some sites use content delivery networks (CDN). That means that for example pictures and style sheets come over another domain. If "max-connections-per-server" is set to 10 and the website uses a CDN then your browser/PC has to handle 20 requests. If you set it to 25 you have 50 requests.
Also some servers getting slower if they get to many requests overall or from one IP.
Imagine 2500 visitors double there requests - thats like 5000 visitors.

And it makes no sense at all to lower the RAM usage if you have allot of RAM. The RAM usage is what makes a program fast. And it really makes no sense to use a 64bit browser and doing this.
The main reason for 64bit is that you can use more RAM.

Browser cache in RAM-Disk is something i tested the first time before 8 years and i also tested it again a couple of times. There is no speed improvement on a fast modern PC.
Fast websites lot in 1-2 seconds on a fast connection with a normal HDD so there is no bottleneck.
Your HDD is faster then your Internet connection.
I can download a file with full speed on my 100.000 Internet connection to an old HDD.

Most of this stuff does nothing or makes things worse.
It's like all this tunning software and Windows registry hacks.
They do nothing or make things slower.
Over the last 15 years I tested them all more than one time and XP works best with the default registry. I started stopping waisting my time with stuff like this when Vista was released.

If stuff does not work then make a fresh installation and work with it for some days and see if your problems are gone.

And i use TabMixPlus, Session Manager and 30 other add-ons and have no problems.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> One word about all this tweaking stuff.
> I use Firefox since years and all this stuff exist since years.
> I don't know what Internet speed others have but fast sites load within a second here.
> How fast can it be? Seeing a site before i click a link?
> Changing stuff like "pipelining" or "max-connections-per-server" can make it slower.
> Not all servers like this. In the past there where allot of sites that don't load completely if you set it.
> Most of this settings are already higher on default then they where in the past cause Internet connections getting faster and pc have more power.
> If you set "max-connections-per-server" high and your connection is slow or your PC is slow then you make sites loading slower. Some sites use content delivery networks (CDN). That means that for example pictures and style sheets come over another domain. If "max-connections-per-server" is set to 10 and the website uses a CDN then your browser/PC has to handle 20 requests. If you set it to 25 you have 50 requests.
> Also some servers getting slower if they get to many requests overall or from one IP.
> Imagine 2500 visitors double there requests - thats like 5000 visitors.
> 
> And it makes no sense at all to lower the RAM usage if you have allot of RAM. The RAM usage is what makes a program fast. And it really makes no sense to use a 64bit browser and doing this.
> The main reason for 64bit is that you can use more RAM.
> 
> Browser cache in RAM-Disk is something i tested the first time before 8 years and i also tested it again a couple of times. There is no speed improvement on a fast modern PC.
> Fast websites lot in 1-2 seconds on a fast connection with a normal HDD so there is no bottleneck.
> Your HDD is faster then your Internet connection.
> I can download a file with full speed on my 100.000 Internet connection to an old HDD.
> 
> Most of this stuff does nothing or makes things worse.
> It's like all this tunning software and Windows registry hacks.
> They do nothing or make things slower.
> Over the last 15 years I tested them all more than one time and XP works best with the default registry. I started stopping waisting my time with stuff like this when Vista was released.
> 
> If stuff does not work then make a fresh installation and work with it for some days and see if your problems are gone.
> 
> And i use TabMixPlus, Session Manager and 30 other add-ons and have no problems.


+1 too all of this I use faster fox with optimal settings and its just fine







no issues


----------



## MrAlex

http://www.mediafire.com/?swb0ah35x5esg5r

Who wants a test run?  Ignore the icon problems, Mozilla added some new ones.

As for the delay, turns out there was another Intel compiler bug, so that's now 2 that have been solved thanks to Waterfox


----------



## JRuxGaming

I am getting an "MSVCR100.dll is missing" error, but it is there.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> I am getting an "MSVCR100.dll is missing" error, but it is there.


It's msvcr110.dll that you need. All the redist's are available here:

http://registrationcenter.intel.com/irc_nas/2858/w_ccompxe_redist_msi_2013.1.119.zip

http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30679


----------



## JRuxGaming

Ah misread the file name. Alright downloading now.

EDIT: Seems to be working just fine for me.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

working no problem for me right now mr alex ty


----------



## fullmoon

He's alive!


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> He's alive!


You made my day with that comment!


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?swb0ah35x5esg5r
> 
> Who wants a test run?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the icon problems, Mozilla added some new ones.
> 
> As for the delay, turns out there was another Intel compiler bug, so that's now 2 that have been solved thanks to Waterfox


You just now made my month Mr.Alex.. I had to get the x64 redistributable, and also get
libmmd.dll
svml_dispmd.dll
libiomp5md.dll
from Waterfox v16 tho, after that all is working perfectly..


----------



## ChaosBlades

Test build said I was missing...

libiomp5md.dll
libmmd.dll
svml_dispmd.dll

Fixed it by taking them from WF 16 Portable build folder.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> One word about all this tweaking stuff.
> I use Firefox since years and all this stuff exist since years.
> I don't know what Internet speed others have but fast sites load within a second here.
> How fast can it be? Seeing a site before i click a link?
> Changing stuff like "pipelining" or "max-connections-per-server" can make it slower.
> Not all servers like this. In the past there where allot of sites that don't load completely if you set it.
> Most of this settings are already higher on default then they where in the past cause Internet connections getting faster and pc have more power.
> If you set "max-connections-per-server" high and your connection is slow or your PC is slow then you make sites loading slower. Some sites use content delivery networks (CDN). That means that for example pictures and style sheets come over another domain. If "max-connections-per-server" is set to 10 and the website uses a CDN then your browser/PC has to handle 20 requests. If you set it to 25 you have 50 requests.
> Also some servers getting slower if they get to many requests overall or from one IP.
> Imagine 2500 visitors double there requests - thats like 5000 visitors.
> 
> And it makes no sense at all to lower the RAM usage if you have allot of RAM. The RAM usage is what makes a program fast. And it really makes no sense to use a 64bit browser and doing this.
> The main reason for 64bit is that you can use more RAM.
> 
> Browser cache in RAM-Disk is something i tested the first time before 8 years and i also tested it again a couple of times. There is no speed improvement on a fast modern PC.
> Fast websites lot in 1-2 seconds on a fast connection with a normal HDD so there is no bottleneck.
> Your HDD is faster then your Internet connection.
> I can download a file with full speed on my 100.000 Internet connection to an old HDD.
> 
> Most of this stuff does nothing or makes things worse.
> It's like all this tunning software and Windows registry hacks.
> They do nothing or make things slower.
> Over the last 15 years I tested them all more than one time and XP works best with the default registry. I started stopping waisting my time with stuff like this when Vista was released.
> 
> If stuff does not work then make a fresh installation and work with it for some days and see if your problems are gone.
> 
> And i use TabMixPlus, Session Manager and 30 other add-ons and have no problems.


But then again I have a "modern" PC that I can consider fast and a fast Internet connection also. So I think these tweaks are working.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> But then again I have a "modern" PC that I can consider fast and a fast Internet connection also.


Then why you need tweaks? How fast can it be? Showing a site before you click a link?
And there are still unknown factors.
Some servers don't like some settings.

But web-sockest are coming. No more HTTP-Requests, no more ajax...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> But then again I have a "modern" PC that I can consider fast and a fast Internet connection also./quote]
> Then why you need tweaks? How fast can it be? Showing a site before you click a link?
> And there are still unknown factors.
> Some servers don't like some settings.
> 
> But web-sockest are coming. No more HTTP-Requests, no more ajax...
> 
> 
> 
> For the US, probably, yes. I live in a third world country.
Click to expand...


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> He's alive!


omg omg omg


----------



## NoiseTemper

Currently using test build, so far so good


----------



## JRuxGaming

I restarted my computer to install the new drivers from AMD and ran into a sort of problem. Whenever I launch Waterfox, it opens as a small white windows with only the exit, minimize, and maximize buttons.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> Yesterday, there was a post here saying clearly that all these DLL missing exist. The post was NOT offending to anyone, didn't use any false language and was explaining a few things from a technical perspective.
> 
> I am surprised that this post disappeared. It was not mine, but as a software developer myself, I found interesting what this forum member was writing. I would like to know, under what forum rule that post was deleted because it was not trolling, it was not offending. Just explaining a few things about WF18 compilation.
> 
> I would like a word from moderators about their action and a word from Mr. Alex regarding the content of this post, if it is real or not. The forums are here for communicating and not deleting posts that there's nothing wrong with. I am administrator in 2 forums and I've never seen anything like that, never. It's just a computer program people. If democracy and freedom of speech is to be gone for a computer program, then please, let us know.


^This.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> I restarted my computer to install the new drivers from AMD and ran into a sort of problem. Whenever I launch Waterfox, it opens as a small white windows with only the exit, minimize, and maximize buttons.


It has to do with language something or other. Sorry I don't remember it happened the last 2 versions that were released. You should be able to find more information by searching "language" on this thread.

Unlike the last 2 times I do not have this problem. But I also have not restarted yet.


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://www.mediafire.com/?swb0ah35x5esg5r
> Who wants a test run?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ignore the icon problems, Mozilla added some new ones.


Works like a charm. THANK YOU!


----------



## schwit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> I restarted my computer to install the new drivers from AMD and ran into a sort of problem. Whenever I launch Waterfox, it opens as a small white windows with only the exit, minimize, and maximize buttons.


See if deleting this file helps

AppData\local\Mozilla\Firefox\startupCache\startupCache.8.little

v16 gave me the same problem if this file preexisted. I am not seeing the issue in v18.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schwit*
> 
> See if deleting this file helps
> 
> AppData\local\Mozilla\Firefox\startupCache\startupCache.8.little
> 
> v16 gave me the same problem if this file preexisted. I am not seeing the issue in v18.


That worked, but it was located at "C:\Users\User\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\***.default\startupCache," instead of where you located.


----------



## BT Shogun

Work fine for me ... after "msvcr110.dll" update !...


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> Yesterday, there was a post here saying clearly that all these DLL missing exist. The post was NOT offending to anyone, didn't use any false language and was explaining a few things from a technical perspective.
> 
> I am surprised that this post disappeared. It was not mine, but as a software developer myself, I found interesting what this forum member was writing. I would like to know, under what forum rule that post was deleted because it was not trolling, it was not offending. Just explaining a few things about WF18 compilation.
> 
> I would like a word from moderators about their action and a word from Mr. Alex regarding the content of this post, if it is real or not. The forums are here for communicating and not deleting posts that there's nothing wrong with. I am administrator in 2 forums and I've never seen anything like that, never. It's just a computer program people. If democracy and freedom of speech is to be gone for a computer program, then please, let us know.


Hi verticalgr

The post your referring to was made by me and I came back last nite to check to see if there were any replies to my questions to find the post removed. I was quite busy last nite with some work and did not have time to get back to it in fact am just on my way out to work this morning as well.

I was going to pm an administrator to find out why the post I made got removed just for pointing out a few things in the way the new browsers of the firefox x64 class for version 18 were being made.

All I did was note that HTguard said it was version 18 but upon inspection after install of the browser in the platform.ini which indicates what build of firefox the x64 version is based on was in fact 17.02 not 18 as you see in the platform.ini of Waterfox and Cyberfox. Also in knowing that I checked the Gecko version in peacekeeper for that browser it indicated version 17 as well in the about:config gecko:mstone showing version 17 I thought people should be aware as that is not really version 18 of firefox but built on version 17.

For waterfox it was just a case of having said that the compiler bugs for intel c++ were sloved but the fact was that the build was complied as a stock x64 build of version 18 without the use of the intel C++ compiler. That was the reason people were getting the dll errors when trying to run. If the C++ compiler was used then those dlls would have been linked and in your systems registry by the compiler as they cannot just be added to the appdir folder and work. So the runtimes would then need to be installed on the persons system instead when the program tried to reference them as they don't exist.

All I was saying was that so far Cyberfox was the only one to have been built off firefox version 18 using the c++ compiler having scanned over that build the developer had to do many work arounds to get it to compile. I had the same issues when doing firefox 18 as I compile personal x64 browsers myself of firefox for my personal use and like to check out the methods of others as I am always looking to improve things.

So I was going to ask an administrator why my post was removed I also administer a few sites and I was not given any reason of what it was I did where my post had to be removed. It was just all technical information about the browsers. I am not trying to start any wars or cause problems but I do believe it is right for people to know these things.

I do apologize for this post being a bit more hasty and not as detailed as the other but I do need to get off to work I am already a bit late.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *schwit*
> 
> See if deleting this file helps
> 
> AppData\local\Mozilla\Firefox\startupCache\startupCache.8.little
> 
> v16 gave me the same problem if this file preexisted. I am not seeing the issue in v18.


This problem just happened to me as well after putting the WF18 folder in Program Files. Fixed it by going to Properties and changing security access for everything to full control. Seems there is multiple causes for it.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> As for the delay, turns out there was another Intel compiler bug, so that's now 2 that have been solved thanks to Waterfox


Great news, so it was worth checking this thread again and again after all - thanks for your work, solving bugs just takes a lot of time. It's just that a tiny bit of more communication would have been appreciated during the last month to let people know the delay isn't indefinite.

Your test build shows no problems on my box, this post was done with it


----------



## ChaosBlades

I am still getting that start up bug...

Deleting startupCache.8.little does not work.
Permissions are not the problem either.

I can start it a few times then it breaks. If I change even one letter in the folder name or change the directory location it works a few more times before I have to change it again.


----------



## PatrickCrowely

Will take a look into this... As I see I can add my Firefox profile


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Testbuild works here and no problems so far.


----------



## MrAlex

OK anyone with the startup bug, can you see if it still happens:

http://www.mediafire.com/?avgd6ca9zjgx5hr


----------



## LoliDuck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> OK anyone with the startup bug, can you see if it still happens:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?avgd6ca9zjgx5hr


Still had to copy the DLL's, but other then that, works perfect.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> Hi verticalgr
> 
> The post your referring to was made by me and I came back last nite to check to see if there were any replies to my questions to find the post removed. I was quite busy last nite with some work and did not have time to get back to it in fact am just on my way out to work this morning as well.
> 
> I was going to pm an administrator to find out why the post I made got removed just for pointing out a few things in the way the new browsers of the firefox x64 class for version 18 were being made.
> 
> All I did was note that HTguard said it was version 18 but upon inspection after install of the browser in the platform.ini which indicates what build of firefox the x64 version is based on was in fact 17.02 not 18 as you see in the platform.ini of Waterfox and Cyberfox. Also in knowing that I checked the Gecko version in peacekeeper for that browser it indicated version 17 as well in the about:config gecko:mstone showing version 17 I thought people should be aware as that is not really version 18 of firefox but built on version 17.
> 
> For waterfox it was just a case of having said that the compiler bugs for intel c++ were sloved but the fact was that the build was complied as a stock x64 build of version 18 without the use of the intel C++ compiler. That was the reason people were getting the dll errors when trying to run. If the C++ compiler was used then those dlls would have been linked and in your systems registry by the compiler as they cannot just be added to the appdir folder and work. So the runtimes would then need to be installed on the persons system instead when the program tried to reference them as they don't exist.
> 
> All I was saying was that so far Cyberfox was the only one to have been built off firefox version 18 using the c++ compiler having scanned over that build the developer had to do many work arounds to get it to compile. I had the same issues when doing firefox 18 as I compile personal x64 browsers myself of firefox for my personal use and like to check out the methods of others as I am always looking to improve things.
> 
> So I was going to ask an administrator why my post was removed I also administer a few sites and I was not given any reason of what it was I did where my post had to be removed. It was just all technical information about the browsers. I am not trying to start any wars or cause problems but I do believe it is right for people to know these things.
> 
> I do apologize for this post being a bit more hasty and not as detailed as the other but I do need to get off to work I am already a bit late.


You don't have to apologize for anything ThunderStruck-1. As I said, I am a software developer myself, I already compiled firefox but didn't use intel C++ (I use MS). So, I always find interesting such posts because they provide some interesting info. They can even help others who try to compile the source code.

Anyway, I was disappointed that your post disappeared but anyway, thanks for letting us know and sharing some things.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> I am still getting that start up bug...
> 
> Deleting startupCache.8.little does not work.
> Permissions are not the problem either.
> 
> I can start it a few times then it breaks. If I change even one letter in the folder name or change the directory location it works a few more times before I have to change it again.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> I restarted my computer to install the new drivers from AMD and ran into a sort of problem. Whenever I launch Waterfox, it opens as a small white windows with only the exit, minimize, and maximize buttons.


Ok guys the build is ready...just need to make sure the bug is gone! Please let me know, thanks.

Edit: also the jumplists have now been fixed:


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 18.0.1 was just released.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Firefox 18.0.1 was just released.


Link please? The site hasn't been updated yet.

EDIT: I read it as Waterfox.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ok guys the build is ready...just need to make sure the bug is gone! Please let me know, thanks.
> Edit: also the jumplists have now been fixed:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


I exited from Waterfox and copied the files you uploaded over, and I still have the issue. I am thinking it is a registry problem at the moment, as I am having CLSID errors galore.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Firefox 18.0.1 was just released.


HA. Ha. ha... NOT!









Testing build 2 now.

Edit: No good. It started fine 3 times then broke.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> HA. Ha. ha... NOT!


I said Firefox, not Waterfox.









Meaning there's a Firefox update out that may cause further delay of the new Waterfox release.

EDIT: The 18.0.1 changes:

Code:



Code:


FIXED 18.0.1: Problems involving HTTP Proxy Transactions (Associated bugs)
FIXED 18.0.1: Unity player crashes on Mac OS X (bug 828954)
FIXED 18.0.1: Disabled HIDPI support on external monitors to avoid rendering glitches (bug 814434)


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I said Firefox, not Waterfox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning there's a Firefox update out that may cause further delay of the new Waterfox release.
> 
> EDIT: The 18.0.1 changes:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> FIXED 18.0.1: Problems involving HTTP Proxy Transactions (Associated bugs)
> FIXED 18.0.1: Unity player crashes on Mac OS X (bug 828954)
> FIXED 18.0.1: Disabled HIDPI support on external monitors to avoid rendering glitches (bug 814434)


Lord is playing games with us!


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> I said Firefox, not Waterfox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meaning there's a Firefox update out that may cause further delay of the new Waterfox release.
> 
> EDIT: The 18.0.1 changes:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> FIXED 18.0.1: Problems involving HTTP Proxy Transactions (Associated bugs)
> FIXED 18.0.1: Unity player crashes on Mac OS X (bug 828954)
> FIXED 18.0.1: Disabled HIDPI support on external monitors to avoid rendering glitches (bug 814434)


I thought you were joking...


----------



## grocal

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> OK anyone with the startup bug, can you see if it still happens:
> http://www.mediafire.com/?avgd6ca9zjgx5hr


Nope, it doesn't work for me. First startup works fine. Any subsequent startups - fail. Deleting startupcache.8.little solves the problem but it's not a nice solution...


----------



## NoiseTemper

Lord Venom is correct.

Y'all should check the Mozilla Wiki if you wanna know whats going on, especially the 'Weekly Development Status Meetings'. There's one every week, if you have a look at this weeks one it states that 18.0.1 is going to build and what it fixes, some things on these pages you mightn't understand but it should still give you a bit of an idea of whats going on.


----------



## JayBart

Working fine for me, I copied over the files to my existing installation (like I did from the 16 portable from 15) overwriting anything it brought up and for the last hour no problems.Restarted maybe 8 times so far without a hitch.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Just tested it. I get 2 launches then it breaks every time.


----------



## kronckew

confirmed
i'm getting the startup bug now on the 2nd test version.
deleting startupCache.8.little allows running it 2 times, then we get it again.
earlier 1st test did the same.


----------



## MrAlex

Here's 18.0.1:

http://www.mediafire.com/?oies79vy1dp0vt3

The startup bug should be fixed now, let me know if its not. I'd like to release WF18.0.1 tonight  As always, just move over the missing .dll's


----------



## dlee7283

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> I have been a fan of waterfox till the 14+ came out... alas as of late went to IE.. it is fast.. it sucks cause it wont save pw no matter what I have tried.. still.. Waterfox (or its pluugins) hangs and hangs.. thanks so much MrAlex but I use it less and less now - you did a wonderful job no idea what is going on.. but it hangs so much etc.. I go to a page and nothing happens.. I watch the net it isnt even pagin it .. granted could be the site but well IM testing --- at the moment IE is winnning .. althouigh I hate it .. so sucks bish can not remember a pw or sing on for anything
> 
> Sorry


Sorry to hear that,

it works best if you have the AVX Instruction set, IE will be faster other as Microsoft has total control of their proper API documentation and its integrated into the NT kernal. They have the power to tweak it properly so it works well with their OS's. Firefox at its backbone is still a memory hog and that lineage carries on to its forks. I knew that the author would run into problems eventually once he got into the nitty gritty of Gecko and I ascertained that he would have more breathing room to tweak it the way he liked longterm if he used Webkit.

I think Chrome the best speed but Waterfox is my second browser when Chrome starts to act weird. The reason Waterfox isn't the best right now is not because of the authors hard work, 64 bit is still not implemented well enough to give the speed advantages it will have down the line like the 16 to 32 bit transition finally had. Adobe just released a 64 bit flash, like what a year or two ago? We have had consumer 64 bit since 2003 and its now 2013....

My two cents...Waterfox has better 3rd party plugins than Chrome so I fire it up at least once a day to download blip.tv stuff,etc. Its a good backup browser that I would like turn into my primary at some point.

I think the next step for Waterfox should be gpu accelerated web rendering, as AMD's APU's will be flooded on the market within 5 years. Besides that Waterfox's disadvantages go hand in hand with 64's bit shortcomings we have seen so far in regards to industry standard software support. There are still huge big name programs out that are still 32 bit that won't see a 64 bit for a good while. The code is still not where it needs to be across the board.


----------



## JayBart

Still running the "18" waterfox(2) build with no problems(posting on it now), one thing I did though was download "VSU1\vcredist_x64.exe" the update, for Visual Studio 2012 runtime components for things compiled in C++
which you can find through your link "http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30679" which takes you to the page and it is the 2nd link down, have to wonder if the startup problem people arn not missing something in this. May have to somehow incorporate this into the download or link to it off the install page saying it must be installed first?
Realize you don't know me yet Alex, am running a Intel rig with AMD video (Intel processor/chipsets, VisionTek graphics card) and my name is Jay of course.







Hope any of this helps


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dlee7283*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *charlir*
> 
> I have been a fan of waterfox till the 14+ came out... alas as of late went to IE.. it is fast.. it sucks cause it wont save pw no matter what I have tried.. still.. Waterfox (or its pluugins) hangs and hangs.. thanks so much MrAlex but I use it less and less now - you did a wonderful job no idea what is going on.. but it hangs so much etc.. I go to a page and nothing happens.. I watch the net it isnt even pagin it .. granted could be the site but well IM testing --- at the moment IE is winnning .. althouigh I hate it .. so sucks bish can not remember a pw or sing on for anything
> 
> Sorry
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry to hear that,
> 
> it works best if you have the AVX Instruction set, IE will be faster other as Microsoft has total control of their proper API documentation and its integrated into the NT kernal. They have the power to tweak it properly so it works well with their OS's.
> 
> I like Chrome the best speed but Waterfox is my second browser when Chrome starts to act weird. The reason Waterfox isn't the best right now is not because of the authors hard work, 64 bit is still not implemented well enough to give the speed advantages it will have down the line like the 16 to 32 bit transition finally had. Adobe just released a 64 bit flash, like what a year or two ago? We have had consumer 64 bit since 2003 and its now 2013....
> 
> My two cents...Waterfox has better 3rd party plugins than Chrome so I fire it up at least once a day to download blip.tv stuff,etc.
> 
> I think the next step for Waterfox should be gpu accelerated web rendering, as AMD's APU's will be flooded on the market within 5 years. Besides that Waterfox's disadvantages go hand in hand with 64's bit shortcomings we have seen so far in regards to industry standard software support. There are still huge big name programs out that are still 32 bit.
Click to expand...

Firefox has support for hardware acceleration:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Still running the "18" waterfox(2) build with no problems(posting on it now), one thing I did though was download "VSU1\vcredist_x64.exe" the update, for Visual Studio 2012 runtime components for things compiled in C++
> which you can find through your link "http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30679" which takes you to the page and it is the 2nd link down, have to wonder if the startup problem people arn not missing something in this. May have to somehow incorporate this into the download or link to it off the install page saying it must be installed first?
> Realize you don't know me yet Alex, am running a Intel rig with AMD video (Intel processor/chipsets, VisionTek graphics card) and my name is Jay of course.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope any of this helps


It seems that the startup bug is completely random, I still haven't found a direct reason for it. Either way it's the -Qax switch that causes the bug (a simple fix available here ).


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

18.0.1 working great ty Mr Alex never got the startup or dll bug like oithers on any other version of 18.0 you tested so far


----------



## JRuxGaming

No startup bug for me anymore. Works wonderfully.


----------



## BT Shogun

18.01 ok for me


----------



## ChaosBlades

Ten launches and no problems.


----------



## MrAlex

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/Waterfox%2018.0.1%20Setup.exe/download

Who wants to giver her a proper whirl?


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

trying now MrAlex


----------



## JRuxGaming

Installer works perfectly.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Installer works perfectly.


+1


----------



## tek2005

installer works great. Thank you









edit: has the description of waterfox always been mozilla developer preview? lol (task manager)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> installer works great. Thank you
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edit: has the description of waterfox always been mozilla developer preview? lol (task manager)


*sigh* They updated the branding files, I knew I missed something! Right, you can still use the installer, but I'll update the file version (won't make a difference).


----------



## ChaosBlades

Yup, everything is working great. Thanks!


----------



## LoliDuck

Works perfectly now, Thank you


----------



## KuroTenshi

Works perfectly for the moment. Flash seems to be stable contrary to 16.0.1.

I just have an issue with Windows 8. Contrary to Cyberfox 18 and Chrome, when I try to make Waterfox default to http adresses, It doesn't show in the software windows so I can't select it.

I think it's a problem with the installer which is not complete. Waterfox is not integrated with Windows 8.


----------



## tomv

Working great here. Thanks!


----------



## JayBart

Was running 18.0.1 n two of my 3 networked computers and just installed from the installer on the 3rd. All working fine without any problems:thumb:
lol had noticed the 'mozilla developer preview' in task manager too, but as its all working good I didn't care One thing I noticed in all the installs,manually and from the installer is the 1st 2or 3 times it starts it loads a little slowly (not just the compatibility checker either) but after that it speeds along like it always has







Have noticed the new builds run up to 489,352K for the .exe in task manager soon as its run for 10 mins. then 500k+ rather quickly when you get into heavy browsing. Seems I remember the exe using less than 300k back in 14 and even 15,is this more FF or is it the added stuff in the new builds? This is with a single tab open btw with about 6 addons only and usually on 3 or 4 active at any one time.
Working great upon multiple restarts for me


----------



## mark0159nz

Hey Mr Alex

I have just downloaded version 18 and have noticed something. See attached pictures.



I did a install over top of 16, a clean install also, (removed all profile settings and cleaned out the registery for firefox/waterfox) no plugs installed

apart from that it looks good









Keep up the good work.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mark0159nz*
> 
> Hey Mr Alex
> 
> I have just downloaded version 18 and have noticed something. See attached pictures.
> 
> 
> 
> I did a install over top of 16, a clean install also, (removed all profile settings and cleaned out the registery for firefox/waterfox) no plugs installed
> 
> apart from that it looks good
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep up the good work.


Right-Click on the Bar at the Top > Customize.. > Restore Default Set


----------



## MrAlex

Okay fixed the MozillaDeveloperPreview. If it really bothers you just re-download the installer









Now to write a news post and I'll be done!


----------



## mark0159nz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> Right-Click on the Bar at the Top > Customize.. > Restore Default Set


yea done that. I have seen this problem before and now that I have loaded another forum that I visit and the avatars aren't showing up. Safe to say it's a problem with my PC.

Now I just need to remember what I did to fix it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mark0159nz*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> Right-Click on the Bar at the Top > Customize.. > Restore Default Set
> 
> 
> 
> yea done that. I have seen this problem before and now that I have loaded another forum that I visit and the avatars aren't showing up. Safe to say it's a problem with my PC.
> 
> Now I just need to remember what I did to fix it.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's hardware acceleration or driver issues. Either update your drivers or disable hardware acceleration:

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration


----------



## alexGB

Just installed latest Waterfox....great to have it back and up to date....
i also have the problem of overlapping tabs and have fixed it temporarily with this add-on "Tabs Always In Titlebar".........


----------



## mark0159nz

ok, now I have tried removing anything related to firefox/mozilla/waterfox/netscape in the registery and a new user account and still there. Even on the new user account I have the issue.

I was using a portable version of firefox to see if there was that much difference between 16 and 18 and I am wondering if that's had anything to do with it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Maybe it's hardware acceleration or driver issues. Either update your drivers or disable hardware acceleration:
> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/upgrade-graphics-drivers-use-hardware-acceleration


I have just tired these and still no change. I am using the lastest ATI driver and disabling the hardware acc in waterfox made no difference.

I do notice that if I change windows theme not to use areo then the problem does go away

thanks for the help


----------



## LoliDuck

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mark0159nz*
> 
> ok, now I have tried removing anything related to firefox/mozilla/waterfox/netscape in the registery and a new user account and still there. Even on the new user account I have the issue.
> 
> I was using a portable version of firefox to see if there was that much difference between 16 and 18 and I am wondering if that's had anything to do with it.
> I have just tired these and still no change. I am using the lastest ATI driver and disabling the hardware acc in waterfox made no difference.
> 
> I do notice that if I change windows theme not to use areo then the problem does go away
> 
> thanks for the help


are you using more then 1 monitor?


----------



## mark0159nz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LoliDuck*
> 
> are you using more then 1 monitor?


Nope, just the one 24" running at 1920x1200

as a test I have created a brand new vm of windows 7 x64 Pro and created a new virtual layer using Symantec Workspace Virtualization software for waterfox just to see what the settings where that are different and if it could pinpoint the issue with setup.

However this has caused the same issue to show up.

when I first run the program I get the standard screen saying if I want to input my settings from IE and there it looks fine.



but as soon as I click on yes or no it looks like this



This install of WIn7 is fresh, only one 4 apps installed and that is the Symantec Workspace client, vmware tools, Microsoft Visual C++ 2008 redistributable x64 9.0.30729.4148 & 32bit of the same MS C++. This redistribute is also installed on my main computer. There is also no updates and no SP1 either.

I know it's only minior and it doesn't stop waterfox from working and it's not going to stop me from using it but it's just a little thing.


----------



## tsigarid

Thanks a lot Mr. Alex for 18.0.1, works like a charm so far.


----------



## kwinse

Hello, I just upgraded from 16 to 18.0.1 by the Updater service. Immediately I've noticed a couple bugs.

First, the tab bar/alt menu overlays the Waterfox button:
















I'm not sure if this is a configuration issue, or a Firefox 17/18 issue, or what. I've changed nothing since upgrading, besides temporarily moving the bookmarks menu button down to see if that was it. I did try disabling all my addons, and that didn't do anything either.

Second, when I try to pin waterfox to my windows taskbar, it creates another icon:









Clicking that icon opens another browser window. Closing waterfox completely and clicking on the icon opens waterfox again, but in a separate icon on the taskbar. Restarted my computer, no fix there. I did take the opportunity to log into my windows admin account. It still had waterfox pinned from 16. It behaved as it did before; one icon, even after waterfox is opened. When I unpinned it and repinned I got the two icons. And it did have the overlapping bug as well.

Also if the jumplist (didn't even know what that was until I read about it supposedly being fixed today) is supposed to show tabs I currently have open it's not working for me:









Current OS is Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1.

Any insight?

EDIT: Almost forgot to say, thank you MrAlex for all your efforts.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kwinse*
> 
> Hello, I just upgraded from 16 to 18.0.1 by the Updater service. Immediately I've noticed a couple bugs.
> 
> First, the tab bar/alt menu overlays the Waterfox button:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if this is a configuration issue, or a Firefox 17/18 issue, or what. I've changed nothing since upgrading, besides temporarily moving the bookmarks menu button down to see if that was it. I did try disabling all my addons, and that didn't do anything either.
> 
> Second, when I try to pin waterfox to my windows taskbar, it creates another icon:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Clicking that icon opens another browser window. Closing waterfox completely and clicking on the icon opens waterfox again, but in a separate icon on the taskbar. Restarted my computer, no fix there. I did take the opportunity to log into my windows admin account. It still had waterfox pinned from 16. It behaved as it did before; one icon, even after waterfox is opened. When I unpinned it and repinned I got the two icons. And it did have the overlapping bug as well.
> 
> Also if the jumplist (didn't even know what that was until I read about it supposedly being fixed today) is supposed to show tabs I currently have open it's not working for me:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Current OS is Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1.
> 
> Any insight?
> 
> EDIT: Almost forgot to say, thank you MrAlex for all your efforts.


As for the icon, that happens with a few programs I find. But don't pin the desktop shortcut, pin the program that launches. As for the jumplist, I've never had it show the tabs, but I'll look into it . And the GUI error I will also look into that.

It seems to be a mixed bag. Could you please list your system? Thanks!


----------



## NoiseTemper

Sorry, I should've reported this earlier. I am actually experiencing the same GUI error listed above where the 'Waterfox' button overlaps the tabs etc. Note, it only occurs when the window is not maximized.


----------



## alabrand

Sadly enough, I can't use Waterfox 18.0.1 because I keep getting an error after having opened it. I can't remember too well but it says something along the lines of "MozillaDeveloperPreview has stopped working". I've tried several things but nothing solved this and so I returned to Waterfox 16 which has worked splendidly well for me.


----------



## strangelifeform

Hello I found a black sheep issue here.

My OS is "Windows XP Prodessional x64".
I've install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 already.
Waterfox 16.01 works fine with me.
I've upgrade from waterfox 16.01 to 18.01 and installed.
But I cannot open the waterfox.exe error messages "waterfox.exe is not valid win32 application"

Right now I've to revert back to waterfox 16.01 and works normal, unlike 18.01
can't even open the browser can you fix this please? or is there anyway for me to fix it manually?
It's so sadly that I cannot join the banquet of your new release like everyone else.








or is this the Dead End support for XP x64 at 16.01 version?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NoiseTemper*
> 
> Sorry, I should've reported this earlier. I am actually experiencing the same GUI error listed above where the 'Waterfox' button overlaps the tabs etc. Note, it only occurs when the window is not maximized.


OH! So this only occurs when WF is minimized? Has anyone run Firefox 18? Because it seems like this could be by design.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *alabrand*
> 
> Sadly enough, I can't use Waterfox 18.0.1 because I keep getting an error after having opened it. I can't remember too well but it says something along the lines of "MozillaDeveloperPreview has stopped working". I've tried several things but nothing solved this and so I returned to Waterfox 16 which has worked splendidly well for me.


Re-download the installer, I updated some things.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pedo Bear*
> 
> Hello I found a black sheep issue here.
> 
> My OS is "Windows XP Prodessional x64".
> I've install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 already.
> Waterfox 16.01 works fine with me.
> I've upgrade from waterfox 16.01 to 18.01 and installed.
> But I cannot open the waterfox.exe error messages "waterfox.exe is not valid win32 application"
> 
> Right now I've to revert back to waterfox 16.01 and works normal, unlike 18.01
> can't even open the browser can you fix this please? or is there anyway for me to fix it manually?
> It's so sadly that I cannot join the banquet of your new release like everyone else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> or is this the Dead End support for XP x64 at 16.01 version?


XP 64-Bit is installed by the installer, but since I'm using MSVC 11, I think Microsoft themselves might not allow support for XP 64-Bit


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *KuroTenshi*
> 
> Works perfectly for the moment. Flash seems to be stable contrary to 16.0.1.
> 
> I just have an issue with Windows 8. Contrary to Cyberfox 18 and Chrome, when I try to make Waterfox default to http adresses, It doesn't show in the software windows so I can't select it.
> 
> I think it's a problem with the installer which is not complete. Waterfox is not integrated with Windows 8.


If you have another Firefox-based browser that uses the profiles, it will only show one of the Firefox-based browsers in the list.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Wanted to chime and report that the newest update is running fine on Windows 8.

Steps
- Close Waterfox.
- Installed new Waterfox (18.0.1).
- Removed unusable shortcut icon from bottom tray.
- Drag/Drop C:\ProgramFiles\Waterfox\waterfox.exe to bottom tray for new shortcut icon.

No restart needed, but is always suggested "just-in-case".


----------



## kwinse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> As for the icon, that happens with a few programs I find. But don't pin the desktop shortcut, pin the program that launches. As for the jumplist, I've never had it show the tabs, but I'll look into it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . And the GUI error I will also look into that.
> 
> It seems to be a mixed bag. Could you please list your system? Thanks!


Okay, running the program directly from the .exe and then pinning got the same results, but pinning the .exe directly did fix it. Guess windows is just picky. Thanks!

Honestly I don't see me using tabs in the jumplist, I got confused when your screenshot showed favorites and mine didn't and wondered if it was related to the pin bug.

Oh looking a bit the overlapping seems to be an old firefox bug? Google pointed me at 680230. I dunno, honestly bugzilla confuses me. <_<;;

Um not sure what else you might need besides Waterfox 18.0.1 and Windows 7 Ultimate Service Pack 1. The only thing I remember doing while upgrading from WF16 to 18 is chat with friends through skype, I didn't touch my aero settings and honestly wouldn't even know where to go to do that.


----------



## demoneye

ok , i got this issue only with latest waterfox 18.01 . all fonts look bad , the only way to overcome this IS to disable hardware acceleration ....
i am using latest nvidia vga driver on win 7 x64 sp1 .

and yes , on firefox 18.01 this matter is not accrue , meaning my hardware acceleration is ON and all look sharp and smooth.

what can i do to solve this ?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> ok , i got this issue only with latest waterfox 18.01 . all fonts look bad , the only way to overcome this IS to disable hardware acceleration ....
> i am using latest nvidia vga driver on win 7 x64 sp1 .
> 
> and yes , on firefox 18.01 this matter is not accrue , meaning my hardware acceleration is ON and all look sharp and smooth.
> 
> what can i do to solve this ?


Is *gfx.content.azure.enabled* set to true? That might be the issue. If it is, enable hw acceleration and set azure to false.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is *gfx.content.azure.enabled* set to true? That might be the issue. If it is, enable hw acceleration and set azure to false.


i set gfx.content.azure.enabled to false and Hw acceleration to ON , nothing changed , i barely read the fonts in waterfox


----------



## Truffel71

I'm happy to have a up2date waterfox again. Respect your work, mr.Alex.
Just a minor glitch. I couldn't install a xpi file to change the language. It says it is not compatible. I try 2 download en install it from here
http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/
Any ideas??
Lots of respect and greetings
Truffel71


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Truffel71*
> 
> I'm happy to have a up2date waterfox again. Respect your work, mr.Alex.
> Just a minor glitch. I couldn't install a xpi file to change the language. It says it is not compatible. I try 2 download en install it from here
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/
> Any ideas??
> Lots of respect and greetings
> Truffel71


I need to update the language packs, I'll write a news post when they're ready


----------



## Truffel71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I need to update the language packs, I'll write a news post when they're ready


Thnx


----------



## vtdaug

I don't think that this has been reported yet.
I upgraded waterfox to 18.0.1 about 24 hours ago and it has averaged 25% CPU since the upgrade. Response time was noticeably slower. I just downgraded to 16.0.1 and waterfox is back to 1% CPU. I have 3 open windows with 95 tabs and Win7 Pro-64 SP1 running on an i7 920
I made no other changes when I upgraded and then downgraded.

I'd like to stay with the latest version but don't want the increased overhead. Any ideas?


----------



## strangelifeform

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> XP 64-Bit is installed by the installer, but since I'm using MSVC 11, I think Microsoft themselves might not allow support for XP 64-Bit


Calm down, No need to be stress/mad.
I'm blame nothing about your work.
I've win7, win8, mac, ubuntu, andriod in my other partitions and 18.01 works fine in win7.
I'm calm enough than those stick to "xp only" since I'm mutiple os user anyway.
I just need to know is waterfox already dead end at 16.01 for xp x64 officially yet? that's all.
and my other main point come to inform you about this:
Quote:


> Waterfox Installer
> Version: 18.0.1
> Language: English (US)
> Operating System:Windows XP (x64), Windows Vista (x64), Windows 7 (x64)


*My suggestion:*
I think you should change announce informaton officially about drop support at 18.01 for xp
or delete this out. I bet xp x64 users will stop expect and upgrade their xp to win7 or stay at 16.01. At least better than leave this xp false information that cause xp user naging you continously and drive you mad at them. Also Microsoft start to play count down meter for drop xp updates already. So I think no need to keep burden on xp anymore.


----------



## mark0159nz

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> OH! So this only occurs when WF is minimized? Has anyone run Firefox 18? Because it seems like this could be by design.


Hi,

I have installed firefox in both the virtual machine I created yesterday and my work machine and don't have the problem.



When it's maximized it still looks different, it almost like there are some missing pixels. I'll post a screenshot.

it's more like the waterfox button has grown.


----------



## mwarren2

Just updated to v18.0.1 and find that Words With Friends in FaceBook is now broken. Have reinstalled Flash 64 bit but still have same problem. Anyone else having Flash problems with the new version of WaterFox?


----------



## Prime2515102

Just a small hiccup... The installer wouldn't start. It was listed in task manager as a running process but wasn't doing anything. I tried twice (killing the process after), then I right-clicked and clicked "Run as administrator" and it worked fine. I'm running Win7 and UAC is disabled. I remember this happening with a past version (no idea what one) so I restarted the computer and it fixed it. No clue why it does it.

It's working great though, thanks!


----------



## KuroTenshi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> If you have another Firefox-based browser that uses the profiles, it will only show one of the Firefox-based browsers in the list.


Ha ok. So the culprit is CyberFox which doesn't uninstall properly. Glad I could return to Waterfox.


----------



## NightmareL4D

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vtdaug*
> 
> I don't think that this has been reported yet.
> I upgraded waterfox to 18.0.1 about 24 hours ago and it has averaged 25% CPU since the upgrade. Response time was noticeably slower. I just downgraded to 16.0.1 and waterfox is back to 1% CPU. I have 3 open windows with 95 tabs and Win7 Pro-64 SP1 running on an i7 920
> I made no other changes when I upgraded and then downgraded.
> 
> I'd like to stay with the latest version but don't want the increased overhead. Any ideas?


Also reporting this issue with my 2700k. CPU randomly spikes to 25% every 5 seconds or so. Never had this issue with previous versions.


----------



## NoiseTemper

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mark0159nz*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I have installed firefox in both the virtual machine I created yesterday and my work machine and don't have the problem.
> 
> 
> 
> When it's maximized it still looks different, it almost like there are some missing pixels. I'll post a screenshot.
> 
> it's more like the waterfox button has grown.


Oh yah true! The button is bigger, lol.


----------



## AspieMum

I have had to re-install Waterfox 16.0.1. Firefox 18.0.1 crashes constantly.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AspieMum*
> 
> I have had to re-install Waterfox 16.0.1. Firefox 18.0.1 crashes constantly.


This happened to me as well. Was wanting to use FF 18 while WF 18 was being worked on and it constantly crashed. So I had to switch back to WF 16.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *yusky03*
> 
> This happened to me as well. Was wanting to use FF 18 while WF 18 was being worked on and it constantly crashed. So I had to switch back to WF 16.


Crash as in the whole FF18 crashed or just Flash?


----------



## dqwf

Hi,
Today I installed WF 18.0.1 but when I opened it it destroyed my Tab Groups. If I click on the "Group your tabs" button is stops responding and destroys my tab groups. I had to restore Session Manager backups and after trying with Cyberfox, FF and WF I realized it is WF who breaks the groups. I restored a backup with FF and it worked, when I opened WF it destroyed the groups. I restored a backup with CyberFox and it worked, when I opened WF it destroyed the groups. I uninstalled WF and installed it back but it acts the same. I had to uninstall WF. Any one else having this problems? Any idea on what it could be?


----------



## AspieMum

It didn't matter what I was tying to do Waterfox 18 just kept crashing frequently enough you couldn't actually do anything (less than a minute between crashes probably)- WF 18 started crashing from the moment it opened. I tried a clean install so its not left over stuff from previous versions nor is it any add ons because it still crashed immediately on opening.


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Crash as in the whole FF18 crashed or just Flash?


Whole thing. It did not relate to having a website open with flash. It would just lock up then close. On the other hand I don't think I have ever had WaterFox crash since I started using it when 64-bit Flash came out.


----------



## dnyanesh

Flash videos are stuttering like mad since I have upgraded to 18.0.1. Is anyone experiencing the same?


----------



## ChaosBlades

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Flash videos are stuttering like mad since I have upgraded to 18.0.1. Is anyone experiencing the same?


No problems here at all.


----------



## BT Shogun

no problems here


----------



## medicom

Waterfox 18 is slower than Firefox Nighly 64-bit - this is so sad....
http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medicom*
> 
> Waterfox 18 is slower than Firefox Nighly 64-bit - this is so sad....
> http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/


Nightly is 3 firefox versions ahead...


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Hey Guys,

I have been running the browsers through there paces tonite I have seen a few requests for benchmarking between the different browsers here and on the waterfox development thread on Alex's site so I ran firefox 18.01, Waterfox 18.01, Cyberfox 18.01 and Pale Moons newest version through futuremarks peacekeepers browser benchmarking tests.

I am sorry to say though I am also having issues with the new waterfox crashing out on me I had a bit of a difficult time trying to get the benchmarking results as it crashed out a few times but I was finally able to get it to run. I did see Alex you were asking for peoples computer specs for those having the crashing issues.

Here are my specs for the issues of crashing but also so people know what I am running machine wise here for the benchmarking tests.

AMD Phenom II x4 965 BE
16 gigs Corsair Vengeance DDR3
Geforce GTX 660 Ti

Waterfox Benchmark


Firefox Benchmark


Palemoon Benchmark


Cyberfox Benchmark


----------



## Jarkko

For some reason Google's MapsGL stopped working, especially when in Street View, when WF18 was used. FF18 works without problems. Browser doesn't freeze or anything like that, view just stops immediately after entering Street View and won't move, zoom or anything.


----------



## btgbullseye

I also am getting frequent and irregular crashes. Sometimes in a page that uses Java, sometimes in Flash, sometimes in a page that uses neither. In short, random crashes, but only when I have more than one tab open. (I have been using Waterfox since 14, never had any problems with any other version)


----------



## tomv

No problems here. Works perfectly.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> H
> I have been running the browsers through there paces tonite I have seen a few requests for benchmarking between the different browsers


That's quite a surprise, I'd have bet Waterfox is fastest because of the Intel compiler - and in your benchmarks it's last (I wouldn't count in palemoon, it's based on an older ff version). However, I just ran browsermark and have to confirm it - Waterfox is slowest, even though a 5% difference cannot be felt in real life browsing.

_Waterfox_ 3227 (100%)
_Nightly_ 3341 *(3.5% faster)*
_Cyberfox_ 3388 *(5% faster)*

Conclusion: This post has been written with Cyberfox  but I really would like to see my Waterfox catch up again in the next version!


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> That's quite a surprise, I'd have bet Waterfox is fastest because of the Intel compiler - and in your benchmarks it's last (I wouldn't count in palemoon, it's based on an older ff version). However, I just ran browsermark and have to confirm it - Waterfox is slowest, even though a 5% difference cannot be felt in real life browsing.
> 
> _Waterfox_ 3227 (100%)
> _Nightly_ 3341 *(3.5% faster)*
> _Cyberfox_ 3388 *(5% faster)*
> 
> Conclusion: This post has been written with Cyberfox  but I really would like to see my Waterfox catch up again in the next version!


Hi Marsu24 yes pale moon is based off an older version of firefox 15 with all the updates and patches of the newer versions but some of the people that were asking for benchmarks were also mentioning that browser so I included it in the testing for those that asked.

Although Cyberfox also uses the intel c++ compiler in it's build as well. I have spoken to that developer about his techniques for his compiles.


----------



## Fuell

Links need to be fixed.


----------



## fullmoon

Waterfox on AMD processor is not faster that Firefox ok, but are you test with intel processor?
And please check settings build.


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Waterfox on AMD processor is not faster that Firefox ok, but are you test with intel processor?
> And please check settings build.


You will get the same results I have both AMD and Intel machines I used one of my Intel rigs to run the benchmark tests to start with, I got almost the same results as the tests with the AMD rig just scores were slightly lower for all the browsers, in the same order speed wise though as with the Intel machine the graphics card in that rig is not as powerful as the one in my AMD rig. I just happened to use the AMD rig last for testing so I took the screens with that machine.

Had the same issues on both intel and AMD having waterfox crash out but in the end was able to get them to run full tests, settings were checked as I tried to solve the issue of the crashing for quite a while before trying to run the benchmarks but was unable to find the cause.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Waterfox on AMD processor is not faster that Firefox ok, but are you test with intel processor?


Sure, I'd have noted otherwise (but afaik the newer Intel compilers aren't as crappy as in Pentium4/Netburst times on AMD). I've got a 2.13Ghz Core i3 (dual core with ht, Clarkdale generation).
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> Although Cyberfox also uses the intel c++ compiler in it's build as well. I have spoken to that developer about his techniques for his compiles.


Now I'm confused - the Cyberfox site also says something about Intel, but when I asked here it was stated that Cyberfox is compiled using MS compilers ... was that just FUD?


----------



## CallAMedic4U

The download link is broken, can you post the URL


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Sure, I'd have noted otherwise (but afaik the newer Intel compilers aren't as crappy as in Pentium4/Netburst times on AMD). I've got a 2.13Ghz Core i3 (dual core with ht, Clarkdale generation).
> Now I'm confused - the Cyberfox site also says something about Intel, but when I asked here it was stated that Cyberfox is compiled using MS compilers ... was that just FUD?


I would guess so never saw other posts on the forum here as to how Cyberfox was compiled on here but from the start the only difference between the way Waterfox and Cyberfox were compiled was that Alex was using mvsc 2009 and the intel C ++ compiler until version 18 here where he switched to mvsc 2012. The Cyberfox guy was always using mvsc 2012 and the C++ compiler.

16 & 17 had good results with the intel C++ optimizing Compiler, as for 18 seems to be a bit of a dud build. Nightly 19 showed better results though and your getting back to normal with 20's code just like 16 & 17. It seems the ionmonkey compiler has a negitive impact on the 18 build and build process just from my observations.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> It seems the ionmonkey compiler has a negitive impact on the 18 build and build process just from my observations.


Well, I just ran the sunspider benchmark and the performance drop of Waterfox doesn't seem to be related to js ... but this is not a very in-depth test, I don't have the time or energy to run a couple of benchmarks multiple times taking the average.

_Waterfox 18_: 355ms (100%)
_Nightly 21_: 402ms *(12% slower)*
_Cyberfox 18_: 350ms (1% faster ~100%)


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CallAMedic4U*
> 
> The download link is broken, can you post the URL


... of Waterfox? http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/


----------



## pvt.joker

the link in the op to downloads is broken i think is what he was getting at.









link points to http://www.waterfoxproject.org/downloads which gives a 404


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Well, I just ran the sunspider benchmark and the performance drop of Waterfox doesn't seem to be related to js ... but this is not a very in-depth test, I don't have the time or energy to run a couple of benchmarks multiple times taking the average.
> 
> _Waterfox 18_: 355ms (100%)
> _Nightly 21_: 402ms *(12% slower)*
> _Cyberfox 18_: 350ms *(1% faster)*


I got vastly different results using sunspider

Waterfox

============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 196.6ms +/- 17.0%

3d: 45.8ms +/- 71.4%
cube: 12.3ms +/- 12.0%
morph: 18.4ms +/- 170.1%
raytrace: 15.1ms +/- 11.7%

access: 15.3ms +/- 10.1%
binary-trees: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%
fannkuch: 7.3ms +/- 13.1%
nbody: 2.9ms +/- 14.0%
nsieve: 2.9ms +/- 14.0%

bitops: 10.1ms +/- 5.2%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 0.9ms +/- 25.1%
bits-in-byte: 3.3ms +/- 10.5%
bitwise-and: 2.9ms +/- 7.8%
nsieve-bits: 3.0ms +/- 0.0%

controlflow: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%
recursive: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%

crypto: 20.1ms +/- 2.0%
aes: 9.1ms +/- 2.5%
md5: 7.6ms +/- 4.9%
sha1: 3.4ms +/- 14.7%

date: 27.3ms +/- 9.6%
format-tofte: 17.1ms +/- 13.9%
format-xparb: 10.2ms +/- 3.0%

math: 12.4ms +/- 4.0%
cordic: 2.6ms +/- 14.2%
partial-sums: 6.9ms +/- 3.3%
spectral-norm: 2.9ms +/- 7.8%

regexp: 9.2ms +/- 8.0%
dna: 9.2ms +/- 8.0%

string: 54.2ms +/- 22.4%
base64: 4.3ms +/- 15.8%
fasta: 6.5ms +/- 14.0%
tagcloud: 14.1ms +/- 17.6%
unpack-code: 21.9ms +/- 30.1%
validate-input: 7.4ms +/- 43.0%

waterfox benchmark link : http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B12,18,11,12,12,12,11,12,12,11%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B5,4,4,5,4,5,5,4,5,143%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B14,14,14,15,14,14,14,15,15,22%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B2,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,3%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B6,11,7,7,7,7,7,7,7,7%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B3,4,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B3,4,3,2,3,3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,0,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B3,3,4,3,4,3,3,4,3,3%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3,2,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B2,2,2,2,2,2,2,3,3,2%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B9,10,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B8,7,7,8,8,8,8,8,7,7%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B3,3,5,3,3,3,3,4,4,3%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B16,15,19,15,16,26,16,16,16,16%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B10,10,11,10,10,11,10,10,10,10%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B3,3,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,3%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B7,7,7,7,7,6,7,7,7,7%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B3,3,3,3,2,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B8,9,9,9,9,9,12,9,9,9%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B4,4,4,4,4,4,7,4,4,4%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6,6,10,6,7,6%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B24,13,13,13,13,13,13,13,13,13%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B48,18,19,18,19,18,19,20,19,21%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B20,6,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,7%5D%7D

Cyberfox

============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 178.1ms +/- 1.6%

3d: 31.5ms +/- 4.9%
cube: 12.1ms +/- 1.9%
morph: 4.5ms +/- 8.4%
raytrace: 14.9ms +/- 8.9%

access: 14.2ms +/- 5.2%
binary-trees: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%
fannkuch: 6.5ms +/- 5.8%
nbody: 2.7ms +/- 12.8%
nsieve: 2.8ms +/- 10.8%

bitops: 9.7ms +/- 6.1%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 0.6ms +/- 61.5%
bits-in-byte: 3.2ms +/- 9.4%
bitwise-and: 2.9ms +/- 7.8%
nsieve-bits: 3.0ms +/- 0.0%

controlflow: 2.3ms +/- 15.0%
recursive: 2.3ms +/- 15.0%

crypto: 20.3ms +/- 3.3%
aes: 9.6ms +/- 5.2%
md5: 7.5ms +/- 5.0%
sha1: 3.2ms +/- 9.4%

date: 27.3ms +/- 1.8%
format-tofte: 17.2ms +/- 2.6%
format-xparb: 10.1ms +/- 2.2%

math: 11.8ms +/- 3.8%
cordic: 2.2ms +/- 13.7%
partial-sums: 7.3ms +/- 4.7%
spectral-norm: 2.3ms +/- 15.0%

regexp: 9.5ms +/- 4.0%
dna: 9.5ms +/- 4.0%

string: 51.5ms +/- 3.0%
base64: 3.9ms +/- 5.8%
fasta: 5.8ms +/- 5.2%
tagcloud: 14.2ms +/- 2.1%
unpack-code: 21.2ms +/- 6.3%
validate-input: 6.4ms +/- 5.8%

Cyberfox benchmark link: http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B13,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12,12%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B5,4,5,5,4,4,5,5,4,4%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B15,14,14,15,14,15,14,20,14,14%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B3,2,3,2,2,2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B7,7,6,6,6,6,7,7,6,7%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B2,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,3%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,2,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B0,0,1,1,1,0,1,1,0,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B3,3,4,3,3,3,4,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,3,3%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B2,2,3,2,2,2,3,3,2,2%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B11,9,9,9,10,9,9,10,10,10%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B8,7,8,8,8,8,7,7,7,7%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B3,3,3,4,3,3,3,4,3,3%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B18,17,17,17,18,16,17,18,17,17%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,11,10%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B2,2,3,2,2,2,3,2,2,2%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B8,7,7,8,7,7,7,8,7,7%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B2,2,2,2,3,3,2,3,2,2%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B9,10,10,9,10,9,10,9,10,9%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B4,4,4,4,4,4,3,4,4,4%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B5,6,6,6,6,5,6,6,6,6%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B14,14,14,14,15,14,14,15,14,14%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B20,19,19,19,22,21,22,23,23,24%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B6,7,6,6,6,7,7,6,7,6%5D%7D

Firefox Nightly 21.0a1

============================================
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 156.0ms +/- 1.6%

3d: 25.2ms +/- 2.2%
cube: 9.1ms +/- 2.5%
morph: 4.1ms +/- 5.5%
raytrace: 12.0ms +/- 2.8%

access: 12.2ms +/- 8.6%
binary-trees: 1.7ms +/- 20.3%
fannkuch: 5.7ms +/- 6.1%
nbody: 2.4ms +/- 15.4%
nsieve: 2.4ms +/- 15.4%

bitops: 8.9ms +/- 8.8%
3bit-bits-in-byte: 0.6ms +/- 61.5%
bits-in-byte: 2.7ms +/- 12.8%
bitwise-and: 2.8ms +/- 10.8%
nsieve-bits: 2.8ms +/- 10.8%

controlflow: 1.6ms +/- 23.1%
recursive: 1.6ms +/- 23.1%

crypto: 17.4ms +/- 2.9%
aes: 8.0ms +/- 0.0%
md5: 6.5ms +/- 5.8%
sha1: 2.9ms +/- 7.8%

date: 19.5ms +/- 2.6%
format-tofte: 11.8ms +/- 2.6%
format-xparb: 7.7ms +/- 4.5%

math: 14.4ms +/- 3.5%
cordic: 2.0ms +/- 0.0%
partial-sums: 9.9ms +/- 2.3%
spectral-norm: 2.5ms +/- 15.1%

regexp: 9.0ms +/- 0.0%
dna: 9.0ms +/- 0.0%

string: 47.8ms +/- 1.2%
base64: 3.5ms +/- 10.8%
fasta: 4.9ms +/- 4.6%
tagcloud: 12.7ms +/- 2.7%
unpack-code: 14.9ms +/- 2.7%
validate-input: 11.8ms +/- 2.6%

Firefox benchmark link: http://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-0.9.1/sunspider-0.9.1/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-0.9.1%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B9,9,9,9,9,9,10,9,9,9%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B4,4,4,4,4,5,4,4,4,4%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B12,12,12,11,12,12,13,12,12,12%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B1,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,1,2%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B6,5,6,6,6,6,6,6,5,5%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B2,2,3,2,2,3,2,3,2,3%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B2,2,2,2,3,3,2,3,2,3%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,0,0,1,1,1,0,0,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B3,2,2,3,3,3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B3,3,2,3,2,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B2,2,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B2,2,1,1,2,1,1,2,2,2%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8,8%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B7,6,7,7,6,6,7,6,6,7%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,2,3%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B12,12,12,11,12,12,12,11,12,12%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B8,8,8,7,8,7,8,8,8,7%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B10,9,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B3,2,2,2,3,3,3,3,2,2%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9,9%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B3,3,4,4,3,4,4,3,4,3%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B5,5,5,5,5,5,5,5,4,5%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B13,12,12,13,13,13,13,13,12,13%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B14,15,14,15,15,15,16,15,15,15%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B12,12,12,11,12,12,11,12,12,12%5D%7D

Firefox Nightly 21.0a1 is faster then both by quite a bit.


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Also better scores for being a long away beta still in peacekeeper as well

Firefox nightly 21.0a1 peacekeeper score


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> Firefox Nightly 21.0a1 is faster then both by quite a bit.


No idea about Nightly, I re-ran Sunspider again, same result - but it doesn't really matter because I switched from Nightly to Waterfox because sometimes addons aren't compatible with the latest trunk. And considering the "stable" 64-bit builds it seems safe to say that Waterfox is slower then Cyberfox in v18.0.1...


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> Palemoon Benchmark


Your installation is messed up...


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Your installation is messed up...


... or your box is just faster - if you post a benchmark it should be the whole Firefox/Waterfox/... combination or it's quite worthless.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> ... or your box is just faster - if you post a benchmark it should be the whole Firefox/Waterfox/... combination or it's quite worthless.


My score is 137% higher than yours. That's not normal, especially for such poorly threaded tests.
Last time I tested PM was considerably faster than FF. You're doing something wrong.


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Your installation is messed up...


I don't have issues with setups I run 4 computers 2 AMD 2 Intel I develop and test programs on a daily basis, Tests are run on browsers coming straight from the developer as is to benchmark as it would not be fair to tweak one browser and not the others or tweak some and not others. The results are identical on 4 different rigs with the odd variance of a bit lower or higher due to different hardware as the benchmarks take into account the hardware you also run so a machine with a more powerful gfx card will give off higher marks then a machine with a less powerful gfx card and so forth. The results end up even across 4 different machines.


----------



## fullmoon

On my notebook, WF is faster than CF.
Peacekepper with empty profil:
WF: 967
CF: 907
Please check your PC, use empty profil and retry test.
And I have not crashing of WF since 18.

Pentium M 1.7Ghz
3Go RAM(2700Mo/s Memory band).


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zalbard*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> ... or your box is just faster - if you post a benchmark it should be the whole Firefox/Waterfox/... combination or it's quite worthless.
> 
> 
> 
> My score is 137% higher than yours. That's not normal, especially for such poorly threaded tests.
> Last time I tested PM was considerably faster than FF. You're doing something wrong.
Click to expand...

Of course your score on a fast desktop system can be much faster then on a slow laptop (like mine), and btw I didn't run the test you were commenting on. And the latest Nightly switching places is absolutely possible since ff development goes on and Nightly is the bleeding edge trunk. I'm afraid to say both your comments don't really strengthen my trust in you running valid benchmarks :-o


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> On my notebook, WF is faster than CF.
> Peacekepper with empty profil:
> WF: 967
> CF: 907
> Please check your PC, use empty profil and retry test.
> And I have not crashing of WF since 18.
> 
> Pentium M 1.7Ghz
> 3Go RAM(2700Mo/s Memory band).


lol I don't know how many times I have to say this but there is nothing I need to change or edit we are talking the same results across 4 machines, I develop apps and program for a living. I am not a noob when it comes to this or how to test applications.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> we are talking the same results across 4 machines


For what it's worth, here are some quick Peacekeeper benchmarks from my laptop, Like with Spidermonkey Waterfox and Cyberfox are nearly equal (given some confidence interval) while in Peacekeeper the newest Nightly is indeed fastest. But generally I'd trust ThunderStruck's results more since he didn't run a laptop with dynamic powersaving but a couple of desktops.

Cyberfox 18: 1250 (100%)
Waterfox 18: 1279 (2% faster ~100%)
Nightly 21: 1338 (7% faster)


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> For what it's worth, here are some quick Peacekeeper benchmarks from my laptop, Like with Spidermonkey Waterfox and Cyberfox are nearly equal (given some confidence interval) while in Peacekeeper the newest Nightly is indeed fastest. But generally I'd trust ThunderStruck's results more since he didn't run a laptop with dynamic powersaving but a couple of desktops.
> 
> Cyberfox 18: 1250 (100%)
> Waterfox 18: 1279 (2% faster ~100%)
> Nightly 21: 1338 (7% faster)


Hi marsu24 yes maybe that is something I should mention these are all desktop pc's, I do have 2 laptops as well but would not use those for benchmarking I go with the more powerful computers so I can get similar results that can be comparable to each other.

As always with the benchmarking hardware does come into play with results my main 2 computers one intel and one amd and pretty well identical if rating the 2 side by side so I can get comparable results. Same goes for my 2 backups or tester machines they are very comparable side by side getting as close as you can with amd and intel for how they would rate on the open market.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

You know I used to come here to read about waterfox. But lately this has been nothing but a troolfest for other browsers......................Who cares. This is about Mr.Alex waterfox program. I would like to know about if there are issues or post about issues. This trolling of who is better is not for here. You want to do that make another thread for it. Like benchmarking browser epeens. Or my browser is better then yours! na na nana!

But please no more of that here.


----------



## dqwf

Competition is good! It makes us better. I take this comments as a way to improve WF and the other browsers. We are all here because we want the fastest/more stable x64 FF browser. As long as there are no trolls or fanboys that dont tolerate others it can only be good for everyone.

WF was my main browser until, like I mentioned before, it started ruining my Tab Groups when I installed WF18, now I am using CF 18. Will give WF a try when this is addressed or WF19. I am not demanding this be fixed as I havent seen anyone else talk about this problem. I explain the bug and hope for it to be fixed. I dont pay Mr Alex so I cant demand anything. Just glad there is competition and another option for me, worst case scenario would go back to FF.


----------



## kevindd992002

What is the disadvantage of just going with the nightly FF x64 builds? Because they are just in beta?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is the disadvantage of just going with the nightly FF x64 builds? Because they are just in beta?


They are not only BETA but 3+ versions ahead. Mozilla also doesn't currently support 64-bit versions so problems can occur often and no support is offered.

Addons may or may not work either.

They don't even list Windows x64 on the official page. You have to go to the FTP Trunk site to get it.

I'm also not sure, but they are not likely to have the optimization that is compiled with Waterfox.


----------



## Lord Venom

Nightly builds are exactly that; nightly alpha builds. You know, the bleeding edge?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> They are not only BETA but 3+ versions ahead. Mozilla also doesn't currently support 64-bit versions so problems can occur often and no support is offered.
> 
> Addons may or may not work either.
> 
> They don't even list Windows x64 on the official page. You have to go to the FTP Trunk site to get it.
> 
> I'm also not sure, but they are not likely to have the optimization that is compiled with Waterfox.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Nightly builds are exactly that; nightly alpha builds. You know, the bleeding edge?


Thanks for the explanation!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDemonz101*
> 
> You know I used to come here to read about waterfox. But lately this has been nothing but a troolfest for other browsers......................Who cares.


A lot of people will care because they want the fastest, most stable 64bit browser, and bug/regression reports will probably help improve the next Waterfox version. You are welcome not to read benchmarks just like I don't read about flash problems because flash on my Waterfox runs just fine and rock solid - or should I ask people not to write about flash problems because Flash runs stable on official Firefox and that's trolling? I doubt you know what the term "troll" means - it's about posting just for getting angry reactions, and imho that's clearly not what's happening here.

EDIT: Cyberfox has seperate discussion & bug report threads, that seems to be an adequate solution for people who only want good news.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is the disadvantage of just going with the nightly FF x64 builds? Because they are just in beta?


I've been running Nightly for years, they are very seldom not working, the main problem is that addons sometimes aren't compatible with the latest trunk code and need some time to be adapted, esp. less prominent addons other than Adblock/NoScript/... and so on. So running a stable version like Waterfox is less hassle.


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is the disadvantage of just going with the nightly FF x64 builds? Because they are just in beta?
> 
> 
> 
> I've been running Nightly for years, they are very seldom not working, the main problem is that addons sometimes aren't compatible with the latest trunk code and need some time to be adapted, esp. less prominent addons other than Adblock/NoScript/... and so on. So running a stable version like Waterfox is less hassle.
Click to expand...

Exactly my experience. When I hit issues with slowing down, I switched from WF 13 to nightly 15 x64 and stayed with that until final 15 came out and Waterfox 15 could be available based on it. (That was a point where the main code had some heavy optimisation work done).

No issues noted. But I like a stable version if I can, so I stick with WF unless there's a compelling reason (for me anyway) to use a nightly until the main Firefox release version catches up. Nightlies work well as a rule - the risk is you never quite know.....


----------



## MrGlasspoole

I also have freezes for 2-5 seconds in WF 18 that i didn't have with WF 16.


----------



## mainkaunhoon

I read some of the comments on Waterfox release page, some people seem to have crashes and such. I did not face any problem until few minutes ago, it crashed with only four tabs open. Anyhow, posting the crash info. just in case:

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: waterfox.exe
Application Version: 18.0.1.4767
Application Timestamp: 50fb1ca4
Fault Module Name: nss3.dll
Fault Module Version: 3.14.1.0
Fault Module Timestamp: 50fb0d1d
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 0000000000076963
OS Version: 6.2.9200.2.0.0.256.48
Locale ID: 1033

and thanks for bringing us all Waterfox







.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dqwf*
> 
> Competition is good! It makes us better. I take this comments as a way to improve WF and the other browsers. We are all here because we want the fastest/more stable x64 FF browser. As long as there are no trolls or fanboys that dont tolerate others it can only be good for everyone.


Of course you are right


----------



## od1001

How do I change the language on my Waterfox Installation?

I have installed Waterfox 18.0.1. It is english. I want german.

So, I take the latest german language file from Ubuntu 64bit Firefox of my virtual machine.
The name is "[email protected]" and You can find it on /usr/lib/firefox-addons/extensions/.

After installation Waterfox works perfect







. May be MrAlex add this in his threat starter







.


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> I would guess so never saw other posts on the forum here as to how Cyberfox was compiled on here but from the start the only difference between the way Waterfox and Cyberfox were compiled was that Alex was using mvsc 2009 and the intel C ++ compiler until version 18 here where he switched to mvsc 2012. The Cyberfox guy was always using mvsc 2012 and the C++ compiler.
> 
> 16 & 17 had good results with the intel C++ optimizing Compiler, as for 18 seems to be a bit of a dud build. Nightly 19 showed better results though and your getting back to normal with 20's code just like 16 & 17. It seems the ionmonkey compiler has a negitive impact on the 18 build and build process just from my observations.


I wonder if that explains what just happened to me when I tried to install WF 18 on an older laptop that is running Windows XP x64. Waterfox 16 and earlier have always run fine on this system, while Cyberfox will generate an error when you try to run the program stating that "Cyberfox.exe is not a valid Win32 application." When I just tried to upgrade Waterfox to version 18, it installed fine but then generated the same error when I tried to run it. An uninstall of WF 18 and a reinstallation of 16 fixed the problem.

It's strange, though, that Microsoft's own tools would mis-recognize a Win64 application running on an OS that is still supported. No big deal, but annoying.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> I would guess so never saw other posts on the forum here as to how Cyberfox was compiled on here but from the start the only difference between the way Waterfox and Cyberfox were compiled was that Alex was using mvsc 2009 and the intel C ++ compiler until version 18 here where he switched to mvsc 2012. The Cyberfox guy was always using mvsc 2012 and the C++ compiler.
> 
> 16 & 17 had good results with the intel C++ optimizing Compiler, as for 18 seems to be a bit of a dud build. Nightly 19 showed better results though and your getting back to normal with 20's code just like 16 & 17. It seems the ionmonkey compiler has a negitive impact on the 18 build and build process just from my observations.


Thanks for explanation, it is very interesting, i understand my benchmark result now


----------



## kzyswd

Just moved from FF17 to WF18
Now 3 finger swipe for back/forward is not working but instead it does page up/down.
Worked okay on any other programs so far (FF, IE, explorer...)
I tried changing ui.elantech_gesture_hacks.enabled to 0 but it doesnt help.
Any ideas for a fix?


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks for the explanation!


You'll also notice the latest nightly for win64 hasn't been updated since the 9th...


----------



## BMT

Thanks for the new version MrAlex! I'm also experiencing the same ~30% CPU usage spikes that others reported with 18.0.1 for some reason. I'm starting to wonder if it's perhaps an Intel CPU issue for some reason? Unless I missed something, I think they've all been Core i7's that reported the issue so far.


----------



## charlir

I have had the freeze issues but had them since WF 14 up and FF 14 up also.. I have no idea..

Since I started to use 18.01 WF I crashed once .. thats it

Other then that works fine.

No spike issues on My lappy but its only a I3 with 8 gig ram..(I monitor ram cpu etc) havent had time to test on the desktop I7.

So far working great.. thanks Mr Alex


----------



## limeybrit

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Thanks for the new version MrAlex! I'm also experiencing the same ~30% CPU usage spikes that others reported with 18.0.1 for some reason. I'm starting to wonder if it's perhaps an Intel CPU issue for some reason? Unless I missed something, I think they've all been Core i7's that reported the issue so far.


I've been seeing similar CPU spikes (with corresponding 1-2 second freezes when pegging 95+%) on a desktop running Win7 Ultimate on an Core 2 Duo. This is with a large number of tabs (400+) with WF18 memory usage in the upper 2gig range. Didn't see the same spikes with WF15 same usage profile, though it would start to slow down after running for several days.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> You'll also notice the latest nightly for win64 hasn't been updated since the 9th...


That's probably to Mozilla's 64bit discussion, but the last I heard they'll resume building 64bit Nightly sooner or later?


----------



## dnyanesh

I didn't want to do it. I installed Cyberfox as watching videos on WF18 was becoming very difficult. There's a lot of improvement. Almost no stutter and no lag. I just wish that WF19 will be alright just like WF16 and earlier.


----------



## Mr6686

Same high CPU usage here with Firefox 18.0.1 or Waterfox 18.0.1 with many tabs (~400 with only 1-5 really opened); I tested with a new profile: same problem. The only thing that improve this is to set javascript.options.methodjit.chrome to false; but still more CPU usage than Firefox 16.0.1 or Waterfox 16.0.1 and micro-freeze on GUI and videos (same thing with new profile and 1-5 tabs). I suspect the new IonMonkey.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> That's probably to Mozilla's 64bit discussion, but the last I heard they'll resume building 64bit Nightly sooner or later?


That was the supposed plan, but my guess is without someone building 64 bit variants regularly, quite a few x64 bugs will crop up unnoticed in changes made, and it'll take significantly longer to restart the build process... I just hope it doesn't adversely affect Waterfox 21.


----------



## kevindd992002

I have multiple tab groups in WF/FF and they contain lots of tabs in them. Why is it that after cycling through ALL the tab groups, WF or FF will start to lag when I'm browsing even just a single tab (single site). Does anyone experience this?

I have to restart WF/FF for this lag to go away.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I have multiple tab groups in WF/FF and they contain lots of tabs in them. Why is it that after cycling through ALL the tab groups, WF or FF will start to lag when I'm browsing even just a single tab (single site). Does anyone experience this?
> 
> I have to restart WF/FF for this lag to go away.


Most the lag I've experienced in such situations ends up being caused by extensions... That's just personal experience, but "Restarting with Add-ons disabled" would be a place to start.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Most the lag I've experienced in such situations ends up being caused by extensions... That's just personal experience, but "Restarting with Add-ons disabled" would be a place to start.


The only extension I have is Internet Download Manager. Could that be the culprit?


----------



## kenpachiroks

*Sometimes* some websites load only partway(overclock.net for instance). Restarting doesn't make a difference. A CCleaner run seems to clear this though.









+rep MrAlex, keep up the good work


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> That was the supposed plan, but my guess is without someone building 64 bit variants regularly, quite a few x64 bugs will crop up unnoticed in changes made, and it'll take significantly longer to restart the build process... I just hope it doesn't adversely affect Waterfox 21.


win x64 nightlies resumed yesterday. i'm using it at the moment. so far so good. WF18 is my default browser tho.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> The only extension I have is Internet Download Manager. Could that be the culprit?


Try disabling it and see.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> win x64 nightlies resumed yesterday. i'm using it at the moment. so far so good. WF18 is my default browser tho.


Interesting. Glad they didn't leave it too long. Perhaps there was something that required more resources in another area for a time, or a blocker cropped up.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Ok, i'm back to WF 16.
It's not possible to work with 18. It hangs to much for a couple of seconds.


----------



## Calleja

Something seems to be wrong since I updated to 18, javascript seems to not work (reddit and the "load more comments" links in particular), and when I open Waterfox I get 2 icons in the taskbar, the pinned one I used to open it and a new one that disappears when I close it. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling to no avail. Did something go wrong or am I missing something?


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Something seems to be wrong since I updated to 18, javascript seems to not work (reddit and the "load more comments" links in particular), and when I open Waterfox I get 2 icons in the taskbar, the pinned one I used to open it and a new one that disappears when I close it. I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling to no avail. Did something go wrong or am I missing something?


Unfortunately I can't really help with the Javascript issue as I've never experienced that, but as for the two waterfox icons in the taskbar - I've found you have to unpin and re-pin every time you install a new version of Waterfox.

The only thing I can think of for Javascript is re-installing & creating a new profile.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Problems!









I like to install Firefox 12 (or now, Waterfox 12) because it is the last version to separate the "memorize download and browsing history" options. I've never had problems then upgrading to later versions.

But when I tried this with Waterfox now (having always done it with FF12 before), I ran into some problems. (Note" Method of upgrade was to download WF 18 from Sourceforge and perform a manual upgrade by installing it to the same directory as WF older version)

Basically now WF keeps asking me every time on launch if I want to make it the default.

Additionally the pinned taskbar icon belonging to WF 12 doesn't want to go away! So now I have two pinned icons, one which just will not go away even when manually unpinned.



EDIT:

Even more aggravating!

I found out how to force unpinning from the taskbar by manually deleting the shortcuts out of some AppData folder.

NOW when I run Waterfox from the Desktop shortcut, it re-pins the wrong version!



EDIT 2:

It looks like when WF 18 installed, it didn't correctly remove all traces of WF 12. Is it safe to use the uninstaller or will I accidentally take out WF 18 too?


----------



## Calleja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Unfortunately I can't really help with the Javascript issue as I've never experienced that, but as for the two waterfox icons in the taskbar - I've found you have to unpin and re-pin every time you install a new version of Waterfox.
> 
> The only thing I can think of for Javascript is re-installing & creating a new profile.


There's something weird going on and I'm really stumped and a bit desperate... uninstalling Waterfox, deleting the profile entirely and reinstalling solves neither of my issues... I still get the same problem with XUL incompatibility Quantum Reality posted about and reddit and some other sites refuse to load correctly, something is wrong with I'm assuming is javascript but I have no idea what to do about it if it's not something in the profile or that uninstalling doesn't solve.

The really frustrating thing is it was working perfectly yesterday with Waterfox 16 but now not even going back solves it. It's also a problem with regular Firefox now, but not Chrome. Something seems to have gone terribly wrong in my registry or something... any help or suggestion at ALL about where to look at would really help me out, I use reddit for work and this is kicking my ass.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> It looks like when WF 18 installed, it didn't correctly remove all traces of WF 12. Is it safe to use the uninstaller or will I accidentally take out WF 18 too?


WF 12 should have been uninstalled before you installed 18.0.1. You'll probably find some previous WF 12 files are now conflicting with the new ones.

My advice would be uninstall WF 12, Uninstall WF18.0.1, then re-install WF 18.0.1, this should hopefully resolve your issues.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> WF 12 should have been uninstalled before you installed 18.0.1. You'll probably find some previous WF 12 files are now conflicting with the new ones.
> 
> My advice would be uninstall WF 12, Uninstall WF18.0.1, then re-install WF 18.0.1, this should hopefully resolve your issues.


In my experience normally WF's installers correctly manually upgrade over previous versions so this is a little vexing.

Especially as I just reinstalled Win7 last night.


----------



## Calleja

Ok... so I finally got some results by uninstalling Waterfox with the uninstaller (which seems to be doing a lousy job, btw) and then manually deleted all waterfox related folders in program files, appdata etc. I reinstalled Waterfox 18 and STILL have the double-icon issue, but with a new profile javascript seems to be working again, which is really my main concern.

Now I need to figure out how to fix the double-icon issue. Last time this happened was because I installed the new Waterfox over the old one and that caused issues, but this time I've installed everything from scratch and actually get the "no icon" symbol instead of a double Waterfox icon now:



I click on the one on top and the one under it appears and that's the one that appears "selected". No matter how many times I unpin and re-pin.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Calleja*
> 
> Ok... so I finally got some results by uninstalling Waterfox with the uninstaller (which seems to be doing a lousy job, btw) and then manually deleted all waterfox related folders in program files, appdata etc. I reinstalled Waterfox 18 and STILL have the double-icon issue, but with a new profile javascript seems to be working again, which is really my main concern.
> 
> Now I need to figure out how to fix the double-icon issue. Last time this happened was because I installed the new Waterfox over the old one and that caused issues, but this time I've installed everything from scratch and actually get the "no icon" symbol instead of a double Waterfox icon now:
> 
> 
> 
> I click on the one on top and the one under it appears and that's the one that appears "selected". No matter how many times I unpin and re-pin.


http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/49819-icon-cache-rebuild.html


----------



## Calleja

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/49819-icon-cache-rebuild.html


Well, I followed the instructions and the result was now I see this:


I guess because the problem is only with Waterfox and no other icons are having problems. The main issue is the refusing to stay pinned thing, more than the lack of an icon, which I'm sure is just a symptom.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/49819-icon-cache-rebuild.html


This worked. The old WF is no longer trying to pin itself when I run WF.









EDIT: I've discovered the re-pinning bug seems to happen when I turn on "always check on startup if Waterfox is the default browser".


----------



## Calleja

I fixed it too!!

For anyone having similar issues, the only thing that worked for me was bringing up the jump list (right clicking on the pinned icon) and selecting "waterfox"... this brought up an error dialog that said something like "the target firefox.exe the link refers to no longer exists, remove icon?" I clicked yes and the icon magically turned into the Firefox one and merged with the "old" one.

That was an odd bug, but everything seems in working order now.


----------



## Quantum Reality

My big suggestion would be for:

1. Either recommend NOT to try upgrading from old versions of Waterfox - instead manually uninstall then install the latest one

OR

2. The installer exe should be made more robust and sense previous versions of Waterfox.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I'm experiencing issues getting the 64-bit flash to install and I can't pin down whether it's my slightly borked Waterfox setup or an issue with Adobe's site. Does anyone know where I can access the full 64-bit flash installer and not the web-stub that has to download it separately?

EDIT: There is an obscure link in the Adobe Help page that directs you to the complete installer. Working fine for me now.


----------



## jjpjimmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> I also have freezes for 2-5 seconds in WF 18 that i didn't have with WF 16.


same here.

Tired of Firefox/waterfox problems, migrating to something else...


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjpjimmy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> I also have freezes for 2-5 seconds in WF 18 that i didn't have with WF 16.
> 
> 
> 
> same here.
> Tired of Firefox/waterfox problems, migrating to something else...
Click to expand...

These are probably the obscure 64bit problems that made Mozilla try to drop the 64bit Firefox builds - with a limited user base and thus limited potential to triangulate the problem it's hardly possible to debug something like this.

Also please don't make it sound like Waterfox is the problem or MrAlex is responsible, he's just compiling it and cannot provide tech support - you are free to switch to a more stable browser at least for the time being. For me, Waterfox is rock stable, it's just that it's not the fastest 64bit build anymore, but I'm looking forward to Waterfox 19 gaining new momentum!


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> My big suggestion would be for:
> 
> 1. Either recommend NOT to try upgrading from old versions of Waterfox - instead manually uninstall then install the latest one
> 
> OR
> 
> 2. The installer exe should be made more robust and sense previous versions of Waterfox.


I forget how many versions ago, but at some point WF switched to using a different installer.
At this point it was no longer possible to simply upgrade from one to the other and you had to uninstall first, this used to be mentioned in the original post, but it was quite some time ago and no longer is.

In your case 12 to 18.0.1 was simply too big a jump, the installer change definitely happened at some point after 12.


----------



## Hot Wirez

Been using Waterfox for over a year now, and it's probably one of the most stable browsers I've used besides Seamonkey.
I've tried them all, but I always go back to Mozilla on all flavors available:
Songbird, Thunderbird, Waterfox, Firefox, and Seamonkey.

When I jumped ship from Apple, Mozilla came in and made me happy again!









Thank you so much for your invaluable contributions, MrAlex!


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hot Wirez*
> 
> Been using Waterfox for over a year now, and it's probably one of the most stable browsers I've used besides Seamonkey.
> I've tried them all, but I always go back to Mozilla on all flavors available:
> Songbird, Thunderbird, Waterfox, Firefox, and Seamonkey.
> 
> When I jumped ship from Apple, Mozilla came in and made me happy again!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you so much for your invaluable contributions, MrAlex!


Couldn't have said it better than myself!


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> There is an obscure link in the Adobe Help page that directs you to the complete installer. Working fine for me now.


Not so obscure: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/installation-problems-flash-player-windows.html#main-pars_header


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> Not so obscure: http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/kb/installation-problems-flash-player-windows.html#main-pars_header


Sure, buried in all the other help options. That's like, totally prominent.


----------



## HanFox

Waterfox crashing when trying to print.

Firefox 18.0.1 had no issues and neither does IE.

If I try to access the properties of the printer via Waterfox I get an error:



*EDIT:* Also, can anyone tell me why every now and again I can't type in Waterfox? It just refuses until I click about randomly for a bit.


----------



## kristee

Hi!

Where can I find .xpi-s?
Here I only see two files...


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *HanFox*
> 
> Waterfox crashing when trying to print.
> 
> Firefox 18.0.1 had no issues and neither does IE.
> 
> If I try to access the properties of the printer via Waterfox I get an error:
> 
> 
> 
> *EDIT:* Also, can anyone tell me why every now and again I can't type in Waterfox? It just refuses until I click about randomly for a bit.


I couldn't reproduce this.


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kristee*
> 
> Hi!
> 
> Where can I find .xpi-s?
> Here I only see two files...


Here :

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/18.0.1/win32/xpi/


----------



## Trommy

Very bad, that 17-18.0 dont support XPx64, i like this OS.


----------



## kevindd992002

Is there anyone using WF/FF here with IDM (Internet Download Manager)? Are you experiencing any lags?


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is there anyone using WF/FF here with IDM (Internet Download Manager)? Are you experiencing any lags?


Yes. I recently switched to Cyberfox since WF 18 was lagging badly and the videos stuttered. Everything is fine on Cyberfox. Is it IDM or WF?


----------



## btgbullseye

Additional info about 18.0.1 crashing on my system... About once every 6 crashes it would also crash my video driver. (I'm running the latest drivers from Nvidia) It was also using over 80% of my processor to start up, close out, or crash.

Also, because I was getting so fed up with not being able to do anything online, I switched back to 16.0.1, and all the crashes have stopped.

[EDIT] I'm on the Lenovo laptop that is in my sig.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Yes. I recently switched to Cyberfox since WF 18 was lagging badly and the videos stuttered. Everything is fine on Cyberfox. Is it IDM or WF?


Hmm, interesting. I'm experiencing the same exact symptoms too. You never had problems with Cyberfox after switching?

Is IDM compatible with Cyberfox?


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Basically now WF keeps asking me every time on launch if I want to make it the default.


I have this issue since upgrading from v16 and can't get rid of it - I've tried running as administrator and using the options menu, but the button remains active. I'm running on Windows 7.

Is there any other way to get rid of this prompt and make WF the default?

**Update** never mind, fixed it by running:

Code:



Code:


"%ProgramFiles%\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -silent -nosplash -setDefaultBrowser

Hopefully it won't come back


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Sure, buried in all the other help options. That's like, totally prominent.


There is also the distribution link with more offline downloads (including MSI): http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html


----------



## RuBB3rBunZ

Hello guys! Nice job with the new waterfox build Mr. Alex. I have been using this for a year now. Only issues I have on WF18 is random spikes to %16 on cpu and an occasional crash here or two.. flash works great. 35+ Tabs open

Just one question to the users. Today and hopefully today. When WF crashes, does your computer reboot? I checked the event viewer and here what states it.. no overclocks on system either

This pic leads to the crash but I don't know if its relevant:



This one is app error



Here are my plugins


----------



## Trommy

Hmm...version 16.0 and older work correctly on WinXPx64. Whats wrong with 18.0?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> Hmm...version 16.0 and older work correctly on WinXPx64. Whats wrong with 18.0?


It seems that he changed the installer. The kludge is probably to manually install WF on a Win7 system and then keep track of what files get stored where, then copy them manually to your XP system.


----------



## wharke

I am having an installation issue with Waterfox 18.01. When I attempt to install it, it stalls with the error

"Extracting files from archive"

I have left it at that point for over two hours but it will not complete installation. It hangs and I have to manually close it by ending the process with Task Manager. I also redownloaded the installation file several times from different sources, thinking the file may be corrupt, and that did not work. Any hope would be greatly appreciated!

Wayne H. Harke


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Hmm, interesting. I'm experiencing the same exact symptoms too. You never had problems with Cyberfox after switching?
> 
> Is IDM compatible with Cyberfox?


Nope. None at all. And yes, IDM is compatible with CyberFox.


----------



## shipmariner

Hello all. Apologies if these questions have already been asked (I did search the thread; your FAQ link is broken).

A few questions I have:

*1)* Is there any way to change Waterfox's color scheme? The navy blue color of the main "Waterfox" button clashes badly with my Windows 7 theme, and I'm used to the Firefox orange.

*2)* Similarly, is there any way to change Waterfox's program icon? It's extremely similar to Thunderbird's and confuses me often. Plus, the bright orange of Firefox is something which people are used to "scanning for" with their eyes. I appreciate Waterfox is its own development and must have an identity, but color is something people are very much used to.

Also, some feedback:

Waterfox works flawlessly with Firefox Preloader (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffpreloader/) although I had to rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe.

Aside from the color/icon issues, what a fantastic development. Thanks so much.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Nope. None at all. And yes, IDM is compatible with CyberFox.


Are you using IDM though? I noticed that when IDM is enabled in Cyberfox, it still lags especially in Flash videos. Turning it off seems to solve the problem for Cyberfox/FF/WF.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shipmariner*
> 
> Hello all. Apologies if these questions have already been asked (I did search the thread; your FAQ link is broken).
> 
> A few questions I have:
> 
> *1)* Is there any way to change Waterfox's color scheme? The navy blue color of the main "Waterfox" button clashes badly with my Windows 7 theme, and I'm used to the Firefox orange.
> 
> *2)* Similarly, is there any way to change Waterfox's program icon? It's extremely similar to Thunderbird's and confuses me often. Plus, the bright orange of Firefox is something which people are used to "scanning for" with their eyes. I appreciate Waterfox is its own development and must have an identity, but color is something people are very much used to.
> 
> Also, some feedback:
> 
> Waterfox works flawlessly with Firefox Preloader (http://sourceforge.net/projects/ffpreloader/) although I had to rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe.
> 
> Aside from the color/icon issues, what a fantastic development. Thanks so much.


1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/app-button-color/

2. http://www.angusj.com/resourcehacker/
1. Drag and drop the .exe into Resource Hacker
2. Action >> Replace Icon...
3. File >> Save...
4. Make sure the new .exe is working, and then delete the original.


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Are you using IDM though? I noticed that when IDM is enabled in Cyberfox, it still lags especially in Flash videos. Turning it off seems to solve the problem for Cyberfox/FF/WF.


Yes, I use IDM. Ever since I have switched to Cyberfox, the stuttering in the flash videos has dropped significantly. It hardly drops any frames.


----------



## shipmariner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> 1. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/app-button-color/
> 
> 2. http://www.angusj.com/resourcehacker/
> 1. Drag and drop the .exe into Resource Hacker
> 2. Action >> Replace Icon...
> 3. File >> Save...
> 4. Make sure the new .exe is working, and then delete the original.


Awesome, thank you so much.

I discovered that instead of installing another addon to change the main Firefox button's color, you can actually just edit the [profile]/chrome/userChrome.css file and add this code to turn it back to the default (orange) color: http://paste2.org/p/2813981

Also I did the Resource Hacker to change Waterfox's icon back to the default Firefox one and it worked!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dnyanesh*
> 
> Yes, I use IDM. Ever since I have switched to Cyberfox, the stuttering in the flash videos has dropped significantly. It hardly drops any frames.


So what could be causing my problems then?


----------



## dnyanesh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So what could be causing my problems then?


Can't think of anything. For me, everything was fine until the WF18 update was installed. Some users have reported it to be crashing but It didn't crash on me, it just lagged and didn't play flash videos very well.


----------



## Lord Venom

Just throwing this idea out there, but did you guys try using clean/new profiles? Reason why I say that is I always start a new browser profile (I do this for all my web browsers) with each new major version and I never run into issues like this.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Just throwing this idea out there, but did you guys try using clean/new profiles? Reason why I say that is I always start a new browser profile (I do this for all my web browsers) with each new major version and I never run into issues like this.


I don't use a new profile, and rarely ever have a problem.

In-fact I can't remember having a single problem besides the old icon duplicating itself on the taskbar problem.


----------



## hoffo

Does Waterfox no longer support XP x64 (server 2003 x64)? I got an error message saying "waterfox.exe is not a valid win32 application". I've been running Waterfox 16 without issue so I was surprised to see that it wouldn't run. I tried cyberfox as well and got the same error message saying "not a valid win32 application". I've gone back to Watefox 16 since the new build won't run.


----------



## dylix

just wondering if this is a bug, in windows 8 if i pin waterfox to the taskbar, i get two icons when its running instead of it being under one.


=================
| EDIT |
=================

seems unpinning the original then pinning the 'duplicate' fixed the problem. lol


----------



## topography

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hoffo*
> 
> Does Waterfox no longer support XP x64 (server 2003 x64)? I got an error message saying "waterfox.exe is not a valid win32 application".


Waterfox is compiled by MS Visual C++ 2012 and that compiler by default produces executables only compatible with Vista or higher. But Microsoft did release an Update 1 for MSVC 2012 which includes official XP targeting support. See here and here. Though I don't know if Waterfox 18 is using XP targeting and it's just bugged, or if it was compiled without XP targeting.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *topography*
> 
> Waterfox is compiled by MS Visual C++ 2012 and that compiler by default produces executables only compatible with Vista or higher. But Microsoft did release an Update 1 for MSVC 2012 which includes official XP targeting support. See here and here. Though I don't know if Waterfox 18 is using XP targeting and it's just bugged, or if it was compiled without XP targeting.


Well, MrAlex could always do a recompile and then put up a separate "XP compatible" link I guess.









Speaking of, does MrAlex still need donations?


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shipmariner*
> 
> Awesome, thank you so much.
> 
> I discovered that instead of installing another addon to change the main Firefox button's color, you can actually just edit the [profile]/chrome/userChrome.css file and add this code to turn it back to the default (orange) color: http://paste2.org/p/2813981
> 
> Also I did the Resource Hacker to change Waterfox's icon back to the default Firefox one and it worked!


Might also want to try out FXChrome, and FXChrome Mods... Interesting visual alterations you can get out of it. (even make it look more like Google Chrome)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *dylix*
> 
> just wondering if this is a bug, in windows 8 if i pin waterfox to the taskbar, i get two icons when its running instead of it being under one.
> 
> 
> =================
> | EDIT |
> =================
> 
> seems unpinning the original then pinning the 'duplicate' fixed the problem. lol


Just pin it once it's running or it pins the shortcut instead of the program.


----------



## joe222

How do I launch the command:
firefox -ProfileManager

or equivalent on waterfox?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joe222*
> 
> How do I launch the command:
> firefox -ProfileManager
> or equivalent on waterfox?


Um, how about waterfox.exe -ProfileManager :-> ?

The only differences between Waterfox/Cyberfox/... to Firefox are just custom installers and compiler settings/versions, the string "Firefox" has been replaced all over the place plus the main executable is (put your preferred flavor here).exe


----------



## Marsu24

Fyi: I just experienced my first Waterfox 18 crash, so it's not just other people's problem, w/o any attempt to troll I have to say I'm off to another browser until this is fixed - Waterfox just tore a longer text in a forum into the abyss :-< ... so speed is fine, but not at the cost of stability.

I'd love to submit detailed data to support the debugging and development, but all I can say it just froze and I had to kill the process :-\ which is rather unusual because I nearly never see a browser crash.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Fyi: I just experienced my first Waterfox 18 crash, so it's not just other people's problem, w/o any attempt to troll I have to say I'm off to another browser until this is fixed - Waterfox just tore a longer text in a forum into the abyss :-< ... so speed is fine, but not at the cost of stability.


bit of an overreaction to ONE crash?

I've had WF18 crash too, but then every browser also crashed on the same page (this was confirmed by MANY users on another forum) except I think opera, oh, and some people had no problem with it - it was a strange issue

the web page was a particular news article on abc.net.au - all other news articles were fine for everyone, this one article crashed everything - it has since been fixed

so ... single crash is not a reason to change browsers, IMHO


----------



## joe222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *joe222*
> 
> How do I launch the command:
> firefox -ProfileManager
> 
> or equivalent on waterfox?
> 
> 
> 
> Um, how about waterfox.exe -ProfileManager :-> ?
> 
> The only differences between Waterfox/Cyberfox/... to Firefox are just custom installers and compiler settings/versions, the string "Firefox" has been replaced all over the place plus the main executable is (put your preferred flavor here).exe
Click to expand...

I get the same error:

"Windows cannot find 'waterfox.exe'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again."


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> so ... single crash is not a reason to change browsers, IMHO


Well, I think so too - but it falls in line with other reports of v18 crashing and v16 not. I'll surely try Waterfox 19 again, but yesterday I was rather frustrated after the browser killed a longer text - so I'll just wait for a Cyberfox crash to make up my mind 
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joe222*
> 
> "Windows cannot find 'waterfox.exe'. Make sure you typed the name correctly, and then try again."


 of course you have to either give the full path to waterfox.exe (the directory is not in the windows search path) or open a cmd.exe window, cd to the waterfox directory and then type "waterfox.exe -ProfileManager" ... I just tried it, it works.


----------



## kevindd992002

There's already WF19?


----------



## Lord Venom

Not until Firefox 19's officially released.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Not until Firefox 19's officially released.


Well, they guy above said he used WF19, lol. And that made my "huh?"


----------



## kronckew

i gathered he meant in future when it eventually comes out.







but then again, if he had a tardis...


----------



## joe222

running:
C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe -p
C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe -P
C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe -profile
C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe -Profile
C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe -ProfileManager

sends me to my browser's home page. How can I run the profile manager?


----------



## Rpg2

Been using Waterfox for a while now. The latest version has been giving me random lag spikes and freezing that lasts for about ~5-7 seconds. Never had this problem back on previous versions.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *joe222*
> 
> running:
> C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe -p
> ...
> 
> sends me to my browser's home page. How can I run the profile manager?


works for me. i enclose the filename portion in quotes, the -p appended outside the quotes:

"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -p

you might go straight to your home page if you have a hidden incidence of waterfox running in background. reboot to ensure you don't, then try it.


----------



## zakazak

Since Waterfox 18.x I experience A LOT OF CPU USAGE.

No matter what profile I use (old one or new one)... waterfox CPU usage jumps on all 8 cpu threads to ~20%-30%... with a few more tabs open it sits at 70% PER CPU THREAD (8x 3,2 Ghz).

The cpu usage seems to be low when waterfox is minimized or e.g. like now, not scrolling, just reading/writing.

Hope there is an update soon which will fix that problem.. else I have to switch to smth else because my vents are crying a lot


----------



## joe222

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> works for me. i enclose the filename portion in quotes, the -p appended outside the quotes:
> 
> "C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -p
> 
> you might go straight to your home page if you have a hidden incidence of waterfox running in background. reboot to ensure you don't, then try it.


Thanks. Works for me now.


----------



## tek2005

Firefox 18.0.2 released on mozilla ftp. No change log yet, will edit post when its up.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/18.0.2/releasenotes/

looks like it fixes issue that some people may have been experiencing in waterfox too so nice.









edit3:
Quote:


> Fixed:
> -18.0.2: Fix JavaScript related stability issues
> -18.0.1: Problems involving HTTP Proxy Transactions (Associated bugs)
> -18.0.1: Unity player crashes on Mac OS X (bug 828954)
> -18.0.1: Disabled HIDPI support when using external monitors to avoid rendering glitches (bug 814434)
> 
> New:
> -Faster JavaScript performance via IonMonkey compiler
> -Support for Retina Display on OS X 10.7 and up
> -Preliminary support for WebRTC
> 
> Changed:
> -Experience better image quality with our new HTML scaling algorithm
> -Performance improvements around tab switching
> 
> Developer:
> -Support for new DOM property window.devicePixelRatio
> -Improvement in startup time through smart handling of signed extension certificates
> 
> Html5:
> -Support for W3C touch events implemented, taking the place of MozTouch events
> 
> Fixed:
> -Disable insecure content loading on HTTPS pages (62178)
> -Improved responsiveness for users on proxies (769764)


----------



## Taomyn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> Firefox 18.0.2 released on mozilla ftp. No change log yet, will edit post when its up.
> 
> edit: still waiting for release notes to see if its anything big. :X
> 
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/18.0.2/releasenotes/ (not up yet)


Seems one of the fixes is crashes in Facebook: http://www.ghacks.net/2013/02/05/firefox-18-0-2-will-resolve-crashes-when-on-facebook/ but I suspect it's not just with them, only that they're quite a high-profile initiator of the issue.


----------



## Lord Venom

The release notes for Firefox 18.0.2 are out...

18.0.2: Fix JavaScript related stability issues

It might be a good idea to update Waterfox to 18.0.2 then?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> It might be a good idea to update Waterfox to 18.0.2 then?


I'd say definitely, maybe the crash I experienced was also due to this Mozilla bug and Waterfox has nothing to do with it! So I'll use Waterfox again if there's any hope, for the time being Cyberfox (https://8pecxstudios.com/?page_id=52) is already at 18.0.2 so that'll have to do until Waterfox is updated.


----------



## ALMIGO

Hi

In Waterfox and Firefox is a bug on tooltips. When i maked in my popup.css in my theme border-radius: 16px then is in the addon manager and errorconsole a trancparency background !!! I will this runded i found not a code for this problem i have all other code testet see snapshot !!!

http://s14.directupload.net/file/d/3158/lcybozpf_jpg.htm

http://s1.directupload.net/file/d/3158/y6y5uv2m_jpg.htm

Here my code in my popup.css:

tooltip {
color: #000;
font: message-box;
max-width: 50em;
margin-top: 21px;
padding: 4px 5px;
border: 1px solid #808080;
background-color: #c0c0c0;
border-radius: 16px;
text-align: center;
}

Can you help me thanks for all !!!
Sorry for my english im come from germany !!! ;-)


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Rpg2*
> 
> Been using Waterfox for a while now. The latest version has been giving me random lag spikes and freezing that lasts for about ~5-7 seconds. Never had this problem back on previous versions.


My goodness I'm glad I'm not the only one experiencing this exact problem. Most of the time I can ignore it, but it gets very irritating when I'm typing up a post and the freeze causes it to completely forget whatever I typed when it started. If all the text suddenly appeared afterwards, fine...but I type pretty quickly so whole sentences can get lost in that lag! Never happened before 18.0.1. Already completely uninstalled Java, though I haven't tried disabling Flash just yet. Did notice that it's sitting there sucking up 32% of my CPU on average. I do have 50 tabs open, sure... but hey, the last Waterfox I had installed didn't do this.









Hoping for a fix when 19 rolls around!

EDIT: Just tested disabling Flash completely and no, it still experiences the same lag spikes and multi-second freezes. It does use less average CPU but that could just as easily because it's freshly restarted. Or it could be Flash being disabled. Either or. Point being, even with much less CPU usage and Flash completely disabled the browser itself still lags and locks up every so often for no discernable reason whereas previous versions did not.


----------



## Stilez

It's not just you, I hit CPU spikes and system freezing on v18. I gave it a while to be sure, then regressed it back to 16.0.1 for now, which is fine. I'm guessing it could be the new compiler Alex has been forced to use (same one which caused the issues before), or else the firefox code-base itself. Hard to tell, but Alex does a pretty good job and I appreciate it a lot, so this is purely for information, that it's not just a couple of people hitting this.

With luck the 18.0.2 javascript changes fix it







We'll see


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> It's not just you, I hit CPU spikes and system freezing on v18. I gave it a while to be sure, then regressed it back to 16.0.1 for now, which is fine. I'm guessing it could be the new compiler Alex has been forced to use (same one which caused the issues before), or else the firefox code-base itself. Hard to tell, but Alex does a pretty good job and I appreciate it a lot, so this is purely for information, that it's not just a couple of people hitting this.
> 
> With luck the 18.0.2 javascript changes fix it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We'll see


+1


----------



## JayBart

Is 18.0.2 Waterfox in the works? Hopefully out soon as people are saying the FF version fixed a lot of the speed issues etc..


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Is 18.0.2 Waterfox in the works? Hopefully out soon as people are saying the FF version fixed a lot of the speed issues etc..


Please do not harass MrAlex for updates. Be patient, the last Waterfox version took about two month to be completed. A new version will be released when it's done.

But personally I hope now that the compiler bugs are fixed it won't take long, many people here seem to have switched back to Waterfox 16 or use Cyberfox 18.0.2 in the meantime because of Waterfox crashes - if the new Waterfox arrives with the js fix will be received with a lot of enthusiasm!


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Is 18.0.2 Waterfox in the works? Hopefully out soon as people are saying the FF version fixed a lot of the speed issues etc..
> 
> 
> 
> Please do not harass MrAlex for updates. Be patient, the last Waterfox version took about two month to be completed. A new version will be released when it's done.
> 
> But personally I hope now that the compiler bugs are fixed it won't take long, many people here seem to have switched back to Waterfox 16 or use Cyberfox 18.0.2 in the meantime because of Waterfox crashes - if the new Waterfox arrives with the js fix will be received with a lot of enthusiasm!
Click to expand...

Indeed - but worth emphasising in all this that when people say "waterfox crashes", it doesn't mean in any way it's Alex's or Waterfox's "fault". he compiles the code base supplied by Mozilla, using compilers supplied by Intel - and from what I can see pretty much keeps it clean codewise, so if those 2 have problems, Waterfox will, and if they're good Waterfox will be too. That's exactly what I expect to happen, and as we all know, the compilers are new and have had bugs, Mozilla has de-prioritised bugs that only appear on x64 builds (new since v16.0.1), and the Firefox 18.0.1 codebase had some issues itself - hopefully the materials he's working with are fixed or soon will be







Then we'll all upgrade. I imagine he's also keen to test carefully this time, to try and determine if there are any other bugs creeping into Waterfox from Intel or Mozilla.

Bottom line:

He's doing a good job and he'll take what time he needs. If he didn't, it won't be the Waterfox we want. But he can't put right by himself what Intel and Mozilla make glitchy


----------



## JayBart

As I don't harass anybody I don't know why you would reply like that. In fact I'm one of the many who said its working well was just wondering if he was doing the newer FF code. Since you've complained mightily and trumped cyberfox repeatedly while I'm only advocating for WF it makes your reply somewhat strange.







Besides just recompiling the added code in .0.2 isn't like doing the whole 18 again.








I know what it is to have a busy life and many things to do thats why I was politely asking if he was going to incorperate the new changes which people are very happy about in FF to the Waterfox code


----------



## Quantum Reality

I thought (from WF's website) that actually MrAlex had managed to get some compiler bugs fixed?


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Be patient, the last Waterfox version took about two month to be completed.


really?

Firefox 18.0.1 released January 18, 2013
Waterfox 18.0.1 released January 19, 2013

that's a day.

Saying it took two months is gross misinformation at best


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Be patient, the last Waterfox version took about two month to be completed.
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> Firefox 18.0.1 released January 18, 2013
> Waterfox 18.0.1 released January 19, 2013
> 
> that's a day.
> 
> Saying it took two months is gross misinformation at best
Click to expand...

I think he/she means it took 2 months between versions, as Mralex had compiler problems and did not release WF17


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> As I don't harass anybody I don't know why you would reply like that. In fact I'm one of the many who said its working well was just wondering if he was doing the newer FF code. Since you've complained mightily and trumped cyberfox repeatedly while I'm only advocating for WF it makes your reply somewhat strange.


Sorry, I didn't want to offend you, basically I just quoted the standard reply from the wf16->wf18 delay which most likely also applies now.

However my memory fails me if I try to remember when I "complained mightily" about wf, it's still my favorite browser, though I was surprised by some benchmarks I ran and the recent crash reports, but those were probably due to a ff bug as I also noted. The thing I share was my intermediary feeling that the communication about wf's future and release cycle could be further improved, but now that Cyberfox has faster updates I'm happy to wait for wf until it's done. Imho this also doesn't qualify as a biased "trumping cyberfox repeatedly", I'm just stating facts here.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> [ think he/she means it took 2 months between versions, as Mralex had compiler problems and did not release WF17


Yes, that's correct - though I didn't research the exact time between wf16 and wf18.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I try to remember when I "complained mightily" about wf...


You are the one who continuously post about Waterfox crashes, and introduce the other 64-bit browser in your every single post, sometimes even with the actual download link. If this were my forum I would ban you for spamming.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> You are the one who continuously post about Waterfox crashes, and introduce the other 64-bit browser in your every single post, sometimes even with the actual download link.


I am sorry you feel so strongly about it, it is certainly not my intention to infuriate other forum members - though there seem to be different approaches to a discussion as seen in the benchmark posts (is it allowed to post a benchmark where wf is not first?). I just like to ask you to look through my posts http://www.overclock.net/forums/posts/by_user/id/318182 any you'll see that you're simply mistaken - I posted the crash only once, completely in context with user users even switching back to wf16, and then discussed if it's a wf or a ff issue, and also in this context noted that the js fix is implemented in the other 64bit browser so it should be possible to isolate the cause.

And I certainly don't promote one of the other 64-bit browsers in every post - if you have a look I recently helped with other profile manager, flash and compiler issues and expressed support for MrAlex priorities of real life over unpaid projects.Reflecting on this I find your demand for a ban completely unfunded and would humbly like to ask you to review your opinion and to do more research before jumping to conclusions again - thanks.


----------



## zakazak

I already reported 1 day after the release of waterfox 18.0.1 that random cpu spikes are appearing. It eats 90% of my core i-7 (on all 8 threads) and makes waterfox 18.x useless for me.

Firefox 18.0.1 works without any troubles.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> I think he/she means it took 2 months between versions, as Mralex had compiler problems and did not release WF17


and those compiler issues have been resolved and are irrelevant

However, I do agree, there's no need to hound "MrAlex" about the next version


----------



## Reciever80

Hey, spent about half an hour or so perusing this thread, and so far haven't found any real solution to this problem I'm having.

Every time I update Waterfox, I get the same two/three issues: The first is that it gives me the MinVersion and MaxVersion error (i.e. for this update it was 18.1 and 16.1). So I do what people suggest and run a clean install of waterfox, which sort of fixes that problem. But as soon as I do that, when I click on the desktop shortcut, I get the missing icon problem on my taskbar. The reason for this is because it's running as firefox.exe, and I know this because when I pin the open program to the quick launch part, and then try to run it again later, it says, "firefox.exe cannot be found."

I'm almost positive all three of these issues are caused because of a firefox.exe file that Waterfox wants in its Program Files directory. I've solved all these in the past by copying the newest Firefox.exe file into the waterfox one, and then setting its icon to the waterfox one, but I would much rather have a more permenant solution, and solve this at its source (rather than 'treat its symptoms,' so to speak).

Anyways, I post this because I get the feeling you guys know what to do and I appreciate any help you guys have to give. Thanks!

I'm running:

Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
90GB SSD Corsair Force 3
Radeon HD 6950 1Gb
8Gb 1333 RAM
750 GB WD HDD


----------



## kevindd992002

I guess FF and WF are still buggy when you have a lot of tobs opened, right? Most prominent problem is stuttering Flash videos. When I tried Private Browsing (one tab opened) everything works just so smooth. Something about sessionstore.js bug, I guess?


----------



## AspieMum

Something I've just found about the 64 bit Nightly Firefox: 'Mozilla quietly ceases Firefox 64-bit development' http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57553467-93/mozilla-quietly-ceases-firefox-64-bit-development/ dated back in November 2012. Looks like there will be no more versions of it.

I didn't manage to have WF 18 open long enough to get to a page with flash on so I wouldn't know. It crashed on opening the program.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Crash as in the whole FF18 crashed or just Flash?


For me the whole Waterfox 18 crashed immediately I opened the program- didn't get as far as pages with flash on it.

Mod edit: Please use the edit button instead of posting again.


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Marsu24 wrote;However my memory fails me if I try to remember when I "complained mightily" about wf, it's still my favorite browser, though I was surprised by some benchmarks I ran and the recent crash reports, but those were probably due to a ff bug as I also noted.


then youtake another shot at WF by mentioning *your* benchmarks and if you look at your past posts everyone of them mentions,freezes,crashes,and cyberfox. This is especially funny when your on the Waterfox website comments about WF18 saying,and I quote:" Marsu24> JackedOffUser • 3 days ago i concur cyberfox is better" not to mention your earlier posts in that thread. http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=56#disqus_thread if your going to troll you should have at least changed your user name..busted


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AspieMum*
> 
> Something I've just found about the 64 bit Nightly Firefox: 'Mozilla quietly ceases Firefox 64-bit development' http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57553467-93/mozilla-quietly-ceases-firefox-64-bit-development/ dated back in November 2012. Looks like there will be no more versions of it.
> ....


you missed the later announcement after that where (after receiving a whole ton of complaints) they decided to start them back up again. in fact they never stopped except for a couple of weeks when the compilation broke on some new code & they didn't get it fixed for two weeks (again after a large no. of complaints). i've got a cc. of the 11FEB13 nightly x64 installed on my PC (with waterfox the default browser).


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> then youtake another shot at WF by mentioning *your* benchmarks and if you look at your past posts everyone of them mentions,freezes,crashes,and cyberfox. This is especially funny when your on the Waterfox website comments about WF18 saying,and I quote:" Marsu24> JackedOffUser • 3 days ago i concur cyberfox is better" not to mention your earlier posts in that thread. http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=56#disqus_thread if your going to troll you should have at least changed your user name..busted


to be fair, that could be anyone that decided to use his username there. Though I don't see why anyone would want to do that to someone. But yeah i guess you have a point as well.

Well I'm looking into using nightly 64bit version of firefox, does anyone know why people wouldn't use this as a normal browser? I know its for testing purposes, but from what i've seen so far, nothing is bad with it minus the fact that I can't use the IDM addon with it, which isn't really the end of the world.

Only looking into using nightly because I'm hoping to help Mozilla create a stable 64bit version of firefox that waterfox or any other 3rd party 64bit builder could rely on to help with their own builds.


----------



## JayBart

Tek2005
Quote:


> to be fair, that could be anyone that decided to use his username there. Though I don't see why anyone would want to do that to someone. But yeah i guess you have a point as well.


and use the same wording?say the same things as on here but with the addition of accusing WF of being filled with "hidden items"? I don't think so. Nightly is very experimental and not always stable,doesn't work with many addons and is not considered to be a 'default browser' type of build. It does work well as its 3 versions ahead and often very fast but with the limitations noted. WF is a stable {no matter what the trolls say} easy to use clean variant that I have running on 2 different networks now and is my 'go to' browser. Thank you again Alex for all your hard work you put into it


----------



## farmers

Yes, my understanding is that Firefox Nightly is not intended for regular use - Mozilla do stress that obviously.

Also, my reading of Mozilla's messages when they agreed to continue the X64 builds was that they're simply continuing to build them as they were doing before. They stressed at the time that their stance on X64 hadn't changed, and they're not actively working on X64 with a view to releasing it, simply providing the 'experimental' build because a number of people asked for it.


----------



## meyerf34

I've also been an enthusiastic user of Waterfox under XP x64. Well, until version 18.01 came along and ended the friendship prematurely.

Since I don't see any reason to switch to Windows Vista, 7 or 8 now, I really hope there will be a version of Waterfox for XP x64!

Anything we can do to help?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> I've also been an enthusiastic user of Waterfox under XP x64. Well, until version 18.01 came along and ended the friendship prematurely.
> 
> Since I don't see any reason to switch to Windows Vista, 7 or 8 now, I really hope there will be a version of Waterfox for XP x64!
> 
> Anything we can do to help?


I'm not saying having Windows XP support is bad, but the OS is over a decade old. It's time for an upgrade because any support you do get is going to be a miracle. The OS is outdated and supporting it requires a lot of extra work.


----------



## meyerf34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I'm not saying having Windows XP support is bad, but the OS is over a decade old.


There will be *official* support until 2014. That's one year left, good enough for me.








Quote:


> It's time for an upgrade because any support you do get is going to be a miracle.


Yeah, sure.
Quote:


> The OS is outdated and supporting it requires a lot of extra work.


Yeah, especially for Microsoft, because if we stick to the older Windows versions they can't sell us 8.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> There will be *official* support until 2014.


Only on security-related issues, such as problems with a random number generator or an issue with one of their encryption schema (for instance, a core component in their cryptography engine shared by OS as far back as 2000 and as recent as 8). All feature-based support ended a while ago. It really is living on the frontier sticking with XP--especially x64--in this day and age.


----------



## meyerf34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> All feature-based support ended a while ago.


Which is exactly of what importance to security issues?
Quote:


> It really is living on the frontier sticking with XP--especially x64--in this day and age.


I don't see an argument in your warning.

And this is all OFF TOPIC, btw.

Waterfox is the only 64-bit application I'm currently interested in, which is no longer working under XP x64.

If the thread starter does no longer support it, he should say so and me (and others) are off.

But as long as there is a chance, I would like to stick with Waterfox AND XP x64.

End of line.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> Which is exactly of what importance to security issues?
> I don't see an argument in your warning.


I wasn't making an argument nor was I making any attempt to 'attack' your decision. I was merely making a correction to your statement.


----------



## Lord Venom

Dropping XP support seems logical to me. People should at least be using Windows 7 aka the new Windows XP.


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> I've also been an enthusiastic user of Waterfox under XP x64. Well, until version 18.01 came along and ended the friendship prematurely.
> 
> Since I don't see any reason to switch to Windows Vista, 7 or 8 now, I really hope there will be a version of Waterfox for XP x64!
> 
> Anything we can do to help?


Hi meyer,

The reason waterfox or any of the other x64 mozilla variant browsers will not work on XP is not an issue of the developers it's a microsoft induced issue with vs 2012.

As most were using vs 2009 or vs 2010 before and Alex has also just switched to vs 2012 as well for his last compiles the issue resides there as vs 2012 does not support XP at all only vista and above. That is the reason you are not able to run them on windows XP x64. There is an update pack 1 for vs 2012 that is out now that was supposed to add support for XP but it does not work properly at all. It causes major problems when using it with the C++ compiler as I use both programs daily, the bugs it produces in other areas when trying to make a compile are almost impossible to work around. To get it to work you would be looking at trying to make a frankenbuild of firefox that would run very buggy and unstable as there is no true way to work around the issues when using vs2012 to compile applications so they work on XP systems.


----------



## meyerf34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> The reason waterfox or any of the other x64 mozilla variant browsers will not work on XP is not an issue of the developers it's a microsoft induced issue with vs 2012.


Yeah, I am aware of that.
Quote:


> As most were using vs 2009 or vs 2010 before and Alex has also just switched to vs 2012 as well for his last compiles the issue resides there as vs 2012 does not support XP at all only vista and above.


Point is, I am not the only one who wants to stay with XP x64 (have a google if you don't believe me). So is Alex going to keep it that way ("can't be fixed & Microsoft is responsible") or will he try to find a solution IF ONE COMES UP. (BTW: I certainly won't blame him if goes the easy route. It's his effort all the way.)

I won't die if there's no solution for Waterfox, I'm just using another 64-bit browser. It's not about having no option, just convenience.
Quote:


> To get it to work you would be looking at trying to make a frankenbuild of firefox that would run very buggy and unstable as there is no true way to work around the issues when using vs2012 to compile applications so they work on XP systems.


So, what you're basically telling me is, that if you'd compile it with one of the older versions of vs, it should still work?


----------



## Coldblackice

Is this where we post bugs?

Waterfox 18.01 has an issue that's driving me batty -- it is sporadically jumping up to 25-50% CPU usage, even when nothing is apparently loading. Sometimes it will just stay around 50% without dropping back down, even when I'm not using the browser.

I'm also getting micro-freezes of Waterfox -and- my system. Just now, I opened up Task Manager to watch the CPU usage. Waterfox is jumping back and forth between 25% usage to 3% usage, almost like it's oscillating. But even worse, not only is Waterfox micro-freezing (where it will hang for a few seconds), Task Manager is also occasionally freezing. It's maddening! Unfortunately, it never happens right away -- it could be hours until it starts, but once it does start, it doesn't go away until a browser restart.

Win 7 x64, i7 4Ghz, 12GB ram. Lots of tabs open, Waterfox currently using 3GB of memory currently (never been a problem before). All plugins and addons are up to date, along with Win 7 updates.

Besides manually iterating through and disabling addons, is there a way to try and pinpoint or narrow the issue?


----------



## JayBart

The fact that your task manager is also freezing lets you know you have something else going on with your computer.
I am using the same proc. as you also running at 4Ghz and same amount of ram and not seeing anything like you are.Don't know what motherboard your using as you didn't post it (an Asus for this one) and even posting this from it now but WF goes up to almost 2GB usage after running for awhile but 2-3% of processor usage max with no freezes besides that slight delay the 1st time flash starts which is occurring on any browser I use. Suggest you look at any memory 'speedup' programs you have used or even your BIOS settings as something is messing with your memory allocation settings.
Also try going here http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30679 go the 2nd one down and download and run it. I did and it seems to make several things smoother and have run into no compatibility problems with anything compiled in the new VS2012. Someone said Microsoft update dealt with this in the latest updates but I didn't see it,only security issues. Hope this helps


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> Yeah, I am aware of that.
> Point is, I am not the only one who wants to stay with XP x64 (have a google if you don't believe me). So is Alex going to keep it that way ("can't be fixed & Microsoft is responsible") or will he try to find a solution IF ONE COMES UP. (BTW: I certainly won't blame him if goes the easy route. It's his effort all the way.)
> 
> I won't die if there's no solution for Waterfox, I'm just using another 64-bit browser. It's not about having no option, just convenience.
> So, what you're basically telling me is, that if you'd compile it with one of the older versions of vs, it should still work?


Hi meyer oh don't get me wrong I am not sitting here trying to tell you to switch os's at all I no longer use xp myself but still love the os I was using xp x64 back when it first came out before most knew what an x64 system was lol. I have been on x64 systems ever since. I skipped the whole vista fiasco and stayed with xp x64 all the way to 7 and am now entrenched in windows 7 x64 have no interest in win 8.

I was just trying to let you know that the reason you were having issues on xp with waterfox was because of vs 2012 being used to compile it. As to your last question if an earlier version of vs was used to compile the build would it work on xp yes it would work. The problem is that the older vs versions do not work well with the new mozilla code and ion monkey compiler method that's the reason most that were not already using vs 2012 made the switch to it when version 18 came out.


----------



## meyerf34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> Hi meyer oh don't get me wrong I am not sitting here trying to tell you to switch os's at all


Hey, no worries! I never complain about good advice.








Quote:


> I skipped the whole vista fiasco and stayed with xp x64 all the way to 7 and am now entrenched in windows 7 x64 have no interest in win 8.


I came back to XP x64 after I figured out that Vista is bollocks and that I don't like 7 - don't like its GUI and certainly don't like it taking me by the hand in some regards and "hiding" things from me in others. And it takes way to long for my taste to set it up properly when compared to XP.

Driver support and stability is good though and I recommend it to those people, who don't want to think (or know) too much about maintenance and can live with the "altered" (but not improved) handling.

All of this is my personal opinion. So don't even think about starting an argument!









On the other hand I wanted a "better" Windows than XP SP3 and had tested x64 some (long) time ago - with rather bad results. But now this changed completely with SP2 and Windows Update Downloader.

More than 3.5 Gigs of RAM are supported, 64-bit software runs without problems and there are a number of improvements compared to 32-bit XP. And it handles (nearly) exactly the same as XP. Pretty fast too.
Quote:


> I was just trying to let you know that the reason


And thank you for that! (If I haven't done so before.)
Quote:


> As to your last question if an earlier version of vs was used to compile the build would it work on xp yes it would work.


OK.
Quote:


> The problem is that the older vs versions do not work well with the new mozilla code and ion monkey compiler method that's the reason most that were not already using vs 2012 made the switch to it when version 18 came out.


I see. Too bad that Microsoft is worming its way out of this problem the usual way - by not improving and leaving it alone.

Oh, well, maybe some community will come up with a fix.

Until a year ago I even allowed my vintage system with Windows 2000 to go online (rarely though) as there were people out there adapting current security patches and even fixes for that (now) ancient OS.


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> The fact that your task manager is also freezing lets you know you have something else going on with your computer.
> I am using the same proc. as you also running at 4Ghz and same amount of ram and not seeing anything like you are.Don't know what motherboard your using as you didn't post it (an Asus for this one) and even posting this from it now but WF goes up to almost 2GB usage after running for awhile but 2-3% of processor usage max with no freezes besides that slight delay the 1st time flash starts which is occurring on any browser I use. Suggest you look at any memory 'speedup' programs you have used or even your BIOS settings as something is messing with your memory allocation settings.
> Also try going here http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=30679 go the 2nd one down and download and run it. I did and it seems to make several things smoother and have run into no compatibility problems with anything compiled in the new VS2012. Someone said Microsoft update dealt with this in the latest updates but I didn't see it,only security issues. Hope this helps


freezes here (previous version didn't)

currently at the moment it goes from 3-5% usage all the way up to over 30% randomly..
other browsers and software do NOT freeze or spike and if waterfox is not running there are no spikes so I HIGHLY doubt it is the PC


----------



## medievil

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> Hey, no worries! I never complain about good advice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I came back to XP x64 after I figured out that Vista is bollocks and that I don't like 7 - don't like its GUI and certainly don't like it taking me by the hand in some regards and "hiding" things from me in others. And it takes way to long for my taste to set it up properly when compared to XP.
> 
> Driver support and stability is good though and I recommend it to those people, who don't want to think (or know) too much about maintenance and can live with the "altered" (but not improved) handling.
> 
> All of this is my personal opinion. So don't even think about starting an argument!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On the other hand I wanted a "better" Windows than XP SP3 and had tested x64 some (long) time ago - with rather bad results. But now this changed completely with SP2 and Windows Update Downloader.
> 
> More than 3.5 Gigs of RAM are supported, 64-bit software runs without problems and there are a number of improvements compared to 32-bit XP. And it handles (nearly) exactly the same as XP. Pretty fast too.
> And thank you for that! (If I haven't done so before.)
> OK.
> I see. Too bad that Microsoft is worming its way out of this problem the usual way - by not improving and leaving it alone.
> 
> Oh, well, maybe some community will come up with a fix.
> 
> Until a year ago I even allowed my vintage system with Windows 2000 to go online (rarely though) as there were people out there adapting current security patches and even fixes for that (now) ancient OS.


win7's not to bad once you tweak it.. mines pretty much like my old XP install... replaced the start menu to the classic and all, classic theme.. enough people hated the whole vista/7 look that programs and work arounds were created...


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *meyerf34*
> 
> Yeah, I am aware of that.
> Point is, I am not the only one who wants to stay with XP x64 (have a google if you don't believe me). So is Alex going to keep it that way ("can't be fixed & Microsoft is responsible") or will he try to find a solution IF ONE COMES UP. (BTW: I certainly won't blame him if goes the easy route. It's his effort all the way.)
> 
> I won't die if there's no solution for Waterfox, I'm just using another 64-bit browser. It's not about having no option, just convenience.
> So, what you're basically telling me is, that if you'd compile it with one of the older versions of vs, it should still work?


Or you could get the same source code MrAlex uses and see if it will still compile on VS 2010.


----------



## meyerf34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medievil*
> 
> win7's not to bad once you tweak it..


Yeah, I know. Point is, it takes like HOURS to tweak it the way I like it. And the advantages (more RAM supported, 64-bit etc.) are not really felt under normal circumstances.
Quote:


> enough people hated the whole vista/7 look that programs and work arounds were created...


Classic Shell, I know.

Well, since nobody asked yet - XP x64 is only on ONE of my systems, while the others all have 7. But I'm pretty much into keeping the "loner" as long as it works.


----------



## meyerf34

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Or you could get the same source code MrAlex uses and see if it will still compile on VS 2010.


Yep, that's pretty much what I was suggesting. Point is though, it's his effort with the source code and all, so he's the one to decide.


----------



## Coldblackice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *medievil*
> 
> freezes here (previous version didn't)
> 
> currently at the moment it goes from 3-5% usage all the way up to over 30% randomly..
> other browsers and software do NOT freeze or spike and if waterfox is not running there are no spikes so I HIGHLY doubt it is the PC


Exactly what's happening with me. I even applied the VS2012 C++ update, to no avail.

And I see now that this "oscillation" of CPU spiking happens right from the start -- right after opening Waterfox, with no tabs open, it's jumping back and forth between 30% CPU usage. No idea why it's spiking like this. Obviously some kind of bug :/


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> Exactly what's happening with me. I even applied the VS2012 C++ update, to no avail.
> 
> And I see now that this "oscillation" of CPU spiking happens right from the start -- right after opening Waterfox, with no tabs open, it's jumping back and forth between 30% CPU usage. No idea why it's spiking like this. Obviously some kind of bug :/


Huh! I've never had problems - I think it's because I have the quad core + HT turned on, so CPU usage spikes don't slow my system down as badly.



But yeah, I see what people are talking about.


----------



## Heresy86

I get the same problem.

Sitting here doing nothing at the moment, and the CPU usage spikes between 2-3% and 20-30%.
Not noticed any kind of pattern to when it happens, but mainly noticed it on f.ex YouTube and Facebook, as it makes the browser feel slow.
Got java and flash updated to the newest version.

Sitting on a hexacore with HT so it's not too noticeable in other programs etc, as it doesn't make everything freeze up as the others are experiencing.
The graphs in the picture can be a bit off cause of other processes, but the spikes are generally related to Waterfox. I have Waterfox set to use core 5 (6 if you start counting at 1). The second core on the second row.

I got 38 tabs open at the moment. I do tend to average 30-50 tabs. Of course, this number can vary a lot still, as sometimes I close 90% of the tabs to get it down to a manageable level, or sometimes I have to open even more cause of work.


----------



## JayBart

After reading your specific sites spiking your usage I tried to duplicate by having many tabs open,40+ at one point with facebook open and multiple tabs of youtube vid's actively playing and must say I can't get the spikes or the usage you guys are seeing. Tried it on several systems from my newest i7-3770K to an old i7 and even a early core two duo plus 2 AMD based systems, both off and on the network (isolated to the modem themselves,or with several on the network at the same time).And still run 2-3% up to 18% if I really have tons of stuff running.
One thing I don't have that you mention is java,as they've out out advisories from the US homeland security section I have disabled,removed it from all my machines except the little bit built in to Firefox/WF. And I find I don't miss it a bit,anything that I need to run can and many sites give you the choice to run either java or flash and I just choose the flash.
Hopefully someone will isolate the problem you guys are having but can you try disabling all your java and see if you still get it?Curious and I'm not putting it back on my systems. If that doesn't work hopefully someone will find out whats going on for you.


----------



## Heresy86

Disabled every extension, closed every tab except this one, disabled java.

At the moment it's using between 0.1-1.5% cpu, but it still spikes to 10-15% at times.

--

Made a new blank profile, let it stay at the About Waterfox page.

It's at 0% constantly, spikes to 3.5%-4% every 13-15 seconds. Which seems to be when garbage collection is running in the background. After about 10 min it started slowing down to spiking to 1.5-2.5%, and not at 13-15 sec intervals as earlier.

--

Enabled everything again now, with my original profile, 0.1-1% cpu usage with no spikes for about 3 min. Suddenly started spiking to 4-6% now.

From error log with javascript.options.mem.log set to True:

(5.7% spike)
GC(T+194.2) Total Time: 39.6ms, Compartments Collected: 270, Total Compartments: 270, MMU (20ms): 29%, MMU (50ms): 71%, SCC Sweep Total: 6.3ms, SCC Sweep Max Pause: 1.8ms, Max Pause: 14.1ms, Allocated: 59MB, +Chunks: 0, -Chunks: 0
Slice: 0, Pause: 10.5 (When: 0.0ms, Reason: PAGE_HIDE): Mark: 9.5ms, Mark Discard Code: 0.6ms, Mark Roots: 3.4ms
Slice: 4, Pause: 0.2 (When: 434.9ms, Reason: INTER_SLICE_GC): Sweep: 0.1ms
Totals: Mark: 26.0ms, Mark Discard Code: 0.6ms, Mark Roots: 3.4ms, Mark Gray: 2.5ms, Sweep: 9.6ms, Sweep Atoms: 2.1ms, Sweep Compartments: 4.0ms, Sweep Tables: 2.0ms, Sweep Object: 1.6ms, Sweep String: 0.2ms, Sweep Script: 0.3ms, Sweep Shape: 1.7ms, Sweep Discard Code: 0.4ms, Discard Analysis: 1.3ms, Sweep Types: 0.7ms, Clear Script Analysis: 0.2ms, Finalize End Callback: 1.0ms

CC(T+194.2) duration: 30ms, suspected: 3846, visited: 11181 RCed and 9305 GCed, collected: 10539 RCed and 9129 GCed (19668 waiting for GC)
ForgetSkippable 7 times before CC, min: 0 ms, max: 2 ms, avg: 0 ms, total: 5 ms, removed: 37066

(4.7% spike)
GC(T+198.7) Total Time: 36.6ms, Compartments Collected: 266, Total Compartments: 266, MMU (20ms): 33%, MMU (50ms): 73%, SCC Sweep Total: 5.9ms, SCC Sweep Max Pause: 1.3ms, Max Pause: 13.3ms, Allocated: 58MB, +Chunks: 0, -Chunks: 0
Slice: 0, Pause: 10.3 (When: 0.0ms, Reason: CC_WAITING): Mark: 9.6ms, Mark Discard Code: 0.4ms, Mark Roots: 3.1ms
Slice: 4, Pause: 0.2 (When: 438.4ms, Reason: INTER_SLICE_GC): Sweep: 0.1ms
Totals: Mark: 24.1ms, Mark Discard Code: 0.4ms, Mark Roots: 3.1ms, Mark Gray: 1.2ms, Sweep: 8.9ms, Sweep Atoms: 2.2ms, Sweep Compartments: 3.6ms, Sweep Tables: 1.7ms, Sweep Object: 1.5ms, Sweep String: 0.1ms, Sweep Script: 0.2ms, Sweep Shape: 1.7ms, Sweep Discard Code: 0.4ms, Discard Analysis: 1.2ms, Sweep Types: 0.7ms, Clear Script Analysis: 0.2ms, Finalize End Callback: 0.6ms

CC(T+199.0) duration: 13ms, suspected: 5922, visited: 476 RCed and 176 GCed, collected: 0 RCed and 0 GCed (0 waiting for GC)
ForgetSkippable 3 times before CC, min: 1 ms, max: 2 ms, avg: 1 ms, total: 4 ms, removed: 7875

However, if I let the browser idle with nothing happening after it finished the final GC, it would stop at 0% use and not spike at all until I started using the browser again.

I guess for me personally one of the issues would be related to having some graphs that are work-related that update every 3-5 seconds, which in turn would make GC have to do a lot more work than just idling. And with 35-50 tabs open I guess that would make it spike even more.

Though, still, 3-6% spike with only one tab open and all I am doing is writing this message is also quite high.


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> to be fair, that could be anyone that decided to use his username there. Though I don't see why anyone would want to do that to someone. But yeah i guess you have a point as well.
> 
> Well I'm looking into using nightly 64bit version of firefox, does anyone know why people wouldn't use this as a normal browser? I know its for testing purposes, but from what i've seen so far, nothing is bad with it minus the fact that I can't use the IDM addon with it, which isn't really the end of the world.
> 
> Only looking into using nightly because I'm hoping to help Mozilla create a stable 64bit version of firefox that waterfox or any other 3rd party 64bit builder could rely on to help with their own builds.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> then youtake another shot at WF by mentioning *your* benchmarks and if you look at your past posts everyone of them mentions,freezes,crashes,and cyberfox. This is especially funny when your on the Waterfox website comments about WF18 saying,and I quote:" Marsu24> JackedOffUser • 3 days ago i concur cyberfox is better" not to mention your earlier posts in that thread. http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=56#disqus_thread if your going to troll you should have at least changed your user name..busted


Funny, a couple days after this when I busted Marshu24 someone opened a new account on the Waterfox website comment section (through discus)and posted using my user name on this site, to bad I already have an account on their that traces back to the email this account is from but using a different screen name on there so no one is going believe your attempts to discredit WF or me by trolling.
If you guys put your efforts into making your competing browsers better instead of trolling it would be a better use of your resources..and time.

note;wasn't addressing tek2005 in this post but others


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Funny, a couple days after this when I busted Marshu24 someone opened a new account on the Waterfox website comment section (through discus)and posted using my user name on this site, to bad I already have an account on their that traces back to the email this account is from but using a different screen name on there so no one is going believe your attempts to discredit WF or me by trolling.
> If you guys put your efforts into making your competing browsers better instead of trolling it would be a better use of your resources..and time.


not sure if you are accusing me or not. Was just posting the fact that it could be anyone doing it. As I don't even bother to post on that site other then to defend waterfox with sarcastic comments (hell my name on there was like 3rd world problems on the 16 version post when people were qqing about no 17 release), and all my posts on here have never been bad other then when i had issues with something (i think which was the problem with the update from 14 to 15 when you had to reinstall waterfox)

edit: nvms


----------



## kevindd992002

I also get the dreaded spikes.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I also get the dreaded spikes.


It seems to be pretty common with the current build unfortunately, I ended up reverting back to WF 16.0.1 (which I had 0 issues with), as WF 18.0.1 was actually locking up on a regular basis (on top of the CPU spikes) which made it unusable for me.

I'm hoping that when Mozilla release FF 19 and MrAlex releases WF 19, the issue will be resolved - as it'd be nice to upgrade and I'd rather not switch to another browser.

As always MrAlex, thanks for the work you put into Waterfox, it's much appreciated!


----------



## Coldblackice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> It seems to be pretty common with the current build unfortunately, I ended up reverting back to WF 16.0.1 (which I had 0 issues with), as WF 18.0.1 was actually locking up on a regular basis (on top of the CPU spikes) which made it unusable for me.
> 
> I'm hoping that when Mozilla release FF 19 and MrAlex releases WF 19, the issue will be resolved - as it'd be nice to upgrade and I'd rather not switch to another browser.
> 
> As always MrAlex, thanks for the work you put into Waterfox, it's much appreciated!


I agree. I'm going to have to revert back, as well, as this is unfortunately unusable.

How did you revert back -- uninstall 18 and then install 16 (without removing profile data)? Or did you create a new profile?

When doing an upgrade/downgrade, I'm always unsure on whether I should uninstall Waterfox with Revo Uninstaller. I fear that it will wipe out too much, including my profile information, even if I don't tell it to go crazy on deleting and wiping out remnants.

Anyway, any loose estimate on when these spikes might be remedied?


----------



## kevindd992002

Well, I also get lag problems with pretty much any Mozilla browser when using lots of tabs and switching between tab groups. I've done everything that was suggested here but the problem still persists. It is more common when you switch between different tab groups. Googling about this issue showed that Mozilla has problems with the sessionrestore.js file in the profile folder. I don't know why is this happening and I've been experiencing it for years now.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> I agree. I'm going to have to revert back, as well, as this is unfortunately unusable.
> 
> How did you revert back -- uninstall 18 and then install 16 (without removing profile data)? Or did you create a new profile?
> 
> When doing an upgrade/downgrade, I'm always unsure on whether I should uninstall Waterfox with Revo Uninstaller. I fear that it will wipe out too much, including my profile information, even if I don't tell it to go crazy on deleting and wiping out remnants.
> 
> Anyway, any loose estimate on when these spikes might be remedied?


Personally, I didn't actually uninstall WF 18, the reason being WF 18 fixed the missing Open new tab, Open new Window, Enter private browsing etc. options for WF jumplists - something that had been missing from previous versions.

What I did was simply backup the WF Program Files folder, then delete everything in it. Then I downloaded WF 16.0.1 Portable (rather than installer) and copied the files to the Waterfox directory. After doing that I copied across the missing DLLs from the backup folder which were mentioned when trying to run it.

I didn't create a new profile, I simply used my current one - mainly because I assume if WF18 added anything new to it, WF16 isn't going to be able to understand the new options and will simply ignore them anyway. While I'm not 100% sure this is the case, I have not experienced any instability or issues after downgrading this way.


----------



## Baniita

Greetings. o uo)/ Apologies in advance, I'm a total nub.
I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I don't think so?

I wanted to ask if there was a way to hook Orbit Downloader up with Waterfox? With Firefox, when you download something, it gives you the option to DL with Orbit, but it doesn't with Waterfox. Is this something Orbit has to change themselves, or is there something I can do?
I would input the download links into Orbit directly, but I download a looooot of manga, and even then, direct links often aren't available, and I don't have stable internet at home. I'd like for my downloads to continue after interruption.


----------



## fullmoon

ok, me too, and all builds of FF 18.0.1 have this problem! Who have testing with FF 18.0.2 build and have this problem?


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baniita*
> 
> Greetings. o uo)/ Apologies in advance, I'm a total nub.
> I'm not sure if this has been addressed, but I don't think so?
> 
> I wanted to ask if there was a way to hook Orbit Downloader up with Waterfox? With Firefox, when you download something, it gives you the option to DL with Orbit, but it doesn't with Waterfox. Is this something Orbit has to change themselves, or is there something I can do?
> I would input the download links into Orbit directly, but I download a looooot of manga, and even then, direct links often aren't available, and I don't have stable internet at home. I'd like for my downloads to continue after interruption.


i would suggest using internet download manager if you can, i believe orbit download manager would need to beable to be compatible with waterfox (or any 64bit browser) for it to work with it. As I can't provide help for this matter, for internet download manager theres options that basically just chooses the plugin container/exe of waterfox and it works. Maybe try looking there on orbit. :X sorry couldnt be much help.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> i would suggest using internet download manager if you can, i believe orbit download manager would need to beable to be compatible with waterfox (or any 64bit browser) for it to work with it. As I can't provide help for this matter, for internet download manager theres options that basically just chooses the plugin container/exe of waterfox and it works. Maybe try looking there on orbit. :X sorry couldnt be much help.


Are you using multiple tabs and tab groups? I'm having lag problems with any Mozilla (FF, WF, Cyberfox) browser when IDM is installed.


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Are you using multiple tabs and tab groups? I'm having lag problems with any Mozilla (FF, WF, Cyberfox) browser when IDM is installed.


at most, i have 2 tabs open. (tab im browsing, and a future tab that im waiting for an update on) sometimes more if im waiting for other things. As for lag, are you meaning like browsing locking up for a split second? I tend to have it while downloading from like gamefront or any type of other links, not sure if its related to IDM or not. If you are talking about the cpu spike, pretty sure everyone and there mothers are experiencing this (or atleast most people) it doesn't bother me too much and just hope it will get fixed whenever alex updates to 18.0.2 or 19 when it comes out.

edit: btw i already tried the c++ link provided a few posts back, but wouldn't let me actually install it. So wouldn't know if that fixed the lag spike. Im on a i7 950, the lag is noticable if you are looking at the cpu for awhile with waterfox open, but i'm not getting a performance loss so doesn't really "matter" to me.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> at most, i have 2 tabs open. (tab im browsing, and a future tab that im waiting for an update on) sometimes more if im waiting for other things. As for lag, are you meaning like browsing locking up for a split second? I tend to have it while downloading from like gamefront or any type of other links, not sure if its related to IDM or not. If you are talking about the cpu spike, pretty sure everyone and there mothers are experiencing this (or atleast most people) it doesn't bother me too much and just hope it will get fixed whenever alex updates to 18.0.2 or 19 when it comes out.
> 
> edit: btw i already tried the c++ link provided a few posts back, but wouldn't let me actually install it. So wouldn't know if that fixed the lag spike. Im on a i7 950, the lag is noticable if you are looking at the cpu for awhile with waterfox open, but i'm not getting a performance loss so doesn't really "matter" to me.


Yes, I know about those spikes and I'm not pertaining to those. Well, I have around 6 tab groups and around 50+ tabs open distributed on those tab groups. Even with IDM disabled, it does a lag a bit but when the plugin is enabled it lags A LOT especially when I start changing between tab groups. If not for these tab groups, I wouldn't stay with these crappy Mozilla browsers (sorry for the rant, it's just that I've been resolving this issue for more than a year now).


----------



## Quantum Reality

By the way, MrAlex? Dd you take out the switch to tab feature in Waterfox? If so, kudos.









(my WF doesn't have the switch to tab option as the default when I enter the URL of a page I've already got open)


----------



## Swift Castiel

Is anyone having problems with Waterfox 18.0.1 eating CPU usage, and making mouse/keyboard having a bit of lag as a result?

EDIT:
This only happens for ~2s at a time. It's an annoyance, and it means I have to close WF all the time if I want to do anything of leisurely activity.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swift Castiel*
> 
> Is anyone having problems with Waterfox 18.0.1 eating CPU usage, and making mouse/keyboard having a bit of lag as a result?
> 
> EDIT:
> This only happens for ~2s at a time. It's an annoyance, and it means I have to close WF all the time if I want to do anything of leisurely activity.


Please try to read a few posts above.


----------



## Swift Castiel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Please try to read a few posts above.


Thanks. I should have searched before I posted!


----------



## delmanicomio

Hi everyone

i love this browser and using as default browser
however i have some problems

i cant make facebook video calls but i can do with internet explorer 10
because of this im using ie10 for chat

any fix planned for this?

and with 18.0.1 i see strange squares sometimes,hmmm its like overclock artifact, squares seems like that
but as i say not always
my gpu is 2d mode and my cpu stock clocks (i3 3220)

thanks...


----------



## Coldblackice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swift Castiel*
> 
> Is anyone having problems with Waterfox 18.0.1 eating CPU usage, and making mouse/keyboard having a bit of lag as a result?
> 
> EDIT:
> This only happens for ~2s at a time. It's an annoyance, and it means I have to close WF all the time if I want to do anything of leisurely activity.


Unfortunately, yes, and it continues to happen -- even when I have only one tab open (right after a fresh start of Waterfox). It's so frustrating, it's all but unusable, and at the suggestion of another commenter, I've had to resort to Cyberfox, which doesn't have the issue.

I'm really hoping this gets fixed soon, as Waterfox has been my go-to browser for a while now. But if an update/patch for this is going to take as long as the last update/patch, I'm going to have to walk the plank :/ (for now).


----------



## Swift Castiel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> Unfortunately, yes, and it continues to happen -- even when I have only one tab open (right after a fresh start of Waterfox). It's so frustrating, it's all but unusable, and at the suggestion of another commenter, I've had to resort to Cyberfox, which doesn't have the issue.
> 
> I'm really hoping this gets fixed soon, as Waterfox has been my go-to browser for a while now. But if an update/patch for this is going to take as long as the last update/patch, I'm going to have to walk the plank :/ (for now).


Yeah I might jump ship to Cyberfox until it gets fixed. I like Waterfox more than anything else as well.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Swift Castiel*
> 
> Is anyone having problems with Waterfox 18.0.1 eating CPU usage, and making mouse/keyboard having a bit of lag as a result?
> 
> EDIT:
> This only happens for ~2s at a time. It's an annoyance, and it means I have to close WF all the time if I want to do anything of leisurely activity.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, yes, and it continues to happen -- even when I have only one tab open (right after a fresh start of Waterfox). It's so frustrating, it's all but unusable, and at the suggestion of another commenter, I've had to resort to Cyberfox, which doesn't have the issue.
> 
> I'm really hoping this gets fixed soon, as Waterfox has been my go-to browser for a while now. But if an update/patch for this is going to take as long as the last update/patch, I'm going to have to walk the plank :/ (for now).
Click to expand...

I don't understand how this problem can be so rampant with users yet I don't experience it.

From what I gather, I should be experiencing CPU spikes but I don't.

The only major difference I can see is that I use Windows 8....?


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 19 final just appeared on Mozilla's FTP.


----------



## pwillener

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/19.0/index.html says

*Thanks for your interest in Firefox 19.0

We aren't quite finished qualifying Firefox 19.0 yet.*

But obviously it's very close.


----------



## tek2005

for anyone that wants to see the changelog for firefox 19:
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0/releasenotes/

to be fair, update isn't that "big" besides the pdf viewer now being available by default. But still a update is a update.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> for anyone that wants to see the changelog for firefox 19:
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0/releasenotes/
> 
> to be fair, update isn't that "big" besides the pdf viewer now being available by default.


I don't see any mention of a CPU spike bug...?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I don't see any mention of a CPU spike bug...?


That's because it happens only with Waterfox?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I don't see any mention of a CPU spike bug...?
> 
> 
> 
> That's because it happens only with Waterfox?
Click to expand...

I guess so. In that case, it eliminates a ton of possibilities.

Must be a problem related to the compiler or a flag / option that is enabled in Waterfox but not Firefox.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hm. Using Firefox on my laptop (it's a laptop I partly use for work so I try to keep nonstandard software off of it) and as far as CPU spikes go? They're there but they don't seem to really affect usability. (laptop = Core i5 430M, which is dual core with HT)


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> That's because it happens only with Waterfox?


people said it wasn't happening after the 18.0.2 update (however alex hasn't compiled a 18.0.2 version of waterfox so can't really test.) whether its accurate or not that it stopped happening is beyond me. (in the 18.0.2 update it mentions fixing flash issues as well as some other bugs)


----------



## Heresy86

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I don't understand how this problem can be so rampant with users yet I don't experience it.
> 
> From what I gather, I should be experiencing CPU spikes but I don't.
> 
> The only major difference I can see is that I use Windows 8....?


Using Windows 8 here too, but am getting the cpu spikes.


----------



## mafutha

The reason Alex hasn't compiled 18.0.2 is tomorrow, version 19.0 of firefox, will be released. Be patient. Alex has a lot going on so have faith!


----------



## kevindd992002

But Mozilla automatically updated my FF to 19.0 now?


----------



## Jellystab

Why does Waterfox/Firefox initially open up so slowly, IE and Chrome open instantly for me. After the program is opened though any other Waterfox/Firefox window will open instanltly, it' just the first one.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox (and thus Waterfox) has always been slower to load on a cold boot than Chrome/IE but it has gotten better over the last year or so thanks to Project Snappy. Firefox 19 does include several bug fixes which slightly helps startup performance.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I don't understand how this problem can be so rampant with users yet I don't experience it.
> 
> From what I gather, I should be experiencing CPU spikes but I don't.
> 
> The only major difference I can see is that I use Windows 8....?


I'm also on Win 8 and have the problem.


----------



## Reciever80

If someone could give this a look, I'd really appreciate it. A lot of text, I know, but it's to try and clearly explain a few simple issues.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reciever80*
> 
> Hey, spent about half an hour or so perusing this thread, and so far haven't found any real solution to this problem I'm having.
> 
> Every time I update Waterfox, I get the same two/three issues: The first is that it gives me the MinVersion and MaxVersion error (i.e. for this update it was 18.1 and 16.1). So I do what people suggest and run a clean install of waterfox, which sort of fixes that problem. But as soon as I do that, when I click on the desktop shortcut, I get the missing icon problem on my taskbar. The reason for this is because it's running as firefox.exe, and I know this because when I pin the open program to the quick launch part, and then try to run it again later, it says, "firefox.exe cannot be found."
> 
> I'm almost positive all three of these issues are caused because of a firefox.exe file that Waterfox wants in its Program Files directory. I've solved all these in the past by copying the newest Firefox.exe file into the waterfox one, and then setting its icon to the waterfox one, but I would much rather have a more permenant solution, and solve this at its source (rather than 'treat its symptoms,' so to speak).
> 
> Anyways, I post this because I get the feeling you guys know what to do and I appreciate any help you guys have to give. Thanks!
> 
> I'm running:
> 
> Win 7 Ultimate 64-bit
> 90GB SSD Corsair Force 3
> Radeon HD 6950 1Gb
> 8Gb 1333 RAM
> 750 GB WD HDD


----------



## delmanicomio

is there anyone using facebook video call with waterfox ?


----------



## safari801

I see cyberfox updated to 19 yesterday and PaleMoon 19 comes out Friday the 22nd.]


----------



## Mr6686

I did some tests: I still have micro-freezes with Firefox 19 and many tabs.








Waiting next version.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox has always had performance (lagging/freezing/etc.) issues either when opening multiple tabs or having multiple tabs open at the same time. Again, this is getting better over time thanks to Project Snappy.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Firefox has always had performance (lagging/freezing/etc.) issues either when opening multiple tabs or having multiple tabs open at the same time. Again, this is getting better over time thanks to Project Snappy.


Unless your talking about having open 200 useless tabs, then no (for me, at least) I have never had any problems with multiple tabs opened (10 or less).

On both Firefox and Waterfox.


----------



## Reciever80

^ I've never had issues either with Firefox and multiple tabs, although I can't say I've ever stress tested it beyond 8 or 10 at a time.

Anyone care to look at this issue for me, and let me know if there are any fixes I can do?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Reciever80*


----------



## silverstar23

Moin,

sorry my english is very bad.

When will a new version of Waterfox?

greeting


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *silverstar23*
> 
> Moin,
> 
> sorry my english is very bad.
> 
> When will a new version of Waterfox?
> 
> greeting


1-2 weeks at latest for every version of waterfox. It's usually shorter unless some sort of bug is affecting alex, which he could be fixing at the moment with compiler developers. Think the longest period of time was a month/2 if you are counting 16-18 since 17 didn't come out because of a bug (which that one is fixed now hopefully)


----------



## jakethesnake438

Awesome project, Might even make me consider changing from IE 5 to waterfox

.........

I kidd, chrome









God dammit im so funny


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jakethesnake438*
> 
> Awesome project, Might even make me consider changing from IE 5 to waterfox
> 
> .........
> 
> I kidd, chrome
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God dammit im so funny


At least you didn't switch to IE 6.

A lot of users did and it overheated their PC and caught it on fire.

Huge class action lawsuit was won against Microsoft.

It has been banned from being officially uploaded to the Internet, but obviously many people don't care and still upload it.

Very dangerous stuff.


----------



## jakethesnake438

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> At least you didn't switch to IE 6.
> 
> A lot of users did and it overheated their PC and caught it on fire.
> 
> Huge class action lawsuit was won against Microsoft.
> 
> It has been banned from being officially uploaded to the Internet, but obviously many people don't care and still upload it.
> 
> Very dangerous stuff.


I heard the iranians hacked their IP with a gui


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jakethesnake438*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> At least you didn't switch to IE 6.
> 
> A lot of users did and it overheated their PC and caught it on fire.
> 
> Huge class action lawsuit was won against Microsoft.
> 
> It has been banned from being officially uploaded to the Internet, but obviously many people don't care and still upload it.
> 
> Very dangerous stuff.
> 
> 
> 
> I heard the iranians hacked their IP with a gui
Click to expand...

IE 6 was built with Visual Basic.


----------



## jakethesnake438

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> IE 6 was built with Visual Basic.


Really? I heard that IE 5 built visual basic. but they had a compiling problem because someone set the default language to german.
Thats how they came up with internet explorer nein


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jakethesnake438*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> IE 6 was built with Visual Basic.
> 
> 
> 
> Really? I heard that IE 5 built visual basic. but they had a compiling problem because someone set the default language to german.
> Thats how they came up with internet explorer nein
Click to expand...

I should have been clearer.

IE 6 was built with Visual Basic 1.0.


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Unless your talking about having open 200 useless tabs, then no (for me, at least) I have never had any problems with multiple tabs opened (10 or less).
> 
> On both Firefox and Waterfox.


Nor I in WF or FF on systems running Windows 7 or 8. No micro freezes or short lags either and even went back and ran off my core two duo system for a day to see if it was happening on there,nope.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Nor I in WF or FF on systems running Windows 7 or 8. No micro freezes or short lags either and even went back and ran off my core two duo system for a day to see if it was happening on there,nope.


Yes with about 10 tabs there are no problems. But with 50+ tabs in DIFFERENT TAB GROUPS (take note of using multiple tab groups here) I think you will notice the problem that I exeprience.


----------



## Deuchnord

Hi,

Thanks for this fork of Firefox, it is very faster than Mozilla's 32bits version browser!








I just have a problem with the default browser: I'm using Windows 8 and it seems that Waterfox is not recognized by Windows as opening Web pages...
When Waterfox ask me to become the default browser, if I answer "Yes", the window reproduced bellow is opened (it is peculiar to Windows 8) and propose to me to define which programs will open which file extensions and protocols. But Waterfox doesn't appear in this window, so I cannot define Waterfox as my default browser.
The worst is that IE has become my default browser









This is a capture of the window that I mentioned:


Jérôme Deuchnord

PS: I'm French, sorry for my bad English


----------



## fullmoon

Many add-ons can freeze WF as personnal menu or glassMyFox with dropdownmenu in glass.


----------



## silverstar23

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> 1-2 weeks at latest for every version of waterfox. It's usually shorter unless some sort of bug is affecting alex, which he could be fixing at the moment with compiler developers. Think the longest period of time was a month/2 if you are counting 16-18 since 17 didn't come out because of a bug (which that one is fixed now hopefully)


Moin,

I do not understand :-( could you perhaps write in German?
As mentioned, my English is very bad.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Nor I in WF or FF on systems running Windows 7 or 8. No micro freezes or short lags either and even went back and ran off my core two duo system for a day to see if it was happening on there,nope.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes with about 10 tabs there are no problems. But with 50+ tabs in DIFFERENT TAB GROUPS (take note of using multiple tab groups here) I think you will notice the problem that I exeprience.
Click to expand...

At 50+ plus tabs, you could be running into CPU and Memory problems due to being overworked.

It takes a lot of resources to keep open 50+ tabs.

This is because Mozilla themselves have not tested that many tabs.

Why have that many tabs open? Surely there is a better way to multitask.


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yes with about 10 tabs there are no problems. But with 50+ tabs in DIFFERENT TAB GROUPS (take note of using multiple tab groups here) I think you will notice the problem that I exeprience.


just tried having 3 tab groups with 50+ tabs open in each on this machine I'm using now running Win 7. No microfreezes or even small lags. Don't know what the difference between what you guys are doing than I but I'm not seeing it.
And I have to agree with Kenny,I'm a heavy user but don't know why you would need that many tabs open all at the same time.What can you focus on thats so important you can't open it later?Many ways in FF to get to things quickly when you need to.


----------



## RealityRipple

Just my two cents, but as a programmer, I find I often have closer to a thousand tabs open than "50". The reason for this is simple - documentation is usually bad, and researching one fault often leads to researching other faults, alternatives, workarounds, etc etc etc... The end result can be literally over one thousand tabs open together in a handful of groups, of which none of the pages contained within will have any relevance whatsoever after the problem's taken care of. The only lags and freezes I've ever experienced have been due to add-ons and plugins. Mostly Flash.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> At 50+ plus tabs, you could be running into CPU and Memory problems due to being overworked.
> 
> It takes a lot of resources to keep open 50+ tabs.
> 
> This is because Mozilla themselves have not tested that many tabs.
> 
> Why have that many tabs open? Surely there is a better way to multitask.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> just tried having 3 tab groups with 50+ tabs open in each on this machine I'm using now running Win 7. No microfreezes or even small lags. Don't know what the difference between what you guys are doing than I but I'm not seeing it.
> And I have to agree with Kenny,I'm a heavy user but don't know why you would need that many tabs open all at the same time.What can you focus on thats so important you can't open it later?Many ways in FF to get to things quickly when you need to.


That's weird, I really don't know what the problem is but you should try playing a youtube videos with this amount of tabs open and test. I would like to see if you have any problems.

And regarding the amount of tabs, oh many people can back me up with that. It's just like keeping a "to do" list in the background where you frequently check all the open tabs to see if some info are updated or not. It's not about focusing on anything. It makes life easier.


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> At 50+ plus tabs, you could be running into CPU and Memory problems due to being overworked.
> It takes a lot of resources to keep open 50+ tabs.


Oh, I don't know about that.........



Waterfox has been rock solid for me. And 50 tabs doesn't need much even if he's using a 5 year old PC. RAM is the biggie, if it's thrashing page files then thats a problem.

(Anyway, isn't that why people use x64 builds in the first place? Because they have workflows or preferred usage patterns involving heavy tab use? Mozilla studies regularly show a small but significant segment of users like this. 50 tabs is close to nothing on a recent i5 or i7 - a heavy tab user might open that many just to find a single item on EBay or read the news at lunch, or (as Reality says) for documents and reference information.)


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> At 50+ plus tabs, you could be running into CPU and Memory problems due to being overworked.
> It takes a lot of resources to keep open 50+ tabs.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that.........
Click to expand...

Waterfox has been rock solid for me. And 50 tabs doesn't need much even if he's using a 5 year old PC. RAM is the biggie, if it's thrashing page files then thats a problem.

(Anyway, isn't that why people use x64 builds in the first place? Because they have workflows or preferred usage patterns involving heavy tab use? Mozilla studies regularly show a small but significant segment of users like this. 50 tabs is close to nothing on a recent i5 or i7 - a heavy tab user might open that many just to find a single item on EBay or read the news at lunch, or (as Reality says) for documents and reference information.)

I must be weird then as I have rarely ever had over 10 tabs open.

Most of the navigation needed of be done can be done on the same tab.

I've never had to have more than 10 webpages constantly open to check for updates.

Oh well, at least that's one less problem I have to deal with ^_^.

So far the only problem I currently have is Flash videos sometime crash, but a simple reload restores them.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> Oh, I don't know about that.........


Waterfox has been rock solid for me. And 50 tabs doesn't need much even if he's using a 5 year old PC. RAM is the biggie, if it's thrashing page files then thats a problem.

(Anyway, isn't that why people use x64 builds in the first place? Because they have workflows or preferred usage patterns involving heavy tab use? Mozilla studies regularly show a small but significant segment of users like this. 50 tabs is close to nothing on a recent i5 or i7 - a heavy tab user might open that many just to find a single item on EBay or read the news at lunch, or (as Reality says) for documents and reference information.)

My laptop is pretty high-end. Sager NP8130 with an i7-2670QM (Sandy Bridge) CPU and 8GB Kingson HyperX 1600MHz RAM. I even use an Crucial M4 SSD with it and a GeForce GTX 560M so I'm pretty much sure that I'm not limited by hardware.

I haven't tried using my sig rig yet with these amount of tabs open because I'm in the process of overclocking it, but that isn't the point









I've read a lot of problems in Google regarding Firefox opened with lots of tabs, mainly with Flash videos. Youtube videos just keeps on stuttering and that is evident when you "Show Video Info", you will notice lots of frames skipped.

Edit: Oh and by the way, how did I know that the multiple tabs/tab groups were the cause of the Flash problems? Because when I shift to private browsing and play the exact same Youtube Flash video it runs smoothly and there is exaclty 0 dropped frames compared to the previous playback where hundereds of frames were dropped.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> At 50+ plus tabs, you could be running into CPU and Memory problems due to being overworked.
> It takes a lot of resources to keep open 50+ tabs.


One of the reasons I switched to Waterfox in the first place was I often had so many tabs open that Firefox would crash when it exceeded the 4GB memory limit.

Currently have 186 tabs open and Waterfox 16.0.1 is using under 1GB memory. It's likely worth noting though that since the introduction of the feature, I've always had "Don't load tabs until selected" ticked under Options -> Tabs and that I don't tend to have activated all the tabs every browsing session.

---

Someone else was also on about Microstutters with Firefox/Waterfox? I've never had any issues with this until Waterfox 18.0.1 was introduced, and reverting back to 16.0.1 resolved that issue for me. If you've always had them, I'm wondering if it's perhaps an addon that causes it rather than FF/WF itself?


----------



## Coldblackice

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> just tried having 3 tab groups with 50+ tabs open in each on this machine I'm using now running Win 7. No microfreezes or even small lags. Don't know what the difference between what you guys are doing than I but I'm not seeing it.
> And I have to agree with Kenny,I'm a heavy user but don't know why you would need that many tabs open all at the same time.What can you focus on thats so important you can't open it later?Many ways in FF to get to things quickly when you need to.


You must not be a programmer









I rarely ever have less than 100-150 tabs open -- cross-referencings, documentation, forum threads, etc etc. I wouldn't be able to survive without my favorite addon of all time, Treestyle Tabs -- the ONLY way to mass tab









There used to be an add-on worth its weight in gold, called BarTab. It had the most holy of holy features of not only being able to not load tabs until selected (now a native feature of Firefox, which was copied from this addon), but most important of all -- tabs that weren't used after X amount of minutes were unloaded from memory. When you eventually did go back to the tab, it would reload as if you were just jumping to the page.

It's a most brilliant add-on, but unfortunately, the developer stopped developing it. I believe it's because he got hired on at Mozilla.

Anyway, if anyone knows of any alternative addon to BarTab (or know someone who could pickup the reigns in development), that would be most wondrous. The addon still technically works with current versions of browsers, including the latest Waterfox, but it has a couple bugs -- namely, when a tab gets unloaded, it doesn't auto-reload when you jump back to it. You have to manually reload the page yourself. A minor inconvenience.

The other bug seems to be a disk-thrashing issue, where it seems to be choking on the paging of sites to disk. It's not conclusive if this is the addon's fault, and I'm not privy to how one could precisely deduce what's specifically at fault.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> just tried having 3 tab groups with 50+ tabs open in each on this machine I'm using now running Win 7. No microfreezes or even small lags. Don't know what the difference between what you guys are doing than I but I'm not seeing it.
> And I have to agree with Kenny,I'm a heavy user but don't know why you would need that many tabs open all at the same time.What can you focus on thats so important you can't open it later?Many ways in FF to get to things quickly when you need to.
> 
> 
> 
> You must not be a programmer
Click to expand...

I am though and I have never needed more than 15 tabs open. I only get to that point when I have tabs open that I just used for quick navigation and are no longer needed.

But to each their own. If you want that many tabs open so be it. But it still uses a lot of resources to keep so many tabs open. I'm not talking solely about memory.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> I rarely ever have less than 100-150 tabs open -- cross-referencings, documentation, forum threads, etc etc. I wouldn't be able to survive without my favorite addon of all time, Treestyle Tabs -- the ONLY way to mass tab
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be an add-on worth its weight in gold, called BarTab. It had the most holy of holy features of not only being able to not load tabs until selected (now a native feature of Firefox, which was copied from this addon), but most important of all -- tabs that weren't used after X amount of minutes were unloaded from memory. When you eventually did go back to the tab, it would reload as if you were just jumping to the page.
> 
> It's a most brilliant add-on, but unfortunately, the developer stopped developing it. I believe it's because he got hired on at Mozilla.
> 
> Anyway, if anyone knows of any alternative addon to BarTab (or know someone who could pickup the reigns in development), that would be most wondrous. The addon still technically works with current versions of browsers, including the latest Waterfox, but it has a couple bugs -- namely, when a tab gets unloaded, it doesn't auto-reload when you jump back to it. You have to manually reload the page yourself. A minor inconvenience.
> 
> The other bug seems to be a disk-thrashing issue, where it seems to be choking on the paging of sites to disk. It's not conclusive if this is the addon's fault, and I'm not privy to how one could precisely deduce what's specifically at fault.


And there in lies the cause of most problems. Addons.

If an addon's code causes conflicts with the browser or is written with poor code then you will get bugs.

You should always disable all addons and slowly enable each one by one to determine if an addon is not causing the issues you have.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Most tabs i ever had open was 1263 on 2012-12-19. I use TabMixPlus and SessionManagr and with 16 there are no problems.
But its not the tabs or Add-ons. I have the stuttering also with no Add-ons, not so many tabs and a fresh profile.
I always have a default profile that i can use to check if its a Add-on if i have problems.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> Most tabs i ever had open was 1263 on 2012-12-19. I use TabMixPlus and SessionManagr and with 16 there are no problems.
> But its not the tabs or Add-ons. I have the stuttering also with no Add-ons, not so many tabs and a fresh profile.
> I always have a default profile that i can use to check if its a Add-on if i have problems.


What do you think my problem is then?


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> You must not be a programmer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I rarely ever have less than 100-150 tabs open -- cross-referencings, documentation, forum threads, etc etc. I wouldn't be able to survive without my favorite addon of all time, Treestyle Tabs -- the ONLY way to mass tab
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There used to be an add-on worth its weight in gold, called BarTab. It had the most holy of holy features of not only being able to not load tabs until selected (now a native feature of Firefox, which was copied from this addon), but most important of all -- tabs that weren't used after X amount of minutes were unloaded from memory. When you eventually did go back to the tab, it would reload as if you were just jumping to the page.
> 
> It's a most brilliant add-on, but unfortunately, the developer stopped developing it. I believe it's because he got hired on at Mozilla.
> 
> Anyway, if anyone knows of any alternative addon to BarTab (or know someone who could pickup the reigns in development), that would be most wondrous. The addon still technically works with current versions of browsers, including the latest Waterfox, but it has a couple bugs -- namely, when a tab gets unloaded, it doesn't auto-reload when you jump back to it. You have to manually reload the page yourself. A minor inconvenience.
> 
> The other bug seems to be a disk-thrashing issue, where it seems to be choking on the paging of sites to disk. It's not conclusive if this is the addon's fault, and I'm not privy to how one could precisely deduce what's specifically at fault.


Actually I am







and I still don't have more than 10 or 12 tabs open at any one time, as Kenny said after that I just use quick navigation techniques to get to anything I need fast.I find it allows me to work faster and use my resources most efficiently, but to each there own.


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Deuchnord*
> 
> Hi,
> 
> Thanks for this fork of Firefox, it is very faster than Mozilla's 32bits version browser!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I just have a problem with the default browser: I'm using Windows 8 and it seems that Waterfox is not recognized by Windows as opening Web pages...
> When Waterfox ask me to become the default browser, if I answer "Yes", the window reproduced bellow is opened (it is peculiar to Windows 8) and propose to me to define which programs will open which file extensions and protocols. But Waterfox doesn't appear in this window, so I cannot define Waterfox as my default browser.
> The worst is that IE has become my default browser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is a capture of the window that I mentioned:
> 
> 
> Jérôme Deuchnord
> 
> PS: I'm French, sorry for my bad English


Had the same problem. I installed FireFox alongside WaterFox and made FF my default. Win8 then recognized WF and I was able to set WF as default. What was strange was that before installing FF, WIN8 recognized WF as the default for .htm and .html files but not HTTP and HTTPS protocols.


----------



## verticalgr

The answer to html, htm explorer associations was given here

http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-18-0-1-19-january-firefox-64-bit/4150#post_18516535


----------



## Ironcobra

Is anyone having issues with the controls on youtube? I cant even change the volume and it only happens on waterfox


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> The answer to html, htm explorer associations was given here
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-18-0-1-19-january-firefox-64-bit/4150#post_18516535


That doesn't seem related to the problem you quoted. The link you gave was to correct the icon used for HTML files when saved to one's computer. The problem you quoted was Windows associating Firefox with HTM/HTML files but not with HTTP/HTTPS links.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*
> 
> Is anyone having issues with the controls on youtube? I cant even change the volume and it only happens on waterfox


Youtube uses flash so make sure you update that every 2 weeks.

http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/

Flash doesn't have a 64-bit version so don't worry about version types.


----------



## Ironcobra

mine is up to date, it works fine in full screen, just not minimized. All other browsers i have work fine either way, just waterfox doesnt allow me to play with the player controls, they barely come up when i hover over them with my mouse, so it takes a few seconds to get to fullscreen very frustrating


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ironcobra*
> 
> mine is up to date, it works fine in full screen, just not minimized. All other browsers i have work fine either way, just waterfox doesnt allow me to play with the player controls, they barely come up when i hover over them with my mouse, so it takes a few seconds to get to fullscreen very frustrating


This probably won't won't help but try it any ways.

Go to the bottom of the page of Youtube while signed in. Click the Try Something New! link.

Make sure you are not opted into the HTML5 Video trial.

After that, you can try uninstalling Flash from Control Panel and then reinstalling it.

I have never had your problem, so their must be a solution to fix it.

I have had Flash videos crash but work after a simple refresh but never any control problems.
But Flash is definitely wonky on 64-bit browser. This is because they only offer 32-bit version because they don't think it would be important to offer a 64-bit version.
So we have to deal with problems it creates when used in a 64-bit browser because they don't test Flash in 64-bit browser.

Very annoying. I can't wait until 64-bit browsing becomes mainstream and forces all the lazy companies to come out with 64-bit versions.

Java and Silverlight (from Microsoft used for Netflix) both have 64-bit versions. But not the most popular internet plug-in of all time.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> But Flash is definitely wonky on 64-bit browser. This is because they only offer 32-bit version because they don't think it would be important to offer a 64-bit version.


That's not correct. Flash is available in 32-bit and 64-bit installers, and has been for a long time now. The 64-bit one includes (and installs) both versions of the software. Now it might indeed be wonky, but it's not true to say they only offer the 32-bit version.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> But Flash is definitely wonky on 64-bit browser. This is because they only offer 32-bit version because they don't think it would be important to offer a 64-bit version.
> 
> 
> 
> That's not correct. Flash is available in 32-bit and 64-bit installers, and has been for a long time now. The 64-bit one includes (and installs) both versions of the software. Now it might indeed be wonky, but it's not true to say they only offer the 32-bit version.
Click to expand...

I can't seem to find a link to the 64-bit installer.

I can only download the x32 version (install_flashplayer11*x32*_mssd_aih.exe).

http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/


----------



## Lord Venom

Flash's installer installs both 32-bit and 64-bit Flash if running on a 64-bit machine.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Flash's installer installs both 32-bit and 64-bit Flash if running on a 64-bit machine.


Yup. The only different installers present are for different browsers (IE and Firefox).


----------



## verticalgr

I would like to thank Alex for his effort in Waterfox, but this luck of communication is not nice. It only takes a few seconds to type a message in the forum and let people know about release date or no release at all. Even the last time, I have the feeling that WF18 was the result of several people asking about the delay and still missed some fundamental things like the wrong registry keys once more (introduced in WF16). Therefore, I switched to another x64 variant of FF and I am not looking back. The most important thing in business today, before anything else, is communication. You don't have that, you have nothing. Any project in a CV means nothing when you are not able to communicate with colleagues and clients. Thanks again and good luck.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> I would like to thank Alex for his effort in Waterfox, but this luck of communication is not nice. It only takes a few seconds to type a message in the forum and let people know about release date or no release at all. Even the last time, I have the feeling that WF18 was the result of several people asking about the delay and still missed some fundamental things like the wrong registry keys once more (introduced in WF16). Therefore, I switched to another x64 variant of FF and I am not looking back. The most important thing in business today, before anything else, is communication. You don't have that, you have nothing. Any project in a CV means nothing when you are not able to communicate with colleagues and clients. Thanks again and good luck.


I couldn't agree more. For a while, I though WaterFox would be "maintained" properly. After these recent months I can conclude that it won't be up to my expectations.


----------



## SpodoCommodo

There's a tweet from Waterfox (1hr prior to me posting this) that says:-
Quote:


> Waterfox 19 is on it's way, another compiler bug has been found and is being resolved.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Flash's installer installs both 32-bit and 64-bit Flash if running on a 64-bit machine.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup. The only different installers present are for different browsers (IE and Firefox).
Click to expand...

Why would the installer file name not include x64.

There is no reference to a 64bit installer (inside the 32bit installer?) anywhere?

I can't read everything, but should this info not be on the download page?

You guys may very well be right, but I see no evidence of this. In control panel it is listed as just Flash Player. No mention of 64bit anywhere.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Why would the installer file name not include x64.
> 
> There is no reference to a 64bit installer (inside the 32bit installer?) anywhere?
> 
> I can't read everything, but should this info not be on the download page?
> 
> You guys may very well be right, but I see no evidence of this. In control panel it is listed as just Flash Player. No mention of 64bit anywhere.


Try to read the FAQs in Adobe's official website. I've been through the same thinking as you and did my research.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Why would the installer file name not include x64.
> 
> There is no reference to a 64bit installer (inside the 32bit installer?) anywhere?
> 
> I can't read everything, but should this info not be on the download page?
> 
> You guys may very well be right, but I see no evidence of this. In control panel it is listed as just Flash Player. No mention of 64bit anywhere.
> 
> 
> 
> Try to read the FAQs in Adobe's official website. I've been through the same thinking as you and did my research.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the FAQ.

On this page it says "Native 64-bit support Flash Player can now take advantage of native support for 64-bit operating systems and 64-bit web browsers on Linux®, Mac OS, and Windows®."

But again, no where else is this mentioned and file name only contains x32.
Quote:


> install_flashplayer11*x32*_mssd_aih.exe


Pretty stupid if you ask me. Simply add x64 to the file name or remove the damn x32 if it installs both versions (what is the point of the x32 in this case).

Also in the control panel it is only listed as one product so how could one even tell it "installs both versions" from just that?

If you look up the current version you have is just says "You have version 11,6,602,171 installed." Again no mention of any bits.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Nothing in the FAQ.
> 
> On this page it says "Native 64-bit support Flash Player can now take advantage of native support for 64-bit operating systems and 64-bit web browsers on Linux®, Mac OS, and Windows®."
> 
> But again, no where else is this mentioned and file name only contains x32.
> Pretty stupid if you ask me. Simply add x64 to the file name or remove the damn x32 if it installs both versions (what is the point of the x32 in this case).


I have to search for that again and will post back. Last month, I tried installing both x32 and x64 and both programs installed the same exact plugins on my browsers (both x64 and x32 browsers).


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I couldn't agree more. For a while, I though WaterFox would be "maintained" properly. After these recent months I can conclude that it won't be up to my expectations.


I tend to agree, even more since the inter-user communication here has often gotten a bit nasty because no one knows nothing. But thanks for the hint to twitter, maybe I'm just too old-school to check websites and forums when the world has moved on: https://twitter.com/Waterfoxproject


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I have to search for that again and will post back. Last month, I tried installing both x32 and x64 and both programs installed the same exact plugins on my browsers (both x64 and x32 browsers).


64-bit Flash Player can be found here:
http://www.waterfoxproject.org/plugins.php

Here is the direct download link:
http://aihdownload.adobe.com/bin/live/install_flashplayer11x64_mssd_aih.exe

Hope this helps.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I have to search for that again and will post back. Last month, I tried installing both x32 and x64 and both programs installed the same exact plugins on my browsers (both x64 and x32 browsers).
> 
> 
> 
> 64-bit Flash Player can be found here:
> http://www.waterfoxproject.org/plugins.php
> 
> Here is the direct download link:
> http://aihdownload.adobe.com/bin/live/install_flashplayer11x64_mssd_aih.exe
> 
> Hope this helps.
Click to expand...

This makes a lot more sense. x64 in the file name.

But why is there no link to this from Adobe website.

Also I uninstalled flash and ran this installer, now I have 2 plug-ins for flash a 11.5v and 11.6v. I'm guessing this is because the 64-bit installer gives you both versions.
If so, how can I tell which is which so I can disable the 32-bit one.

Honestly all this effort put into this plug-in is quite frustrating. Why not just have a single 32-bit installer and another single 64-bit installer like Java?


----------



## Ironcobra

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> This probably won't won't help but try it any ways.
> 
> Go to the bottom of the page of Youtube while signed in. Click the Try Something New! link.
> 
> Make sure you are not opted into the HTML5 Video trial.
> 
> After that, you can try uninstalling Flash from Control Panel and then reinstalling it.
> 
> I have never had your problem, so their must be a solution to fix it.
> 
> I have had Flash videos crash but work after a simple refresh but never any control problems.
> But Flash is definitely wonky on 64-bit browser. This is because they only offer 32-bit version because they don't think it would be important to offer a 64-bit version.
> So we have to deal with problems it creates when used in a 64-bit browser because they don't test Flash in 64-bit browser.
> 
> Very annoying. I can't wait until 64-bit browsing becomes mainstream and forces all the lazy companies to come out with 64-bit versions.
> 
> Java and Silverlight (from Microsoft used for Netflix) both have 64-bit versions. But not the most popular internet plug-in of all time.


Thanks big time..opting into html 5 fixed the problem! flash flat out sucks!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> This makes a lot more sense. x64 in the file name.
> 
> But why is there no link to this from Adobe website.
> 
> Also I uninstalled flash and ran this installer, now I have 2 plug-ins for flash a 11.5v and 11.6v. I'm guessing this is because the 64-bit installer gives you both versions.
> If so, how can I tell which is which so I can disable the 32-bit one.
> 
> Honestly all this effort put into this plug-in is quite frustrating. Why not just have a single 32-bit installer and another single 64-bit installer like Java?


This is the explanation: when you download Flash from adobe.com it downloads a 32-bit DOWNLOADER. That downloader will then be the one determining if you have a need for 64-bit and 32-bit plugins. If you are running an x64 OS, then it will automatically install both. You get it now?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> This makes a lot more sense. x64 in the file name.
> 
> But why is there no link to this from Adobe website.
> 
> Also I uninstalled flash and ran this installer, now I have 2 plug-ins for flash a 11.5v and 11.6v. I'm guessing this is because the 64-bit installer gives you both versions.
> If so, how can I tell which is which so I can disable the 32-bit one.
> 
> Honestly all this effort put into this plug-in is quite frustrating. Why not just have a single 32-bit installer and another single 64-bit installer like Java?
> 
> 
> 
> This is the explanation: when you download Flash from adobe.com it downloads a 32-bit DOWNLOADER. That downloader will then be the one determining if you have a need for 64-bit and 32-bit plugins. If you are running an x64 OS, then it will automatically install both. You get it now?
Click to expand...

No I don't understand stupid Adobe.

A "downloader" does not need to be marked 32bit or 64bit since it isn't actually a program.

They should remove x32 from the name of the "downloader" and then make it clear that this "downloader" will install 32 or 64 depending on what you need.

There is almost no documentation on this and with the x32 in the file name and no other mention of a bit type, then I assume that 32bit is installed since 32bit is usually default and it can be used on 64bit browsers also.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> No I don't understand stupid Adobe.
> 
> A "downloader" does not need to be marked 32bit or 64bit since it isn't actually a program.
> 
> They should remove x32 from the name of the "downloader" and then make it clear that this "downloader" will install 32 or 64 depending on what you need.
> 
> There is almost no documentation on this and with the x32 in the file name and no other mention of a bit type, then I assume that 32bit is installed since 32bit is usually default and it can be used on 64bit browsers also.


Yes but the thing is with that online install from Adobe, you get both x32 flash and x64 flash already, so what's the problem?


----------



## tek2005

Just informing if the tweet about waterfox 19 coming out soon is true that firefox 19.0.1 appeared on mozilla ftp about a couple of hours ago (was at a party)

changelog for 19.0.1
http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0.1/releasenotes/


----------



## nevets1219

I've yet to to test without any addons but has anyone noticed that when leaving Waterfox on for extended periods of time it becomes fairly unresponsive? Any interactions usually leads to CPU usage spiking. I've already uninstalled and re-installed and the next thing to try is disabling addons but perhaps someone has already noticed something. Should I also try a completely new profile?

I have All-In-One Sidebar, Download Statusbar, NoScript, Status-4-Evar, Tab Mix Plus, etc. Tab Mix Plus is set to display 3 rows of tabs and usually scrolling up and down is smooth since I have more than 3 rows of tabs. However, Waterfox just becomes unresponsive until I restart it then it's fine for the time being.


----------



## Screemer

I've had no such problems.. And I have about 50 addons.


----------



## nevets1219

I believe in my case, it's more about the number of tabs and the number of rows of tabs. I've browsed Tab Mix Plus's forum and didn't find anyone with a similar issue. The closest is the CPU spike mentioned a couple of pages back in this thread. However, this is all speculations.

EDIT: I've used the same profile but I used Firefox instead. The problem still persists but it's not as bad as Waterfox. Seems like an addon issue?


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> This is the explanation: when you download Flash from adobe.com it downloads a 32-bit DOWNLOADER. That downloader will then be the one determining if you have a need for 64-bit and 32-bit plugins. If you are running an x64 OS, then it will automatically install both. You get it now?


That is correct.

But better than using the download manager, download the full (offline) installers:
for IE: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player_ax.exe
for Firefox/Waterfox: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> But better than using the download manager, download the full (offline) installers:
> for IE: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player_ax.exe
> for Firefox/Waterfox: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe


Do those contain both x64 and x32 plugin versions for each browser?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> But better than using the download manager, download the full (offline) installers:
> for IE: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support


... but before using Flash for IE 9 and below better use IE 10, it just appeared for Win7 and like Chrome has internal flash support, so it updates with the browser. That's because in 99% of cases you really don't need IE, but there's 1% of websites (esp. internal/corporate) that are still "optimized" for IE :-\
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Do those contain both x64 and x32 plugin versions for each browser?


Yes, I've been using these for a long time since I'm very wary of downloaders posing as installers... btw the offline versions also contain a version check and refuse to install if they think they're outdated.

Edit: I just checked again since I didn't have the latest Flash installed (I use noscript & flashblock, so less area for flash attacks): the offline installer puts NPSWF64_11_6_602_171.dll into \Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash next to the 32-bit version NPSWF32_11_6_602_171.dll in \Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed\Flash


----------



## Swift Castiel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> I've yet to to test without any addons but has anyone noticed that when leaving Waterfox on for extended periods of time it becomes fairly unresponsive? Any interactions usually leads to CPU usage spiking. I've already uninstalled and re-installed and the next thing to try is disabling addons but perhaps someone has already noticed something. Should I also try a completely new profile?
> 
> I have All-In-One Sidebar, Download Statusbar, NoScript, Status-4-Evar, Tab Mix Plus, etc. Tab Mix Plus is set to display 3 rows of tabs and usually scrolling up and down is smooth since I have more than 3 rows of tabs. However, Waterfox just becomes unresponsive until I restart it then it's fine for the time being.


Not sure if relevant, but after some Windows updates, Waterfox, and all other iterations of it, be it Cyberfox etc, have been playing up for me, having CPU spikes, and subsequently mouse lag. It's gone away now after I performed a BIOS update. Not sure if it's entirely the same as your issue, but hopefully it helps.


----------



## Montezuma

Solution to the "no icon"-problem:

I don't know if this has already been addressed but for all those who are encountering the issue that Waterfox displays a "blank" icon in the taskbar when opened here is the solution (the problem results from an older version that hasn't been correctly removed):

-Open Waterfox
-Right-click on the "blank" icon in the taskbar
-Click on Waterfox: Windows now tells you that the target file "firefox.exe" can't be found and asks you whether you want to remove the shortcut.
-Click yes

You're done. This also solves the problem that Waterfox displays two icons when opened and pinned to the taskbar.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Swift Castiel*
> 
> It's gone away now after I performed a BIOS update. Not sure if it's entirely the same as your issue, but hopefully it helps.


Such behavior might very well be a side-effect of too aggressive power management, i.e. the computer going to power saving mode after some time and refusing to wake up - that's when the cpu spikes occur because any action provoke max cpu usage in the slowed down powersaving mode.

But in these cases it's really best to disable all addons and a) use a new/default profile and see if the error occurs again, b) run a burn-in test to see if the computer has a hardware problem, c) use a default/new windows account to see if some windows settings are broken. However and unfortunately, power saving bios problems with low load aren't that easy to diagnose as problems while the load is high :-\


----------



## nevets1219

Well in case you guys didn't see my edit, I've tried Firefox with the profile I was using in Waterfox and noticed the same issue albeit not as bad. I've then started up Firefox in Safe Mode to see if I still get it.

I had slight suspicions about it being a Windows Update since I don't recall any addon updates but I did definitely get caught up on all the Windows Updates. I believe I've disabled all power management but I'll double check again. I believe for the most part I'm caught up on all BIOS updates but again, I'll double check. Maybe graphics card drivers update might help.

EDIT: Updated graphics drivers to latest. Set power management to "high performance" - this may have gotten reset somehow (or maybe I didn't do it).


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> No I don't understand stupid Adobe.
> 
> A "downloader" does not need to be marked 32bit or 64bit since it isn't actually a program.
> 
> They should remove x32 from the name of the "downloader" and then make it clear that this "downloader" will install 32 or 64 depending on what you need.
> 
> There is almost no documentation on this and with the x32 in the file name and no other mention of a bit type, then I assume that 32bit is installed since 32bit is usually default and it can be used on 64bit browsers also.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes but the thing is with that online install from Adobe, you get both x32 flash and x64 flash already, so what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> That is correct.
> 
> But better than using the download manager, download the full (offline) installers:
> for IE: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player_ax.exe
> for Firefox/Waterfox: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe
> 
> 
> 
> Do those contain both x64 and x32 plugin versions for each browser?
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *pwillener*
> 
> But better than using the download manager, download the full (offline) installers:
> for IE: download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support
> 
> 
> 
> ... but before using Flash for IE 9 and below better use IE 10, it just appeared for Win7 and like Chrome has internal flash support, so it updates with the browser. That's because in 99% of cases you really don't need IE, but there's 1% of websites (esp. internal/corporate) that are still "optimized" for IE :-\
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Do those contain both x64 and x32 plugin versions for each browser?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, I've been using these for a long time since I'm very wary of downloaders posing as installers... btw the offline versions also contain a version check and refuse to install if they think they're outdated.
> 
> Edit: I just checked again since I didn't have the latest Flash installed (I use noscript & flashblock, so less area for flash attacks): the offline installer puts NPSWF64_11_6_602_171.dll into \Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash next to the 32-bit version NPSWF32_11_6_602_171.dll in \Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed\Flash
Click to expand...

This all cleared it up.

The normal link you get has x32 in the file name but that's because it's just a download manager for Flash.
The downloader actually downloads both x32 and x64 into the directories listed by Marsu24.
Quote:


> 64bit = .\Windows\System32\Macromed\Flash\NPSWF64_11_6_602_171.dll
> 32bit = .\Windows\SysWOW64\Macromed\Flash\NPSWF32_11_6_602_171.dll


The offline file has no x32 in the name and doesn't download anything.
It just installs both the files just like the downloader does.
Quote:


> Firefox/Waterfox Offline Install = http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe


So that's that.

Flash *is* 64bit.

Poor designs that caused confusion:
1. No need for a 32bit marked downloader app. Just give me install file.
2. No documentation stating that it installs both 32bit and 64bit files.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> This all cleared it up.
> 
> The normal link you get has x32 in the file name but that's because it's just a download manager for Flash.
> The downloader actually downloads both x32 and x64 into the directories listed by Marsu24.
> The offline file has no x32 in the name and doesn't download anything.
> It just installs both the files just like the downloader does.
> 
> No that's that.
> 
> Flash is 64bit.


Yup, that's what I was trying to tell you but you won't believe me


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> This all cleared it up.
> 
> The normal link you get has x32 in the file name but that's because it's just a download manager for Flash.
> The downloader actually downloads both x32 and x64 into the directories listed by Marsu24.
> The offline file has no x32 in the name and doesn't download anything.
> It just installs both the files just like the downloader does.
> 
> No that's that.
> 
> Flash is 64bit.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, that's what I was trying to tell you but you won't believe me
Click to expand...

I did believe you but i was looking for proof and that was provided kindly by Marsu24.

Still thank you very much for helping me out!!!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> I did believe you but i was looking for proof and that was provided kindly by Marsu24.
> 
> Still thank you very much for helping me out!!!


Oh ok. Glad to be of help


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> ... but before using Flash for IE 9 and below better use IE 10, it just appeared for Win7 and like Chrome has internal flash support, so it updates with the browser.


That is false.

IE10 on Windows 8 has a built-in Flash Player that is updated via Windows Update.

IE10 for Windows 7 uses the standard Adobe Flash Player ActiveX, and needs to be installed manually.


----------



## nevets1219

For those wondering, I've tried a new profile and that seems to have improved situations and I had thought the problem solved. But after playing some Borderlands the issue came back again. I think it's related to KB2670838 and hardware acceleration in Firefox / Waterfox. At the moment, I've uninstalled KB2670838 - hopefully that's the problem. Do you guys have hardware acceleration disabled in Waterfox (see Options > Advanced > General)?


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> For those wondering, I've tried a new profile and that seems to have improved situations and I had thought the problem solved. But after playing some Borderlands the issue came back again. I think it's related to KB2670838 and hardware acceleration in Firefox / Waterfox. At the moment, I've uninstalled KB2670838 - hopefully that's the problem. Do you guys have hardware acceleration disabled in Waterfox (see Options > Advanced > General)?


I really wanted this to be the magic bullet which solved my micro-stuttering issue but unfortunately, disabling hardware acceleration and restarting the browser anew did not relieve it of its momentary freezes.

Thank you for the suggestion, however. The more we know the better off everyone is.


----------



## nevets1219

I'm guessing you don't have that update installed as well? I've uninstalled that but kept hardware acceleration enabled as it was fine before. I'd suggest a new profile to see if that helps, sometimes updates do the weirdest things.


----------



## SpodoCommodo

For those of us awaiting v19, within the last hour there has been a new entry in the Waterfox project feed

http://www.waterfoxproject.org/news/fullnews.php?fn_id=57

and it says
Quote:


> People must be wondering most of the time when the next version of Waterfox is coming. Unfortunately that's not an answer I can give directly. With each version comes new bugs (mostly compiler bugs) that takes time to fix. At the moment another compiler bug has been found and I'm working closely with Mozilla/Intel as I always do to sort it out.
> 
> So in review, Waterfox gets released when all the bugs are sorted out, which is usually 1-2 weeks depending on the severity. I work every day to sort these problems out, so hopefully everyone understands the delays.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex


----------



## BMT

I appreciate why MrAlex doesn't bother to post updates in this thread any more, considering every single time I read it seems there's some or other new troll post here.

Something I was wondering however, based on the below:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpodoCommodo*
> 
> People must be wondering most of the time when the next version of Waterfox is coming. Unfortunately that's not an answer I can give directly. With each version comes new bugs (mostly compiler bugs) that takes time to fix. At the moment another compiler bug has been found and I'm working closely with Mozilla/Intel as I always do to sort it out.
> 
> So in review, Waterfox gets released when all the bugs are sorted out, which is usually 1-2 weeks depending on the severity. I work every day to sort these problems out, so hopefully everyone understands the delays.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Alex


If the current version of the Intel compiler has show-stopping bugs every time he tries to release a new version... why not simply go back to using the old one which didn't have all these issues?


----------



## RealityRipple

Because the new compiler has new functionality and features, and if he doesn't find the bugs now, they'll be there later when the current compiler is defunct, and will probably be there in the next ver (probably 2015 given their current release patterns).

We probably won't see 19, but barring any new issues introduced in 20, or 19.0.1/2, we'll get one of those.


----------



## EliasAlucard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Waterfox 15 still doesn't have a unique user agent string, but uses the Firefox user agent:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:15.0) Gecko/20120830 Firefox/15.0
> 
> ^^ Please fix this, so that it can be identified how many people are actually using Waterfox. This is what the UA in PaleMoon looks like:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110619 Firefox/3.6.18 (Palemoon/3.6.18)
> 
> I see no good reason why Waterfox shouldn't have its own user agent string.


Hi... remember the user agent string I talked about a while ago? Have you added a unique user agent string yet, to Waterfox? I'm asking because of this plugin I'm coding for vBulletin forums:

*UADisplay*: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=295667

To make things simpler, I suggest the following user agent string for Waterfox:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/19.0

Don't do it like Pale Moon, because that will confuse Google Analytics etc., and just count your browser as Firefox. With the user agent string I've suggested, not only will it make your browser more known/popular, it will also give it some recognition on forums.

Thanks.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> The 1st week of Feb. on here you said you were not going to use WF anymore because of the crashing,and would wait till ver.19,what happened to that?


What happened to that is that I still keep waiting for v19 to give it another try, since the superior/newst compiler should in theory give the best results (that's why I was so surprised to see that it currently isn't on top in all benchmarks I ran).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Don't do it like Pale Moon, because that will confuse Google Analytics etc., and just count your browser as Firefox. With the user agent string I've suggested, not only will it make your browser more known/popular, it will also give it some recognition on forums.


I don't know if MrAlex just forgot to change the ua or if it was a deliberate decision - but if it's the latter I like it because a more unique ua string makes users easier to track, and many people still don't know about this (or don't use the ua switcher plugin).

Personally I don't think ua strings are for advertising a browser flavor, but to let website devs see what engines are used and test their site accordingly - and all custom compiles waterfox/cyberfox/palemoon use the mozilla engine with the version that already is in the ua.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *EliasAlucard*
> 
> Hi... remember the user agent string I talked about a while ago? Have you added a unique user agent string yet, to Waterfox? I'm asking because of this plugin I'm coding for vBulletin forums:
> 
> *UADisplay*: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=295667
> 
> To make things simpler, I suggest the following user agent string for Waterfox:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:19.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/19.0
> 
> Don't do it like Pale Moon, because that will confuse Google Analytics etc., and just count your browser as Firefox. With the user agent string I've suggested, not only will it make your browser more known/popular, it will also give it some recognition on forums.
> 
> Thanks.


There was discussion on this a while back, it happened then was reverted because the UA change broke many websites.


----------



## jaromanda

Really, WOW64 for a 64bit browser?









If NOT having WOW64 in the UA is an issue with a website, then it stands to reason that the 100's of millions of people still using 32bit windows would have a problem with that website


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Because the new compiler has new functionality and features, and if he doesn't find the bugs now, they'll be there later when the current compiler is defunct, and will probably be there in the next ver (probably 2015 given their current release patterns).
> 
> We probably won't see 19, but barring any new issues introduced in 20, or 19.0.1/2, we'll get one of those.


Totally wrong approach. A developer should never go on a new tool/library/api as soon as this comes out. What you do is to try and ensure that your current projects continue to run and be updated. If this is viable with the old Intel compiler, you continue with the old intel compiler. AT THE SAME TIME, you have a new project using the new compiler. For anyone having used a CVS system, you have the HEAD with old compiler and a BRANCH with the new compiler. You continue your project from the HEAD and at the same time, the BRANCH is used to ensure that your current project will get to the point that it is working fine with the new compiler. When the code is mature enough to be compiled with the new intel compiler, you MERGE the branch to the HEAD and you are ready to go. These are fundamentals in software development and release engineering. And with Waterfox, everything is done in the wrong way.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Because the new compiler has new functionality and features, and if he doesn't find the bugs now, they'll be there later when the current compiler is defunct, and will probably be there in the next ver (probably 2015 given their current release patterns).
> 
> We probably won't see 19, but barring any new issues introduced in 20, or 19.0.1/2, we'll get one of those.
> 
> 
> 
> Totally wrong approach. A developer should never go on a new tool/library/api as soon as this comes out. What you do is to try and ensure that your current projects continue to run and be updated. If this is viable with the old Intel compiler, you continue with the old intel compiler. AT THE SAME TIME, you have a new project using the new compiler. For anyone having used a CVS system, you have the HEAD with old compiler and a BRANCH with the new compiler. You continue your project from the HEAD and at the same time, the BRANCH is used to ensure that your current project will get to the point that it is working fine with the new compiler. When the code is mature enough to be compiled with the new intel compiler, you MERGE the branch to the HEAD and you are ready to go. These are fundamentals in software development and release engineering. And with Waterfox, everything is done in the wrong way.
Click to expand...

This isn't some huge project by Google or the likes with thousand of employees.

This is one guy and one browser. The browser is free and he is not paid a salary from this project.

He has no obligation to follow your "developer plan". He decided to move to the new compiler and that's that.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> Totally wrong approach. A developer should never go on a new tool/library/api as soon as this comes out. What you do is to try and ensure that your current projects continue to run and be updated. If this is viable with the old Intel compiler, you continue with the old intel compiler. AT THE SAME TIME, you have a new project using the new compiler. For anyone having used a CVS system, you have the HEAD with old compiler and a BRANCH with the new compiler. You continue your project from the HEAD and at the same time, the BRANCH is used to ensure that your current project will get to the point that it is working fine with the new compiler. When the code is mature enough to be compiled with the new intel compiler, you MERGE the branch to the HEAD and you are ready to go. These are fundamentals in software development and release engineering. And with Waterfox, everything is done in the wrong way.


What you're describing is revision control, not a development methodology... There is no control here. It's prewritten source code being compiled for the sole purpose of improving the quality of the compiled 64-bit variant, not a developed project. There are no revisions, no branches, no CVS to rely on unless you want to use Mozilla's source control system and deal with their bureaucracy overhead while you're at it.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> What you're describing is revision control, not a development methodology... There is no control here. It's prewritten source code being compiled for the sole purpose of improving the quality of the compiled 64-bit variant, not a developed project. There are no revisions, no branches, no CVS to rely on unless you want to use Mozilla's source control system and deal with their bureaucracy overhead while you're at it.


Who said that revision control should be used only for developed project? I personally have a NAS that I have projects like Azureus. This is not my project but I used it to fix some issues with x64 JRE. What is wrong with using the source in HEAD with old Intel compiler and the code in a BRANCH to experiment with newer Intel compiler? Going for the newer is not always ideal. You try to ensure compatibility and reliability not to break the project in half. This is what happened here. And I already said it a few pages back. Bug after bug, and the project will eventually be dead. And no, I don't think that any of the bugs were shorted for the release of WF18 and I don't think they will be sorted any time soon. I still question why a certain post was deleted after the release of WF18 explaining how the project was compiled. I prefer the truth and not to be fooled.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> Going for the newer is not always ideal. You try to ensure compatibility and reliability not to break the project in half. This is what happened here. And I already said it a few pages back. Bug after bug, and the project will eventually be dead.


I have to disagree here - the whole point of waterfox is to have a bleeding edge compiler, otherwise it'd be just a dupe of other 64 bit variants.. The downside of wf's "the latest and greatest" might be a lack of stability though.

I really support and appreciate what MrAlex is doing or trying to do, the only problem is the lack of communication - and maybe a few very fanboy-ish vocal users. is the goal and the dev's time budget still to have a constantly current wf browser, or will the schedule keep being "it's released when it's done"? Both is quite ok, it just would be nice to be told, though of course I/we cannot demand it.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> I prefer the truth and not to be fooled.


In this case, you won't have a problem here - you're told nothing, and thus you cannot be fooled :->


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> Really, WOW64 for a 64bit browser?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If NOT having WOW64 in the UA is an issue with a website, then it stands to reason that the 100's of millions of people still using 32bit windows would have a problem with that website


It's nothing to do with the WOW64 part, infact the WF 16.0.1 UA is:
_Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121020 Firefox/16.0_

So it clearly indicates 64bit. Not sure if 18.0.1's is the same (other than obviously the version number) as I had to revert to this due to crashing/freezing.

The issue was changing the UA to Waterfox instead of Firefox broke websites. Or it may have been just adding Waterfox to the UA, I forget which was done exactly.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> Really, WOW64 for a 64bit browser?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If NOT having WOW64 in the UA is an issue with a website, then it stands to reason that the 100's of millions of people still using 32bit windows would have a problem with that website
> 
> 
> 
> It's nothing to do with the WOW64 part, infact the WF 16.0.1 UA is:
> _Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121020 Firefox/16.0_
> 
> So it clearly indicates 64bit. Not sure if 18.0.1's is the same (other than obviously the version number) as I had to revert to this due to crashing/freezing.
> 
> *The issue was changing the UA to Waterfox instead of Firefox broke websites.* Or it may have been just adding Waterfox to the UA, I forget which was done exactly.
Click to expand...

The UA for 18 is:

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:18.0) Gecko/20130119 Firefox/18.0

vs.

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20121020 Firefox/16.0

Where do you see Waterfox in the UA?

Side note: Haven't had any problems with 18.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> It's nothing to do with the WOW64 part,


the suggestion by EliasAlucard included "WOW64" - which is what I responded to, I apologise for your misunderstanding


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I have to disagree here - the whole point of waterfox is to have a bleeding edge compiler, otherwise it'd be just a dupe of other 64 bit variants. The downside of wf's "the latest and greatest" might be a lack of stability though.


The whole point of Waterfox is to have a descent/stable x64 variant of Firefox. Not that are many variants... So what do you have? Nothing. If you prefer nothing please be my guest. And since I am a developer myself, please prove to me why newer means 'bleeding edge'. Because no matter what, in our days, newer means 'bloating edge and full of bugs'. But companies managed to market this better than the actual products. And we are 'happy' about that!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I really support and appreciate what MrAlex is doing or trying to do, the only problem is the lack of communication - and maybe a few very fanboy-ish vocal users. is the goal and the dev's time budget still to have a constantly current wf browser, or will the schedule keep being "it's released when it's done"? Both is quite ok, it just would be nice to be told, though of course I/we cannot demand it.
> In this case, you won't have a problem here - you're told nothing, and thus you cannot be fooled :->


I am sorry, you missed some episodes. I was told something but someone decided to delete this something. I was never told why it was deleted and I never saw ANY reason why this something was deleted. Probably because it was the truth. So, I ask these things and if Alex can answer, I will appreciate it:

a) Were the bugs found after WF16 fixed by Mozilla?
b) If not, did he fix them?
c) If not, how did he compile WF18?
d) Is he using mercurial to get the mozilla source code?
e) Is Waterfox vanilla? (of course it's not but just to prove a previous point I made).


----------



## RealityRipple

Usually I'd say newer versions only EXIST to improve, fix, or otherwise better software. In this case, looking at the Intel 2013 changes from 2011... I'm not really sure why it's being used. I guess they updated the math kernel library, but that just seems like it resulted in a removal of older systems like all the other changes... Hell if I know...

My point is that it would be pointless to bother with a branch because it won't make a difference. It's the same source code. Or it's supposed to be. Any changes are probably superficial to prevent unnecessary inflation from doubling of integer scales and that sort of thing. If there are major differences between an Intel 2011 and Intel 2013 compile of the Firefox source, someone somewhere is doing something terribly wrong.


----------



## NomakeWan

Just a clarification that I haven't gotten a single crash with WF, and haven't for a very, very long time. The update to 18.0.1 introduced an odd microstutter issue (causes multi-second freeze randomly) but it has never once crashed. It's still useable, if annoying. Hoping the next version will solve it and that's why I'm still here.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Usually I'd say newer versions only EXIST to improve, fix, or otherwise better software. In this case, looking at the Intel 2013 changes from 2011... I'm not really sure why it's being used. I guess they updated the math kernel library, but that just seems like it resulted in a removal of older systems like all the other changes... Hell if I know...
> 
> My point is that it would be pointless to bother with a branch because it won't make a difference. It's the same source code. Or it's supposed to be. Any changes are probably superficial to prevent unnecessary inflation from doubling of integer scales and that sort of thing. If there are major differences between an Intel 2011 and Intel 2013 compile of the Firefox source, someone somewhere is doing something terribly wrong.


Frankly, I don't think 2013 compiler has a bug. It just expects different code. For a start, I doubt mozilla will bother changing the FF code to be compatible with IC2013. But at least they can help and provide info as to what IC2013 expects. Alex can use IC2011 from HEAD (and as I said, Waterfox is certainly not vanilla) and use the branch to apply fixes, if any for IC2013. In that way, you can have a 'safe' IC2011 WF release, and a WIP experimental IC2013 release. The former will keep the waterfox fanbase happy, the later is an asset to open source community and Mozilla since the path to IC2013 FF will be set (and keep the waterfox fanbase happier when all compile errors are sorted).


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *verticalgr*
> 
> Frankly, I don't think 2013 compiler has a bug. It just expects different code.


Doesn't Intel still market their compilers as a drop-in replacement for msvc, or has this changed since the last time I looked?


----------



## safari801

Just a note to let everyone know there's an article on pcmech.com that says recent rapid flash updates have caused a lot of problems with chrome and ff browsers. They recommend a complete removal and reinstall of flash. Link here to see how to do a complete uninstall: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4041846#4041846


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Just a note to let everyone know there's an article on pcmech.com that says recent rapid flash updates have caused a lot of problems with chrome and ff browsers. They recommend a complete removal and reinstall of flash. Link here to see how to do a complete uninstall: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4041846#4041846


Thanks. Not sure if it helped yet, but it couldn't harm it.

*Here is the link to Flash x64/x32 (latest)*
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe

*Here is Java x64 v7u17 (latest)*
http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=75261

*Here is Silverlight x64 (latest)*
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=149156

Download them all, then close browser and install. Re-open browser.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?


Netflix uses it. Only one I know so far.

Hulu uses flash as well as Youtube.

League of Legends uses Adobe AIR for its client (but this is not related to Waterfox).
Latest AIR: http://airdownload.adobe.com/air/win/download/3.6/AdobeAIRInstaller.exe


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Thanks. Not sure if it helped yet, but it couldn't harm it.
> 
> *Here is the link to Flash x64/x32 (latest)*
> http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flashplayer/current/support/install_flash_player.exe
> 
> *Here is Java x64 v7u17 (latest)*
> http://javadl.sun.com/webapps/download/AutoDL?BundleId=75261
> 
> *Here is Silverlight x64 (latest)*
> http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=149156
> 
> Download them all, then close browser and install. Re-open browser.


Here are the Offline installers for Adobe Flash player: http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?


Silverlight is dead, Microsoft abandoned it after the move to the new Win8 mobile framework. If you don't use any sites that require sl, you don't need it - it has been mostly used for internal/corporate rapid development anyway since it was obvious for quite some time that sl cannot reach the installed userbase of Flash in the "open" Internet.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Just a note to let everyone know there's an article on pcmech.com that says recent rapid flash updates have caused a lot of problems with chrome and ff browsers. They recommend a complete removal and reinstall of flash. Link here to see how to do a complete uninstall: http://forums.adobe.com/message/4041846#4041846


As mentioned before, disabling all plugins did not resolve the microstutter issue in Waterfox 18.0.1. Uninstalling and reinstalling from scratch did at least give me an excuse to hunt down a plugin that was annoying me and bother to uninstall Silverlight, though, so it wasn't all for nought!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> As mentioned before, disabling all plugins did not resolve the microstutter issue in Waterfox 18.0.1. Uninstalling and reinstalling from scratch did at least give me an excuse to hunt down a plugin that was annoying me and bother to uninstall Silverlight, though, so it wasn't all for nought!


I tried that though and it didn't solve my problem. Using less tabs did solve microstutter issues.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Is there any reason to need to use Silverlight?
> 
> 
> 
> *Silverlight is dead,* Microsoft abandoned it after the move to the new Win8 mobile framework. If you don't use any sites that require sl, you don't need it - it has been mostly used for internal/corporate rapid development anyway since it was obvious for quite some time that sl cannot reach the installed userbase of Flash in the "open" Internet.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Microsoft*
> Silverlight 5 - Microsoft will provide assisted and unassisted no charge support for customers using versions of Silverlight 5. Paid support options are available to customers requiring support with issues beyond install and upgrade issues. Microsoft will continue to ship updates to the Silverlight 5 runtime or Silverlight 5 SDK, including updates for security vulnerabilities as determined by the MSRC. Developers using the Silverlight 5 development tools and developing applications for Silverlight 5 can use paid assisted-support options to receive development support.
> 
> *Silverlight 5 will support the browser versions listed on this page through 10/12/2021, or though the support lifecycle of the underlying browsers, whichever is shorter.* As browsers evolve, the support page will be updated to reflect levels of compatibility with newer browser versions.


... of which Silverlight is currently used for Netflix which...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wikipedia*
> In January 2013, reported they had added 2 million U.S. customers during the 4th quarter of 2012 *with a total of 27.1 million U.S. streaming customers.*


I'm not sure how this notion of "dead" came about.

Also, you don't _need any_ plug-in unless you use websites that take advantage of them.
So the crossed out line is a bit asinine.


----------



## od1001

Can I activate an pdf-viewer in waterfox? Fore example, adobe reader.
I can not find the reader plugin!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *od1001*
> 
> Can I activate an pdf-viewer in waterfox? Fore example, adobe reader.
> I can not find the reader plugin!


The Adobe plugin is 32-bit only so it won't work in 64 bit browsers. You can use Mozilla's Javascript-based pdf viewer which is included in Firefox 19 or browsers bases upon this release (the name shall not be mentioned here). Waterfox 19 which is expected sometime after the latest nasty compiler bugs are solved will very likely also include the js viewer.


----------



## od1001

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Waterfox 19 which is expected sometime after the latest nasty compiler bugs are solved will very likely also include the js viewer.


But the Firefox js viewer doesn't support links


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *od1001*
> 
> Can I activate an pdf-viewer in waterfox? Fore example, adobe reader.
> I can not find the reader plugin!


Even if not, and you use Adobe, go to Tools, Options, and set all PDF related options to "always ask".

Then go to Tools, Addons, and disable any PDF-reader plugins that aren't native to Waterfox.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *od1001*
> 
> But the Firefox js viewer doesn't support links


Yes, the js viewer is rather simplistic and doesn't replace a full fledged plugin. Personally for me it's no loss since I like to save a pdf and view it in an external lightweight viewer like SumatraPDF (I hope no one has a problem with this advertisement ) rather than a plugin.

Actually one of the reasons for Mozilla trying to abandon the 64bit builds was poor plugin support and users' confusion around this fact, you have to live with some drawbacks that if you want a 64bit based browser :-o

Edit: It's interesting that Opera has a way to run 32bit plugins in a 32bit sandbox even with their 64bit browser flavor (currently still in development, let's see about the webkit transition), but afaik Mozillla hasn't gone that route.


----------



## nevets1219

When you uninstalled did you remove your existing profiles? It may be something in your profile that's causing the stutter. You can just create a temporary profile to test addons or use safe mode. Also, it may be a worth a try to verify the stutter in Firefox.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> When you uninstalled did you remove your existing profiles? It may be something in your profile that's causing the stutter. You can just create a temporary profile to test addons or use safe mode. Also, it may be a worth a try to verify the stutter in Firefox.


Are you referring to me? If yes, yes I did remove everything including my profiles. Then when I started opening multiple tabs, the stutter is there again.


----------



## nevets1219

I'm guessing this is also happening with Firefox?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> I'm guessing this is also happening with Firefox?


Yes.


----------



## nevets1219

Even with all plugins and extensions disabled? If it's happening with both browsers, seems like an issue with plugins might be possible. Flash or Java seems most likely. Plugins can be disabled too, I'm not sure if they are disabled during safe mode.

Does CPU usage spike? Scanned for virus/malware?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Even with all plugins and extensions disabled? If it's happening with both browsers, seems like an issue with plugins might be possible. Flash or Java seems most likely. Plugins can be disabled too, I'm not sure if they are disabled during safe mode.
> 
> Does CPU usage spike? Scanned for virus/malware?


Haven't tried disabling Plugins and Extensions yet but the thing is if they are indeed the problem, Flash videos would still stutter if only one tab is open, right? When I try Private Browsing, there is absolutely no stutter at all.

No, the CPU usage doesn't spike.


----------



## silverstar23

Hello Waterfox team

sorry my English is very bad.

Will there be a version of Waterfox 19, based on Firefox 19?

greeting


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *silverstar23*
> 
> Will there be a version of Waterfox 19, based on Firefox 19?


Please don't pressure MrAlex (the dev) for updates, it will be released when it's done.

Explanation: There seems to be a nasty new compiler bug, and when this happens it might take a while - Firefox 20 will be released on April 1st so the it's not impossible the dev might even consider it feasible to skip wf19 and go straight to Waterfox 20 like it happened when version 17 was skipped. That's because Waterfox uses another compiler chain as other more "vanilla" not to be named here other 64 bit Firefox versions that are updated more often, but wf in theory still should have the edge due to superior technology.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *silverstar23*
> 
> Hello sorry my English is very bad.


I'm also not a native speaker, and it's great you're participating in the forum and wf thread and you'll (mostly) find it a helpful, friendly and polite place - but there has been a certain lack of communication concerning the state of affairs lately, so next to checking here regularly twitter is another regular source of newsflashes: Recently (over a week ago) MrAlex announced wf19 is on it's way, though the compiler bug "is being resolved", unfortunately meaning it hasn't been resolved yet: https://twitter.com/Waterfoxproject


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> As mentioned before, disabling all plugins did not resolve the microstutter issue in Waterfox 18.0.1. Uninstalling and reinstalling from scratch did at least give me an excuse to hunt down a plugin that was annoying me and bother to uninstall Silverlight, though, so it wasn't all for nought!


If you haven't tried this yet try and see if it helps your stuttering problems,I'm not getting them but ff users have reported this has worked for them;
Try this for stuttering flash video:

Right-Click on the volume icon in the sys tray.
Click on Playback devices
Select the device which you are currently using (default)
Click the properties button
Go to the Enhancements tab
Check "Disable all Enhancements"
Ok and Apply.

This trick worked for many.
Reboot and try your browser again.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> Check "Disable all Enhancements"


Interesting approach (I guess the idea is to lower the cpu load) and thanks for trying to help - though to avoid confusion the checkbox is labeled "Disable all sound effects" at least on (my) Win7.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> ... of which Silverlight is currently used for Netflix which... [...] I'm not sure how this notion of "dead" came about.


Sorry if my reply was easy to misunderstand - I meant to say that sl is "dead" from a programer's perspective, it might be different as a user and I doubt the sl site base will expand further.

I have been working as a programer with MS Visual Studio (C++ though) for some time and have been to some Microsoft conferences where they positioned sl to be the competitor to flash. But since wpf and in direct succession sl is too heavyweight for mobile systems Microsoft pulled the plug on sl, though of course try continue to support it until the current version's eol and try to market this change w/o causing too much frustration for the devs that have invested in sl knowledge :-o


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> If you haven't tried this yet try and see if it helps your stuttering problems,I'm not getting them but ff users have reported this has worked for them;
> Try this for stuttering flash video:
> 
> Right-Click on the volume icon in the sys tray.
> Click on Playback devices
> Select the device which you are currently using (default)
> Click the properties button
> Go to the Enhancements tab
> Check "Disable all Enhancements"
> Ok and Apply.
> 
> This trick worked for many.
> Reboot and try your browser again.


I tried this last month to no avail


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> If you haven't tried this yet try and see if it helps your stuttering problems,I'm not getting them but ff users have reported this has worked for them;
> Try this for stuttering flash video:
> 
> Right-Click on the volume icon in the sys tray.
> Click on Playback devices
> Select the device which you are currently using (default)
> Click the properties button
> Go to the Enhancements tab
> Check "Disable all Enhancements"
> Ok and Apply.
> 
> This trick worked for many.
> Reboot and try your browser again.


I have never had enhancements enabled in the first place, and to be perfectly clear the problem is not with flash video--it is the entire browser freezing momentarily, sometimes long enough to eat an entire sentence if it happens while I'm typing and I don't notice it. Similarly, disabling all plugins (Flash is currently the only plugin I have installed anyway) does nothing to change the issue. Thank you for your suggestion but unfortunately it does not help in this instance.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> I have never had enhancements enabled in the first place, and to be perfectly clear the problem is not with flash video--it is the entire browser freezing momentarily


I remember you writing your problem didn't occur with wf16, have you tried to narrow down the problem to wf18 by trying 64-bit Firefox Nightly with the same profile?


----------



## nevets1219

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Haven't tried disabling Plugins and Extensions yet but the thing is if they are indeed the problem, Flash videos would still stutter if only one tab is open, right? When I try Private Browsing, there is absolutely no stutter at all.
> 
> No, the CPU usage doesn't spike.


I went through a brief period like that as well but I can't remember if that was with the problematic Windows Update or not. I did remember re-installing Flash (both 32 and 64 bit - actually I just forgot and installed 32 bit first). I was on YouTube and it felt like I had buffering issues and playback issues (seeking after video has buffered). I tried (more or less in this order): clearing browser's cache including cookies, Flash's cache, and increasing browser's cache size (which I then reverted back to default). The problem more or less resolved itself somewhere along those lines. There were instructions about problematic Flash installation that could be solved if you did a clean install I think if you hadn't already attempted it.


----------



## JayBart

NomakeWan and kevindd992002, if you've had the cfox installed on your system at anytime look for 'things' left on your computer, like an open UDP port that shouldn't be.I never had it on any of my machines but the 2 people who did that I've actually been on their systems had the stutters and even the spikes when running WF after having that other browser on their systems. Like I've said I've never gotten any of it and cannot duplicate it on mine but am not going to install that to try it ever. Hope you guys find what to clean out and get yourself back to operating without any problems


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> NomakeWan and kevindd992002, if you've had the cfox installed on your system at anytime look for 'things' left on your computer, like an open UDP port that shouldn't be.I never had it on any of my machines but the 2 people who did that I've actually been on their systems had the stutters and even the spikes when running WF after having that other browser on their systems. Like I've said I've never gotten any of it and cannot duplicate it on mine but am not going to install that to try it ever. Hope you guys find what to clean out and get yourself back to operating without any problems


hmm kevin mentioned that internet download manager was causing him problems before. whether if that is still the issue or not, the only other browser i've had related to waterfox would be pm... but that was like around firefox 10 (before pm went "independent browser") not that i have it installed anymore but i do get these microstutters from time to time, however mine only happen when IDM is poppping up with a download option (click on download, and waiting for the box to pop up) mainly that's when this happens. other then that, it doesn't happen too often. I have nightly installed too but haven't been using it as frequent and don't even have regular firefox installed lol.

edit: actually i lied, i have chrome and opera installed as well since 64bit browsers aren't very compatible with sites like tera.enmasse.com that use device signatures to log in (always says password is wrong even though it's right.) not sure if this would be affecting anything?

side note: firefox 19.0.2 is out
security update apparently

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0.2/releasenotes/


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> I went through a brief period like that as well but I can't remember if that was with the problematic Windows Update or not. I did remember re-installing Flash (both 32 and 64 bit - actually I just forgot and installed 32 bit first). I was on YouTube and it felt like I had buffering issues and playback issues (seeking after video has buffered). I tried (more or less in this order): clearing browser's cache including cookies, Flash's cache, and increasing browser's cache size (which I then reverted back to default). The problem more or less resolved itself somewhere along those lines. There were instructions about problematic Flash installation that could be solved if you did a clean install I think if you hadn't already attempted it.


I already did reinstalling Flash "cleanly" and it didn't help a bit. My cache is set to 50MB only though. Will increasing it really help? I thought it's better to have minimal cache? My cache in IE is also set to 50MB and Flash videos never stuttered.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> NomakeWan and kevindd992002, if you've had the cfox installed on your system at anytime look for 'things' left on your computer, like an open UDP port that shouldn't be.I never had it on any of my machines but the 2 people who did that I've actually been on their systems had the stutters and even the spikes when running WF after having that other browser on their systems. Like I've said I've never gotten any of it and cannot duplicate it on mine but am not going to install that to try it ever. Hope you guys find what to clean out and get yourself back to operating without any problems


Hmmm, time to uninstall cfox then. Thanks! I really hope I can make FF and WF work flawlessly.

EDIT: I forgot to mentioned that I've experienced micro stuttering even BEFORE I installed cfox on my system.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> hmm kevin mentioned that internet download manager was causing him problems before. whether if that is still the issue or not, the only other browser i've had related to waterfox would be pm... but that was like around firefox 10 (before pm went "independent browser") not that i have it installed anymore but i do get these microstutters from time to time, however mine only happen when IDM is poppping up with a download option (click on download, and waiting for the box to pop up) mainly that's when this happens. other then that, it doesn't happen too often. I have nightly installed too but haven't been using it as frequent and don't even have regular firefox installed lol.
> 
> edit: actually i lied, i have chrome and opera installed as well since 64bit browsers aren't very compatible with sites like tera.enmasse.com that use device signatures to log in (always says password is wrong even though it's right.) not sure if this would be affecting anything?
> 
> side note: firefox 19.0.2 is out
> security update apparently
> 
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/19.0.2/releasenotes/


My IDM plugin is already disabled since last month when I discovered it affected Flash videos. It did minimize the stutter but not significantly







Many frames are still dropped.


----------



## charlir

Sorry to bother you all .. something hapend this week _ had huge project going last friday then i got case of the flu I had logged in everything was fine I turned it on and off couple of times thats .

a bunch of the front page icons changed so the addree is not where the file is. The front age and WF FF and IE for the new things are changed it now says bing at the top and a advertisment random really the ones you see at the sides of pages... can get to grid mode...

Anyone see this yet? im running malewhare bits no . then comodo then i will do another one.. thanks ... hope someone has an i idead at least what it is
thanks

perhaps my signal slowing down..


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *od1001*
> 
> Can I activate an pdf-viewer in waterfox? Fore example, adobe reader.
> I can not find the reader plugin!


See http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1158136

As mentioned earlier, the Adobe Reader plugin is 32-bit, so it will only work on 32-bit browsers.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> NomakeWan and kevindd992002, if you've had the cfox installed on your system at anytime look for 'things' left on your computer, like an open UDP port that shouldn't be.I never had it on any of my machines but the 2 people who did that I've actually been on their systems had the stutters and even the spikes when running WF after having that other browser on their systems. Like I've said I've never gotten any of it and cannot duplicate it on mine but am not going to install that to try it ever. Hope you guys find what to clean out and get yourself back to operating without any problems


I have never had any other browser on my machine. I didn't even know about 'that other browser' until I came to this thread after updating to Waterfox 18.0.1 and running into the microstutter issue. So no, it's not a conflict between competing browsers if that's what you're assuming. It's also funny that you suggest UDP ports have something to do with microstuttering... heh. Not sure how that would do anything, but perhaps if you enlighten me I'd be less willing to chuckle?








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I remember you writing your problem didn't occur with wf16, have you tried to narrow down the problem to wf18 by trying 64-bit Firefox Nightly with the same profile?


I have not tried it, no. Switching to another FF didn't really occur to me because...well...the whole point was I didn't want to mess with other FFs. If it's absolutely required, link me to the browser I'm supposed to try out and how?


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> I have never had any other browser on my machine. I didn't even know about 'that other browser' until I came to this thread after updating to Waterfox 18.0.1 and running into the microstutter issue. So no, it's not a conflict between competing browsers if that's what you're assuming. It's also funny that you suggest UDP ports have something to do with microstuttering... heh. Not sure how that would do anything, but perhaps if you enlighten me I'd be less willing to chuckle?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have not tried it, no. Switching to another FF didn't really occur to me because...well...the whole point was I didn't want to mess with other FFs. If it's absolutely required, link me to the browser I'm supposed to try out and how?


And I never associated the UDP port being opened with microstutterng,where you got from makes me chuckle








Not the UDP port being opened,noted that for unusual beahviour,besides other things running but since you've never had that installed that point is moot. Have you tried turning off the advanced extention switching as shown here; "it's the -Qax switch that may cause the bug (a simple fix available here )." or the other switches? Seems like certain system components must be reacting to it. Since I'm running WF on both of my networks and not seeing it on any of the various systems I can't duplicate your problems.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JayBart*
> 
> And I never associated the UDP port being opened with microstutterng,where you got from makes me chuckle
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not the UDP port being opened,noted that for unusual beahviour,besides other things running but since you've never had that installed that point is moot. Have you tried turning off the advanced extention switching as shown here; "it's the -Qax switch that may cause the bug (a simple fix available here )." or the other switches? Seems like certain system components must be reacting to it. Since I'm running WF on both of my networks and not seeing it on any of the various systems I can't duplicate your problems.


Fair enough, I was going based on context and grammatical structure and not on the technical aspect.









Are any of those switches on by default? I'm using a default installation of Waterfox. Please instruct me as to how to turn these off if they are on by default.

Also, how many tabs do you keep open? On a 'regular' day I'll have over 50 open. Right this second I have 45 open, though. I seem to see a pattern to people saying that having many tabs open is what triggers the condition we're experiencing. 'Just don't keep so many tabs open' is not a solution when WF16 did not have the same problem, however, so I'm not willing to try that as a fix.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> Fair enough, I was going based on context and grammatical structure and not on the technical aspect.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are any of those switches on by default? I'm using a default installation of Waterfox. Please instruct me as to how to turn these off if they are on by default.
> 
> Also, how many tabs do you keep open? On a 'regular' day I'll have over 50 open. Right this second I have 45 open, though. I seem to see a pattern to people saying that having many tabs open is what triggers the condition we're experiencing. 'Just don't keep so many tabs open' is not a solution when WF16 did not have the same problem, however, so I'm not willing to try that as a fix.


Hmmm, so with FF you aren't experiencing stuttering?


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Hmmm, so with FF you aren't experiencing stuttering?


I haven't tried FF is what I was saying.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> I haven't tried FF is what I was saying.


Can you quickly try it?


----------



## runeazn

Hmm i updated to the new version and messed up some sites, like youtube i only get the text and no how do you call them "templates" i think?
just white background with clickable hyperlinks..


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Can you quickly try it?


I'm a little worried about mucking up my profile or bookmarks or active tabs. Could someone instruct me as to which FF to install to test for microstutter and how to do so in a way that won't screw up Waterfox in the process?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> I'm a little worried about mucking up my profile or bookmarks or active tabs. Could someone instruct me as to which FF to install to test for microstutter and how to do so in a way that won't screw up Waterfox in the process?


Installing the latest FF wouldn't screw up your profile folder. It will use the same profile folder of Waterfox.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Installing the latest FF wouldn't screw up your profile folder. It will use the same profile folder of Waterfox.


Installed the latest x64 nightly build from Mozilla's FTP (22.0a1). Currently using it to type this post and have not run into a single microstutter even once. I have the flash plugin enabled and it's working properly as well. I tested out transcribing a rather lengthy post on another forum (without looking at the actual typed input) and the entire post appeared exactly as I had typed it without anything missing due to microstutters eating the input.

So Firefox x64 22.0a1 does not have the same problem as Waterfox 18.0.1 using the exact same profile with the exact same number of tabs open and the exact same plugin enabled and the exact same add-ons. This further backs up my statement about how Waterfox 16 did not exhibit this behavior and that updating to 18.0.1 was what started it. As I mentioned before, hopefully the next version of Waterfox will have successfully fixed things. It appears Firefox's core code is without issue.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> Installed the latest x64 nightly build from Mozilla's FTP (22.0a1). Currently using it to type this post and have not run into a single microstutter even once. I have the flash plugin enabled and it's working properly as well. I tested out transcribing a rather lengthy post on another forum (without looking at the actual typed input) and the entire post appeared exactly as I had typed it without anything missing due to microstutters eating the input.
> 
> So Firefox x64 22.0a1 does not have the same problem as Waterfox 18.0.1 using the exact same profile with the exact same number of tabs open and the exact same plugin enabled and the exact same add-ons. This further backs up my statement about how Waterfox 16 did not exhibit this behavior and that updating to 18.0.1 was what started it. As I mentioned before, hopefully the next version of Waterfox will have successfully fixed things. It appears Firefox's core code is without issue.


Thanks. Although I think we have different problems because I basically have the same Flash video stutter problems even with WF 16


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks. Although I think we have different problems because I basically have the same Flash video stutter problems even with WF 16


We do have different problems. Mine was a microstutter that affected the entire browser (and was most annoying while typing long posts as when the browser froze it would often ignore keyboard inputs during that period, causing sentences typed to vanish in the freeze). Yours is just a flash stutter which I did not experience on WF16 and do not experience on WF18.0.1 or FF 22.0a1.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> We do have different problems. Mine was a microstutter that affected the entire browser (and was most annoying while typing long posts as when the browser froze it would often ignore keyboard inputs during that period, causing sentences typed to vanish in the freeze). Yours is just a flash stutter which I did not experience on WF16 and do not experience on WF18.0.1 or FF 22.0a1.


Actually I did experience that also. What I did was to disable the IDM plugin and checked "do not load tabs until selected" option. In the browser that you experience microstutter, are your flash videos playing just fine without any frames dropped? Right click the video and click show info to determine if you have dropped frames.


----------



## NomakeWan

I believe that indicator will be biased seeing as the browser itself stuttering will cause flash to drop frames regardless. Flash could be functioning perfectly and the problem with the browser will cause a false indication. Correct?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> I believe that indicator will be biased seeing as the browser itself stuttering will cause flash to drop frames regardless. Flash could be functioning perfectly and the problem with the browser will cause a false indication. Correct?


It's possible but as I've said I'm not experiencing microstuttering right now just Flash video stuttering?


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> It's possible but as I've said I'm not experiencing microstuttering right now just Flash video stuttering?


Right, and what I'm saying is that even if I test what you're asking the results will be poisoned by the problem _I'm_ having.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> Right, and what I'm saying is that even if I test what you're asking the results will be poisoned by the problem _I'm_ having.


But you could always try with WF18.0.1 or FF 22.0a1 which you said you do not experience microstuttering with?


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> But you could always try with WF18.0.1 or FF 22.0a1 which you said you do not experience microstuttering with?


Ah, sure thing. Firefox 22.0a1 experiences 177 frame drops over the course of a 3:40 video. The drops appear to be random in nature but I have long expected such playback from Firefox in general, well before switching to Waterfox. As far as I'm concerned this level of playback is average for Firefox on YouTube.

http://i.imgur.com/6Su4fmO.jpg

Chrome, by comparison, experienced only two dropped frames on the same video. Again, I've come to expect this from Chrome on YouTube (seeing as they're both by the same company so of course they jive well).

http://i.imgur.com/Kmxy5XK.jpg

Does that result help? Are there any other tests you wish to perform?

EDIT: On a whim, went and disabled the Chrome option 'continue running background apps after Chrome is closed' even though IIRC that's a Windows 8-only option, as some had reported it played funky with Firefox. I then restarted Firefox and tried the same video again. If I had to guess I would say the restart changed things more than the option in Chrome but your mileage may prove otherwise. For reference, the same video then had only 90 dropped frames.

http://i.imgur.com/o5TQ3pG.jpg

EDIT 2: Even more fun! So since I had been testing YouTube in full-screen (because accelerated video rendering doesn't want to work in windowed mode) I switched back and noticed the dropped frames decrease sharply. On another whim I did two more tests in windowed mode this time, one with hardware acceleration enabled and the other without. Here are the results.

Without hardware acceleration and in windowed mode, FF 22.0a1 had 61 dropped frames.

http://i.imgur.com/OIIWyJB.jpg

With hardware acceleration in windowed mode, FF 22.0a1 had 10 (!) dropped frames.

http://i.imgur.com/js9HVAO.jpg

Not sure what's going on with full-screen full-acceleration. Will have to test full-screen in pure software and see what happens.

EDIT 3: And as mentioned, did a test with full-screen in full software. Looked absolutely horrendous and dropped 69 frames. Not even going to bother posting a screenshot of the debug info because it was just ugly. However, did go back and test Chrome in windowed mode. That seemed to fix the two dropped frames and it achieved a perfect 0.

http://i.imgur.com/PObr5xV.jpg


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> Ah, sure thing. Firefox 22.0a1 experiences 177 frame drops over the course of a 3:40 video. The drops appear to be random in nature but I have long expected such playback from Firefox in general, well before switching to Waterfox. As far as I'm concerned this level of playback is average for Firefox on YouTube.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/6Su4fmO.jpg
> 
> Chrome, by comparison, experienced only two dropped frames on the same video. Again, I've come to expect this from Chrome on YouTube (seeing as they're both by the same company so of course they jive well).
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/Kmxy5XK.jpg
> 
> Does that result help? Are there any other tests you wish to perform?
> 
> EDIT: On a whim, went and disabled the Chrome option 'continue running background apps after Chrome is closed' even though IIRC that's a Windows 8-only option, as some had reported it played funky with Firefox. I then restarted Firefox and tried the same video again. If I had to guess I would say the restart changed things more than the option in Chrome but your mileage may prove otherwise. For reference, the same video then had only 90 dropped frames.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/o5TQ3pG.jpg
> 
> EDIT 2: Even more fun! So since I had been testing YouTube in full-screen (because accelerated video rendering doesn't want to work in windowed mode) I switched back and noticed the dropped frames decrease sharply. On another whim I did two more tests in windowed mode this time, one with hardware acceleration enabled and the other without. Here are the results.
> 
> Without hardware acceleration and in windowed mode, FF 22.0a1 had 61 dropped frames.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/OIIWyJB.jpg
> 
> With hardware acceleration in windowed mode, FF 22.0a1 had 10 (!) dropped frames.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/js9HVAO.jpg
> 
> Not sure what's going on with full-screen full-acceleration. Will have to test full-screen in pure software and see what happens.
> 
> EDIT 3: And as mentioned, did a test with full-screen in full software. Looked absolutely horrendous and dropped 69 frames. Not even going to bother posting a screenshot of the debug info because it was just ugly. However, did go back and test Chrome in windowed mode. That seemed to fix the two dropped frames and it achieved a perfect 0.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/PObr5xV.jpg


Now, that is interesting! Thank you very much for these extensive tests, this is something. +rep









I tried running a video with IE and I also got a perfect 0 dropped frames. One more thing to try though, can you try playing the same video in Firefox Private Browsing (Ctrl+Shift+P) and monitor the dropped frames? In my case, I got a perfect 0 also in that case mainly because it had only one tab opened.

So this can be attributed to a problem with Flash then. When can this be ever fixed







For comparison purposes, what video are you playing?


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Now, that is interesting! Thank you very much for these extensive tests, this is something. +rep
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I tried running a video with IE and I also got a perfect 0 dropped frames. One more thing to try though, can you try playing the same video in Firefox Private Browsing (Ctrl+Shift+P) and monitor the dropped frames? In my case, I got a perfect 0 also in that case mainly because it had only one tab opened.
> 
> So this can be attributed to a problem with Flash then. When can this be ever fixed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For comparison purposes, what video are you playing?


Running it in private browsing changes nothing, but I should note that 22.0a1 operates like Chrome in that it opens a new private browsing window without closing the original window, and as such may not exhibit the same only-one-tab-open behavior you're referring to. The video I'm running is 



 for reference.

EDIT: IE9x64 dropped 7 frames in windowed mode on the same video.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> Running it in private browsing changes nothing, but I should note that 22.0a1 operates like Chrome in that it opens a new private browsing window without closing the original window, and as such may not exhibit the same only-one-tab-open behavior you're referring to. The video I'm running is
> 
> 
> 
> for reference.


Oh ok. I use FF 19.0.2 for the private browsing test I've mentioned. I've tried playing the same video and I got a whooping 125 frames dropped. This is really getting frustrating.


----------



## charlir

It ended up being the conduit virus


----------



## Kajt2000

Hey guys don't you know if i can use Waterfox and Firefox by not sharing apps, bookmarks between them? I mean i want to have some apps in Firefox (it helps me with my work) and have another apps and bokmarks in Waterfox.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Apps? You mean Add-ons?

Normal profiles like Firefox also work in Waterfox.

"-p" at the end of your shortcut:
"C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe" -p


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kajt2000*
> 
> Hey guys don't you know if i can use Waterfox and Firefox by not sharing apps, bookmarks between them? I mean i want to have some apps in Firefox (it helps me with my work) and have another apps and bokmarks in Waterfox.


Yes, easily. MrGlasspoole's answer will work if you want to use the same browser install, but have 2 alternative profiles, bookmark sets etc. I do it by having 2 different installs, which I can run simultaneously or copy settings between easily, and lets me run Waterfox and Firefox (or multiple instances) simultaneously without one affecting the other, so here's how to do that in case you want to.

You can install Firefox or Waterfox as portable (USB) browsers, in which case they will have a separate folder for their profiles, compared to any other install or folder you might have containing other installs. You can put a FirefoxPortable.ini in the root of the portable folder; mine looks like this (see examples in \Other\Source):

Code:



Code:


[FirefoxPortable]
FirefoxDirectory=App\firefox
ProfileDirectory=YOUR_PROFILE_FOLDER_NAME  (relative or absolute path)
SettingsDirectory=Data\settings
PluginsDirectory=Data\plugins
FirefoxExecutable=firefox.exe
AdditionalParameters=
LocalHomepage=
DisableSplashScreen=true
AllowMultipleInstances=true     (Important if running 2 instances simultaneously)
DisableIntelligentStart=false
SkipCompregFix=false
RunLocally=false

(You might need to rename waterfox.exe to firefox.exe or change the executable path in the .ini)

The Waterfox code is directly substitutable for the firefox code - one thing I love - so if you unpack it to a folder and replace the /App folder for firefox with that for Waterfox, it'll work along with your extensions (although you might need to update plugins). You can also swap back to firefox any time the same way. Always back up your profile before risking it


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Why so complicated?
Just two or more profiles...


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, setting up two profiles for Firefox and Waterfox is pretty easy with less hassle.


----------



## Kajt2000

I made two profiles and made shortcuts to them - one for Firefox and one for Waterfox. Thanks for your replies guys


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Yeah, setting up two profiles for Firefox and Waterfox is pretty easy with less hassle.


Both have their place. If you want to run 2 versions or builds, or run a second instance or a portable USB stick install (which might be used on machines without firefox or with an existing install), then a profile change using the same executable folder isn't enough. If you just want different settings and profile data and the same executable is fine, then it is.


----------



## nevets1219

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> Both have their place. If you want to run 2 versions or builds, or run a second instance or a portable USB stick install (which might be used on machines without firefox or with an existing install), then a profile change using the same executable folder isn't enough. If you just want different settings and profile data and the same executable is fine, then it is.


You can run multiple instances of Firefox/Waterfox where each instance uses a different profile with -no-remote. See here. Also, you can install extensions that's shared between ALL profile.


----------



## xtacb4

Are there news on when the new version will be out? Firefox is at 19.0.2 currently. I understand Waterfox is copiled from Firefox sources with optimizations, 64 bits native etc.

Thank you.


----------



## nevets1219

News about releases/development can be found here.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> People must be wondering most of the time when the next version of Waterfox is coming. Unfortunately that's not an answer I can give directly. With each version comes new bugs (mostly compiler bugs) that takes time to fix. At the moment another compiler bug has been found and I'm working closely with Mozilla/Intel as I always do to sort it out.[/URL].


As someone who has done some C/C++ coding I'd really like to know more about the specific bugs that hinder the releases. For the first bug found some month ago there was a link to a mozilla and intel bug ticket, but now there is no specific information. Is the intel compiler usable at all as a drop-in replacement for msvc code when as it seems bug after bug occurs out of nowhere even after such a long time of intel compiler releases? Or has intel simply very bad luck that exactly the changes done from one firefox version to the next trigger unknown bugs?


----------



## xtacb4

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> News about releases/development can be found here.


Thank you very much.


----------



## donnyb

I just found Waterfox and I think it is fantastic. However, I am not able to get RoboForm to work with it. It will go to the webpage, but will not enter the username/password automatically. Anybody else see this? Anybody have a fix?


----------



## pierredupont17

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *donnyb*
> 
> I just found Waterfox and I think it is fantastic. However, I am not able to get RoboForm to work with it. It will go to the webpage, but will not enter the username/password automatically. Anybody else see this? Anybody have a fix?


There is nothing to do : Roboform doesn't work with 64 bits browser.
Actually the only solution is to replace Roboform by Lastpass


----------



## piousminion

This lag is killing me.

Since version 18 I have been getting multi-second complete freezes. It's like the browser gets caught up with doing something in the background and the whole thing chokes up. Sometimes I even "not responding" and a faded window or white-outed toolbars. This makes videos (flash or html5) almost unwatchable.

I've noticed many people reporting the same thing.
Is there any word on a fix or a workaround?


----------



## nevets1219

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *piousminion*
> 
> This lag is killing me.
> 
> Since version 18 I have been getting multi-second complete freezes. It's like the browser gets caught up with doing something in the background and the whole thing chokes up. Sometimes I even "not responding" and a faded window or white-outed toolbars. This makes videos (flash or html5) almost unwatchable.
> 
> I've noticed many people reporting the same thing.
> Is there any word on a fix or a workaround?


Different people had different problems - for some it's still an on-going issue. However, for me the problem was solved after I uninstalled KB2670838 - the alternative is to disable hardware acceleration in Waterfox.

EDIT: I believe Microsoft knows of this issue and has removed it from the recommended updates but if you are usually up-to-date on the updates you might have already installed it.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Keepass also works with 64-bit browsers.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *donnyb*
> 
> I just found Waterfox and I think it is fantastic. However, I am not able to get RoboForm to work with it. It will go to the webpage, but will not enter the username/password automatically. Anybody else see this? Anybody have a fix?


Keepass also works with 64-bit browsers.


----------



## Grumpigeek

deleted.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Different people had different problems - for some it's still an on-going issue. However, for me the problem was solved after I uninstalled KB2670838 - the alternative is to disable hardware acceleration in Waterfox.
> 
> EDIT: I believe Microsoft knows of this issue and has removed it from the recommended updates but if you are usually up-to-date on the updates you might have already installed it.


What's KB2670838 specifically?


----------



## nevets1219

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What's KB2670838 specifically?


Link to KB2670838. It's an update for Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008.

EDIT: You should try the standard troubleshooting for Firefox (start in safe mode, new profile, doing clean install of plugings, etc). Much of the troubleshooting procedures for both Firefox and Waterfox are the same.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Link to KB2670838. It's an update for Windows 7 or Windows Server 2008.
> 
> EDIT: You should try the standard troubleshooting for Firefox (start in safe mode, new profile, doing clean install of plugings, etc). Much of the troubleshooting procedures for both Firefox and Waterfox are the same.


Thanks. How do I know if I got it installed in my system? Is this really known to produce problems to Win7?


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Different people had different problems - for some it's still an on-going issue. However, for me the problem was solved after I uninstalled KB2670838 - the alternative is to disable hardware acceleration in Waterfox.
> 
> EDIT: I believe Microsoft knows of this issue and has removed it from the recommended updates but if you are usually up-to-date on the updates you might have already installed it.


As noted in a post before, disabling hardware acceleration in Waterfox did not solve the micro-stutter problem I and the user you quoted are describing. I am currently on Firefox Nightly 22.0a1 x64 and it is completely free of the problem regardless of the hardware acceleration setting. They are using the same add-ons, same plugin, same profile with same tabs.

There's something inherently wrong in Waterfox 18.0.1 that wasn't there in 16 and isn't in the Firefox code in 22.


----------



## pwillener

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Thanks. How do I know if I got it installed in my system? Is this really known to produce problems to Win7?


Check your Windows Update History.


----------



## nevets1219

Control Panel > Programs > Programs and Features > View Installed Updates (you can search here).

Alternatively like pwillener suggested, looking at recently installed updates may be quicker.

@NomakeWan: if the latest Firefox doesn't have this issue, I'd suggesting looking through Firefox's patch notes and seeing what has changed. Assuming it was one of the changes, there might be a workaround. Here's a start but that only goes up to 19.0.2 and here is a quick search of some issues. Searching Bugzilla or posting on Firefox's forum is probably the best way to track it down. Again, if you can narrow it down to the two version, you should have an easier time searching for a resolution.

EDIT: Maybe looking through here too. I'm not all that familiar with how they bug track so I'm not sure what status to look for besides resolved.

EDIT: If you are feeling adventurous, you could probably get a tool here and try to debug it yourself.


----------



## tek2005

hmm uninstalling the KB2670838 update might have fixed it... but only time will tell tbh since my micro stutter is random. @[email protected]

how the hell did you figure out it was a windows update? lol all i see is that there are improvements and fixes with that update (suppose to make h264 run better and such). lol


----------



## nevets1219

Well, at work I don't regularly install those updates because it gets annoying if something goes wrong and you sit there a whole day without a computer. I noticed that, what was normally a problem that happens after a long time of leaving the browser open would happen pretty much immediately while playing Borderlands 2 - I would ALT-TAB and the browser would start "stuttering". Also, I briefly scanned through all the recent updates and noticed this one and found others with similar problems.

EDIT: Probably easiest to test is to run a game that uses DirectX and ALT-TAB back and forth.


----------



## tek2005

well its weird, i never install optional updates in windows so not even sure how i installed it. I install mandatory/the ones that notify you when there is a update. Oh well, might have installed this one by accident when i noticed it was suppose to be a helpful update that helped improve my experience with things. So far since your post about it, haven't found any stutters. Also I never experienced the stutter with games (playing Tera right now while posting) it was mainly from downloading sites like gamefront, rapidshare, etc. Will find out definitely more during the week though, nothing really to download on the weekend :C.


----------



## nevets1219

Originally, this wasn't optional but due to feedback Microsoft has changed it to an optional update. Not entirely sure what its status is now.


----------



## Senzin

Here is how the tabs overlap the Waterfox button on my Windows 7 machine. Notice also that the minimize, maximize and close buttons have a strange gap below them.

One of the images quoted below shows that the Firefox button is shorter than the Waterfox button. Perhaps the larger Waterfox button is pushing everything down, messing up the min/max/close buttons as well.

My previous version of Waterfox didn't have this problem. When I updated, this problem appeared immediately without me changing any settings. I also tried disabling all plugins and reinstalling Waterfox. I don't remember what version of Waterfox I was using before, but it was about 6 months old and hadn't been updated until today.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> OH! So this only occurs when WF is minimized? Has anyone run Firefox 18? Because it seems like this could be by design.
> 
> Re-download the installer, I updated some things.


Don't think he meant minimized, but specifically "not maximized", as in it's windowed, not full screen. However, maximizing does not fix the problem, but merely hides it because the tabs are no longer below the Waterfox button. On mine, when maximized, the strange gap below the min/max/close buttons is still there.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kwinse*
> 
> Oh looking a bit the overlapping seems to be an old firefox bug? Google pointed me at 680230.


There they refer to people changing their appearance settings, like title bar size, etc. But I have not done this and Firefox 18 looks fine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mark0159nz*
> 
> it's more like the waterfox button has grown.


Perhaps this is the problem right here. The Waterfox button is too large for the space it's supposed to fill, forcing that space to enlarge and overlap.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Originally, this wasn't optional but due to feedback Microsoft has changed it to an optional update. Not entirely sure what its status is now.


Is this update affecting stuttering flash video playback also?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Originally, this wasn't optional but due to feedback Microsoft has changed it to an optional update. Not entirely sure what its status is now.


Is this update affecting stuttering flash video playback also?


----------



## nevets1219

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is this update affecting stuttering flash video playback also?


Can't say I know - I can't remember if I had Flash issues before or after the update. I'm thinking before but that issue went away for me somehow.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> Can't say I know - I can't remember if I had Flash issues before or after the update. I'm thinking before but that issue went away for me somehow.


Oh ok. My real main problem here is stuttering during Flash playback so I don't know if this update affects it or not.

When you had the update installed, where you experiencing browser microstutter only in WF? Or even in FF and IE?


----------



## nevets1219

WF and FF. I think I tried IE but I can't remember the result.


----------



## tek2005

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Oh ok. My real main problem here is stuttering during Flash playback so I don't know if this update affects it or not.
> 
> When you had the update installed, where you experiencing browser microstutter only in WF? Or even in FF and IE?


i say just uninstall it, if it doesn't solve the problem. Then reinstall the update (its still there in windows update after, just its show'd as a optional update now instead of a "suggested" one)


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> i say just uninstall it, if it doesn't solve the problem. Then reinstall the update (its still there in windows update after, just its show'd as a optional update now instead of a "suggested" one)


Oh ok, I'll try that then. Thanks.


----------



## kevindd992002

I just tried uninstalling KB2670838 and surprisingly it also uninstalled IE10. I then tried installing IE10 again (without installing back KB2670838) and surprisingly KB2670838 was automatically installed. I guess they come in partners.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> @NomakeWan: if the latest Firefox doesn't have this issue, I'd suggesting looking through Firefox's patch notes and seeing what has changed. Assuming it was one of the changes, there might be a workaround. Here's a start but that only goes up to 19.0.2 and here is a quick search of some issues. Searching Bugzilla or posting on Firefox's forum is probably the best way to track it down. Again, if you can narrow it down to the two version, you should have an easier time searching for a resolution.
> 
> EDIT: Maybe looking through here too. I'm not all that familiar with how they bug track so I'm not sure what status to look for besides resolved.
> 
> EDIT: If you are feeling adventurous, you could probably get a tool here and try to debug it yourself.


I'll see if I can pin down at least which version solved the problem. I know it didn't exist in WF 16, it exists in WF 18.0.1 (and from user reports also in FF 18.0.1), and does not exist in FF 22.0a1. If I can pin down which FF code change solved things, that'll at the least tell me which version of WF I need to wait for before going back.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tek2005*
> 
> hmm uninstalling the KB2670838 update might have fixed it... but only time will tell tbh since my micro stutter is random. @[email protected]


The way I test for micro-stutter being fixed is by, with all tabs loaded (45-50), opening a forum I frequent and starting a new post. I then simply type into the reply window at least five paragraphs' worth of content (mostly just 'talking to myself' about how annoying microstutter is, things like that). If I can type the whole thing straight through without the browser freezing or losing words then it's fixed. If it freezes, then there you go.


----------



## BMT

I was curious to see if Firefox 19.0.2 had the same micro-stuttering issue for me as WF 18.0.1 did, so I tried it out today.

It turns out it does not and is in fact working perfectly for me.
Clearly the "Don't load tabs until selected" feature is worth it's weight in gold (as I have 100+ tabs open right now - not all have been selected - and just under 1GB RAM is being used).

I think until an updated version of Waterfox is released, I'm just going to stick with Firefox (unless it starts crashing due to excessive memory use again).
I'd reverted to WF 16.0.1 in the meanwhile as that didn't have any performance issues for me, but did not like the idea of living with the vulnerabilities it had any longer.

If anything, FF 19.0.2 actually seems to provide better performance than WF 16.0.1 did.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Clearly the "Don't load tabs until selected" feature is worth it's weight in gold (as I have 100+ tabs open right now - not all have been selected - and just under 1GB RAM is being used).


To the user who was experiencing problems with flash video, enabling this option reduced my dropped frames count in YouTube to 3 over the length of the test video. It was actually 1 (right at the beginning when switching modes, it hardly even counted) but then it dropped two frames a few minutes in when the browser went to dump data to disk. All in all I'd say that's pretty impressive from a browser I've come to associate with somewhat clunky video playback.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NomakeWan*
> 
> To the user who was experiencing problems with flash video, enabling this option reduced my dropped frames count in YouTube to 3 over the length of the test video. It was actually 1 (right at the beginning when switching modes, it hardly even counted) but then it dropped two frames a few minutes in when the browser went to dump data to disk. All in all I'd say that's pretty impressive from a browser I've come to associate with somewhat clunky video playback.


It did some decrease dropped frames in my case but there are still a lot of them!


----------



## Screemer

Not to try and stress Mr.Alex or anything but it would be really interesting to know if he did any test builds on the beta v20.
I just can't wait to get an up to date version of Waterfox..









I really love your work Mr.Alex.. I hope you find the time to continue this work up to the point where Mozilla understands that we all want a x64 native client.

*Thank you so much for all you've done so far and please know that you have ALLOT of supporters out on the net.*









*Mozilla Firefox v20.0*
_Currently in BETA channel
Moves to RELEASED on Week of 2013-04-01_


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Clearly the "Don't load tabs until selected" feature is worth it's weight in gold


Something i have since a long time with "Session Manager" (Restore tabs on demand).


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Not to try and stress Mr.Alex or anything but it would be really interesting to know if he did any test builds on the beta v20. I just can't wait to get an up to date version of Waterfox..


Me too, but my understanding is that unless the compiler bugs are solved (no further information on these...) the project is stalled and there won't be new releases - test or otherwise. Fortunately, Waterfox isn't the only 64bit ff distro anymore which eases waiting for the real thing a bit. For further news your best source seems to be Twitter (last announcement a month ago), there haven't been any announcements or any other pieces of information in this thread since the v18 release.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Also, MrAlex is from Cyprus and I'm sure he's a little bit anxious about things back home.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Also, MrAlex is from Cyprus and I'm sure he's a little bit anxious about things back home.


Thanks for the information, I didn't know that - then he'd better not have more than 100k € in his bank account ..next to his real life job/study requirements this of course is a very understandable and legit reason for the lack of information here. Still, maybe he finds the time sooner or later at least to post something on twitter about wf so I/we can quit checking for an update for the time being :-o


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Also, MrAlex is from Cyprus and I'm sure he's a little bit anxious about things back home.


Totally missed that.

Wish you the best of times Mr. Alex.

I have no idea what I would do if that happened here!


----------



## MrGlasspoole

Do you guys use the same profile if you test other x64 browsers?
And what is the best alternative until the new WF comes out?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> And what is the best alternative until the new WF comes out?


Either use an x64 Nightly build, x64 Pale Moon or Cyberfox... or compile your own builds.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Also, MrAlex is from Cyprus and I'm sure he's a little bit anxious about things back home.


I certainly hope he's ok and that he will stay ok..


----------



## RealityRipple

I highly recommend the latest 64-bit nightly. It's very quick.


----------



## kronckew

mr. glasspoole
1. yes.
2. waterfox


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> I highly recommend the latest 64-bit nightly. It's very quick.


I recommend against it, I used Nightly for years and it's quick and stable most of the time - problem is that addons often aren't adapted for the new code which is a large hassle ... that's why I switched to Waterfox in the first place and still hope to use an updated version.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> And what is the best alternative until the new WF comes out?


Stable x64 distros are palemoon (based on a older ff version, but with backported patches) and Cyberfox, the latter is - I hope I don't get flamed if I state facts and answer the question - fast, supported and updated the very moment a new major or minor ff version is released. Cyberfox is based on the MSVC compiler chain and in theory Waterfox still should be faster with the latest bleeding edge Intel compiler - though as we see that doesn't count for much if it doesn't compile at all.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I recommend against it, I used Nightly for years and it's quick and stable most of the time - problem is that plugins often aren't adapted for the new code which is a large hassle ... that's why I switched to Waterfox in the first place and still hope to use an updated version.


In case you missed the last 3 years, plugins are mostly defunct now.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> In case you missed the last 3 years, plugins are mostly defunct now.


Wupps, thanks for your gratuitous and helpful remark - I was (obviously?) talking of addons - I also corrected it in the previous post


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Wupps, thanks for your gratuitous and helpful remark - I was (obviously?) talking of addons - I also corrected it in the previous post


Add-ons are by nature open source, written entirely in JavaScript, CSS, and XUL, and easily fixed by hand.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> In case you missed the last 3 years, plugins are mostly defunct now.


How, in any way, are plugins defunct? Even Flash player is considered a plugin.


----------



## kronckew

i have a number of addons - extensions and plugins. they all work fine with the nightly x64 builds from mozilla.

some extensions required manually tweaking the internal maxversion in the internal install.rdf file to work (rename the .xpi to .zip and open with your archive utility, make change, update zip & rename back to .xpi) some infrequent few won't work with the latest version. you can also turn off compatibility testing for all if you prefer a shotgun approach

plugins are bit dependent. 32 bit (x86) only work with 32 bit browsers, 64 bit x64 with 64 bit. most major plugins also come with x64 versions. flash, java (if you can't or won't disable it), divx, adobe, silverlight, all have working x64 versions. java is a bit insecure pre v. 17. build 17.

if yours work with waterfox 18.0.1 they will likely work with nightly 22.01a. like i said earlier, some might need a small effort on your part to tweak the installer. some extension suppliers may have an already tweaked version update. check with the supplier. some might need the supplier to reprogram for the current api. the latter are thankfully rare.

i use waterfox as my default. if i want bleeding edge & do not care if it hiccups, i use nightly. stopped using x86 a long while back. it might be a tad faster yet, but not that noticeably.

caveat emptor... and you get what you pay for. (both are free)


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> In case you missed the last 3 years, plugins are mostly defunct now.
> 
> 
> 
> How, in any way, are plugins defunct? Even Flash player is considered a plugin.
Click to expand...

I think he was just trolling - though it is true some plugins from the height of plugin-mania (before addons became more versatile & popular) aren't maintained anymore and could be considered broken by now.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> i have a number of addons - extensions and plugins. they all work fine with the nightly x64 builds from mozilla.


I have a couple of the less popular and not no actively maintained addons, and these authors often only fix incompatibilities with the bleeding edge mozilla core once it arrives in the stable firefox version. It often isn't just about the maxversion, I can easily change it myself or - even better - install an addon that disables the version check alltogether. So I ended up using a stable x64 version (waterfox, cyberfox) since I certainly don't have the nerd-factor, time or ambition to edit/fix addon code myself.

If you just use the most prominent addons like adblock, noscript, ... you are fine with the nightly versions, these authors often even have dedicated dev pages with nightly versions of their addons.


----------



## MrGlasspoole

In the past i used the Nightly Tester Tools (looks like now there is the Add-on Compatibility Reporter).
That all Add-ons work without messing around is the biggest reason for me to use WF.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> How, in any way, are plugins defunct? Even Flash player is considered a plugin.


Flash _is_ dying, if you hadn't noticed. With projects like HTML5 video and native PDF complete and Shumway in development, plugins probably won't last longer than another two years at the most.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> With projects like HTML5 video and native PDF complete and Shumway in development, plugins probably won't last longer than another two years at the most.
Click to expand...

No way, imho that's open-source delusion - given the proliferation of flash it could be replaced in 5 years up to a decade, but only if the web standards add further functions to make even browser games possible that are currently afaik still implemented in flash most of the time... and even then the self-contained flash might be simpler to program than trying a couple of browser js/css implementations.

True, the mobile market like iOS puts pressure on proprietary (i.e. non-Appple ) runtimes, but not to the extent that every webmaster would phase out flash in a panic. So to be on topic, for a x64 browser it is and will be essential to have a working flash plugin.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> No way, imho that's open-source delusion - given the proliferation of flash it could be replaced in 5 years up to a decade, but only if the web standards add further functions to make even browser games possible that are currently afaik still implemented in flash most of the time... and even then the self-contained flash might be simpler to program than trying a couple of browser js/css implementations.
> 
> True, the mobile market like iOS puts pressure on proprietary (i.e. non-Appple ) runtimes, but not to the extent that every webmaster would phase out flash in a panic. So to be on topic, for a x64 browser it is and will be essential to have a working flash plugin.


Aside from "facebook games" I don't see flash anywhere anymore. It's no longer used as the primary building block of any website, and even YouTube doesn't require it anymore (http://youtube.com/html5). They haven't made any major changes in ActionScript since 2006. The only updates to Flash these days are security holes and video card incompatibilities.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Aside from "facebook games" I don't see flash anywhere anymore. It's no longer used as the primary building block of any website, and even YouTube doesn't require it anymore (http://youtube.com/html5).


I know, though Youtube Flash/h264 is superior to their html5-vp8/webm so I still use it on youtube. But as a user of noscript & flashblock/click to play I realize that I very often stumble across sites that use flash, but maybe that's just me.

But for really phasing out the flash plugin "few sites use it" is not enough, it has to be just like the java-plugin "99% of the sites use it anymore" or many people will want to keep flash installed - and using noscript/click to play there are no drive-by attacks possible.


----------



## volund

Is anyone else with an Elantech touchpad (I am on a Samsung Series 9) having issues with the 3 finger swipe forward/back on version 18? I know it was an issue back on version 14, but I couldn't find any resolutions to the issue.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> No way, imho that's open-source delusion - given the proliferation of flash it could be replaced in 5 years up to a decade, but only if the web standards add further functions to make even browser games possible that are currently afaik still implemented in flash most of the time... and even then the self-contained flash might be simpler to program than trying a couple of browser js/css implementations.
> 
> True, the mobile market like iOS puts pressure on proprietary (i.e. non-Appple ) runtimes, but not to the extent that every webmaster would phase out flash in a panic. So to be on topic, for a x64 browser it is and will be essential to have a working flash plugin.
> 
> 
> 
> Aside from "facebook games" I don't see flash anywhere anymore. It's no longer used as the primary building block of any website, and even YouTube doesn't require it anymore (http://youtube.com/html5). They haven't made any major changes in ActionScript since 2006. The only updates to Flash these days are security holes and video card incompatibilities.
Click to expand...

Why doesn't Waterfox support h.264 in HTML5 ???


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Why doesn't Waterfox support h.264 in HTML5 ???


because firefox doesn't


----------



## kevindd992002

Is html5 better than flash in youtube?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Why doesn't Waterfox support h.264 in HTML5 ???
> 
> 
> 
> because firefox doesn't
Click to expand...

That's what I meant, though.

Why doesn't Firefox support it?


----------



## kevindd992002

How do I youtube videos in html5 format? I've joined the html5 trial but when I play it in FF19 it still plays via Flash?


----------



## RealityRipple

It does support h.264, it's just not in the release versions. They didn't add h.264 support initially because it didn't exist as a fully open-source project, and ogg is. Ogg was the natural choice.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> How do I youtube videos in html5 format? I've joined the html5 trial but when I play it in FF19 it still plays via Flash?


Depends entirely on the video. Videos with ads and other various "features" of YouTube have not been html5'd yet. Also, the interfaces (and context menus) look almost identical, so double check that it is actually flash.


----------



## kevindd992002

@RealityRipple

Why is it that Youtube videos using FF19 aren't automatically playing in html5 even though I already joined the opt-in HTML5 test of youtube? Please help.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Why is it that Youtube videos using FF19 aren't automatically playing in html5 even though I already joined the opt-in HTML5 test of youtube? Please help.


I'm happy to help: just add &html5=1 at the end of the url and it plays webm/vp8 in ff...

... though as stated above flash/h264 is not only more efficient, but looks better at a lower bitrate even than the lowest compressed vp8/webm available - plus you have to use flash for videos with ads and other gimmicks. If you want h264 as html5, you have to use ie or safari: https://www.youtube.com/html5


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I'm happy to help: just add &html5=1 at the end of the url and it plays webm/vp8 in ff...
> 
> ... though as stated above flash/h264 is not only more efficient, but looks better at a lower bitrate even than the lowest compressed vp8/webm available - plus you have to use flash for videos with ads and other gimmicks. If you want h264 as html5, you have to use ie or safari: https://www.youtube.com/html5


Ah ok. Is there no automatic way of doing it though?


----------



## RevZ

Okay, so when Waterfox was at version 14 through 16, I kept trying to replace my WF13 install with it but no matter what I did, keeping the profile meant the browser would glitch all over the place; eventually the browser simply wouldn't start anymore at all unless I started a fresh profile (instant crash, running with no add-ons at all changed nothing about it), the rant post about that is probably somewhere around, still.

Is there no way at all to get to transfer things over nicely to a new install of WF18 AND have it actually function properly afterwards? Passwords are easy and I don't do bookmarks, but I do not feel like losing browsing history (for the address bar autofill), profile-specific settings and other such things...


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I'm happy to help: just add &html5=1 at the end of the url and it plays webm/vp8 in ff...
> Ah ok. Is there no automatic way of doing it though?
Click to expand...

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-html5-switch


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-html5-switch


Thanks!


----------



## chris164935

Anyone have experience with Mozilla FireFox Nightly? I keep having issues with the browser crashing. For example, this thread: http://www.overclock.net/t/412389/official-screenshot-of-your-games-thread/14480 Certain pages that I try to view will cause the browser to crash (the URL is a link to one such page). Is WaterFox more stable than Nightly?

EDIT: Just installed WaterFox and it still crashes... Also, it seems to just load up Nightly when I double-clicked on the WaterFox icon. Hmm.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I just tried uninstalling KB2670838 and surprisingly it also uninstalled IE10. I then tried installing IE10 again (without installing back KB2670838) and surprisingly KB2670838 was automatically installed. I guess they come in partners.


Any ideas on this?


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Okay, so when Waterfox was at version 14 through 16, I kept trying to replace my WF13 install with it but no matter what I did, keeping the profile meant the browser would glitch all over the place; eventually the browser simply wouldn't start anymore at all unless I started a fresh profile (instant crash, running with no add-ons at all changed nothing about it), the rant post about that is probably somewhere around, still.
> 
> Is there no way at all to get to transfer things over nicely to a new install of WF18 AND have it actually function properly afterwards? Passwords are easy and I don't do bookmarks, but I do not feel like losing browsing history (for the address bar autofill), profile-specific settings and other such things...


I had similar problems after I upgraded. I fixed them by uninstalling firefox and waterfox. I then downloaded & installed the latest versions of FF nightly 64 bit, and waterfox. All my preferences and plug-ins worked fine, and I have not had a problem since. Make sure you choose to keep your preferences if asked during the ff & wf removal process.


----------



## nevets1219

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Any ideas on this?


It seems there's no way around it. It's a requirement for IE 10 so if you want IE 10 you will need that update. See responses here. It seems people have reported it to Mozilla as well. Best thing to do is wait for Microsoft to deal with that update because it's uncertain if Mozilla will do anything about it.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nevets1219*
> 
> It seems there's no way around it. It's a requirement for IE 10 so if you want IE 10 you will need that update. See responses here. It seems people have reported it to Mozilla as well. Best thing to do is wait for Microsoft to deal with that update because it's uncertain if Mozilla will do anything about it.


Got it. Thanks!


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *misteko*
> 
> Out ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/20.0/


Better to wait untill 20.0.1 is released.. NTLM auth is broken in FF v20.0.. Don't understand why they've broken it again.. Was broken in 18.0, fixed in 18.0.1, 18.0.2, 19.0 and 19.0.1 and now broken again.. Strange.. But I really hope 20.0.1 can be compiled by Mr.Alex..









Skickat från min Transformer TF101 via Tapatalk 2


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> But I really hope 20.0.1 can be compiled by Mr.Alex..


The last announcement a month ago said wf19 was coming, but now it might be best to go straight to v20?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> But I really hope 20.0.1 can be compiled by Mr.Alex..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The last announcement a month ago said wf19 was coming, but now it might be best to go straight to v20?
Click to expand...

Certainly.

From past experience we know that Alex likes to release only the latest version when he does release one.

He has logged in 13 hours ago.

He is from Cyprus but it says he is currently in England going to Uni.

But I'm sure he has family back home in Cyprus dealing with the government mess.


----------



## CrazzyRussian

THe FAQ seems to be down and I don't have the time to go through 510 pages so I'm just going to ask, for somebody who has at least 5 tabs open at a time and can have up to 15 sometimes, will there be any noticeable performance improvements and will they be worth the transition to an unofficially supported browser? I'm currently using Firefox.


----------



## nevets1219

I've had 60+ tabs open in Firefox with no problem and the same goes for Waterfox (I use Firefox at work and Waterfox at home). Firefox used to shut down very slowly whereas Waterfox was faster but both have improved greatly in that regards so it really is a non-issue now. I don't think 15 tabs is going to be a problem for either browser assuming you have the memory for it.


----------



## NomakeWan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chris164935*
> 
> Anyone have experience with Mozilla FireFox Nightly? I keep having issues with the browser crashing. For example, this thread: http://www.overclock.net/t/412389/official-screenshot-of-your-games-thread/14480 Certain pages that I try to view will cause the browser to crash (the URL is a link to one such page). Is WaterFox more stable than Nightly?
> 
> EDIT: Just installed WaterFox and it still crashes... Also, it seems to just load up Nightly when I double-clicked on the WaterFox icon. Hmm.


I use Nightly at present. Note that Nightly is an Alpha build of Firefox. It is not even Beta. It's not stable. It's in fact three versions ahead of the current Firefox release. It is the bleeding edge and therefore has many issues. The crash you noticed was brought up in Nightly 22 sometime around the end of March and has to do with certain pages with many high-resolution images. I don't personally know what the issue is, but I deal with it (either by hoping that a new Nightly fixes it, which the current version seems to have, or by using Chrome for those few pages) because it's a hell of a lot better than the microstutter in WF18.

And yes, when Nightly is running attempting to open Waterfox will open Nightly instead. This is because you cannot have two Firefox browsers operating at the same time due to profile conflicts. It is to prevent profile corruption and is there for your safety. Close out of Nightly completely, then try to run Waterfox again.


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

Any chance that 20.0 is being uploaded/updated to the waterfox site now? The downloads section is giving me a 404. Fingers crossed that the new version is being compiled!


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SOCOM_HERO*
> 
> Any chance that 20.0 is being uploaded/updated to the waterfox site now? The downloads section is giving me a 404. Fingers crossed that the new version is being compiled!


It's working for me. I wouldn't expect a new version of waterfox until v22.


----------



## Screemer

To me it's a bit much to jump 4 full versions at a time.
2 I can cope with but 4 is to much.

Guess I'll have to move back to 32 bit browsing..


----------



## SOCOM_HERO

I think every four iterations is a bit much as well, but it is getting harder and harder to keep up with Mozilla's rapid development cycle.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> To me it's a bit much to jump 4 full versions at a time.
> 2 I can cope with but 4 is to much.
> 
> Guess I'll have to move back to 32 bit browsing..


I second this. We should accept the fact that Waterfox development isn't how it used to be.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> To me it's a bit much to jump 4 full versions at a time.
> 2 I can cope with but 4 is to much.
> 
> Guess I'll have to move back to 32 bit browsing..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I second this. We should accept the fact that Waterfox development isn't how it used to be.
Click to expand...

Same, I might be moving to Nightly soon.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Same, I might be moving to Nightly soon.


Yeah, for me MrAlex gave this already up. I'm disappointed but that's his own decision. It's just sad to abandon such a great program.


----------



## SpodoCommodo

There's a new tweet posted on 7th April

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/320959222533738497Quote:


> Just an update to let everyone know Waterfox is still under development! Due to computer issues there's a little delay. Sorry about this!


So it's another _little_ delay...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpodoCommodo*
> 
> There's a new tweet posted on 7th April
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/320959222533738497So it's another _little_ delay...


Yup, so no more complains here. It's just a pretty little delay


----------



## BMT

Ugh, misread the tweet. My bad, sorry!


----------



## jaromanda

Quite clearly MrAlex says it's a "computer issue" ... NOT "compiler issue"


----------



## Screemer

It would be interesting to hear from Mr.Alex himself instead of allot of 3:rd party information on what is or what's not.
I've learned he's a very busy person but still a short post about his thoughts and any information directly from him would be of great interest.
I personally love Waterfox and wouldn't even think about using any other x64 build at the moment but with no information what so ever from himself it's pretty hard to stick to his great builds.. At least I think so.

I hear he's got allot of stuff going on with school and living situation and so on but still it's mainly information from 3:rd party.
I prefer to hear information from "the horses mouth" ..


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> It would be interesting to hear from Mr.Alex himself instead of allot of 3:rd party information on what is or what's not.
> I've learned he's a very busy person but still a short post about his thoughts and any information directly from him would be of great interest.
> I personally love Waterfox and wouldn't even think about using any other x64 build at the moment but with no information what so ever from himself it's pretty hard to stick to his great builds.. At least I think so.
> 
> I hear he's got allot of stuff going on with school and living situation and so on but still it's mainly information from 3:rd party.
> I prefer to hear information from "the horses mouth" ..


I was actually very patient about waiting for any kind of announcement like you are doing right now but it came to a point now that I give up, for me he already abandoned timely development of WF.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> It would be interesting to hear from Mr.Alex himself instead of allot of 3:rd party information on what is or what's not.


the tweet from 3 days ago not good enough?


----------



## charleskane

I think that some anxiety is justified.

However much we are grateful for MrAlex's fine work and however much we may recognise the Cyprus' situation and possibly personal troubles that he may be experiencing (or not!), the dearth of information from him and the long interval to an update would make anyone doubtful as to the likelihood of this project going forward.

To say that he has "computer issues" strikes me as somewhat disingenious. Mr Alex has been posting elsewhere on this site so an update from him, even one which is negative to our hope would be polite and stop the sort of comment I am making now.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *charleskane*
> 
> I think that some anxiety is justified.
> 
> However much we are grateful for MrAlex's fine work and however much we may recognise the Cyprus' situation and possibly personal troubles that he may be experiencing (or not!), the dearth of information from him and the long interval to an update would make anyone doubtful as to the likelihood of this project going forward.
> 
> To say that he has "computer issues" strikes me as somewhat disingenious. Mr Alex has been posting elsewhere on this site so an update from him, even one which is negative to our hope would be polite and stop the sort of comment I am making now.


I completely agree. We all don't want to make these kind of comments but it seems inevitable if even a small update (whether positive or negative) in this very thread is not done.


----------



## jaromanda

If MrAlex releases waterfox 20 or 21 or 22 etc, that'd be great

If not, it'd be a shame - but I wont be anxious, or expect an update, or make accusations about his character

but that's just me.


----------



## BT Shogun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> If MrAlex releases waterfox 20 or 21 or 22 etc, that'd be great
> 
> If not, it'd be a shame - but I wont be anxious, or expect an update, or make accusations about his character
> 
> but that's just me.


+1


----------



## kronckew

nothing is forever.

i am grateful for mr. alex's work freely given over the last few years, and if he is having trouble continuing at the moment, i am not going to whine about it.

it's not like y'all are paying for waterfox. and it's not like the current issue doesn't work any more. it does.

stop looking the gift horse in the mouth.

if he gets around to issuing a new version that will be great, if not, that's OK too. that's life.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> nothing is forever.
> 
> i am grateful for mr. alex's work freely given over the last few years, and if he is having trouble continuing at the moment, i am not going to whine about it.
> 
> it's not like y'all are paying for waterfox. and it's not like the current issue doesn't work any more. it does.
> 
> stop looking the gift horse in the mouth.
> 
> if he gets around to issuing a new version that will be great, if not, that's OK too. that's life.


Exactly. Which is why we have to accept that the project is close to dead. I myself am not complaining, I'm just accepting the fact that the development of WF is not what it used to be.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> nothing is forever.
> 
> i am grateful for mr. alex's work freely given over the last few years, and if he is having trouble continuing at the moment, i am not going to whine about it.
> 
> it's not like y'all are paying for waterfox. and it's not like the current issue doesn't work any more. it does.
> 
> stop looking the gift horse in the mouth.
> 
> if he gets around to issuing a new version that will be great, if not, that's OK too. that's life.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly. Which is why we have to accept that the project is close to dead. I myself am not complaining, I'm just accepting the fact that the development of WF is not what it used to be.
Click to expand...

My sentiments exactly.

I actually switched to Waterfox because Nightly had been stopped by Mozilla.

I kept Waterfox because it seemed to be a lot less "beta" and worked just a great, if not better.

But now Waterfox is lagging really far behind. It's rare to see updates and when they are, they are really late.

I'm *not* complaining. Whatever the reason for this, I don't care and I won't whine.
Waterfox was price and problem free.

Fantastic project and I thank Mr. Alex.

But Nightly (x64) was restarted by Mozilla.
So for now I will be moving back to it.

If this project gets restarted, I might just have to switch back.


----------



## Screemer

Just to inform.. In the 20.0.1 release the NTLM bug I posted about before is fixed.
I really hope Mr.Alex will release 20.0.1 Waterfox.. i really love his work..


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Just to inform.. In the 20.0.1 release the NTLM bug I posted about before is fixed.
> I really hope Mr.Alex will release 20.0.1 Waterfox.. i really love his work..


I do too, love his work that is. His browser is always the cleanest and most user friendly and I'll keep sticking with it until I know he doesn't want to go on anymore


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Exactly. Which is why we have to accept that the project is close to dead. I myself am not complaining, I'm just accepting the fact that the development of WF is not what it used to be.


MrAlex is an undeserving victim of Mozilla's new release cycle - if they would have kept sticking to one major release version for ages, far fewer people would have lost hope which might very well be the reason for him not posting a tiny bit of information in his official support thread.

Just imagine Waterfox would be at 18.0.1, and the other stable 64bit compile which is now at 20.0.1 would be for example at "just 18.0.5" - far fewer people would see a problem, even if the NTLM bug has been fixed (quick survey: what in in the world is NTLM? ). I keep believing the delays and ill communication are just a series of unfortunate coincidences.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Just imagine Waterfox would be at 18.0.1, and the other stable 64bit compile which is now at 20.0.1 would be for example at "just 18.0.5" - far fewer people would see a problem,


actually I think the opposite is true

18.0.1 vs 18.0.5 suggests it is 4 bug and *security* fixes behind

18.0.1 vs 20.0.1 suggests it's 2 stable versions behind, but still a stable release


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry guys, I thought people check the twitter feed, anyway here's the reason for the delay:

Quote:


> I'm on spring break (5 weeks for my university) and all I have access to computer wise is a laptop. I've tried compiling Waterfox on it but it won't work, it's too slow. I don't go back to univeristy until next Friday.


----------



## Rickkins

Enjoy yer vacation....


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry guys, I thought people check the twitter feed, anyway here's the reason for the delay:


Thank you for the update.. Now the wait feel a little bit less tough. I hope your vacation is well spent and that you'll have a great time..


----------



## phazer11

Glad to hear it MrAlex. I hope you will be able to start compiling the latest firefox build whenever you have free time and access to a computer capable of compiling. Anyways just thought I'd say thanks again for the work as I haven't posted a thank you here in ages.


----------



## BT Shogun

Have a good holidays Mr Alex!


----------



## aatif

Hello!
I want to open both browsers. Waterfox and Firefox.. But when i open Firefox it start waterfox.. Can you tell how can i open firefox and waterfox separately , when i installed both browsers on my system..

Thanks.

Waterfox disappears. Now when i open Firefox/Waterfox it opens Firefox only... Any idea How to handle this??


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aatif*
> 
> Hello!
> I want to open both browsers. Waterfox and Firefox.. But when i open Firefox it start waterfox.. Can you tell how can i open firefox and waterfox separately , when i installed both browsers on my system..
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Waterfox disappears. Now when i open Firefox/Waterfox it opens Firefox only... Any idea How to handle this??


Find Waterfox EXE in program files and find the Firefox one in ProgramFiles x86.

Run the those EXEs only. You might be able to make shortcuts to them.


----------



## aatif

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Find Waterfox EXE in program files and find the Firefox one in ProgramFiles x86.
> 
> Run the those EXEs only. You might be able to make shortcuts to them.


Thanks for the answer. but it does not work. i already tried this before posting this question.

more: I experience that. *If both browsers are close* . When i open Firefox , it opens firefox, When i open Waterfox it starts Waterfox.. Both browsers have (same interface/history/cookies/storepasswords)

*But If Waterfox already open,* and i try to open Firefox it opens Waterfox. icon and title in windows. (same interface/history/cookies/storepasswords)
*But If Firefox is already opened,* and i try to open Waterfox it opens Firefox. icon and title in windows. (same interface/history/cookies/storepasswords)


----------



## xxxhugo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aatif*
> 
> Hello!
> I want to open both browsers. Waterfox and Firefox....


Using Firefox profile manager is the solution ...
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles


----------



## phazer11

Don't forget to install both architectures of Java.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aatif*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Find Waterfox EXE in program files and find the Firefox one in ProgramFiles x86.
> 
> Run the those EXEs only. You might be able to make shortcuts to them.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the answer. but it does not work. i already tried this before posting this question.
> 
> more: I experience that. *If both browsers are close* . When i open Firefox , it opens firefox, When i open Waterfox it starts Waterfox.. Both browsers have (same interface/history/cookies/storepasswords)
> 
> *But If Waterfox already open,* and i try to open Firefox it opens Waterfox. icon and title in windows. (same interface/history/cookies/storepasswords)
> *But If Firefox is already opened,* and i try to open Waterfox it opens Firefox. icon and title in windows. (same interface/history/cookies/storepasswords)
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxxhugo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *aatif*
> 
> Hello!
> I want to open both browsers. Waterfox and Firefox....
> 
> 
> 
> Using Firefox profile manager is the solution ...
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
Click to expand...

Woops I thought you meant one at a time.

Normally you can't do both at a time since they use the same profile directory so whichever is up and using it at the time will be the one started and not the other.

You can get around this with what xxxhugo said. It's lets both the apps able to use the profiles at the same time.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *phazer11*
> 
> Don't forget to install both architectures of Java.


or neither, or just one or the other whichever you need

In other words, Java is NOT required at all to run ****fox, so this advice is pointless


----------



## aatif

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Normally you can't do both at a time since they use the same profile directory so whichever is up and using it at the time will be the one started and not the other.


Oh! Ok thanks...
I have installed Pale Moon. its running fine with firefox.


----------



## SilverlightPony

I've got a strange problem since I updated to 18.0.1. Waterfox will occasionally work fine for a while, but it has developed a habit of closing itself. Once it does so the first time, it won't stay open even long enough for me to select a profile before it closes again, until I reboot. I'm stuck using standard Firefox.







Halp please!


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *aatif*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Normally you can't do both at a time since they use the same profile directory so whichever is up and using it at the time will be the one started and not the other.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh! Ok thanks...
> I have installed Pale Moon. its running fine with firefox.
Click to expand...

Palemoon is using their own profiles/folders...


----------



## SpodoCommodo

Pale Moon used to use the Firefox profile but decided to separate from it a few years ago; however, the format of PM's profile is still the same so you can have PM use the FF profile if you want (which, indeed, I usually do).


----------



## Quantum Reality

I just found out about a rather unwelcome change in FF20.

It seems that it "memorizes" the download history in TWO places, and you can no longer auto-clear the history, you must manually do so.

http://www.ghacks.net/2012/08/16/why-i-do-not-like-firefoxs-new-download-panel/

It seems to have been in the nightly builds and included into the release build of 20.

Can Waterfox remove this, or would it require too much recoding to do?


----------



## kronckew

QR, waterfox is a compilation of the firefox source code, alex does not make major code changes, just tweaks to enable it to compile with his compiler version. any bugs will need to have been fixed by mozilla, not alex.

i run firefox 23.01a x64 in addition to waterfox (both using the exact same profile and addons) without any problems. history, including downloads, is cleared as i exit firefox based on my settings - privacy - history. i also use ccleaner which clears the internet and download history on pc startup or when run. your own link shows how to make ff use the older download window (which is further set not to display unless asked for) in lieu of the nasty popup discussed there.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Looks like I'll be switching to Pale Moon then. Sorry, MrAlex!


----------



## MKUL7R4

Never heard of a 64-bit browser before. How much faster is Pale Moon or Waterfox compared to Chrome?


----------



## Grumpigeek

CCleaner is great for cleaning up your browsing history from most browsers.


----------



## charleskane

Waterfox has been a smother experience all round, it may be marginally faster than Firefox 32 but frankly most of the talk about speed is irrelevant because most modern browsers are fast already and it becomes a matter of perception. Having said that O "perceive" it to be faster than Firefox. Certainly some of the issues which lead to a slower overall Firefox experience do not seem to trouble Waterfox.

Since Waterfox will use your Firefox profile anyway swapping between the two is seamless and very soon you will settle on Waterfox.

Having an up to date browser is not terribly reliable and certain with Waterfox as the job is done by one person and we are at his mercy. Waterfox is a much more fluent experience for me than PaleMoon, there are the Mozilla 64bit nightlies but that isn't much fun for a working environment.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MKUL7R4*
> 
> Never heard of a 64-bit browser before. How much faster is Pale Moon or Waterfox compared to Chrome?


Speed probably won't make much of a difference in real life most of the time and heavily depends on which benchmark and ff base version is used. One other (rather theoretical for everyday use) advantage of 64bit is the ability to use more than 4gb of ram.

You should try all flavors and then decide which appeal most to you: PaleMoon as a "backported" browser, Cyberfox as well supported and regularly updated to the latest Firefox version. And last not least there's Waterfox which should be the fastest due to using the Intel compiler - but there were minor delays, a little lack of support/communication and some problems with the last version - though I'm still absolutely convinced this will all go away in the future again and thus am still eagerly awaiting the next version of this awesome project!


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Speed probably won't make much of a difference in real life most of the time and heavily depends on which benchmark and ff base version is used. One other (rather theoretical for everyday use) advantage of 64bit is the ability to use more than 4gb of ram.
> 
> You should try all flavors and then decide which appeal most to you: PaleMoon as a "backported" browser, Cyberfox as well supported and regularly updated to the latest Firefox version. And last not least there's Waterfox which should be the fastest due to using the Intel compiler - but there were minor delays, a little lack of support/communication and some problems with the last version - though I'm still absolutely convinced this will all go away in the future again and thus am still eagerly awaiting the next version of this awesome project!


Shouldn't that bit read 'the last 2 versions' of Firefox now ? Waterfox is still on version 18.0.1, whilst Firefox is now on version 20.0.1 and fast approaching the end of the version 21 beta cycle.


----------



## delmanicomio

Waterfox uses 2gb ram!!!!!

http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6104/ekrangrnts9.png

look at this image..

i opened i lots of video tab, then watched all and closed but waterfox doesnt clear cache

after 30mins still uses almost 2gb of ram

is firefox like that ?


----------



## delmanicomio

i switched back firefox

here is reasons

Peacekeeper benchmark

cyberfox:2788
waterfox:2374
palemoon:2505
firefox:2813

rightwarer browser benchmark:

cyberfox:4581
waterfox:3933
palemoon:4351
firefox:4914

after these test single google.com tab ram usage

cyberfox:154mb
waterfox:215mb
palemoon:130mb
firefox:123mb

all used latest version,


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *delmanicomio*
> 
> i switched back firefox
> 
> here is reasons
> 
> Peacekeeper benchmark
> 
> cyberfox:2788
> waterfox:2374
> palemoon:2505
> firefox:2813
> 
> rightwarer browser benchmark:
> 
> cyberfox:4581
> waterfox:3933
> palemoon:4351
> firefox:4914
> 
> after these test single google.com tab ram usage
> 
> cyberfox:154mb
> waterfox:215mb
> palemoon:130mb
> firefox:123mb
> 
> all used latest version,


*Firefox Nightly [23.0a1] (Apr. 28th, 2013)*
Peacekeeper: 3539 (HTML5 Capabilities 6/7)
Rightware: 5871 (Your browser is superior to 96% of all Desktop browsers)
5 Tabs: 300MB RAM

*Firefox Nightly [23.0a1] (Apr. 29th, 2013)*
HTML5 Test: 419/500
Peacekeeper: 3655
Rightware: 5680
1 Google Tab: 230MB RAM


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *delmanicomio*
> 
> i switched back firefox
> here is reasons


Be cautious when posting something like that - the last time someone dared people demanded an immediate ban if wf didn't come out on top! However, if you flip back a few pages you'll see that it heavily depends on the benchmark used, and as far as I remember the current wf 18 has some regressions to wf 16 - let's wait and try the next wf version, it cannot be long now  ... I'm still absolutely convinced the wf project with the Intel compiler will keep surprising us.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SilverlightPony*
> 
> I've got a strange problem since I updated to 18.0.1. Waterfox will occasionally work fine for a while, but it has developed a habit of closing itself. Once it does so the first time, it won't stay open even long enough for me to select a profile before it closes again, until I reboot. I'm stuck using standard Firefox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Halp please!


You can force the browser to display the profile selection dialog at the start (google for this), or you can disable all addons in firefox and then try to work out what makes waterfox crash ... or you could just try another 64bit flavor like cyberfox or palemoon and see if this solves your problem.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Be cautious when posting something like that - the last time someone dared people demanded an immediate ban if wf didn't come out on top! However, if you flip back a few pages you'll see that it heavily depends on the benchmark used, and as far as I remember the current wf 18 has some regressions to wf 16 - let's wait and try the next wf version, it cannot be long now  ... I'm still absolutely convinced the wf project with the Intel compiler will keep surprising us.
> You can force the browser to display the profile selection dialog at the start (google for this), or you can disable all addons in firefox and then try to work out what makes waterfox crash ... or you could just try another 64bit flavor like cyberfox or palemoon and see if this solves your problem.


Huh? Banned for just posting benchmark results?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Huh? Banned for just posting benchmark results?


Obviously it didn't happen, but when the uncertainty about the wf delays and tensions were high everybody who wrote that he/she experienced issues with wf not occurring in other ff flavors or that wf is actually behind in some benchmarks was suspected to be a troll or agent of the enemy (i.e. palemoon or cyberfox)... some people see this thread as excluding discussions about wf's performance and issues, but just to support or praise wf (I actually don't know what the original intent of the thread is/was).

Fortunately, this phase seems to be over as it has gotten clear that the current problems with wf support or release delays aren't made up and we now all can wait and see if and when something happens again - and I'm saying this with all respect for mralex' great work and complete understanding for all possible issues that prevent people from supporting projects for free.
.


----------



## phazer11

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *delmanicomio*
> 
> Waterfox uses 2gb ram!!!!!
> 
> http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/6104/ekrangrnts9.png
> 
> look at this image..
> 
> i opened i lots of video tab, then watched all and closed but waterfox doesnt clear cache
> 
> after 30mins still uses almost 2gb of ram
> 
> is firefox like that ?


Ok first off I think you probably have an entirely different problem than the browser. But to determine...

1. What add-ons are you using?

2. How many youtube tabs did you open?

3. Which version of Waterfox are you using?

4. Are all of your plug-is (Java, Flash Player, Silverlight) up to date?

5. What OS are you using? From the screenshot I'd say Windows 8.

Now I'll do a test with 10 Youtube tabs with video loaded and several others (14 tabs) on my laptop which is running Windows 8 Core 64-Bit. The number of tabs which while lower than my average couple dozen tabs at any given time should give you an idea. I will post results in a bit.

As to the debate over which is faster? I say Waterfox may be a little faster than the comparable version of Palemoon. I don't know about the Nightlies of Firefox x64, Cyberfox (might have to try it out while I await an update for this) or the latest versions of Palemoon.

I do know one thing. I have never had the problem of needing to close the browser because it uses so much RAM windows has to force it to close (cough *chrome*) even if I have the same exact tabs open in each browser (not both browsers at once). I've never had Waterfox go over 3GB even with several dozen tabs open. The other browser *cough* chrome uses much more.


----------



## Quantum Reality

As long as Waterfox stays reasonably up to date and fast with the Intel compiler I think memory issues shouldn't be a problem


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *delmanicomio*
> 
> Waterfox uses 2gb ram!!!!! [...] is firefox like that ?


Yes, it is - but Mozilla is constantly working on ways to reduce the memory footprint and do garbage collection more often, but many of these improvements haven't made it to stable yet - you can use the 64bit Nightly though.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> As long as Waterfox stays reasonably up to date and fast with the Intel compiler I think memory issues shouldn't be a problem


My definition of "reasonably up to date" would be that it doesn't have any known security issues - so either wf is updates to a current stable ff version or security fixes are backported. Both is not the case for the last months, so running a bare wf w/o noscript, click to play and so on in the open internet on is risky and probably not a good idea. So it's good to know mralex is still working on wf, and his last post indicates it cannot be long now until a new release.


----------



## Hutchinman

So I guess Alex is waiting for Firefox 21 that releases next week on Tuesday. It makes sense to wait and not release a build, instead of releasing a build now and then have to release another right after that.

Can anyone confirm/agree with this?


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> So I guess Alex is waiting for Firefox 21 that releases next week on Tuesday. It makes sense to wait and not release a build, instead of releasing a build now and then have to release another right after that.
> 
> Can anyone confirm/agree with this?


Your guess is as good as anyone else's, last thing MrAlex said about Waterfox development was almost a month ago.

Here's hoping either way. I'm starting to get fed up with Firefox crashes when it hits the 4GB barrier again now, so it would be nice to have 64bit Firefox again.


----------



## kennyparker1337

I'm just using Nightly x64 23.0.1 while Waterfox is in hiatus.

Working really good for me!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Here's hoping either way. I'm starting to get fed up with Firefox crashes when it hits the 4GB barrier again now, so it would be nice to have 64bit Firefox again.


I don't know if it matters until the supposedly short time until the new wf is out - but there are two other stable 64bit compiles (palemoon, cyberfox) available if you don't want to use nightly which sometimes has problems with addons that arent't updated to match the newest codebase.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> So I guess Alex is waiting for Firefox 21 that releases next week on Tuesday. It makes sense to wait and not release a build, instead of releasing a build now and then have to release another right after that. Can anyone confirm/agree with this?


Only mralex could confirm it, but I can certainly agree with it - it makes sense to go straight to wf21, so the wf community will eagerly await this date! But please don't pressure mralex for updates, so should any unforseen problems arise, it's still possible to skip right ahead to wf22, see https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases


----------



## MrGlasspoole

I have great respect for Alex work but since a month i use Cyberfox and its running great.


----------



## PanzerIV

Firefox v21 just came out today, hopefuly we'll see an update to Waterfox before June as it's been quite a while since v18 :\


----------



## Quantum Reality

Switched to Pale Moon x32 on my desktop. Pretty nice and clean and reinstates the old download window. Me likey.









So sorry, MrAlex, but I need to keep up with the security etc. :|


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrGlasspoole*
> 
> I have great respect for Alex work but since a month i use Cyberfox and its running great.


I am running Cyberfox since wf18 kept crashing on me, and can recommend it as a current 64bit, well supported and immediately updated browser - of course until our all favorite beast, the one and only waterfox is available again.

But it's good to know mralex is still working on Waterfox, I'd like to at least give it another try with some benchmarks to see if the Intel compiler really is faster - but even if, well, I would understand if some people might decide that an up-to-date and secure browser is more important than a bit more speed you might not even realize in real world web surfing.


----------



## jaromanda

CyberFox 21 is noticeably SLOOOOWWWWER than Firefox 21 (19 and 20 were comparable to Firefox)

So, dumped CyberFox, patiently waiting for WF ...


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> CyberFox 21 is noticeably SLOOOOWWWWER than Firefox 21 (19 and 20 were comparable to Firefox)


Really - how did you find out, did you run benchmarks? I just switched an cannot see any speed regressions, Cyberfox seems to be as fast and stable as I've gotten used to (but of course I expect Waterfox to be even faster, when and if wf arrives).


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Really - how did you find out, did you run benchmarks? I just switched an cannot see any speed regressions, Cyberfox seems to be as fast and stable as I've gotten used to (but of course I expect Waterfox to be even faster, when and if wf arrives).


the usual benchmarks have always shown cyberfox to be slower than firefox (at least on my machine, quad core AMD) - but I'm talking about the "feel" of it. Noticeable lag just switching tabs!!


----------



## seriousam

I've been using waterfox since version 5. I was really excited...but now I'm disappointed...
Found this photo on waterfox's page on facebook...and wanted to share it with you.


I m going for nighty...good luck to the patient fellows that wait the new update.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seriousam*
> 
> I m going for nighty...good luck to the patient fellows that wait the new update.


Yes, both Cyberfox and the htguardmozilla x64 project have had the V21 update out almost a week now ....


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I don't know if it matters until the supposedly short time until the new wf is out - but there are two other stable 64bit compiles (palemoon, cyberfox) available if you don't want to use nightly which sometimes has problems with addons that arent't updated to match the newest codebase.


Thanks, but Palemoon has features removed that I need to use on a regular basis.

As for Cyberfox, I've simply heard of too many issues being caused it, especially the (un)installer causing registry issues etc. that I'm not going to risk trying it unless the developer starts releasing it without an installer (e.g. in a zip file).


----------



## sayhello

I'm sorry, I tried searching this thread, but I"m still new to the forum. I'm using Waterfox 16.0.1, and I've had issues that when I move my cursor up towards the right-hand corner quickly, Waterfox closes. Even if I have multiple tabs open, (and I have warn me when closing multiple tabs) there's no warning, no nothing, Waterfox just closes. And when I start it back up, all my tabs are gone.

Am I doing something wrong? Is this a problem with Windows 7 64 bits? I never had this issue with Firefox.

Thanks for any help you can give me.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sayhello*
> 
> I'm sorry, I tried searching this thread, but I"m still new to the forum. I'm using Waterfox 16.0.1, and I've had issues that when I move my cursor up towards the right-hand corner quickly, Waterfox closes. Even if I have multiple tabs open, (and I have warn me when closing multiple tabs) there's no warning, no nothing, Waterfox just closes. And when I start it back up, all my tabs are gone.
> 
> Am I doing something wrong? Is this a problem with Windows 7 64 bits? I never had this issue with Firefox.
> 
> Thanks for any help you can give me.


Waterfox has been outdated for quite some time now.

Perhaps it was an issue fixed on a later version.

Firefox (Stable, 32-bit) is now up to version 21 and the Nightly (Firefox Beta, 64-bit) is up to version 24.


----------



## Coldblackice

Waterfox is dead.

Long live Cyberfox!

(Disclaimer: I've been a long-time, hardcore Waterfox advocate -- but evolution has shown us a new and fierce contender for top of the food chain







)


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> Waterfox is dead.
> 
> Long live Cyberfox!
> 
> (Disclaimer: I've been a long-time, hardcore Waterfox advocate -- but evolution has shown us a new and fierce contender for top of the food chain
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


I also agree with this. I really think MrAlex should stop giving us false hopes already. I'm tired of waiting for Waterfox forever. I was a devotee for Waterfox also.


----------



## PanzerIV

So far I switched from Waterfox v18 to Cyberfox v21 and really love it. It's just as good and I really like the new "Download button".


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PanzerIV*
> 
> So far I switched from Waterfox v18 to Cyberfox v21 and really love it. It's just as good and I really like the new "Download button".


I don't like that stupid down-arrow, and I don't like that Pale Moon hasn't yet been reconfigured to delete the new downloading history, even though you can disable the animation and reinstate the old download window.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Coldblackice*
> 
> Waterfox is dead.
> I also agree with this. I really think MrAlex should stop giving us false hopes already. I'm tired of waiting for Waterfox forever. I was a devotee for Waterfox also.
Click to expand...

The mantra of this thread is: please don't pressure mralex for updates! It was only on april 7 (not 1st) that he let us know that wf is still under development, and the latest news here was he was about to solve the computer issues. So people, keep the faith and keep checking this thread, only the patient will be rewarded - a really loyal fan never leves the true path just for some delays and a little lack of communication.


----------



## Rickkins

I'm giving cyberfox a tryout, but I'll be back....


----------



## JoeF

I'm using the Firefox 64-Bit Nightly for now on my Win7 machine at work.
But I'll be back on Waterfox as soon as MrAlex releases a new version.
The FF nightly can be somewhat unstable. A few days ago, the nightly crashed on me on the FedEx tracking page (seems to be ok with the latest nightly.)


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeF*
> 
> The FF nightly can be somewhat unstable. A few days ago, the nightly crashed on me on the FedEx tracking page (seems to be ok with the latest nightly.)


I've been using Nightly for years, and in my experience real bugs/crashes are far in between and can be solved by reverting to a version a couple of days older.

What often appears as a bug is that highly optimized, corporate web pages aren't adapted to the newest gecko engine (but to IE6...) and that some ff addons lag behind concerning compatibility. That's why I'm using a stable ff version by now, fortunately Cyberfox is to the rescue, but of course only until the real deal (Waterfox 22 by now) is released!


----------



## GeneralNMX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *delmanicomio*
> 
> Waterfox uses 2gb ram!!!!!...i opened i lots of video tab, then watched all and closed but waterfox doesnt clear cache...after 30mins still uses almost 2gb of ram...is firefox like that ?


Firefox, and especially Flash, especially with lots of Addons/Extensions, will allocate lots of memory for cache on the assumption your *operating system* will just reclaim it back -- on Windows, this is called a "Working Set". I have a ton of tabs open in Firefox with a ton of extensions, and it regularly gets up to 2GB+ on my 8GB machine. However, it rarely gets this way when I actually am in danger of running out of physical memory -- Windows empties the Working Sets of programs like Firefox. The program Process Lasso can help Windows do this sooner automatically, if you like. Another fun program to use is Sysinternals's RAMMap: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ff700229.aspx

How to have fun with Firefox & RAMMap
- Load up Firefox, get a billion tabs open (especially Flash & videos and such)
- Load up RAMMap
- Go to the "Empty" menu option, select "Empty Working Sets" (yes, this is safe)

For additional fun, add the "Memchaser" extension and enjoy making screenshots like this (hint: look at the bottom next to Resident):


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GeneralNMX*
> 
> Firefox, and especially Flash, especially with lots of Addons/Extensions, will allocate lots of memory for cache on the assumption your *operating system* will just reclaim it back -- on Windows, this is called a "Working Set". I have a ton of tabs open in Firefox with a ton of extensions, and it regularly gets up to 2GB+ on my 8GB machine. However, it rarely gets this way when I actually am in danger of running out of physical memory -- Windows empties the Working Sets of programs like Firefox. The program Process Lasso can help Windows do this sooner automatically, if you like. Another fun program to use is Sysinternals's RAMMap: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/ff700229.aspx
> 
> How to have fun with Firefox & RAMMap
> - Load up Firefox, get a billion tabs open (especially Flash & videos and such)
> - Load up RAMMap
> - Go to the "Empty" menu option, select "Empty Working Sets" (yes, this is safe)
> 
> For additional fun, add the "Memchaser" extension and enjoy making screenshots like this (hint: look at the bottom next to Resident):


With this implemented, will browsing speed be affected negatively?


----------



## Skull6

I apologize if this has already been answered prviously, as I'm a new member & can't figure out how to search the forums for an answer. Will the latest Waterfox build work with FF 21?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skull6*
> 
> I apologize if this has already been answered prviously, as I'm a new member & can't figure out how to search the forums for an answer. Will the latest Waterfox build work with FF 21?


What do you mean? WF is independent of FF. It is not a patch to FF or anything like that meaning you can install WF without ever installing FF.

Hope that helps.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skull6*
> 
> Will the latest Waterfox build work with FF 21?


You mean will the next Waterfox be based on Firefox 21? Probably not, it would make sense to go straight to Waterfox 22 which bill be based on the same FF version.

But Waterfox is still being worked on, the last pieces of information from the dev give us hope - there was some little delay due to a computer issue (see Twitter https://twitter.com/Waterfoxproject) but this should be solved by now (see http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-18-0-1-19-january-firefox-64-bit/5000_100#post_19750373). Personally I expect the release to be imminent, so keep scanning this thread for news!


----------



## Hutchinman

All I would like is an update. No ETAs, just a statement of reasons for the delay and the amount of progress made. I'd take a %.


----------



## SpodoCommodo

Before FF21 was released (and possibly a version or two before that), version 22 was mentioned as a possible target for the next WF release - is there anything special about v22 that would make a WF release more likely for that than for v21 or v20... ?

(I suspect that it may have been explained earlier in this thread but the thought of looking through 500-odd pages is a bit daunting)


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> All I would like is an update. No ETAs, just a statement of reasons for the delay and the amount of progress made. I'd take a %.


Please don't pressure MrAlex for updates, if he hasn't spoken to us during the last months why should he start now? Just trust that he keeps working on Waterfox, so keep the faith, continue scanning this thread and Twitter - only the patient will be rewarded with the most powerful browser in the world!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpodoCommodo*
> 
> Version 22 was mentioned as a possible target for the next WF release - is there anything special about v22 that would make a WF release more likely for that than for v21 or v20... ?


Nope, it's just that recompiling Firefox seems to be a lot of work it's unlikely a version will be released just before the next Firefox version is scheduled - much more likely wf would go straight to the new code that already is in the ff beta channel, esp. to preempt unforeseen problems that have been known to occur.


----------



## TFL Replica

Guys, I understand you're feeling frustrated about the lack of updates, but this isn't the place to be starting a complaint/argument about it. Nagging the author will not hasten things along. Please wait for an update from the author or just switch to an alternative browser in the meantime.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> The mantra of this thread is: please don't pressure mralex for updates! It was only on april 7 (not 1st) that he let us know that wf is still under development, and the latest news here was he was about to solve the computer issues. So people, keep the faith and keep checking this thread, only the patient will be rewarded - a really loyal fan never leves the true path just for some delays and a little lack of communication.


Oh wow - that sounds so creepy. Waterfox is currently about 3 versions behind, in recent months the developer has been heard from just once, and that was a tweet rather than a post to his own thread. Many (former?) users are - quite understandably - worried at the lack of updates or even communication. Yet this person feels the need to rebuke someone for daring to ask what the hell is going on, and remind us that it's only 2 months ago we heard that the program was still being developed, and urges us to 'keep the faith'. Dare I point out that in those 2 months another Firefox release has come and gone, yet not a whisper from the developer.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> The mantra of this thread is: please don't pressure mralex for updates! It was only on april 7 (not 1st) that he let us know that wf is still under development, and the latest news here was he was about to solve the computer issues. So people, keep the faith and keep checking this thread, only the patient will be rewarded - a really loyal fan never leves the true path just for some delays and a little lack of communication.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh wow - that sounds so creepy. Waterfox is currently about 3 versions behind, in recent months the developer has been heard from just once, and that was a tweet rather than a post to his own thread. Many (former?) users are - quite understandably - worried at the lack of updates or even communication. Yet this person feels the need to rebuke someone for daring to ask what the hell is going on, and remind us that it's only 2 months ago we heard that the program was still being developed, and urges us to 'keep the faith'. Dare I point out that in those 2 months another Firefox release has come and gone, yet not a whisper from the developer.
Click to expand...

Soon to be deleted post for "complaining".

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TFL Replica*
> 
> Guys, I understand you're feeling frustrated about the lack of updates, but this isn't the place to be starting a complaint/argument about it. Nagging the author will not hasten things along. Please wait for an update from the author or just switch to an alternative browser in the meantime.


Where is the place then?


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Many (former?) users are - quite understandably - worried at the lack of updates or even communication


Please respect the rules - this is not the place to complain. Haters will always hate, and I'm grateful for the tight moderation of this thread that frequently cleans up any pressuring MrAlex for updates or ill-conceived posts because people don't promptly get what they want for free.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Waterfox is currently about 3 versions behind


Versions are just a random number, some time ago a Firefox "version" lasted a year. And many freeriders forget: If Waterox wouldn't happen to be a browser, a small phase of no updates and a not-so-much communication wouldn't be a problem at all. What some require of our MrAlex to do is beyond what most other oss devs are doing in their spare time! So keep the spirit of the Waterfox community becuase wf is not just a browser, but rather a way of life, and closely follow this thread for any hot news on the fastest browser on the planet!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Where is the place then?


You could try the Cyberfox forum, I suppose many dedicated and loyal wf users hang out there and have chosen cf as a temporary replacement since it's also fast, well supported and immediately updated after a new ff release.


----------



## SpodoCommodo

If a browser is totally self-contained then there is no reason to be bothered about lack of updates (ignoring potential problems with newly discovered security issues).

BUT Firefox and Waterfox share the same add-ons and plug-ins, and these get updated to work with the latest version of Firefox; the longer it is since the last Waterfox update then the greater the chance that those additions that we use to enhance our browsing experience will no longer work correctly.


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> So keep the spirit of the Waterfox community becuase wf is not just a browser, but rather a way of life...


While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for a piece of software that's not junk, I think that describing a forum thread about a web browser a "community" and going to far as to call it "a way of life" is bordering on pathological. I would suggest forcing yourself to leave the house for, at the very least, two hours a day for some face-to-face social interaction.

No offense or anything-it's just that sometimes these things go unmentioned until it's too late.


----------



## NameMakingSux

So, is this just a modified version of Firefox that the topic creator made himself? Is it's primary function a 64 bit browser? Why would i want this over say, Chrome? Would it conflict with anything?


----------



## NameMakingSux

Oops I just realized this thread was started in 2011 lol. I thought it was only a few days old. I'm still unsure as to what this is.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NameMakingSux*
> 
> Oops I just realized this thread was started in 2011 lol. I thought it was only a few days old. I'm still unsure as to what this is.


It is an (outdated) 64 bit version of Firefox.
It runs on the same "engine" but provides more compiled enhancements to take more use of system resources to run more, better, and more efficient content.

You can use it at the same time as any other browser.
However, due to profile restrictions only one type of Mozilla browser can be opened at one time.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> So keep the spirit of the Waterfox community becuase wf is not just a browser, but rather a way of life...
> 
> 
> 
> While I can appreciate your enthusiasm for a piece of software that's not junk, I think that describing a forum thread about a web browser a "community" and going to far as to call it "a way of life" is bordering on pathological. I would suggest forcing yourself to leave the house for, at the very least, two hours a day for some face-to-face social interaction.
Click to expand...

Thank you, brother, I really appreciate your concern, and it proves my point: I would have never thought that recompiling some oss source code would create such a strong, dedicated community and generate such love and hate as the last few hundred pages prove. Nowhere else I have felt this deep commitment and solemn seriousness, and that's why I'd even go further and say waterfox isn't just a way of life, but awaiting for the next release is the meaning of life!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> No offense or anything-it's just that sometimes these things go unmentioned until it's too late.


None taken, nothing can harm me because I expect the next wf release is imminent - keep scanning this thread for news!


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NameMakingSux*
> 
> So, is this just a modified version of Firefox that the topic creator made himself? Is it's primary function a 64 bit browser? *Why would i want this over say, Chrome?* Would it conflict with anything?


Well, it depends what web browser you prefer. I tend to favor Firefox because of the better customizability. Google Chrome/Chromium is faster out of the box, but has different add-ons.
I personally prefer the Mozilla framework.


----------



## lewisje

I don't like the obtrusive Cyberfox updater, so I use the htguard builds, which have the advantage of being downloadable as ZIP files with no installer (though they're not truly portable by default, you'll need to add a portable.dat file to the folder and probably use a special launcher specifying a profile folder inside the program directory in order to make it a portable app).


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> I don't like the obtrusive Cyberfox updater


I agree about the updater (what do you expect from a presumptuous browser that dares to have a go at our Waterfox)? ... fortunately you can unselect their updater on installation and you don't need to use it anyway since Cyberfox is released like clockwork just after each Firefox release, it's hard to miss an update.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *lewisje*
> 
> which have the advantage of being downloadable as ZIP files with no installer.


Look again then: Cyberfox has a real portable version (as paf), you can choose either Intel- or AMD optimized flavors... which won't do them any good, they'll never be able to reach the dedication of the Waterfox crowd or the raw speed of our favorite browser! And I'm more keen than ever for the next wf, the missed ff 22 release can only mean one thing and one thing alone: Waterfox is readied for a totally awesome 23 release which will show all nay-sayers how wrong they were!


----------



## mrsmiles

installed cyberfox 22, but after a couple of days and updating all my addons it began giving me some weird issues i never had on waterfox, after trying to fix the problem it still continued.

finally gave up and went back to waterfox, ill be sticking to this from now on....


----------



## Screemer

I don't intend to put any pressure on anyone but I would like to ask if anyone has heard anything about a new build?
I mean the last entry on twitter are getting quite old and I haven't seen a single life sign anywhere from MrAlex.

2013-04-07
" Just an update to let everyone know Waterfox is still under development! Due to computer issues there's a little delay. Sorry about this! "
2013-02-27
" Waterfox 19 is on it's way, another compiler bug has been found and is being resolved. "

I have full understanding about he being busy and having compiler issues and so on.
I only wanted to check to see if anyone has heard anything not published here or on twitter.
Perhaps MrAlex himself could post a progress report of sorts.









After all, most of us posting and reading on this thread really love his work.








There is no browser better than the Waterfox browser on Windows x64.


----------



## kevindd992002

Waterfox is dead, I hope the author would just admit it once and for all, no pun intended.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NameMakingSux*
> 
> Oops I just realized this thread was started in 2011 lol. I thought it was only a few days old. I'm still unsure as to what this is.


Since Firefox itself is Open Source, anyone can download and recompile it as they please. In this case what MrAlex does is recompiles FF for 64-bit systems and introduces optimizations in the compiler to make it run faster on said 64-bit systems.


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Waterfox is dead, I hope the author would just admit it once and for all, no pun intended.


While I don't agree with your opinion, I'll defend your right to post it to the death ... pun intended


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> I don't intend to put any pressure on anyone but I would like to ask if anyone has heard anything about a new build?


Just the question is pressuring our MrAlex for updates because if he'd want to share anything about the ongoing wf development process he'd do it - if he chooses to concentrate on working on wf rather than support it through the official support channels we have to accept his decision, so keep scanning this thread for hot waterfox news!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Since Firefox itself is Open Source, anyone can download and recompile it as they please.


But not on any compiler - MrAlex' historic landmark achievement was to make it compile with icc, and even he as an great expert was hindered by nasty compiler bugs turning up multiple times out of nowhere delaying the releases.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jaromanda*
> 
> While I don't agree with your opinion, I'll defend your right to post it to the death


This thread would nearly consist of "wf is dead" posts if the ever-vigilant mods wouldn't help the wf community by cleaning it up time and time again and removing most critical notions about wf - let's stay positive, keep the faith of the wf community!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Waterfox is dead, I hope the author would just admit it once and for all, no pun intended.


No way! If so, MrAlex would have told us, but he wrote the exact opposite multiple times - if you don't believe him go an use Cyberfox! In fact all the skipped ff releases can only mean one thing and one thing alone - with all this preparation time wf 22 will be the most awesome browser ever, I expect the announcement in this thread every day!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Just the question is pressuring our MrAlex for updates because if he'd want to share anything about the ongoing wf development process he'd do it - if he chooses to concentrate on working on wf rather than support it through the official support channels we have to accept his decision, so keep scanning this thread for hot waterfox news!
> But not on any compiler - MrAlex' historic landmark achievement was to make it compile with icc, and even he as an great expert was hindered by nasty compiler bugs turning up multiple times out of nowhere delaying the releases.
> This thread would nearly consist of "wf is dead" posts if the ever-vigilant mods wouldn't help the wf community by cleaning it up time and time again and removing most critical notions about wf - let's stay positive, keep the faith of the wf community!
> No way! If so, MrAlex would have told us, but he wrote the exact opposite multiple times - if you don't believe him go an use Cyberfox! In fact all the skipped ff releases can only mean one thing and one thing alone - with all this preparation time wf 22 will be the most awesome browser ever, I expect the announcement in this thread every day!


You came from a sworn Cyberfox user to a sworn Waterfox fanatic now


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> You came from a sworn Cyberfox user to a sworn Waterfox fanatic now


Nonononono  ... I am just forced to use cf because arguably you cannot use wf based on code with known security flaws in the open internet, and for some reason or another wf18 showed some regressions in select benchmarks ... and of course cf is well supported and updated the moment any new ff is out, major or minor version ...

... but if MrAlex would release a current wf and update it now and again, say more often than ever half year, I'd go back to the world's real fastest browser in an instant because I still believe the Intel compiler should be able to do optimizations the boring msvc doesn't do. Plus of course the dedicated wf community and the observant mods make this thread so satisfying to participate in. So remember: August 6 is ff day, and it's probable wf will go straight to v23...


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> So remember: August 6 is ff day, and it's probable wf will go straight to v23...


Not holding my breath. Seems we have heard this same mantra since v18. When was that? Oh yeah, last January!


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> Not holding my breath. Seems we have heard this same mantra since v18. When was that? Oh yeah, last January!


No kidding and as it's been months without even a word from MrAlex about anything, personally I've written this off as an abandoned project.
Of course I'd be love to be proven wrong... but it's almost been half a year since the last update. So as you said, I'm not holding my breath either.

I used to use Waterfox all the time, but had to abandon it a while ago due to lack of (security) updates.


----------



## sdcoolskater

Waterfox is a great effort and I appreciate the work of the developers.

One improvement I would suggest is making builds available that are compiled for AMD processors, because currently the Waterfox builds are compiled by Intel compilers. Waterfox does run on 64-bit AMD processors but it is significantly slower than 64-bit Internet Explorer and 32-bit Google Chrome. AMD processors are loaded with extensions (SSE4, AVX, etc.) and I'm sure you can crank more performance out if you build specifically for AMD processors.


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdcoolskater*
> 
> Waterfox is a great effort and I appreciate the work of the developers.


+1 I'm sure MrAlex is reading this thread just like we are as he prepares the next wf release!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sdcoolskater*
> 
> One improvement I would suggest is making builds available that are compiled for AMD processors, because currently the Waterfox builds are compiled by Intel compilers.


The 64bit Cyberfox comes in two flavors - one for AMD, one for Intel. Did you try it and ran some benchmarks? It would be interesting to know if this really makes a difference ... question is if the Intel compiler that is used for wf can be told to optimize for AMD, afaik Cyberfox uses the good ol' msvc.


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> +1 I'm sure MrAlex is reading this thread just like we are as he prepares the next wf release!
> The 64bit Cyberfox comes in two flavors - one for AMD, one for Intel. Did you try it and ran some benchmarks? It would be interesting to know if this really makes a difference ... question is if the Intel compiler that is used for wf can be told to optimize for AMD, afaik Cyberfox uses the good ol' msvc.


Hey Marsu24 I can see that you really need some help with your information on a number of things.

First why do you after every new firefox build come here and say wait for the next version. Why don't you leave release dates to the DEV considering this is his support thread and instead of annoying the many users that check here by saying wait for the next one wait for the next one are you some kind of fortune teller in your spare time ? You have no clue or idea when the next one will be so leave it to the DEV to let people know and stop giving false information.

Second while on the topic of false information you do realize that almost every single 3rd party browser compiled from the firefox code all use the intel c++ compiler for their builds almost all of the with the exception of palemoon I believe is the only one that does not, this should be common sense to you as well considering you say you use cyberfox correct with their 2 builds you know...

Intel version compiled with the intel c++ compiler ( also they have always used the intel compiler from the first build ever made as for some reason you can't seem to understand this fact )

AMD version does not use the intel c++ compiler as the intel c++ compiler can have adverse effects on non intel machines hence why there is 2 different builds.

Third yes it does make a difference for the 2 computers in fact a lot of the time the AMD version will out score the intel version on intel machines as well in benchmarks, considering I run both AMD and intel machines and have tested both versions.

So try leaving the information part of this thread to the people that know what they are talking of rather then providing false information to the many users here and annoying them with fortune telling predictions that you have no idea about.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> Hey Marsu24 I can see that you really need some help with your information on a number of things.
> 
> First why do you after every new firefox build come here and say wait for the next version. Why don't you leave release dates to the DEV considering this is his support thread and instead of annoying the many users that check here by saying wait for the next one wait for the next one are you some kind of fortune teller in your spare time ? You have no clue or idea when the next one will be so leave it to the DEV to let people know and stop giving false information.
> 
> Second while on the topic of false information you do realize that almost every single 3rd party browser compiled from the firefox code all use the intel c++ compiler for their builds almost all of the with the exception of palemoon I believe is the only one that does not, this should be common sense to you as well considering you say you use cyberfox correct with their 2 builds you know...
> 
> Intel version compiled with the intel c++ compiler ( also they have always used the intel compiler from the first build ever made as for some reason you can't seem to understand this fact )
> 
> AMD version does not use the intel c++ compiler as the intel c++ compiler can have adverse effects on non intel machines hence why there is 2 different builds.
> 
> Third yes it does make a difference for the 2 computers in fact a lot of the time the AMD version will out score the intel version on intel machines as well in benchmarks, considering I run both AMD and intel machines and have tested both versions.
> 
> So try leaving the information part of this thread to the people that know what they are talking of rather then providing false information to the many users here and annoying them with fortune telling predictions that you have no idea about.


This is exactly my predicament on this guy. There are several users here that swears that guy even just for his presence in this thread. He started as a Cyberfox fanboy lurking in this thread and now he promotes Waterfox as if he makes a living out of it.


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> This is exactly my predicament on this guy. There are several users here that swears that guy even just for his presence in this thread. He started as a Cyberfox fanboy lurking in this thread and now he promotes Waterfox as if he makes a living out of it.


He comes across almost as some kind of religious nut. Apparently the mods are to be thanked for removing all the negative posts, and it's 'only' 3 or 4 months since the developer posted something to twitter (not here mind you) - so what's all the fuss about ? Those of us who are faithful will have our patience rewarded when the next version of WF is released. The same day it happens, the planets will align and a new era of world peace will begin .....


----------



## thisisthetest

IE is in 64 bit
Chrome, Firefox, Opera should follow suit


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> He comes across almost as some kind of religious nut.


I sincerely object to this statement, for me the wf community is a place where nice people meet and don't call each other names - what's being wrong with hoping for a wf comeback? Plus if you would have taken some secs to look, I always answer to other's posts and try to discuss a specific issue, so if you have a problem it's not with me but with the people who dare to post in this official thread at all ... you're just abusing it for flaming me I'm sorry to say.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> He started as a Cyberfox fanboy lurking in this thread and now he promotes Waterfox as if he makes a living out of it.


There's your problem: You seem to be set on thinking in "fanboy" categories, while I (like a lot of others) discussed if cf is a viable alternative in the absence of wf updates - that didn't and doesn't conflict with me preferring the intel-compiled wf.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> So try leaving the information part of this thread to the people that know what they are talking of rather then providing false information to the many users here and annoying them with fortune telling predictions that you have no idea about.


I didn't provide false information on the compiler, I specifically formulated it as a question (see the post above), so thank you very much for providing useful insight about that compiler business!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thisisthetest*
> 
> IE is in 64 bit
> Chrome, Firefox, Opera should follow suit


It is very unlikely ff will provide an official 64bit build in the near or med future, they were just talked out of dropping the 64 bit nightly. Reasons seem to be too much support and poor plugin support, I don't agree with this, but there you are. Opera is 64bit, and concerning Chrome, I never read anything about their plans for 64bit in any direction - does anyone know?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Apparently the mods are to be thanked for removing all the negative posts, and it's 'only' 3 or 4 months


+1, here we are in complete agreement as I have pointed out more than once, I thank the mods again for keeping this thread clean and I also think a couple of months doesn't mean anything definitive - though it might be safe to say that wf isn't released/supported as readily as cf. But that might change anytime, so keep scanning this thread!


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> concerning Chrome, I never read anything about their plans for 64bit in any direction - does anyone know?!


64-bit Chromium Windows builds are now being compiled.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> Opera is 64bit!


Was 64-bit. When they switched to Chromium/Blink, they stopped 64-bit builds. I suspect that's why 64-bit Chromium builds started to appear over two weeks ago so 64-bit Opera builds will be released again at some point.


----------



## CyberDemonz101

So I have been a fan of waterfox since I joined OCN last year. But now that Mr. Alex has stopped working on this project. I have switched to the AMD version of Cyberfox. So far not bad everything loads better and no more Adobe crashing or massive lag spikes from a memory issue.

I'm sorry to see that Mr. Alex won't even report that he will not continue this project anymore or pass it onto another programer that has more free time.

R.I.P. Waterfox you where a great program. And props for Mr. Alex for keeping it going as long as he did for free.


----------



## $k1||z_r0k

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CyberDemonz101*
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm sorry to see that Mr. Alex won't even report that he will not continue this project anymore or pass it onto another programer that has more free time.
> 
> ...


Is there any confirmation that Waterfox is dead?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

No confirmation but it is looking increasingly unlikely we will see another Waterfox release.
I have switched to Firefox 22 now due to the security fixes, I really hope we will see another Waterfox release.


----------



## headcleaner

I sent Mr.Alex today an email to ask if waterfox is dead or still alive and he replied very fast:

"Waterfox isn't dead. In fact I have someone helping out at the moment so hopefully the next version will be released soon. Every past configuration wasn't compiling due to bugs with ICC so I kept on having to push the date back waiting for patches.

Thanks,
Alex "

So we all have to wait ...........


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headcleaner*
> 
> I sent Mr.Alex today an email to ask if waterfox is dead or still alive and he replied very fast:"Waterfox isn't dead"


I wouldn't have seen the need to ask at all, because trust, dedication and commitment what makes the Waterfox community great. MrAlex says he's working on it, and we know he's true to his word. The intel guys should be ashamed the one of the most popular projects doesn't compile, and they don't seem to be inclined to fix these nasty bugs - look at Waterfox to know what support really means!

I hope now that FF/Cyberfox 23 are out, the compilation problems will have disappeared and we'll soon see a link to the newest incarnation of the fastest browser on earth - so keep checking this thread!


----------



## Lord Venom

Seems to me the Intel compiler is more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## headcleaner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marsu24*
> 
> I wouldn't have seen the need to ask at all, because trust, dedication and commitment what makes the Waterfox community great. MrAlex says he's working on it, and we know he's true to his word. The intel guys should be ashamed the one of the most popular projects doesn't compile, and they don't seem to be inclined to fix these nasty bugs - look at Waterfox to know what support really means!
> 
> I hope now that FF/Cyberfox 23 are out, the compilation problems will have disappeared and we'll soon see a link to the newest incarnation of the fastest browser on earth - so keep checking this thread!


You don't have to comment EVERYTHING - for me there was need to ask him directly 'cause Mr.Alex haven't left any comments for MONTHS.............


----------



## StarWolf

Well Waterfox is dead.

http://waterfoxproject.org/

Page is popping up a default page. Unless there is some magical update that releases Waterfox 23.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey guys, just an update.

SSL is being installed on the website (should only be down for an hour) and Intel is helping with the final bug stopping compilation of Waterfox.

If you think you can help:

http://software.intel.com/en-us/comment/1746293

Thanks!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys, just an update.
> SSL is being installed on the website (should only be down for an hour) and Intel is helping with the final bug stopping compilation of Waterfox.
> If you think you can help:
> http://software.intel.com/en-us/comment/1746293
> 
> Thanks!


At last Sir, you cared to reply in your thread, lol


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yay! It lives!


----------



## SpodoCommodo

There is also this posting from Aug 6th http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php
Quote:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Just a small post to let you know how Waterfox 23 is coming along:
> 
> The big showstopper bug, has been resolved (more information here).
> There are various files that ICC doesn't compile, but VC does, so I have to have manually add those files to be compiled by VC
> 
> That means if these files are very few, Waterfox will be able to be released!
> 
> The website can now also be accessed via https://
> 
> Thank you for your patience, I know it's been a long time since the last version of Waterfox, but I've been working since then getting Intel's C++ Compiler to work and some stellar progress has been made!


----------



## Marsu24

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SpodoCommodo*
> 
> The big showstopper bug, has been resolved (more information here). There are various files that ICC doesn't compile, but VC does, so I have to have manually add those files to be compiled by VC


Which means that the bug has not been resolved, but is being worked around, which could have been done all time along. But it doesn't matter, I'm glad the next wf release will be here shortly just as I predicted, so keep scanning this thread for hot news!


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Yay! It lives!


Finally back, we don't believed more.








Wait and see


----------



## Screemer

I am really happy to see MrAlex is still working on this project.
People can say what ever they want but waterfox is still the best browser..

My biggest problem is that some sites I visit demand me to have very secure browsers. Meaning I can't really use several version old browsers since the bugs in them is leaked on internet for ages.
Soo looking forward to *Waterfox v23.*
Thanks for letting us know MrAlex, and good luck..


----------



## pDimflAn

Subbing the thread, keep up the good work MrAlex


----------



## MadScientist565

running 18.0.1

Everytime i restart my computer i get a reinstall of the add on "safe server"

this is browser spefic and does not happen to my comodo ice dragon, or standard fire fox browsers. I have disabled it multiple times and removed it, and also ran virus/spyware scans and came up with nothing.

its one of those plug ins that turns key words on teh page green adn makes links out of them


----------



## headcleaner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *headcleaner*
> 
> I sent Mr.Alex today an email to ask if waterfox is dead or still alive and he replied very fast:
> 
> "Waterfox isn't dead. In fact I have someone helping out at the moment so hopefully the next version will be released soon. Every past configuration wasn't compiling due to bugs with ICC so I kept on having to push the date back waiting for patches.
> 
> Thanks,
> Alex "
> 
> So we all have to wait ...........


And another month is gone.........
.....just 10 days to firefox 24 - waterfox is still 18.0.1......

Thank you for your great work Mr.Alex, but I don't see a new waterfox coming around,
2013-01-19 this was the day the last waterfox was released
2013-09-07 is today

2013-08-06 MrAlex wrote:

"Hi everyone,

Just a small post to let you know how Waterfox 23 is coming along:

The big showstopper bug, has been resolved (more information here).
There are various files that ICC doesn't compile, but VC does, so I have to have manually add those files to be compiled by VC

That means if these files are very few, Waterfox will be able to be released!

The website can now also be accessed via https://

Thank you for your patience, I know it's been a long time since the last version of Waterfox, but I've been working since then getting Intel's C++ Compiler to work and some stellar progress has been made!"

......my patience is wearing thin.........

MrAlex, would you be so kind and leave some words here in the thread YOU started??????


----------



## Lord Venom

As I said before, the Intel C++ compiler seems to be more trouble than it's worth. On top of that, AMD users won't see any of the performance benefits the Intel users see.


----------



## AtomTM

Why can't you guys just have some patience,







? Mr.Alex hasn't got a hundred workers under him to help him with the release nor he is a one man army? He has a life and since he's doing this for free and in his free time, respect him for that and just be patient.


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hsn786*
> 
> Why can't you guys just have some patience,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ? Mr.Alex hasn't got a hundred workers under him to help him with the release nor he is a one man army? He has a life and *since he's doing this for free and in his free time, respect him for that and just be patient.*


Well said. Some of the comments here looks more like threats to stop paying for a product than saddened users.
Intimidation doesn't work when the user isn't giving anything in exchange of a product. Actually, it just makes things worse.

Good to know that Waterfox is still being working on.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tarnix*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Hsn786*
> 
> Why can't you guys just have some patience,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ? Mr.Alex hasn't got a hundred workers under him to help him with the release nor he is a one man army? He has a life and since he's doing this for free and in his free time, respect him for that and just be patient.
> 
> 
> 
> Well said. Some of the comments here looks more like threats to stop paying for a product than saddened users.
> Intimidation doesn't work when the user isn't giving anything in exchange of a product. Actually, it just makes things worse.
> 
> Good to know that Waterfox is still being working on.
Click to expand...

Agreed to both. As someone who codes, the work only gets done as fast as the compiler does, when it wants to work. Have some patience guys. Mr. Alex is a busy man and will release the latest version when it is possible to release.


----------



## MrAlex

Here's Waterfox 24 Preview 1:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/experimental/Waterfox%2024%20Preview%201.7z/download

Let me know of any issues


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yaaaaaaaaay!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Yaaaaaaaaay!


Is everything working correctly? I've only tested it on the computer it was built on.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I'll be able to test it out later tonight when I get home and can cleanly install it on a 64bit machine.


----------



## fullmoon

no crash for me.


----------



## MoreThanADev

No noticable issue on my windows 8 either !!


----------



## camborambo

Will be 24+ testing soon. Thank you for your time. I've been using waterfox for months now with zero issues.


----------



## Ethorsen

I'm getting this error while trying to start the app.

Couldn't load XPCOM.


----------



## chorse

No installer. Are we just supposed to copy the items inside the core folder to the program files/waterfox folder? Thanks.


----------



## MoreThanADev

@chorse
I extracted the files and double clicked on the

"Waterfox 24 Preview 1"\core\firefox.exe file


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoreThanADev*
> 
> @chorse
> I extracted the files and double clicked on the
> 
> "Waterfox 24 Preview 1"\core\firefox.exe file


@MoreThanADev: Thanks, that worked.

@ALEX: Works OK with Win8, no crashes. Only issue is that mine is labelled "Nightly" instead of "Waterfox". Might want to fix that in the next build. Also Updater does not run.


----------



## tek2005

thanks for the update, seems to be working on my end quite well, missed using a 64bit browser haha







Runs so smooth and doesn't seem to have any qwerks at the moment. Will repost if i run into any issues.

Current issues (that are probably known/other users have posted):
Nightly stuff, firefox exe

Current issues i've found:
Currently none

Edit: one fix i've found, cpu issue that was happening in 18.0.1 seems to be gone, suspected it would be fixed anyways, just letting everyone know

Edit2: i just realized something, im not using 64bit plugins (did a reformat not too long ago, never bothered to reinstall old waterfox, or any other 64bit browser) and stuff like flash are working just fine, does shockwave just work in 64bit now, or is this actually a 32bit build? (just wondering since i haven't installed any 64bit plugins)

Edit3: nevermind about 32bit, some other plugins aren't installed that i had, weird that shockwave was already working lol


----------



## Quantum Reality

ISTR Shockwave Flash will install both versions if you have a 64bit OS.


----------



## smart56

Waterfox, Website Update: 6 August [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 390
www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-website-update-6... Cached
Hello, I've started using Waterfox a couple of days ago, ... I see a bunch of orphaned files, directories, at least one windows google service left on my machine; ...

Can you tell me what happened to the reply to this users question? I can't find it. I have 18.0.1 running on a Win7 Pro 64bit and after just one use I have 100's a mb of directories and file under my username with firefox and hj2idflz.default in the names. Most of the folders are only 1 to 2 characters.

My apology for posting this here if it is not the right place. I assume you'll move or delete it, but I am desperate and can't find anywhere else for an answer...Sorry and Thanks


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smart56*
> 
> Waterfox, Website Update: 6 August [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 390
> www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-website-update-6... Cached
> Hello, I've started using Waterfox a couple of days ago, ... I see a bunch of orphaned files, directories, at least one windows google service left on my machine; ...
> 
> Can you tell me what happened to the reply to this users question? I can't find it. I have 18.0.1 running on a Win7 Pro 64bit and after just one use I have 100's a mb of directories and file under my username with firefox and hj2idflz.default in the names. Most of the folders are only 1 to 2 characters.
> 
> My apology for posting this here if it is not the right place. I assume you'll move or delete it, but I am desperate and can't find anywhere else for an answer...Sorry and Thanks


I'll look into it. So after using WF do you get lots of files within your user profile? And this is running everything with default settings?


----------



## safari801

Firefox.exe won't open. Looks like I'll have to wait for an installer.


----------



## Prime2515102

I don't know if you can do anything about it, but for some idiotic reason Mozilla decided to remove the check box to not show tabs if only one is open--AGAIN. If you can put that back that would be great (I realize you only recompile what they do but just thought I'd say it anyway).


----------



## smart56

RE: So after using WF do you get lots of files within your user profile? YES, 100s most with nothing or very little in them.

RE: And this is running everything with default settings? YES didn't set any preferences.

Is there a newer version I should be using? I'd rather not go to the 24 beta. Thanks for your reply and help


----------



## SolarSystem

Just to clarify: Are you simply recompiling Firefox code or are you making changes to optimize for 64-bit as well? (If so, it doesn't appear to be mention anywhere on your website)

Also, benchmark tests to prove these performance increases you claim would be nice. Otherwise this is just self-promotion with no basis in proven facts.

And to end with a minor bug: In the Help>About Waterfox the waterfoxproject.org link actually links to mozilla.org


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SolarSystem*
> 
> Just to clarify: Are you simply recompiling Firefox code or are you making changes to optimize for 64-bit as well? (If so, it doesn't appear to be mention anywhere on your website)
> 
> Also, benchmark tests to prove these performance increases you claim would be nice. Otherwise this is just self-promotion with no basis in proven facts.
> 
> And to end with a minor bug: In the Help>About Waterfox the waterfoxproject.org link actually links to mozilla.org


Huh? Read the whole thread and your doubts will be answered. Don't come badgering here accusing MrAlex of "self-promoting".


----------



## barrubba

i'm on 18 version.
every some minuts, seems to freeze for about 5 sec
i've to return to 16 or 24beta?
thanks


----------



## Quantum Reality

If you're not comfortable using a preview version of WF 24, use Pale Moon 64bit as an alternative in the meantime.


----------



## safari801

That post was a waste of time. Sounds like someone has some personal agenda, so stop wasting Mr Alex's time with useless drivel. Self promotion? Sounds like Solar system is bent on self promotion.


----------



## smart56

Quote:

Originally Posted by smart56 View Post

Waterfox, Website Update: 6 August [Firefox 64-Bit] - Page 390
www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-website-update-6... Cached
Hello, I've started using Waterfox a couple of days ago, ... I see a bunch of orphaned files, directories, at least one windows google service left on my machine; ...

Can you tell me what happened to the reply to this users question? I can't find it. I have 18.0.1 running on a Win7 Pro 64bit and after just one use I have 100's a mb of directories and file under my username with firefox and hj2idflz.default in the names. Most of the folders are only 1 to 2 characters.

My apology for posting this here if it is not the right place. I assume you'll move or delete it, but I am desperate and can't find anywhere else for an answer...Sorry and Thanks

Reply:

I'll look into it. So after using WF do you get lots of files within your user profile? And this is running everything with default settings?

Answer:

"So after using WF do you get lots of files within your user profile?"
YES, 100s most with nothing or very little in them.

"And this is running everything with default settings?"
YES didn't set any preferences.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SolarSystem*
> 
> Just to clarify: Are you simply recompiling Firefox code or are you making changes to optimize for 64-bit as well? (If so, it doesn't appear to be mention anywhere on your website)
> 
> Also, benchmark tests to prove these performance increases you claim would be nice. Otherwise this is just self-promotion with no basis in proven facts.
> 
> And to end with a minor bug: In the Help>About Waterfox the waterfoxproject.org link actually links to mozilla.org


When Waterfox first started, there weren't any other 64-Bit versions of Firefox widely available, so I thought I'd do it as a little side project. Then once it gained some traction and other Firefox projects started to make 64-Bit builds, such as PaleMoon, I decided recompilation wasn't enough so I started to compile Firefox with ICC, which provides some huge performance improvements. I've helped create some bug reports in Firefox and mostly ICC.

And there are benchmarks on the website and I even link to an external review...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smart56*
> 
> *Snip*


I'll look into it. Have you tried using the preview version and does it still have the same issues?


----------



## JayBart

Preview is working well for me Alex, no problems and even runs quite fast on multiple Win7 and 2 Win8 systems. Also loaded it on a friends system in place of a another 64 bit FF variant that I shall not name that was hanging on flash often at start up and it made his problem disappear.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> ISTR Shockwave Flash will install both versions if you have a 64bit OS.


Correct.

Adobe no longer (it used too) offers a 64bit installer. Only a 32bit installer, which is to say an installer that runs in 32bit mode to install both 64bit and 32bit versions of flash.

This is why the only download offered from Adobe has "32" in its name. It is referring to the fact that the installer is a 32bit program.
Very confusing, I know.1

I have personally confirmed that Adobe installs 2 files. One for 64bit and one for 32bit.
It will use either one depending on the bit flag that is returned in the browser.


----------



## smart56

Have done some more snooping around regarding the files created on my system drive by WF. I found 620 files created in 603 directories under the directory AppData/.../hj2idtlz.default with a total size of 50.6mb or 52.0 mb on disk. I used the disk clean utility that comes with Win7 and got back a significant amount f space I thought were contained in these files, but maybe not. Will continue to monitor usage and file counts to see if they grow or simply maintain (which I assume would mean they are being reused). Please keep me informed if you determine any thing is causing files and folder to be orphaned which would eventually consume my SSD. Thanks


----------



## jaromanda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *smart56*
> 
> I found 620 files created in 603 directories under the directory AppData/.../hj2idtlz.default with a total size of 50.6mb or 52.0 mb on disk. I used the disk clean utility that comes with Win7 and got back a significant amount f space I thought were contained in these files, but maybe not. Will continue to monitor usage and file counts to see if they grow or simply maintain (which I assume would mean they are being reused). Please keep me informed if you determine any thing is causing files and folder to be orphaned which would eventually consume my SSD. Thanks


ZOMG!!!! I got 420 MB in 11,839 Files, 4,119 Folders -

it's called a browser cache, nothing to be concerned about - go to Options->Advanced->Network to see what the maximum size of your cache will be


----------



## fullmoon

If you are with a SSD, use it: about:config > browser.cache.disk.enable to false


----------



## djrys

Mozilla Firefox 24 is out








waterfox 24 Uses Same Profile As Firefox ??


----------



## kronckew

djrys,

yes. unless you tell it to use another.


----------



## pantsonhead

I'm experiencing a very strange problem with Waterfox where I have to click links more than once (at least twice) to open them (e.g in Google search results).

I have tried starting in safe mode to check whether it was a bad addon. That didn't work.

I tried nuking my Waterfox install, removing all the traces, running a registry clean, then reinstalling without any addons. Didn't work.

I'm at a loss as to what could possibly be causing this.. Very frustrating and I haven't found any solutions by searching though it seems a lot of other people have had this problem.

Anyone have any ideas?


----------



## oorenotsoo

Is anyone else having trouble getting the download link to work? I'm clicking on the link on the OP and it gives me a 404?


----------



## Rickkins

Yea, I think I'm just gonna stick with the 'other' guy...sorry dude.


----------



## fullmoon

one of them (or all) should solve your problem:
disable windows 7 tab
disable IPv6 DNS lookup
disable about:newtab
disable media.autoplay.enabled


----------



## bigkahuna360

Just upgraded from 18 to 24 and the difference is literally night and day. My audio used to lag on OCN and threads on OCN took a little over 10 seconds to lead (100 posts per page). Now it only takes about 3 *1-1.5* seconds to load a 100 page thread.


----------



## chorse

I have been using it on Win 8 for a week now with no issues, other than minor ones reported earlier. So far so good.

I am not getting the double click issue.


----------



## safari801

Wish I knew how to get this to open.


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Wish I knew how to get this to open.




Going to start using it for a while. Good thing VS my previous installation of vanilla firefox is that startup time is not taking 7 seconds. it's almost instant. let's see if it keeps going this way









Not sure if this was supposed to happen:

trying to use waterfox while the plugin finder thing is trying to install flash gives this:


And it ultimately fails:


----------



## safari801

Thanks Tarnix, I get this far and double click or right click and select open and it tries to open and stops. Re down loaded no luck. Tries to open for maybe 3-4 seconds and stops..


----------



## Tarnix

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Thanks Tarnix, I get this far and double click or right click and select open and it tries to open and stops. Re down loaded no luck. Tries to open for maybe 3-4 seconds and stops..


Can you give us a bit more information about your computer? CPU model, amount of ram, which version of windows?
Sometimes programs happens to be compiled to use instructions your CPU doesn't understand, and it faceplants.


----------



## safari801

Win 7 64 bit hp , intel core 2 duo 3.2 hz , 8 gs ram, has win 7 sp1. Pale Moon 64 bit works fine as does cyber fox and waterfox 18.01. Thanks


----------



## Tarnix

Not sure what's up then. Let's wait for people who knows more about that stuff o.o


----------



## zertyuiop

We have bug on Preview: some pages on some forums are incorrect:
http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20130921/PijiGp02.png
http://s1.ipicture.ru/uploads/20130921/114VSV8D.png
We can see this bug on Firefox 22+, Cyberfox 22+ and Palemoon 22+ too.
Can you help?


----------



## safari801

@ Tarnix: Yeah maybe after the bugs are worked out, and Mr Alex releases the final version, it'll be ok. Thanks anyway. I might be upgrading this machine soon anyway.


----------



## Screemer

Preview seem to be working just fine on my 3 machines..
No problems at all.
Great work Mr.Alex..


----------



## kringel

Hey guys,

I hope it's okay to post a question on Waterfox 18.0.1? Yesterday, I had some issues with starting Battlefield 3 from IE10 and as 64bit-Browser are not supported by that **** plugin from Electronic "Arts" I tried to install Firefox parallel to Waterfox. What I was not aware of: You should not install both Firefox and Waterfox at the same time -.-

Firefox took my default browser setting from Waterfox and even so I uninstalled it again, I can't get my Windows 8 to use Waterfox as default browser again. I have already reinstalled Waterfox anew but Windows 8 doesn't recognize it as a "Internet Browser" - I can't even see in control panel's submenu "Default programs".

Does anyone of you have a clue on this?

Best regards,
-k


----------



## MrAlex

Just to let you all know the build is coming this week. I have the final build ready but there are issues with branding, Mozilla have changed how it works. They've changed the way user string works too. If I flat out change the user string to Waterfox, the Firefox add-on store won't work automatically any more and all sort of compatibility issues could come up with websites and the likes not recognizing Waterfox.


----------



## MoreThanADev

Thanks for the work, and thanks for the news, it's very nice to receive some.









W've been waiting for for more than 6 months, still i can't wait another week


----------



## Quantum Reality

yay!









ISTR there are ways to change it in a recognized manner. I don't know how you query it but Pale Moon's method should work for you.

Here's what mine looks like when queried:

Code:



Code:


Your User Agent String is:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20130917 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.0.1

You can test it with:

http://www.whatsmyuseragent.com/


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, including Firefox in the user agent will solve that issue easily.


----------



## Lo4f

Really appreciate your work on Waterfox MrAlex.

Had a few suggestions:

- Option to move the Refresh (f5) button to left side of address bar (to be near other navigation buttons, as in Chrome)
- Option to display the Waterfox Start Page automatically for each new tab opened
- Option to dock the downloads window to bottom of screen (more like a downloads bar expanding to right as more files are added, as in Chrome)

Loving my time with Waterfox, thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

The build is ready, but it's just taking ages to upload via the VM...bear with me, I'm anxious to get it out there!


----------



## Screemer

Can't wait..

Over 9 hours and still no download available.. You weren't kidding about it taking ages to upload.









Great work and I really hope to be able to get it soon.


----------



## MrAlex

Here you go:

https://db.tt/C3COaV7h

Can you guys tell me if there are any issues?


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

MrAlex for some reason its loads but it doesn't grab my prev session/extensions from firefox its like all clean and fresh install


----------



## Ethorsen

Looks good so far.

Although I had to move my Profile folder from

.\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles
to
.\AppData\Roaming\Firefox\Profiles

And then load waterfox with _Run -> waterfox -p_ to select my profile.

I'm wondering if its Mozilla that decided to move the profiles folder!?

Thx anyhow.


----------



## PocketAcesDMB

this indeed does work


----------



## Screemer

Great work Mr.Alex..

As fast and stable as we have come to expect.. Great..

Only issue was the profile thing.

It seem to load it's profile as described in previous post..
http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-24-preview-1-11-september-firefox-64-bit/5260#post_20880726


----------



## chorse

I think the profile path should be fixed in the installer otherwise it will lead confusion for most users. Just my two cents worth...


----------



## MoreThanADev

Thanks for the release !

Unlike previous Waterfox versions,
the new waterfox release seems to install itself in the "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\" directory by default, leading my Firefox to disappear in the process.
And letting the old waterfox (18) still installed.

Waterfox Icon on the desktop now have the name "Mozilla Firefox" and not "Waterfox".

A slightly difference appear on the Waterfox => help => about windows, is the white square on purpose ? (we don't see release number on it anymore ): )



I confirm waterfox now load a new clear profile.

Apart from it everythings seems fine \o/


----------



## Lord Venom

Yeah, the about dialog seems a bit too small IMO.

Any reason why Waterfox tries to install into C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox instead of C:\Program Files\Waterfox and the shortcuts are all called Mozilla Firefox?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Sounds like MrAlex hasn't fixed all the personalization issues yet with WF.


----------



## Screemer

Hey guys, take it easy..
After all it was a rushed release to calm all of us down.. We asked for it and we got it..
I hope Mr.Alex will release a update with fixes to installation dir and profile soon..

After all, the browser it self works great. As allways..


----------



## brdigetrlol

As far as I've seen, almost everything is working correctly. But I do have one issue. SIlverlight doesn't seem to be working for this build, whereas it was definitely working with the preview build. Just something I thought I might mention considering it becomes a bit of a hassle if you ever need Silverlight for anything such as Netflix.


----------



## zertyuiop

About my bug, problem has solved, problems with anivirus.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brdigetrlol*
> 
> As far as I've seen, almost everything is working correctly. But I do have one issue. SIlverlight doesn't seem to be working for this build, whereas it was definitely working with the preview build. Just something I thought I might mention considering it becomes a bit of a hassle if you ever need Silverlight for anything such as Netflix.


Seem to be working preoblem free here in my installation..
Tested it here.. http://bubblemark.com/silverlight2.html


----------



## wobinda

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brdigetrlol*
> 
> As far as I've seen, almost everything is working correctly. But I do have one issue. SIlverlight doesn't seem to be working for this build, whereas it was definitely working with the preview build. Just something I thought I might mention considering it becomes a bit of a hassle if you ever need Silverlight for anything such as Netflix.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Seem to be working preoblem free here in my installation..
> Tested it here.. http://bubblemark.com/silverlight2.html


It works flawlessly for me too.
Tested with the link above.


----------



## MrAlex

All right thanks for the reports guys. There was a branding bug which I submitted to Firefox (see here, please do not post there!) a few days ago, seems they accidentally changed the name of a few things that didn't work in a Windows build, but worked on Mac and Linux. It should be a basic fix, and I see that the about dialogue hasn't rendered correctly either because of it. I'm travelling to go back to University today, but have some long layovers so I'll have time to fix it.

Sorry for the delay guys, its been a hectic weekend!


----------



## brdigetrlol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Seem to be working preoblem free here in my installation..
> Tested it here.. http://bubblemark.com/silverlight2.html


That's strange. That link works for me too. However this link does not and neither does Netflix, both of which I have tested on two separate computers. I'm not sure what's happening there, but still something that I think should be noted.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brdigetrlol*
> 
> That's strange. That link works for me too. However this link does not and neither does Netflix, both of which I have tested on two separate computers. I'm not sure what's happening there, but still something that I think should be noted.


The Ms link works for me, stating
Quote:


> The version of Silverlight installed is:
> Silverlight 5 (5.1.20513.0)
> 
> You are ready to use Microsoft Silverlight


I think there is a x64 compatible silverlight version.
This link downloads silverlight_x64.exe when I try it.
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=149156


----------



## Trommy

All hello. How to use this build?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> All hello. How to use this build?


Fiirs of all, if you are the least unsure about firefox/waterfox profiles, don't use this build. (not meaning it's bad, but can be hard to get running)
If you know what you are doing follow the instructions in Post#20880726
Also to use waterfox instead of firefox you need flash x64 and silverlight x64. Most addons from firefox work flawlessly in waterfox.
If you are the slightest unsure, better wait for a fixed version from Mr.Alex..


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ethorsen*
> 
> Looks good so far.
> 
> Although I had to move my Profile folder from
> 
> .\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles
> to
> .\AppData\Roaming\Firefox\Profiles
> 
> And then load waterfox with _Run -> waterfox -p_ to select my profile.
> 
> I'm wondering if its Mozilla that decided to move the profiles folder!?
> 
> Thx anyhow.


@MrAlex,

Is there no way to get this new install to pickup the old profile location like it always has?
None of my backup programs now auto-detects my firefox profile .... even a well-known program like CCleaner now shows NO firefox installation.


----------



## juus0p

Few minutes ago I uninstalled some unnecessary browsers and apps that I didn't need:thumb: with Revo uninstaller:thumb:. After that I tried to run my waterfox browser, but it didn't ran. It just says that "Couldn't load XPCOM". After that I tried to uninstall waterfox, but it can't be done because I, CCleaner and Revo couldn't find it amongst the installed programs. So it is clear that Revo destroyed my waterfox, but do you have any advices how I can get it work again or uninstall it and then install it again.


----------



## Screemer

Then you're probably trying to load the wrong exe.


----------



## brdigetrlol

Silverlight still isn't working for me on either of these computers, two completely different builds, one of which is my friend's and is running Windows 7, whereas I'm running Windows 8. It runs fine for Firefox and I just tested it with Palemoon x64 and it runs fine there too. It's just strange that our two computers would be the only ones with this issue. Here are some links to what the Microsoft Silverlight website is showing me along with the Silverlight installer (mind you, I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling multiple different versions at this point with no luck) and what Netflix shows me instead of streaming videos. As a side note, the aforementioned test with the bouncing balls works perfectly fine while these others don't, for whatever reason. Microsoft website screen. Netflix website screen.


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *brdigetrlol*
> 
> Silverlight still isn't working for me on either of these computers, two completely different builds, one of which is my friend's and is running Windows 7, whereas I'm running Windows 8. It runs fine for Firefox and I just tested it with Palemoon x64 and it runs fine there too. It's just strange that our two computers would be the only ones with this issue. Here are some links to what the Microsoft Silverlight website is showing me along with the Silverlight installer (mind you, I've tried uninstalling and reinstalling multiple different versions at this point with no luck) and what Netflix shows me instead of streaming videos. As a side note, the aforementioned test with the bouncing balls works perfectly fine while these others don't, for whatever reason. Microsoft website screen. Netflix website screen.


See if the silverlight plugin shows under ... Tools \ Add-ons \ plugins

Might be that Silverlight didn't pickup your waterfox installation since the profiles folder is NOT in the correct place .... same as my backup programs & Ccleaner isn't picking up the installation


----------



## safari801

Working great after one day of use although Waterfox shows when you open it, it's called Firefox in the installed programs list and on the start menu. Oh well no biggie as it's working fine. Oh and next to "Firefox' it's the Waterfox symbol.







By the way Mr Alex; no need for any apologies either.


----------



## Screemer

Love the new version of waterfox.. It's swift, smooth and works flawlessly..
Only issues I have is that it wanted to install under program files (x86)\ witch was easily changed. And that the profile directory seem a bit fuxored..
Other than that it seem to be working just fine.. Silverlighyt, java and flash works just fine..

Great work Mr.Alex..


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys, try this installer:

https://db.tt/N6loPa0p

Uninstall any previous versions of Waterfox.


I've fixed the dialogue box.
There was an issue with the plugin-container that I fixed that might be what has affected people
I have no idea what is causing this profile error, it seems to be relating to the branding issue that's come up but no fix is available (I don't know how aware Mozilla are of the issue)
For the above issue, you can still use Firefox Sync to have your profile synced across more than one browser.

Let me know!


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay guys, try this installer:
> 
> https://db.tt/N6loPa0p
> 
> Uninstall any previous versions of Waterfox.
> 
> I've fixed the dialogue box.
> There was an issue with the plugin-container that I fixed that might be what has affected people
> I have no idea what is causing this profile error, it seems to be relating to the branding issue that's come up but no fix is available (I don't know how aware Mozilla are of the issue)
> For the above issue, you can still use Firefox Sync to have your profile synced across more than one browser.
> Let me know!


Trying it out now.









Edit: It runs amazing, sir. It seems to be a tad bit speedier, as well. This might as well be the full release.


----------



## brdigetrlol

Alright. I tried the update that you just released (I appreciate your dedication to this project) and I was still having the issues with Silverlight. HOWEVER. After some thinking I came up with a workaround which worked for me, so I'm content as far as the performance and functionality at this point, however I'm still confused by this whole thing. I ended up having to change the user agent from the default string to *Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0 Waterfox/24.0*. After that it worked perfectly fine. What confuses me is that Palemoon x64 works just fine without modification and taking its user agent and putting it into Waterfox didn't work; I ended up using the user agent from Firefox x32 initially before playing around with it to get results I was more thoroughly satisfied with. Anyhow. Hopefully that provides some insight into something and can serve as a solution to anyone else with a similar problem.


----------



## Screemer

Great work Mr.Alex..

Looking just dandy..

Tested silverlight, flash movies, .NET

Other than the weird profile problem it seem to be working flawlessly..


----------



## DIMPIE

Thanks


----------



## Screemer

I solved my profile problem by changing in profiles.ini
It's located in

Code:



Code:


C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Firefox

It looks something like this when editing it in notepad.

Code:



Code:


[General]
StartWithLastProfile=1

[Profile0]
Name=default
IsRelative=1    (Before change)
IsRelative=0  (After change)
Path=firefox/profile.name    (Before change)
Path=M:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\profile.name  (After change)
Default=1

I have my profile on an encrypted drive at work. But all you need to do is enter the path to your mozilla profile.. Should be something like

Code:



Code:


Path=C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\profile.name


----------



## kevindd992002

Is this profile problem affecting all people who installed the new WF?


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is this profile problem affecting all people who installed the new WF?


Seems like it


----------



## warp9pnt9

Thanks for the profile tip. That got things to work quick and easy.

Only noticed 3 things so far: Silverlight, Icons and Speed.

Silverlight: 5.1.20513.0 is loaded, and seems to work on one of the aforementioned test pages (with the bubbles), but the Microsoft page does not think I have a compatible browser. They have a note on that page that ONLY IE supports 64-bit versions of Silverlight. It will not even let me download an x64 bit version.

Icons: Other odd problem, when I first ran Waterfox, and it created a new, empty profile, the browser buttons did not render properly. The minimize, maximize and exit buttons on the upper right corner of the window were all invisible. Mousing over showed an orange/reddish glow behind the window, but the button never appeared. Maybe related to not finding the profile? After I specified the location manually, and changed IsRelative from 1 to 0, everything else seems to work fine: Flash, Java, all my addons.

Speed: Upon first loading up (I have about 290 tabs open, I was in middle of testing something else), it loaded very slowly. Slower than official 32-bit build of Firefox. Subsequent loads are a little faster to prompt for master password, but are equally slow to open the main window after. 15-20 seconds.

Anyways thanks again Mr. Alex. I look forward to the official release.


----------



## brdigetrlol

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *warp9pnt9*
> 
> Silverlight: 5.1.20513.0 is loaded, and seems to work on one of the aforementioned test pages (with the bubbles), but the Microsoft page does not think I have a compatible browser. They have a note on that page that ONLY IE supports 64-bit versions of Silverlight. It will not even let me download an x64 bit version.


If you look at my post, changing the user agent fixed Silverlight for me and it might work for you too. Just change it to: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0 Waterfox/24.0


----------



## warp9pnt9

Ah yes, forgot the User Agent string. That did work, although Microsoft still notes it may not be fully supported.







Anyways, thanks for that tip as well!


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex, can you please confirm if there are profile issues with the latest Firefox? I don't want to mess up my profile if I install this.


----------



## thechas

I think I found a bug in the Waterfox 24 Preview.

I have the Application defaults in Waterfox 18 set for MP3 and PDF files to Save.
Waterfox 24 Preview ignores the set preference and opens a player or viewer in a new tab.

For PDF files, there is still an option button to choose to download the PDF file after it has finished loading in the Waterfox tab.

I tried changing and resetting the preferences, but that did not have any effect.

Windows 7 64 Bit.

Waterfox18
Waterfox 24 Preview 1
Firefox 24
Thunderbird 24
Seamonkey

Nitro PDF is also installed.

Thank you for all your efforts and a great browser.

Chas


----------



## MrAlex

I've managed to fix the profile issues! https://db.tt/EpGfCnlv

If people could test and let me know, this will be the version I release today if everything is well.

As always remember to uninstall the older versions. (For testing reasons).

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> I think I found a bug in the Waterfox 24 Preview.
> 
> I have the Application defaults in Waterfox 18 set for MP3 and PDF files to Save.
> Waterfox 24 Preview ignores the set preference and opens a player or viewer in a new tab.
> 
> For PDF files, there is still an option button to choose to download the PDF file after it has finished loading in the Waterfox tab.
> 
> I tried changing and resetting the preferences, but that did not have any effect.
> 
> Windows 7 64 Bit.
> 
> Waterfox18
> Waterfox 24 Preview 1
> Firefox 24
> Thunderbird 24
> Seamonkey
> 
> Nitro PDF is also installed.
> 
> Thank you for all your efforts and a great browser.
> 
> Chas


Hi thechas. Could you try the above installer and see if you get the same issues?

Thanks!


----------



## DIMPIE

Profile issue does seem to be fix .... Thanks









Edit: PDF & MP3 files on my side are setup to download via IDM (Internet download manager) and I can confirm it's still working as before.


----------



## Screemer

Seem to be working just perfectly here Mr.Alex..









Great work.
As we've come to expect from you.:









Profile and addons seem to be working perfectly now.

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/24.0 Waterfox/24.0


----------



## farmers

Just a quick heads up for anyone testing that profiles work. If you have edited your profiles.ini as mentioned earlier in this thread, you should change IsRelative back to zero (the default). Otherwise you won't really be testing whether WF is fixed, as whatever the problem was appeared to be stopping it correctly handling this value.


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Just a quick heads up for anyone testing that profiles work. If you have edited your profiles.ini as mentioned earlier in this thread, you should change IsRelative back to zero (the default). Otherwise you won't really be testing whether WF is fixed, as whatever the problem was appeared to be stopping it correctly handling this value.


As far as I know, everyone that edited that file, was making changes to the one located at the wrong location (to point to the details in the correct locations), so the original profile.ini should still be intact


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *farmers*
> 
> Just a quick heads up for anyone testing that profiles work. If you have edited your profiles.ini as mentioned earlier in this thread, you should change IsRelative back to zero (the default). Otherwise you won't really be testing whether WF is fixed, as whatever the problem was appeared to be stopping it correctly handling this value.


I renamed and later deleted my old AppData\Roaming\Firefox directory. That's how I tested.







And since it's now deleted I know for a fact that waterfox is using my standard firefox profile.


----------



## Prime2515102

Using Waterfox .24, when visiting this add-on page: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/?src=search

...it says the add-on isn't compatible with Firefox 14.

Oh... the user agent override string says "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120709 Firefox/14.0 Waterfox/14.0" No wonder...

Ok, I changed it to "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20120709 Firefox/24.0 Waterfox/24.0/" and all is well.


----------



## DIMPIE

^ that link & add-on works perfectly fine on my side without having to change any user agent strings


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DIMPIE*
> 
> ^ that link & add-on works perfectly fine on my side without having to change any user agent strings


Yeah, I don't know... I thought maybe it was because of using an old profile, but I've been using v18 with it since v18 came out and I don't remember ever changing the string. I just noticed I have the installer for v15 archived so I know I used it with that also. Very strange...


----------



## MrAlex

Glad to see that everyone is sorted. So what do people think of StartPage? I was considering DuckDuckGo, but the search results weren't the greatest, so I went with SP instead. Any feedback in that regard?


----------



## Modsy

Thank you very much for the new release









I have a question. I use Waterfox 24, kaspersky 2014 and i want to keep Firefox 24.
The safety add-ons (Safe money, virtual keyboard,...) don't work in Waterfox but everything work fine.
If i start Firefox after closing Waterfox, Firefox ask me to authorize the installation of Kaspersky add-ons.
I don't understand why ans i wonder if there is a way to solve this issue.

Thank you again


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Modsy*
> 
> Thank you very much for the new release
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a question. I use Waterfox 24, kaspersky 2014 and i want to keep Firefox 24.
> The safety add-ons (Safe money, virtual keyboard,...) don't work in Waterfox but everything work fine.
> If i start Firefox after closing Waterfox, Firefox ask me to authorize the installation of Kaspersky add-ons.
> I don't understand why ans i wonder if there is a way to solve this issue.
> 
> Thank you again


That would be because Waterfox and Firefox share the same profile, when Waterfox runs, it deems the add-ons incompatible so it disables them. Then when Firefox runs, it detects disabled add-ons that work with it, so asks you if you'd like to re-enable them for use with Firefox.

Hope that makes sense!


----------



## Modsy

Yes, that make sense.
I will have to choose between Firefox and Waterfox. Security vs Speed.
Great work anyway.
Is it possible to create a profile for each one so this would not happen ?


----------



## farmers

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Modsy*
> 
> Great work anyway.
> Is it possible to create a profile for each one so this would not happen ?


Yes, quite easy actually. Just edit the shortcut for Waterfox by right-clicking & selecting Properties. In the 'Target' box, you will se the path to the Waterfox program in quotes. After the closing quote, just add ' -P waterfox' (or any name you wish, other than 'default') without the quotes. The first time it opens, it will create a new profile directory for the named profile, separate from the Firefox one which will be called default. I've left out some of the technical details, but that should do what you want.


----------



## JayBart

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Glad to see that everyone is sorted. So what do people think of StartPage? I was considering DuckDuckGo, but the search results weren't the greatest, so I went with SP instead. Any feedback in that regard?


 I personally really like DuckDuckGo, one of the few search units that don't track everything you search for and brings up lots of links. Startpage is cool though and the release is working well for me


----------



## hammer85

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Glad to see that everyone is sorted. So what do people think of StartPage? I was considering DuckDuckGo, but the search results weren't the greatest, so I went with SP instead. Any feedback in that regard?


*Can you please add the link to 7z (zipped) version of Waterfox 24 please?*


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Modsy*
> 
> Yes, that make sense.
> I will have to choose between Firefox and Waterfox. Security vs Speed.
> Great work anyway.
> Is it possible to create a profile for each one so this would not happen ?


Just install the "compatibility check" add-on in waterfox, which should make all your add-ons work ....
> LINK


----------



## DIMPIE

Only notice now it been made an "official" release









Thanks for all your hard work ... works great


----------



## zertyuiop

Can I help with Russian localization?


----------



## Quantum Reality

So is there a proper installer and everything? I've been using Pale Moon, but I would like to go back to Waterfox if it is now on an official release schedule again.


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> So is there a proper installer and everything? I've been using Pale Moon, but I would like to go back to Waterfox if it is now on an official release schedule again.


Seriously?







With 4711 post, I'm sure you know how a forum works ... See post #1 on Page #1


----------



## thechas

Thanks for the update.

It is improved, but not perfect.

I did notice that some of the links that open the in page PDF viewer or MP3 player have JAVA in them.

Such as:

javascript:document.getElementById('Submit').click(); Opens Information Week Magazine in a PDF viewer.

http://www.headinthesand.ca/lesjupes/uploads/01_what_am_i_doing_here__live_loft_sessions.mp3 Opens a MP3 player in a new tab.

Where these links open the download dialog:

assets3.restormassets.com/resources/audio/Bob%20Findlay%20-%20(You%20and%20Your)%20Your%20Poison%20Pen.mp3?filename=07/07db7cf80fff82023c2edf7df4cd8134_2518315.mpga
Opens a download dialog for a MP3

http://www.ibmsystemsmagpowersystemsdigital.com/fx/save/dbindex.php?book_id=__NXT__d64a49ec29aa1d406d60bce02b7457ba&sid=5d59475e278f3538e228d9360c21c6a9&pdf=1
Downloads a PDF of IBM Systems Magazine

Hope this information helps.

Chas


----------



## Panwaffles

Long time fan of your work, Mr. Alex. Good to see Waterfox is back, time to ditch Nightly.









Just a quick question, how can we associate HTTP and HTTPS with Waterfox if it's not shown in the possible options? Windows 8 user here.

Thanks in advance.

EDIT: I've tried forcing Waterfox to be the default browser through the Tools/Options, but it's gone from Chrome to Nightly now, even though I deleted Nightly before installing the latest WF. It won't even open the HTTP links now.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Long time fan of your work, Mr. Alex. Good to see Waterfox is back, time to ditch Nightly.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just a quick question, how can we associate HTTP and HTTPS with Waterfox if it's not shown in the possible options? Windows 8 user here.
> 
> Thanks in advance.
> 
> EDIT: I've tried forcing Waterfox to be the default browser through the Tools/Options, but it's gone from Chrome to Nightly now, even though I deleted Nightly before installing the latest WF. It won't even open the HTTP links now.


try with windows in default program


----------



## Panwaffles

I thought it was obvious that I already tried with the Default programs association, but as I said, the Waterfox can't be found in the list of available software.


----------



## DIMPIE

On Win7 WF does show for me under default programs and HTTP/HTTPS are protocols associated for WF.

I can't see that Win8 would handle it differently ... are you using the latest install files for WF as per post #1 ?

I would also suggest to uninstall all other versions of firefox/nightly & also delete any traces left behind (eg AppData)


----------



## yowanvista

The jumplist is still missing, not sure if it's a bug or if it was intentionally removed.


----------



## Panwaffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DIMPIE*
> 
> On Win7 WF does show for me under default programs and HTTP/HTTPS are protocols associated for WF.
> 
> I can't see that Win8 would handle it differently ... are you using the latest install files for WF as per post #1 ?
> 
> I would also suggest to uninstall all other versions of firefox/nightly & also delete any traces left behind (eg AppData)


I'm using the latest install file, yes. Also, there were no Firefox or Nightlies installed when I was installing WF. Frankly, I don't feel like deleting my profiles.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> I'm using the latest install file, yes. Also, there were no Firefox or Nightlies installed when I was installing WF. Frankly, I don't feel like deleting my profiles.


Make a copy of profiles directory under

Code:



Code:


C:\Users\UserNameAppData\Roaming\Mozilla\Firefox

, Then uninstall all nightlies and old versions of Waterfox. If asked first try to not let it remove userprofile. If that don't work make sure the copy is same size as original files and then let it uninstall userdata to.
My Waterfox also is used as default browser now for .url files and is found in default program wizard.


----------



## DIMPIE

Who can confirm the following?

When having a tab open and hovering your mouse over the tab previews on the taskbar then the text on the whole browser window change to a bolder blurry looking font.

Taskbar Previews:


Before mouse-over:


After mouse-over:


I don't recall this happening in the previous version(s) ... not a train-smash.


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Using Waterfox .24, when visiting this add-on page: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/hide-tab-bar-with-one-tab/?src=search
> 
> ...it says the add-on isn't compatible with Firefox 14.
> 
> Oh... the user agent override string says "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120709 Firefox/14.0 Waterfox/14.0" No wonder...
> 
> Ok, I changed it to "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20120709 Firefox/24.0 Waterfox/24.0/" and all is well.


Ok, so I'm an idiot. I woke up this morning with this in my head and I remembered that I had changed the version number so a theme (that supposedly was incompatible) would work (and oddly enough, works now with 24).

Sorry about that...


----------



## Commissar

is this ram useage normal, with about 50-60 tabs open?

the amount of ram waterfox uses seems to increase over time, while it's running... almost as if it's not releasing the memory as it should....
I even closed like 10 tabs, and the ram used only went down by maybe 100mb...


----------



## DIMPIE

50-60 tabs ... Seriously









Tested with 50 tabs - getting ±980mb usage ???


----------



## Commissar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DIMPIE*
> 
> 50-60 tabs ... Seriously
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Tested with 50 tabs - getting ±980mb usage ???


I multitask...
anyhow, at the moment, with the same tabs loaded, it's only using 2 gigs of ram... but the difference is that waterfox has only been open for ~2hrs. previously, it had been open for ~16 hrs...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Commissar*
> 
> is this ram useage normal, with about 50-60 tabs open?
> 
> the amount of ram waterfox uses seems to increase over time, while it's running... almost as if it's not releasing the memory as it should....
> I even closed like 10 tabs, and the ram used only went down by maybe 100mb...


I'm experiencing the same observation even with Firefox, it tends to increase RAM usage over time even without doing anything. I also have lots of tabs open. What could be causing this?


----------



## Quantum Reality

I've noticed it with Pale Moon. Nothing seems to truly free up RAM unless I close the entire browser and then reopen it. Firefox's code probably inherently has some kind of memory leak in it.


----------



## caenlen

i switched to waterfox two nights ago, i love it.









glad I found this discussion. chrome annoys me, not sure why but it does.


----------



## selk22

Just switched over to Waterfox from Firefox. Was happy to see it has saved all my extensions and such









Anything I should know about to make the most of this?


----------



## fullmoon

many plugin have memory leaks.

Also, I use it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/empty-cache-button/


----------



## richdom

I'm using waterfox 18 and just downloaded 24. I'm trying to uninstall v18 but it doesn't show up in my currently installed programs (It is installed since I'm using it right now!) and therefore cannot uninstall it. I tried looking in the program folder for an uninstaller but there is only a helper.exe in there that does nothing. I also have revo uninstaller and it has the same problem, it can't seem to see the waterfox in order to uninstall it.

Any help would be appreciated!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> many plugin have memory leaks.
> 
> Also, I use it: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/empty-cache-button/


Like which ones?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *richdom*
> 
> I'm using waterfox 18 and just downloaded 24. I'm trying to uninstall v18 but it doesn't show up in my currently installed programs (It is installed since I'm using it right now!) and therefore cannot uninstall it. I tried looking in the program folder for an uninstaller but there is only a helper.exe in there that does nothing. I also have revo uninstaller and it has the same problem, it can't seem to see the waterfox in order to uninstall it.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated!


Re-download/install Waterfox 18. You should have the option again. Otherwise just delete the program files folder.


----------



## Liquifier

Just installed Waterfox 24.0 today. I've noticed that I can't middle click (with a mouse) on a link to open in a new tab anymore. It was working fine on FireFox 24.0. I'm looking at about:config and the only settings I see for middle mouse related to my issue are:
middlemouse.contentLoadURL ( on default false, tried setting to true but didn't resolve my issue)
middlemouse.openNewWindow (on default true)

Anybody else have this issue?


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liquifier*
> 
> Just installed Waterfox 24.0 today. I've noticed that I can't middle click (with a mouse) on a link to open in a new tab anymore. It was working fine on FireFox 24.0. I'm looking at about:config and the only settings I see for middle mouse related to my issue are:
> middlemouse.contentLoadURL ( on default false, tried setting to true but didn't resolve my issue)
> middlemouse.openNewWindow (on default true)
> 
> Anybody else have this issue?


Working fine my side, but I have these under about ....

Quote:


> middlemouse.contentLoadURL;false
> 
> middlemouse.openNewWindow;true
> 
> middlemouse.paste;false
> 
> middlemouse.scrollbarPosition;false


so it's basiccally the same as yours, as I don't think that last 2 have anything to do with it


----------



## fullmoon

arf,sorry, I want say "extensions", try without extensions if you have always memory leak, tell me.


----------



## Liquifier

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DIMPIE*
> 
> Working fine my side, but I have these under about ....
> 
> _
> _
> 
> so it's basiccally the same as yours, as I don't think that last 2 have anything to do with it


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Liquifier*
> 
> Just installed Waterfox 24.0 today. I've noticed that I can't middle click (with a mouse) on a link to open in a new tab anymore. It was working fine on FireFox 24.0. I'm looking at about:config and the only settings I see for middle mouse related to my issue are:
> middlemouse.contentLoadURL ( on default false, tried setting to true but didn't resolve my issue)
> middlemouse.openNewWindow (on default true)
> 
> Anybody else have this issue?


Thanks for your reply. I tried using a clean profile but it didn't work. I finally got it working when I remapped my middle click from "AutoScroll" to "GenericButton" in Logitech Setpoint. I found that a bit weird but whatever works I guess.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> arf,sorry, I want say "extensions", try without extensions if you have always memory leak, tell me.


I don't have any extensions but still have that memory leak problem. MrAlex can you chime in in this issue please?


----------



## Commissar

well, using about:memory, i found part of it: facebook. it's using 250mb of ram.... and yet, each tab of twitch.tv is using <50MB....
email sites are using ~70-80mb, and all the rest are using ~30-40mb. so, a good chunk of the ram is due to tabs ~1/2 of the total ram. the rest is allocated to javascript main runtime... perhaps a side-effect of the optimizations?


----------



## Truffel71

Waterfox 24 is running smoothly.
The one thing I can't do is installing the dutch .xpi. "Not compattible"....anyone else this issue, or a solution?
Already changed the generale.useragent.locale to nl in about:config.

Mr.Alex: Thnx for all the work!!!!!!


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Truffel71*
> 
> Waterfox 24 is running smoothly.
> The one thing I can't do is installing the dutch .xpi. "Not compattible"....anyone else this issue, or a solution?
> Already changed the generale.useragent.locale to nl in about:config.
> 
> Mr.Alex: Thnx for all the work!!!!!!


use xpi of linux x86_64 because waterfox is a compil from linux x86_64 source.


----------



## LocoDiceGR

best waterfox 24.0 addon's? top 10 or something i bet you have posted before but there are 535 pages there







omg!


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BALANTAKOS*
> 
> best waterfox 24.0 addon's? top 10 or something i bet you have posted before but there are 535 pages there
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> omg!


That kind of depend on what you feel you need?
Most Popular


----------



## rwk2095

Am I correct that the original Firefox (i.e. 32-bit) will no longer run? The file still exists, "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe", but when I launch it, it says Waterfox is running. This is important because I use Google Phone, and it won't run under Waterfox. I thought this had something to do with the registry, but Google Phone isn't recognized when I launch the 32-bit dot-exe file. Am I missing something? Can 32-bit Firefox coexist with Waterfox?


----------



## thechas

Coexist, but not cohabit.

Yes, you can run either Firefox or Waterfox on your system.

However, you cannot run both at the same time.

You must fully close Waterfox before you can open Firefox.

Biggest reason is that both Waterfox and Firefox use the same user profile folders. Both programs cannot access the user profile at the same time.

Chas


----------



## rwk2095

AHHA! That works. Thanks very much.


----------



## kevindd992002

So any additional ideas regarding the memory leakage in WF/FF?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So any additional ideas regarding the memory leakage in WF/FF?


Most likely and addon as the culprit.

Ghostery had a memory leak. A couple hours in and it would be eating 2GB of memory for 3 tabs.

Disable addons and see if the leak disappears.
It should because Firefox 24 does not have a memory leak for me so it can't be the program itself.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> arf,sorry, I want say "extensions", try without extensions if you have always memory leak, tell me.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any extensions but still have that memory leak problem. MrAlex can you chime in in this issue please?
Click to expand...

Does this occur in both Firefox and Waterfox?

If so, then try reinstalling Firefox and test without any extensions.
If not, then it could be a problem related to the compiling of Waterfox.

Let the memory leak run for a little while then go to *about:memory* to see a list of memory usage between objects that call for it. See what the culprit is.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Most likely and addon as the culprit.
> 
> Ghostery had a memory leak. A couple hours in and it would be eating 2GB of memory for 3 tabs.
> 
> Disable addons and see if the leak disappears.
> It should because Firefox 24 does not have a memory leak for me so it can't be the program itself.
> Does this occur in both Firefox and Waterfox?
> 
> If so, then try reinstalling Firefox and test without any extensions.
> If not, then it could be a problem related to the compiling of Waterfox.
> 
> Let the memory leak run for a little while then go to *about:memory* to see a list of memory usage between objects that call for it. See what the culprit is.


I don't have any extensions installed and the memory leak is not that critical, it's not like 2GB for 3 tabs only. I have a lot of tabs (more than 50) and multiple tab groups but my FF/WF is set to load tabs only when selected. For a give amount of time, it reaches like up to 700MB of RAM usage.

This happens to all my FF/WF installation in multiple computers.


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rwk2095*
> 
> Am I correct that the original Firefox (i.e. 32-bit) will no longer run? The file still exists, "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe", but when I launch it, it says Waterfox is running. This is important because I use Google Phone, and it won't run under Waterfox. I thought this had something to do with the registry, but Google Phone isn't recognized when I launch the 32-bit dot-exe file. Am I missing something? Can 32-bit Firefox coexist with Waterfox?


Google phone is a 32 bit program and it only works in 32bit browsers. I just run it in IE or Chrome. If you have windows 8 you can download and use a Google phone app like FreeTalk.


----------



## Truffel71




----------



## Truffel71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> use xpi of linux x86_64 because waterfox is a compil from linux x86_64 source.


Thnx for the reply!!!
The xpi files from https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/24.0/*win32*/xpi/ works, but the xpi from http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/xpi/ does not.
Now looking a litlle bit longer I see that the date of this xpi is a little bit old. So I think it's an xpi from a older version of waterfox and therefore not compatible.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Most likely and addon as the culprit.
> 
> Ghostery had a memory leak. A couple hours in and it would be eating 2GB of memory for 3 tabs.
> 
> Disable addons and see if the leak disappears.
> It should because Firefox 24 does not have a memory leak for me so it can't be the program itself.
> Does this occur in both Firefox and Waterfox?
> 
> If so, then try reinstalling Firefox and test without any extensions.
> If not, then it could be a problem related to the compiling of Waterfox.
> 
> Let the memory leak run for a little while then go to *about:memory* to see a list of memory usage between objects that call for it. See what the culprit is.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have any extensions installed and the memory leak is not that critical, it's not like 2GB for 3 tabs only. I have a lot of tabs (more than 50) and multiple tab groups but my FF/WF is set to load tabs only when selected. For a give amount of time, it reaches like up to 700MB of RAM usage.
> 
> This happens to all my FF/WF installation in multiple computers.
Click to expand...

700MB would be acceptable for that many tabs.

A memory leak will keep increasing until eventually you get memory errors.

Monitor the memory usage with the same tabs open. If it stays the same after a short while then it's normal usage.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> 700MB would be acceptable for that many tabs.
> 
> A memory leak will keep increasing until eventually you get memory errors.
> 
> Monitor the memory usage with the same tabs open. If it stays the same after a short while then it's normal usage.


But it seems that it doesn't release the memory usage when you close tabs?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> 700MB would be acceptable for that many tabs.
> 
> A memory leak will keep increasing until eventually you get memory errors.
> 
> Monitor the memory usage with the same tabs open. If it stays the same after a short while then it's normal usage.
> 
> 
> 
> But it seems that it doesn't release the memory usage when you close tabs?
Click to expand...

Does memory usage go down at all ever?

The tab you closed may be using only a small portion of memory. 700MB - 300MB for the application itself = 400MB / 50 tabs = 8MB per tab.

Just monitor the usage in task manager. If it goes down as you close some tabs then it isn't a leak. A leak will never stop until its consuming all of your memory and you run into memory errors (ie. "too many apps are open, close some to free up space!" in Windows).

Ghostery had a bad leak in it. After about a day of leaving it open it was consuming 5-6 GB of memory.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Does memory usage go down at all ever?
> 
> The tab you closed may be using only a small portion of memory. 700MB - 300MB for the application itself = 400MB / 50 tabs = 8MB per tab.
> 
> Just monitor the usage in task manager. If it goes down as you close some tabs then it isn't a leak. A leak will never stop until its consuming all of your memory and you run into memory errors (ie. "too many apps are open, close some to free up space!" in Windows).
> 
> Ghostery had a bad leak in it. After about a day of leaving it open it was consuming 5-6 GB of memory.


Oh ok. I'll monitor it first and see. Thanks for the insight mate.


----------



## Commissar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Most likely and addon as the culprit.
> 
> Ghostery had a memory leak. A couple hours in and it would be eating 2GB of memory for 3 tabs.
> 
> Disable addons and see if the leak disappears.
> It should because Firefox 24 does not have a memory leak for me so it can't be the program itself.
> Does this occur in both Firefox and Waterfox?
> 
> If so, then try reinstalling Firefox and test without any extensions.
> If not, then it could be a problem related to the compiling of Waterfox.
> 
> Let the memory leak run for a little while then go to *about:memory* to see a list of memory usage between objects that call for it. See what the culprit is.


I did that. most of it is javascript runtime.i'm running lastpass, https everywhere, ghostery, and ABP.


----------



## Grumpigeek

I haven't checked in on Waterfox for a long time.
I'm so glad Alex is OK.
Waterfox really is fast!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi thechas. Could you try the above installer and see if you get the same issues?
> 
> Thanks!


Is the installer shared in the dropbox link in this post the same as the one in the OP?


----------



## benben84

Can someone explain to me the benifits of Waterfox over say Google Chrome? I was an avid Firefox user until I started using Google services so now I am pretty much intergrated into that browser for convenience. I just dont see the point of 64 bit browsers...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Can someone explain to me the benifits of Waterfox over say Google Chrome? I was an avid Firefox user until I started using Google services so now I am pretty much intergrated into that browser for convenience. I just dont see the point of 64 bit browsers...


Why don't you see the point of 64bit browsers? Perhaps you're not of a multitasking type of user with lots and lots of tabs and extensions?


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Can someone explain to me the benifits of Waterfox over say Google Chrome? I was an avid Firefox user until I started using Google services so now I am pretty much intergrated into that browser for convenience. I just dont see the point of 64 bit browsers...


For many users, there isn't a point.

But a significant number of users will find it extremely useful, because of its one key feature: it doesn't crash if you use many tabs, or data, or script/DOM/other storage, or you hit the 4GB x32 process memory limit. So if you happen to be someone who uses large sessions and you want to keep Firefox's open source vendor neutrality, extension ecosphere, non-tracking (**cough**Google TrackYouChrome**cough**), or process efficiency (**Chromeagain**) a 64 bit build isn't "optional" - it's actually the only way one can use Firefox.

It turns out that in every Mozilla user study on tab use, a significant minority of users do use a browser that way.....

Try opening 700 tabs in Chrome or Firefox 32 bit as some heavy users do (I've got 2400 open here, which is a lot even by heavy user standards), and "oops". So that's the sole reason a person may truly need a 64 bit build, and does apply to a number of users. If it doesn't apply to you, then it's not something your working method needs.


----------



## benben84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> For many users, there isn't a point.
> 
> But a significant number of users will find it extremely useful, because of its one key feature: it doesn't crash if you use many tabs, or data, or script/DOM/other storage, or you hit the 4GB x32 process memory limit. So if you happen to be someone who uses large sessions and you want to keep Firefox's open source vendor neutrality, extension ecosphere, non-tracking (**cough**Google TrackYouChrome**cough**), or process efficiency (**Chromeagain**) a 64 bit build isn't "optional" - it's actually the only way one can use Firefox.
> 
> It turns out that in every Mozilla user study on tab use, a significant minority of users do use a browser that way.....
> 
> Try opening 700 tabs in Chrome or Firefox 32 bit as some heavy users do (I've got 2400 open here, which is a lot even by heavy user standards), and "oops". So that's the sole reason a person may truly need a 64 bit build, and does apply to a number of users. If it doesn't apply to you, then it's not something your working method needs.


Why do you use so many tabs? I cannot comprehend this. I use 20 ever at most and I start to get twitchy and OCD kicks in.


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Why do you use so many tabs? I cannot comprehend this. I use 20 ever at most and I start to get twitchy and OCD kicks in.


Then x64 isn't going to be specially relevant for your needs, I guess. Different people, different working needs and ways of working, is all


----------



## benben84

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> Then x64 isn't going to be specially relevant for your needs, I guess. Different people, different working needs and ways of working, is all


Seriously though, what are you doing that you need so many tabs open at once? How do you even keep track of that?

Are you the Shadow Broker?


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Commissar*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Most likely and addon as the culprit.
> 
> Ghostery had a memory leak. A couple hours in and it would be eating 2GB of memory for 3 tabs.
> 
> Disable addons and see if the leak disappears.
> It should because Firefox 24 does not have a memory leak for me so it can't be the program itself.
> Does this occur in both Firefox and Waterfox?
> 
> If so, then try reinstalling Firefox and test without any extensions.
> If not, then it could be a problem related to the compiling of Waterfox.
> 
> Let the memory leak run for a little while then go to *about:memory* to see a list of memory usage between objects that call for it. See what the culprit is.
> 
> 
> 
> I did that. most of it is javascript runtime.i'm running lastpass, https everywhere, ghostery, and ABP.
Click to expand...

If you have a memory leak then it is Ghostery.

Ghostery will cause your browser to start consuming 1,2...4...8 GB of RAM until you start getting memory errors and then you BSOD eventually.

I'm not sure if they ever fixed the problem. I uninstalled it and never reinstalled it since finding this out.

*Also don't forget Ghostery is provided to you by the same company that tracks you.

Also beware that HTTPS everywhere does not provided HTTPS encryption for every site.
Only the ones that choose to provide it themselves.
I think the name is misleading as it makes you think all websites are now encrypted
but it only helps on using HTTPS better for sites that choose to provide it.

As always, if the browser's lock icon is broken or carries an exclamation mark, you may remain vulnerable to some adversaries that use active attacks or traffic analysis.

And by no means is it a bad addon, in fact I might start using it myself. Was just something I wanted to let you know in case you didn't.*

Quote:


> Ghostery is owned by Evidon, Inc. What is Evidon?
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Evidon is a technology company that provides solutions for consumers, businesses and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that enable them to see, understand and control data online. For businesses and NGOs, Evidon provides the technological underpinnings that put the AdChoices icon, which functions as a "tracking nutrition label" into ads, as well as reports on trackers and what they are doing on the web. For consumers, we provide Ghostery. Evidon is able to support Ghostery through our users who choose to opt into the anonymous GhostRank panel, which allows us to make tracker reports and helps to provide organizations like the Better Business Bureau with information that helps them enforce self-regulation. Our mission, as a company, is to make the web more transparent for everyone involved. We strongly believe that making disclosure more transparent will raise the quality of the entire online ecosystem by enabling digital companies to grow and innovate with privacy in mind.
> What Evidon is not:
> 
> Evidon is not an advertising network or behavioral data collection service.
> Evidon doesn't work to allow advertisers to be more invasive.
> 
> Click here to learn more about Evidon's services. Also, check out our blog post about the company's mission and how it relates to Ghostery.
> What data does Evidon receive from users who opt-in to GhostRank?
> 
> When a user opts-in to GhostRank, Ghostery sends the following information each time a tracker is encountered:
> 
> the tracker identified by Ghostery
> the blocking state of the tracker
> domains identified as serving trackers
> the time it takes for the page and the tracker to load
> the tracker's position on the page
> the browser in which Ghostery has been installed
> Ghostery version information
> standard web server log information, such as IP address (we do not store IP addresses) and HTTP headers
> 
> What does Evidon do with GhostRank information?
> 
> When you enable GhostRank, Ghostery collects anonymous data about the trackers you've encountered and the sites on which they were placed. These data are about tracking elements and the web pages on which they are found, not the individuals who encountered those elements.
> 
> Online marketing companies need better visibility into real-world applications of their technologies and those owned by their competitors. GhostRank data helps them market to consumers more transparently, better manage their web properties, and comply with privacy standards.
> 
> GhostRank data shared with businesses never includes data about you. To learn about the data that GhostRank collects, click here.
> 
> We also publish our own research and provide data to privacy researchers, analysts and journalists. Additionally, organizations like the Better Business Bureau use GhostRank data in the enforcement of privacy standards like the DAA AdChoices program.
> 
> To read more about how the Ghostery service supports the Evidon business, read our post The Most Frequently Asked Question.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Stilez*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Can someone explain to me the benifits of Waterfox over say Google Chrome? I was an avid Firefox user until I started using Google services so now I am pretty much intergrated into that browser for convenience. I just dont see the point of 64 bit browsers...
> 
> 
> 
> *For many users, there isn't a point.*
> 
> But a significant number of users will find it extremely useful, because of its one key feature: it doesn't crash if you use many tabs, or data, or script/DOM/other storage, or you hit the 4GB x32 process memory limit. So if you happen to be someone who uses large sessions and you want to keep Firefox's open source vendor neutrality, extension ecosphere, non-tracking (**cough**Google TrackYouChrome**cough**), or process efficiency (**Chromeagain**) a 64 bit build isn't "optional" - it's actually the only way one can use Firefox.
> 
> It turns out that in every Mozilla user study on tab use, a significant minority of users do use a browser that way.....
> 
> Try opening 700 tabs in Chrome or Firefox 32 bit as some heavy users do (I've got 2400 open here, which is a lot even by heavy user standards), and "oops". So that's the sole reason a person may truly need a 64 bit build, and does apply to a number of users. If it doesn't apply to you, then it's not something your working method needs.
Click to expand...

Actually Waterfox is compiled with several 64bit options enabled that a CPU can take advantage of to provide better speed all around.

Not only that but if you are using a 64bit browser by default you should try and use every 64bit version of apps you can as it comes with many options available to be used by a 64bit capable CPU with a 64bit OS that a 32bit environment could not use.

A nice one is the fact you can use more memory on a single app but is far from the only perk you get.


----------



## Stilez

Alex -

First impressions of Waterfox 24 (Ivy Bridge E, Windows 8, plenty of extensions, 1100 tabs, RAM usage 5GB) - seems stable and responsive. Very nice job, well worth the wait! And much appreciated, a 'clean' install as ever, containing the "core" folder and no other runtime or files needed. Thank you for persevering, hopefully the thanks make up for the frustrating delays









Hopefully there won't be any surprises a day or a week down the line, but so far the last couple of days, it's been all I could ask of it, and had plenty of chances to fall over (and taken none of them







!)


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Actually Waterfox is compiled with several 64bit options enabled that a CPU can take advantage of to provide better speed all around.
> 
> Not only that but if you are using a 64bit browser by default you should try and use every 64bit version of apps you can as it comes with many options available to be used by a 64bit capable CPU with a 64bit OS that a 32bit environment could not use.
> 
> A nice one is the fact you can use more memory on a single app but is far from the only perk you get.


True.. but it's the only one which is an absolute.

You _may_ get a few percent faster (and may or may not notice it) with a few tabs using x64 optimisation, and you may notice the savings on context switching and so on.. but those are all a few percent, often invisible unless serious using or analytically testing. The 3 - 4 GB barrier is different, it's an utter absolute - you cannot use x32 Firefox for 4GB sessions without x64 if your workload or working style wishes it. It's not a question of a few percent optional performance tweak - it's an absolute barrier.

So for me, that's in a class of its own as a reason. That said you are right and I overlooked it, many people will want the performance tweak.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Can someone explain to me the benifits of Waterfox over say Google Chrome? I was an avid Firefox user until I started using Google services so now I am pretty much intergrated into that browser for convenience. I just dont see the point of 64 bit browsers...


I am not a user of hundreds of tabs etc so I don't really need a 64-bit browser.

However, I use Waterfox because I just like the speed of it.

A quick look at Process Explorer shows 90% of the processes running on my PC are 64-bit.

Even phones are starting to go 64-bit with Nvidia, Apple and Samsung all readying 64-bit smartphone processors.

I don't see the point of 32-bit anything on 64-bit systems.


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Can someone explain to me the benifits of Waterfox over say Google Chrome?


Waterfox vs Firefox is discussed above. So looking at Chrome vs Firefox (or any Firefox derivative):

1) Process handling: if you use more than a few tabs, the approach to tab isolation through different processes as used by Google Chrome becomes a serious efficiency disadvantage, especially on the smaller netbooks and mobile devices it's often used with. Context replication and switching is costly in process design terms.
2) Tracking: a lot of people simply don't want to be that plugged into Google's tracking systems. A quick look at "google" in Firefox extensions shows a plethora of "kill google tracking" or "google disconnect" extensions. Frankly Chrome isn't really very trustworthy in respect of privacy.
3) Open source vendor neutrality: a lot of people like to support browsers that focus on user needs not vendor tracking benefits, and which are more likely to support a neutral internet and neutral open market. (Can you see Mozilla removing apps/extensions because they block ads or interfere with Google services? Or limiting apps in ways that get an advantage for themselves like Microsoft and Apple do? Do you think Google's app/extension store will never ever do that?)
4) Configurability: firefox and derivatives are far more configurable and moddable, for those who want it.

Against this:

4) Google make very "clean" products that target the market well; they wouldn't be as successful as they are if they didn't. So they have their finger on the pulse of the market and are very responsive to it. However being sold what is easy, is not always in ones own best interests.......


----------



## benben84

Ok, so I understand why you guys are using 64 bit now but I still cannot comprehend how/why you need so many tabs open? I don't even know 1100 websites! lol Explain.

Also, how do you even manage that many? It sounds like it would take about 30 minutes to find the one tab you are looking for...


----------



## Stilez

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Ok, so I understand why you guys are using 64 bit now but I still cannot comprehend how/why you need so many tabs open? I don't even know 1100 websites! lol Explain.


What can I say, I use the net heavily on a load of areas rather than just socially on Facebook, Youtube and a bit of Google. Racking up a hundred or so tabs isn't difficult if you are looking for information rather than social use/social sites. Then have a few projects at once because you're multi-tasking too.....

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *benben84*
> 
> Also, how do you even manage that many? It sounds like it would take about 30 minutes to find the one tab you are looking for...


How to do it? TabGroups Manager, like this! Candidate for "Almost essential extension for the really heavy tab user", works nice with Firefox and Waterfox 24/25 (there's a 'compatibility' update working on v20+). Pretty useful for lightweight tab use too, to be honest, but shows its real value for heavy use.


----------



## LocoDiceGR

Will waterfox get any updates any time soon?
Firefox 26 beta is about to release soon...
so i was thinking of waterfox 25 ?









and somethink else what exactly adblock plus do??
install it or no?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Waterfox follows the Firefox stable releases so once Firefox 25 is release waterfox 25 should be released soon after.


----------



## fullmoon

for stop memory leaks for me (I don't understand but works):
- disable many bad add-ons (I have ghostquery, ABP and no memory leak)
- disable newtab (about:newtab)
- disable cache disk

browser.newtabpage.enabled false
browser.cache.disk.enable false
browser.taskbar.previews.enable false (yes this for windows 7 taskbar)
media.autoplay.enabled false (direct download or play in the navigator)

network.dns.disableIPv6 true (FF better broadband)
only this works for me.









I use WF for speed and fluidity. I am never more up than 1Go.


----------



## stenrulz

Has there been any development news regarding version 25? Really would like to see version 25 released due to the security fixes.

MFSA 2013-102 Use-after-free in HTML document templates
MFSA 2013-101 Memory corruption in workers
MFSA 2013-100 Miscellaneous use-after-free issues found through ASAN fuzzing
MFSA 2013-99 Security bypass of PDF.js checks using iframes
MFSA 2013-98 Use-after-free when updating offline cache
MFSA 2013-97 Writing to cycle collected object during image decoding
MFSA 2013-96 Improperly initialized memory and overflows in some JavaScript functions
MFSA 2013-95 Access violation with XSLT and uninitialized data
MFSA 2013-94 Spoofing addressbar though SELECT element
MFSA 2013-93 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:25.0 / rv:24.1 / rv:17.0.10)


----------



## Quantum Reality

As a note of frustration, how is it that web browsers can constantly seem to have security leaks in their Javascript interpreters? It shouldn't be that frikkin' hard to harden and sandbox foreign code run on demand.


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> As a note of frustration, how is it that web browsers can constantly seem to have security leaks in their Javascript interpreters? It shouldn't be that frikkin' hard to harden and sandbox foreign code run on demand.


On the same note why is almost every JAVA version disabled due to being a security risk...


----------



## thechas

JAVA is still a significant security risk because Oracle has not been able to patch all of the issues with the base JAVA code and keep it compatible for the JAVA applications that exist.

The last detailed report I read anticipated that JAVA 8 should have the known issues corrected.

Until then, enable JAVA at your risk.

Chas


----------



## kennyparker1337

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> JAVA is still a significant security risk because Oracle has not been able to patch all of the issues with the base JAVA code and keep it compatible for the JAVA applications that exist.
> 
> The last detailed report I read anticipated that JAVA 8 should have the known issues corrected.
> 
> Until then, enable JAVA at your risk.
> 
> Chas


They're a company who _net profited_ (as in money after all expenses payed) $10,920,000,000 for 2013 yet they can't fix a security risk?

Why not just release Java 8 already and stop offering risk-infested updates?
Wouldn't any smart company that uses Java update their code to work with the new Java 8?


----------



## donotreply2me

There seems to be a problem with printing for waterfox 24.0. When I select print from the file menu the dialog box shown in image 1 pops up when i press yes image 2 pops up.
I tried uninstalling and reinstalling waterfox but print only works on the initial install but if you close waterfox and then open waterfox then the print stops working.

Image 1 
Image 2 

Windows 7 Pro x64


----------



## DIMPIE

^ Can you print from other programs ???

that doesn't seem waterfox related .... printing works 100% through WF on my side


----------



## Blameless

Would it be possible to update the Waterfox installer to allow installation on XP x64 and Server 2003 x64? I've confirmed that the newest version works just fine on these OSes, but I need to copy the install from another system, which can be annoying.

I still use these OSes in numerous VMs as they support the overwhelming majority of Win32/64 software with a much smaller footprint than Windows 7, 8.x, or their Server variants.


----------



## donotreply2me

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DIMPIE*
> 
> ^ Can you print from other programs ???
> 
> that doesn't seem waterfox related .... printing works 100% through WF on my side


Yes, I can print from other program. I also have firefox 24.0 installed and I don't get that printing error.


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *donotreply2me*
> 
> Yes, I can print from other program. I also have firefox 24.0 installed and I don't get that printing error.


Not sure then ... working here >


----------



## Katawa

Is there a reason one would prefer this release over Nightly x64? http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-trunk/


----------



## LocoDiceGR

I have some problems lately with waterfox 24.0 when i download a file to deskpot it disapears :O

whats going on?


----------



## kronckew

katawa, while i have not had any problems with the recent nightlies, a number of people report crashes and memory leaks. there are times when the nightlies do not even start. they are after all, not even betas yet. even when they work, they contain a lot of new code to try to fix old problems, add new features, and take out or change old features, all of which might add new bugs. addons add their own problems, what works fine with the release version may not work at all with the nightlies.

i use the ones from http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/nightly/latest-mozilla-central/

in addition, the nightlies compilations are not optimised for x64, unlike waterfox.

they also use an older compiler. mozilla only runs the 64 bit version as a build check and refuse any support for x64.

so, even if you use nightlies, caveat emptor. best to have waterfox as a fall-back justincase. it's the best of the third party builds when mr.alex has time to keep up the good work.we all hope for a new build when he has the time.


----------



## MrAlex

Just to let you know the next version of Waterfox is well under way. In fact I've almost got a fully working ICC build, so I'd rather try and get a build ready for the end of this week than releasing another partial VC/ICC build.

I'll also reply to all your queries! I'm just really busy with uni and the next release so I don't find myself having much time to reply to everyone's emails/posts. Forgive the tardiness!


----------



## Quantum Reality

No problem! Thanks very much for keeping up with the optimized x64 builds!









Only question is, can anyone confirm that on an AMD x64 system Waterfox will not run as well as Pale Moon x64 owing to the compiler?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> No problem! Thanks very much for keeping up with the optimized x64 builds!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only question is, can anyone confirm that on an AMD x64 system Waterfox will not run as well as Pale Moon x64 owing to the compiler?


That's no longer true. Intel used to decrease performance on any processor that wasn't Intel, but they got caught and fined so now that no longer happens. In fact for there to be less performance on AMD CPUs you have to specifically imply it. I use vendor neutral flags so there's no reason to worry about it.


----------



## Screemer

Thank you so very much Mr.Alex..
I really look forward to v25.0
Firefox is so much swifter and faster in general as v25.0 than 24.01 or what ever the previous build was..
Really looking forward to the next Waterfox..


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Thank you so very much Mr.Alex..
> I really look forward to v25.0
> Firefox is so much swifter and faster in general as v25.0 than 24.01 or what ever the previous build was..
> Really looking forward to the next Waterfox..


Yeah, I also installed the new Firefox v25 on a 32bit system the other day & was more than surprised on the speed improvement







from previous versions


----------



## Quantum Reality

Awesomecakes. Looks like I might be switching back soon then!


----------



## PalZer0

Is Waterfox 25.0 ready yet? Firefox 25.0 released about a week ago.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PalZer0*
> 
> Is Waterfox 25.0 ready yet? Firefox 25.0 released about a week ago.


See 21137224


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PalZer0*
> 
> Is Waterfox 25.0 ready yet? Firefox 25.0 released about a week ago.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Just to let you know the next version of Waterfox is well under way. In fact I've almost got a fully working ICC build, so I'd rather try and get a build ready for the end of this week than releasing another partial VC/ICC build.


Any preview or anything yet? Not in any way trying to apply any stress or anything..


----------



## Daikun

So, I just discovered Waterfox today and am trying it out. This browser is great!









I'm having a technical problem, though: IETab doesn't seem to work in Waterfox, yet all my other extensions work with no problem. I get a page that tells me "A plugin is need to play this content."

Um... Okay, I'm pretty sure I have it.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> So, I just discovered Waterfox today and am trying it out. This browser is great!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm having a technical problem, though: IETab doesn't seem to work in Waterfox, yet all my other extensions work with no problem. I get a page that tells me "A plugin is need to play this content."
> 
> Um... Okay, I'm pretty sure I have it.


Works without any problems in my 5 different installs.. I use the IE Tab 2 (FF3.6+) 4.12.22.2 version
I think this is the same, but with new name..







https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ie-tab-2-ff-36/?src=search


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Works without any problems in my 5 different installs.. I use the IE Tab 2 (FF3.6+) 4.12.22.2 version
> I think this is the same, but with new name..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ie-tab-2-ff-36/?src=search


I have trust issues with knockoffs of the original IE Tab. Ever since the spyware debacle with IE Tab Plus a few years ago, I refuse to try any similarly named versions of this add-on.


----------



## Bal3Wolf

do any of you know how to get waterfox to load faster and any addons to make a muti tab fav bar when in compact mode ?


----------



## MrAlex

Hey guys moving over to CodePlex, since SourceForge has severely gone down hill. Can anyone see if the download for Waterfox 25.0 works?

https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/114762

Any feedback about CodePlex from a user prospective would be great. This is the final build. I'll be releasing the portable version and language packs for a proper release this evening when I get back from uni.


----------



## supersonicsjm

Hi Alex.
Just downloaded Waterfox 25, download link works great. However, I'm having issues with Flash in WF25. Everytime I load up a video on Youtube, the Plugin Container for Waterfox will stop working twice, each instance within a few seconds of each other and then the Flash Plugin will stop working. It also happens on IGN's website when watching videos in Flash as well. I've managed to get this bug to occur numerous times, either shortly after a video started, by checking another tab whilst the video is playing or by clicking another link on the same page a video is playing. Do you have any help on the matter?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *supersonicsjm*
> 
> Hi Alex.
> Just downloaded Waterfox 25, download link works great. However, I'm having issues with Flash in WF25. Everytime I load up a video on Youtube, the Plugin Container for Waterfox will stop working twice, each instance within a few seconds of each other and then the Flash Plugin will stop working. It also happens on IGN's website when watching videos in Flash as well. I've managed to get this bug to occur numerous times, either shortly after a video started, by checking another tab whilst the video is playing or by clicking another link on the same page a video is playing. Do you have any help on the matter?


update flash?
also: media.autoplay.enabled false

I have no problem.


----------



## supersonicsjm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> update flash?
> also: media.autoplay.enabled false
> 
> I have no problem.


The problem doesn't lie with the version of Flash I have installed, I tried installing the latest version direct from Adobe's website and it still had problems, but I will try the second suggestion and post the results.


----------



## skagon

I've got the same problem here, mates.
In fact, I get a crash report for every object and every instance of Flash, in addition to the "plugin stopped working" notification from Waterfox.
New version installed, no changes.

I have to admit, though, I'm not one bit annoyed. I think Flash is a piece of $h!t anyway...


----------



## Bal3Wolf

flash crashs here also.


----------



## fullmoon

try it: http://www.free-codecs.com/download/Adobe_Flash_Player_Uninstaller.htm
delete cache of flash player (ccleaner) ?


----------



## MrAlex

Hey all,

Are you getting this issue with Flash on WF24 and 25? Is this using the latest version 11.9.900.152?


----------



## supersonicsjm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Are you getting this issue with Flash on WF24 and 25? Is this using the latest version 11.9.900.152?


For me this is only for Waterfox 25 and I believe it is the latest version of Flash, as I downloaded it today from Adobe after installing Waterfox in an attempt to fix the issues I was having. Sadly they persisted.


----------



## headcleaner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey all,
> 
> Are you getting this issue with Flash on WF24 and 25? Is this using the latest version 11.9.900.152?


For me flash issue with WF25 + 11.9.900.152 - WF24 not tested before WF25 update


----------



## fullmoon

What is your config and the installation date of Windows? Maybe a clean instal of windows can resolve it. I know but my Windows has less 4 month.


----------



## skagon

For me too, Flash crashes only on Waterfox 25. The latest version was installed after Waterfox 25 was installed.
However, the previous installed version, 11.9.900.115 (or thereabouts) was also crashing Waterfox 25.
Actually, it's the Plugin Container that crashes (obviously).


----------



## MrAlex

Ok I can confirm this is a Waterfox 25 issue. I think I know what it is. I'll get it sorted right away.


----------



## supersonicsjm

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ok I can confirm this is a Waterfox 25 issue. I think I know what it is. I'll get it sorted right away.


Awesome, cheers. Kudos for the quick response too.


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/114762


"The specified release was not found."


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/114762
> 
> 
> 
> "The specified release was not found."
Click to expand...

I removed it, the plugin-container was malfunctioning. Just rebuilding it now, should be ready in a few hours


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I removed it, the plugin-container was malfunctioning. Just rebuilding it now, should be ready in a few hours


Ah, okay.

By the way, how is SourceForge "going downhill"?

EDIT: Oh, I just learned the hard way.


----------



## MrAlex

So the rebuild hasn't fixed the issue, it seems that Adobe Flash is the only plugin that causes the crash! This is annoying as it sets back the build.

Found the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899026

Turns out it is fixed in Firefox 26.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> So the rebuild hasn't fixed the issue, it seems that Adobe Flash is the only plugin that causes the crash! This is annoying as it sets back the build.
> 
> Found the bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=899026
> 
> Turns out it is fixed in Firefox 26.


I have not problem with flash, strange.
And I'm in win8.1 preview.


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Turns out it is fixed in Firefox 26.


FF 26 is coming out already, yet we're struggling with 25?

Is there a way you can get Mozilla to integrate this project into their site? It feels strange that they have 64-bit versions of Firefox readily available for Mac and Linux, yet the Windows version is entirely separate.


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> FF 26 is coming out already, yet we're struggling with 25?
> 
> Is there a way you can get Mozilla to integrate this project into their site? It feels strange that they have 64-bit versions of Firefox readily available for Mac and Linux, yet the Windows version is entirely separate.


Firefox 25 came out on October 29th. Firefox 26 *is scheduled for release* in the week of December 10th.
That's the release schedule of Mozilla. We're not struggling with anything.

As to why Mozilla doesn't have any 64-bit build... well, they don't even have a build that takes advantage of SIMD instruction sets! As much as I like Firefox, it seems the Mozilla guys are more interested in Linux and ARM tablets than Windows, even though Windows is probably 95% of their userbase.
Thankfully, there are guys like Alex...

Incidentally, have you noticed that LibreOffice doesn't have an official 64bit build either?


----------



## headcleaner

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> I have not problem with flash, strange.
> And I'm in win8.1 preview.


I've the flash 11.9.900.152 issue in (an updated )Win7 64bit Pro.with WF25.

Latest 64bit PaleMoon, Cyberfox and Nightly flash ia working
Also no probs with 32bit FF25, FF beta, Aurora and Nightly.


----------



## Screemer

Any chance Waterfox 25 could be re-released for those of us that are running Win 8.1 or that don't mind flash being broken?

Or could the problem be fixed in FF25.01? Being released as I post this..


----------



## 11ryanc

Waterfox is by far the best x64 variant of Firefox, I've tried several e.g; Cyberfox, Pale Moon, Nightly. None even come close to Waterfox







I wonder why Mozilla doesn't make their own x64 version of Firefox for Windows? Strange that they'll develop one for Linux and not Windows considering that most Firefox users are on Windows. Anyways I'm curious, on the "About Waterfox" screen it says that Waterfox is designed by Mozilla. Is the Waterfox project part of Mozilla?


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *11ryanc*
> 
> Anyways I'm curious, on the "About Waterfox" screen it says that Waterfox is designed by Mozilla. Is the Waterfox project part of Mozilla?


Not quite. It's "powered by" Mozilla, not developed by them. It means that the community can modify Mozilla's source code and create new projects of their own.

http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/powered-by


----------



## 11ryanc

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> Not quite. It's "powered by" Mozilla, not developed by them. It means that the community can modify Mozilla's source code and create new projects of their own.
> 
> http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/about/powered-by


I am aware of Mozilla powered applications, but other Firefox variants I have tried out in the past id not say that it was designed by Mozilla on the about screen. They did however say that they where Mozilla powered though, hmm I wonder what's the difference.
Guess it doesn't matter, I was just curious.


----------



## d-block

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys moving over to CodePlex, since SourceForge has severely gone down hill. Can anyone see if the download for Waterfox 25.0 works?
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/114762
> 
> Any feedback about CodePlex from a user prospective would be great. This is the final build. I'll be releasing the portable version and language packs for a proper release this evening when I get back from uni.


Says the specified release was not found.


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *d-block*
> 
> Says the specified release was not found.


He took it down since Flash kept repeatedly crashing it. He's working to get the issue resolved.


----------



## 11ryanc

Well guys it looks like Waterfox 25 won't be released according to Alex's latest post http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=61
Regardless, I'm sticking to Waterfox. Runs great for me, despite lacking a few updates.


----------



## skagon

That is very unfortunate. It looks like we should consider ourselves lucky if we have Waterfox 26 before Christmas.
As much as I respect Alex and his work on Waterfox, I have a feeling he doesn't realise the importance of Waterfox for a lot of people. There is a time when a project grows beyond the scope of "pet project" and becomes an invaluable instrument for thousands of people. I wish both Alex and the Mozilla people could understand that and support each other and this project officially, consistently and efficiently.
Could you imagine what would happen if Mozilla were to say "hey, we'll be releasing Firefox 26 in two weeks anyway, no point releasing a fix now"?
[incidentally, it's not "two weeks", it's a full month until FF26 is released, and probably another week or two for Waterfox 26]


----------



## thechas

skagon, I would respectfully submit that I do believe that Alex does understand how many people depend on Waterfox.

Further, like nearly all open-source projects, I believe that Alex is not being properly compensated for his work and efforts.

If we could fund a "fellowship" that would allow the programming team to work nearly full time on the project, I would expect that updates would come in a more timely fashion. With sufficient funding, Waterfox could potentially set new standards for web browsers.

Chas


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *11ryanc*
> 
> Well guys it looks like Waterfox 25 won't be released according to Alex's latest post http://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=61


Oh, well.









By the way, Alex: If you're reading this, can you please check your PMs?


----------



## 11ryanc

@skagon -I agree.


----------



## fullmoon

I have no many problem with flash player. Certainly a bug with old settings.
On my PC, waterfox works perfectly.


----------



## MrAlex

I'll have a Waterfox 26 Preview build ready this week. Anyone have any expertise with Photoshop/Illustrator? Mozilla have changed some of the branding files to use .bmp and .svg and I'm not too familiar with these formats.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll have a Waterfox 26 Preview build ready this week. Anyone have any expertise with Photoshop/Illustrator? Mozilla have changed some of the branding files to use .bmp and .svg and I'm not too familiar with these formats.


BMP is easy, SVG is vector graphichs which you'll want something like Inkscape for... I'm no aestheticist myself, though.


----------



## JoeF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> That is very unfortunate. It looks like we should consider ourselves lucky if we have Waterfox 26 before Christmas.
> As much as I respect Alex and his work on Waterfox, I have a feeling he doesn't realise the importance of Waterfox for a lot of people. There is a time when a project grows beyond the scope of "pet project" and becomes an invaluable instrument for thousands of people. I wish both Alex and the Mozilla people could understand that and support each other and this project officially, consistently and efficiently.
> Could you imagine what would happen if Mozilla were to say "hey, we'll be releasing Firefox 26 in two weeks anyway, no point releasing a fix now"?
> [incidentally, it's not "two weeks", it's a full month until FF26 is released, and probably another week or two for Waterfox 26]


This is Open Source. If you don't like the way Mr. Alex is doing things, you are welcome to do it better.
You can always fork it and build your own. Put your money where your mouth is...
Entitlement has no place in Open Source.
If Waterfox is important "for a lot of people", how about these people show their gratitude and actually donate money/equipment/time to the project? Anything else is just hollow whining.
Geez.


----------



## seti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll have a Waterfox 26 Preview build ready this week. Anyone have any expertise with Photoshop/Illustrator? Mozilla have changed some of the branding files to use .bmp and .svg and I'm not too familiar with these formats.


So are you looking for conversion of previous logos to these formats? or an overhaul of the Waterfox brand design into these formats? I am sure there are a few art kids in here that are up to the challenge...I can do my best to help on either. Also, thanks for your hard work on this project Mr. Alex...Waterfox has been hands down the best browser for me for quite some time now...thanks!


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll have a Waterfox 26 Preview build ready this week. Anyone have any expertise with Photoshop/Illustrator? Mozilla have changed some of the branding files to use .bmp and .svg and I'm not too familiar with these formats.


A BMP (bitmap) is an extremely early version of lossless image files. It dates back to the veeeeeeeeeeeery early days of Windows (you can even make them in MSPaint). I don't think they're used very often, though.

I know that SVG (Scalable Vector Graphics) are commonly used by Wikis, especially Wikipedia. I don't know too much about them, though.


----------



## 11ryanc

Hey guys, just wondering does Waterfox have automatic updates when an update is available?


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll have a Waterfox 26 Preview build ready this week. Anyone have any expertise with Photoshop/Illustrator? Mozilla have changed some of the branding files to use .bmp and .svg and I'm not too familiar with these formats.


Could you clarify what is needed? Do we need to convert files from one format to another? This is pretty straight forward in Illustrator; or do we need to create new graphics?


----------



## Bal3Wolf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeF*
> 
> This is Open Source. If you don't like the way Mr. Alex is doing things, you are welcome to do it better.
> You can always fork it and build your own. Put your money where your mouth is...
> Entitlement has no place in Open Source.
> If Waterfox is important "for a lot of people", how about these people show their gratitude and actually donate money/equipment/time to the project? Anything else is just hollow whining.
> Geez.


I agree hes doing this for free so people can wait till he has time to do it or learn to do it themselfs if they need it so badly.


----------



## jpm1

Hi , WF is very fast and i like it a lot . but i was wondering if there was a way to have it in french


----------



## jefftheriffer

Hi there Mr. Alex! First off I'd like to thank you for all your hard work on Waterfox and let you know how much I appreciate it. I keep getting stuck having to use Windows 7 (bleah) so having a 64-bit Firefox-based browser is a must.

I have noticed an oddity when using Waterfox related to the Google Doodle. While I can view the Google Doodle and interact with it properly both in Firefox 24.0 32-bit and in IE 10.0.11 32-bit, the Doodle remains static in Waterfox 24. (I'm referring to the current Dr. Who Google Doodle over at www.google.com right now but this was also the case for the 15th birthday doodle at http://www.google.com/doodles/googles-15th-birthday).

My first guess was this was plugin-related. The 32-bit Firefox browser I used to compare with has Silvelight as well as Quicktime plugins installed. But I don't have Silvelight installed on my Win7 PC and yet the Doodle works in IE. I don't have Quicktime installed but it doesn't seem likely Goodle would be requiring an Apple-authored product for their doodles.

Any ideas on what the issue is? I can see the Doodle in IE but I'd really like to be able to do it in Waterfox, plus I'm wondering what other websites may not be fully working in Waterfox if there's a missing plugin, bug or some hidden setting I need to adjust.

Thanks again for all your hard work!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jefftheriffer*
> 
> Hi there Mr. Alex! First off I'd like to thank you for all your hard work on Waterfox and let you know how much I appreciate it. I keep getting stuck having to use Windows 7 (bleah) so having a 64-bit Firefox-based browser is a must.
> 
> I have noticed an oddity when using Waterfox related to the Google Doodle. While I can view the Google Doodle and interact with it properly both in Firefox 24.0 32-bit and in IE 10.0.11 32-bit, the Doodle remains static in Waterfox 24. (I'm referring to the current Dr. Who Google Doodle over at www.google.com right now but this was also the case for the 15th birthday doodle at http://www.google.com/doodles/googles-15th-birthday).:


Sounds like you have an issue with there being no 64bit plugin.


----------



## jefftheriffer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Sounds like you have an issue with there being no 64bit plugin.


Yeah I suspect that is the case, but I'm not sure what plugin precisely. I have Java and Flash plugins. It's not Silverlight because IE shows the Doodle fine but I don't have Silvelight installed at all. Quicktime just seems really, REALLY unlikely to me... And actually thinking about it, I just checked and don't have Quicktime installed either yet again the Doodle works fine in IE.

A plugin is one possibility but I'm also thinking there's some feature that isn't enabled by default in Waterfox, or that the 64-bit implementation doesn't quite work correctly for it. I'm not sure what the Google Doodle is relying on, could just be dynamic HTML features. I haven't tested against one of the 64-bit nightly firefox builds to see if the Doodle works there or not.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jefftheriffer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Sounds like you have an issue with there being no 64bit plugin.
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I suspect that is the case, but I'm not sure what plugin precisely. I have Java and Flash plugins. It's not Silverlight because IE shows the Doodle fine but I don't have Silvelight installed at all. Quicktime just seems really, REALLY unlikely to me... And actually thinking about it, I just checked and don't have Quicktime installed either yet again the Doodle works fine in IE.
> 
> A plugin is one possibility but I'm also thinking there's some feature that isn't enabled by default in Waterfox, or that the 64-bit implementation doesn't quite work correctly for it. I'm not sure what the Google Doodle is relying on, could just be dynamic HTML features. I haven't tested against one of the 64-bit nightly firefox builds to see if the Doodle works there or not.
Click to expand...

Have you checked if anyone with the 64bit Pale Moon has the same problem?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jefftheriffer*
> 
> Yeah I suspect that is the case, but I'm not sure what plugin precisely. I have Java and Flash plugins. It's not Silverlight because IE shows the Doodle fine but I don't have Silvelight installed at all. Quicktime just seems really, REALLY unlikely to me... And actually thinking about it, I just checked and don't have Quicktime installed either yet again the Doodle works fine in IE.
> 
> A plugin is one possibility but I'm also thinking there's some feature that isn't enabled by default in Waterfox, or that the 64-bit implementation doesn't quite work correctly for it. I'm not sure what the Google Doodle is relying on, could just be dynamic HTML features. I haven't tested against one of the 64-bit nightly firefox builds to see if the Doodle works there or not.


I've found, go to about:config, search media, enable support for all (webm maybe). but it's a different sound, strange.


----------



## jefftheriffer

AH-HAH!!

I fixed my issue with Google Doodle. It was unrelated to 64-bit after all. I had an addon for "Optimize Google" (an old add-on) that when it's enabled somehow prevents the doodles from working. Probably because it's modifying the source code before it's rendered.

I've disabled the Addon and found the Doodles work great in Waterfox 24.

Thanks to everyone who replied, you helped me think about it from a different direction.


----------



## beachboui

Let me know if you still need help with .BMP and .SVG graphics. Manipulating them does not require PhotoShop, nor Illustrator. The free graphics editing alternative, Gimp, can work with those formats just fine, as can many others.


----------



## Daikun

While we're waiting for version 26 to come out, MrAlex, don't you think you should put version 24 on CodePlex so people don't download the SourceForge link when they go to your website?


----------



## blackshap9

Hello there Alex and community;

Simple question here; this- "Added Waterfox/24.0 to user agent string to be able to identify Waterfox as separate browser" Does this mean that I can have waterfox and firefox or maybe evenpalemoon running at the same time and there won't be any conflicts? Asking because someone who uses palemoon wants to try it but doesn't want any problems. You know, they use different browsers for different things sort of thing









Thanks in advance


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> Simple question here; this- "Added Waterfox/24.0 to user agent string to be able to identify Waterfox as separate browser" Does this mean that I can have waterfox and firefox or maybe evenpalemoon running at the same time and there won't be any conflicts? Asking because someone who uses palemoon wants to try it but doesn't want any problems. You know, they use different browsers for different things sort of thing


Unfortunately, no. Waterfox still uses Firefox's profile by default. But it's not hard to setup where you have multiple profiles - one for each browser.


----------



## Silkman

Just wanted to thank Mr Alex again for all his efforts re waterfox. I'm back on the WF bandwagon after discovering the update to WF 24 today.

Install worked flawlessly alongside with my FF25, and all my plugins work!









WF24 uses double the ram (1.4G) compared to FF25 0.85G for 50 or so tabs but I have plenty.


----------



## MrAlex

Here we go guys:

https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/115822

Waterfox 26 test build, built with ICC! I think the only thing disabled at the moment is WebGL but I'm sure I can get it working  I'll also try to reply to everyone as soon as possible!

If you're missing the Intel .dlls:

http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/article/413904/w-ccompxe-redist-msi-2013-sp1.0.103.zip

Of course, they will be bundled with the final build.


----------



## supersonicsjm

Do we just place the files in the current installation folder for Waterfox in Program Files?


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Yea!









We appreciate you, MrAlex!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *supersonicsjm*
> 
> Do we just place the files in the current installation folder for Waterfox in Program Files?


You can run from the extracted folder. I'd recommend doing so, since this is just a test release.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> Yea!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We appreciate you, MrAlex!


No problem. Appreciate the support!


----------



## supersonicsjm

I get this dialog box when I try run it:-
The procedure entry point __libm_flt_rounds could not be located in the dynamic link library libmmd.dll
I have also installed the Intel file you've linked as well.
Any ideas what's causing this?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *supersonicsjm*
> 
> I get this dialog box when I try run it:-
> The procedure entry point __libm_flt_rounds could not be located in the dynamic link library libmmd.dll
> I have also installed the Intel file you've linked as well.
> Any ideas what's causing this?


Got that as well when replacing files in current installation of v24. Haven't tested in a clean directory yet


----------



## MrAlex

That's because it's looking for the wrong version of libmmd.dll. Make sure that you only have the latest version of Intel's C++ Redist files, otherwise put libmmd.dll directly into the directory.


----------



## Screemer

Hmm, strange.. I did try to install the updated Intel redists on my gaming rig but it still wasn't able to launch from copy over or new directory.
Also when checking for the libmmd.dll file all I could find was older files from around may 2013.
Never ever had any dll problems on that rig before.

After extracting libmmd.dll from the redist and manually putting it in the install directory it works great.

On yet another machine I had to extract and manually put svml_dispmd.dll in the installation folder. But on this machine I put the test files on-topp of my installed v24. I did install the 2 (first x64 and then after testing also x86 version) redists.

But I really love v26, it's lighting fast and seem very stable. Great work Mr.Alex..


----------



## Freakie

Working great for me so far. Definitely a bit faster than the latest x64 Nightly build in benchmarks but of course still no where near Chrome







One of these days Firefox will reclaim that crown, I swear...

And it's nice taking a break from Australis.


----------



## seti

Working like a champ...thanks Mr. Alex!


----------



## Daikun

So, I just gave Firefox 26 a shot today, and as expected, Mozilla completely ruined it by getting rid of the ToolkitUI for the Downloads Window.

It used to be an easy fix in previous versions, but now we're permanently stuck with that behemoth of a merged Downloads/Library window.

I really hope the same doesn't happen in Waterfox 26.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> So, I just gave Firefox 26 a shot today, and as expected, Mozilla completely ruined it by getting rid of the ToolkitUI for the Downloads Window.
> 
> It used to be an easy fix in previous versions, but now we're permanently stuck with that behemoth of a merged Downloads/Library window.
> 
> I really hope the same doesn't happen in Waterfox 26.


MrAlex does a straight recompile, but the Pale Moon folks do more UI customizing. Maybe MrAlex can make something like Pale Moon Commander for Waterfox though.


----------



## VIKINGS

I just reinstalled my windows and now it seems that waterfox has an annoying "Downloads" button in the top corner featuring annoying popups every time a download is finished. Is there any way to remove it please, as I use download statusbar? I tried to right click the menu>customize, but while the Customize Toolbar window is opened the button dissapears, soon as i close the window the freaking thing appears again!!!...









Here's a pic so you can see exactly what button I'm talking about:


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/955403

Someone who wanted the older setup reinstated. That said, the tookitUI thing may not work anymore.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2033461/how-to-switch-back-to-firefoxs-old-download-manager.html

May or may not work.

MrAlex, in the event you have time to do more customization than the compiler optimizations, is there any chance you could modify the Waterfox code to separate browser and download history memorization, as well as to reinstate the old download manager?

Pale Moon does this, but they build for stability rather than speed or jazziness, so Waterfox could be positioned as a good middle ground between Pale Moon and Firefox. Especially since I am given to understand the compiler optimizations can really pack a punch, speedwise.


----------



## VIKINGS

The tookitUI worked, thank you very much.


----------



## Hutchinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> MrAlex does a straight recompile, but the Pale Moon folks do more UI customizing. Maybe MrAlex can make something like Pale Moon Commander for Waterfox though.


Will Palemoon keep the use of the toolkit UI? They appear to only be on build 24, not 26. The stopping of using the toolkit UI only changed with Firefox 26. Even if you enable it in about:config, it shouldn't work.

Edit: Yep just tested it. Changing the boolean from false to true does nothing.


----------



## Nantes

My "loading" spinning green circle icon for the tabs is suddenly gone. I still see the favicons for the tabs, but when I try to load another page, all I see is "connecting..." without the circle. This is not due to upgrading to version 24, as I was seeing it before. I cleared the cache, reinstalled Waterfox and used a new profile, but none of these worked. The circle shows fine in Firefox.


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> Will Palemoon keep the use of the toolkit UI? They appear to only be on build 24, not 26. The stopping of using the toolkit UI only changed with Firefox 26. Even if you enable it in about:config, it shouldn't work.
> 
> Edit: Yep just tested it. Changing the boolean from false to true does nothing.


Really? The classic downloads window works just fine for me in Pale Moon. The developer even stated that he's keeping it.


----------



## Hutchinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> Really? The classic downloads window works just fine for me in Pale Moon. The developer even stated that he's keeping it.


Was talking about Firefox 26 and Waterfox 26. I asked in that post whether the Pale Moon developer was going to keep the toolkit UI functional. I asked this as they appear to still be on Firefox 24 with their latest build which still has the toolkit UI anyway.

I guess you answered my original question in the wrong context, but thanks anyway for answering it.


----------



## butterbisquit

What are the big pros/cons of this fork compared to Pale Moon?


----------



## Daikun

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *butterbisquit*
> 
> What are the big pros/cons of this fork compared to Pale Moon?


Waterfox is a 64-bit compile of the latest version of Firefox. The pro is that it's faster. The con is that it doesn't offer anything different from Firefox other than speed.

Pale Moon has both 32- and 64-bit versions and has more customization options. The pro is that you have more options available. The con is that it consumes more resources than Waterfox.

If you want speed, download Waterfox. If you want to customize, download Pale Moon.


----------



## MrAlex

Get it while it's hot! https://db.tt/KejOxnBH

This will be the official release of Waterfox 26. If everyone could test and let me know if anything is wrong!

I figured out what was wrong with the WebGL support...there wasn't anything wrong. So I've been scratching my head for the last two weeks only to realise that since I compile WF in a VM, there isn't any proper 3D support. Oh well better late than never!


----------



## zertyuiop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Get it while it's hot! https://db.tt/KejOxnBH
> This will be the official release of Waterfox 26. If everyone could test and let me know if anything is wrong!
> I figured out what was wrong with the WebGL support...there wasn't anything wrong. So I've been scratching my head for the last two weeks only to realise that since I compile WF in a VM, there isn't any proper 3D support. Oh well better late than never!


I think that all works correctly. I tested it on XP, 7, 8.


----------



## Cosanostra

WF26 appears to be functioning correctly for me while clicking around across a variety of web sites. Win7


----------



## safari801

Had trouble getting the download to install but uninstalled v24 and went fine.


----------



## thechas

Working fine for me.

Extracted the RC to a new folder and running with no problems.

As with many new versions, a few of the add-ons I use are not coded as being compatible with version 26.


----------



## SpodoCommodo

try using https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/checkcompatibility/ - it disables compatibility checking and, whilst there is always the chance that an add-on might not work with a new version, I find that it is very seldom that any problems occur.


----------



## mwarren2

Only fault I've seen so far, is that it doesn't render EBay item pages correctly.


----------



## MrAlex

It has officially been released! Assuming there aren't any show-stopping bugs that have appeared the automatic update will be released in a bit.


----------



## nvidiaftw12

Hmm. I'm still on waterfox 15 (Or 18?) Guess I should probably upgrade.


----------



## pantalaimon

Hey, I think I found a crashing issue. Viewing this image causes Waterfox 26 to crash 100% of the time for me:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mating_of_Apollo_8_spacecraft_with_Saturn-V.jpg



Using Windows 8.1 by the way.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantalaimon*
> 
> Hey, I think I found a crashing issue. Viewing this image causes Waterfox 26 to crash 100% of the time for me:
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mating_of_Apollo_8_spacecraft_with_Saturn-V.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Using Windows 8.1 by the way.


Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, Pale Moon 64bit, no crash - for what it's worth.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Crashed on Windows 8.1 64 bit Firefox 26.


----------



## safari801

Yeah, no problems with Win 7 64 bit home premium. With WF 26.


----------



## fullmoon

Win8.1 no crash for me, maybe a bug with the cache.


----------



## nnq2603

I recently install *WaterFox 26* on my XP 64-bit PC. And I download portable version from official waterfox website. _www.waterfoxproject.org/download.php_

Problem here I don't see and can't find out the *Plugins* folder where existed in almost every other Firefox variations (that I encounted). If I browse to a web that requires Flash player, it display message tell me install plugins. But as I download and want to use this portable version, then I prefer to have got Plugins folder like every other FF edition out there.

Portable version come with *Core* folder and all program files inside it. I tried to create a folder (in Core folder) and named it Plugins, plcae their flash plugin but it doesn't regonize at all. Browsing web still ask about installing plugins.

So my question is: How I install plugin manually? Other than install flash in Windows itself.

Edit: Figure it out. It was *\core\browser* the place I create Plugins folder and place flash _NPSWF64.dll_ inside it. But now plugin crash everytime I right-click in a flash area module in webpage.


----------



## JRuxGaming

No problem here. Windows 8.1 Pro x64.


----------



## thechas

The Saturn 5 image did not crash on Windows 7 Professional x64 with Waterfox 26.

Have not had a single problem with the new build of Waterfox.

Chas


----------



## mhowie

How is WF 26's memory management compared to FF 26? Same, better, or worse?

Thanks.


----------



## milkman6453

ig et flash/youtube crashes when hitting back or forward on video occasionally. Aynone know how to fix?


----------



## Quantum Reality

So! I snagged the 26.0 installer off Sourceforge and set WF up on my HTPC system (Win7 64bit) because MSIE was screwing up on downloading the Catalysts for the HD4350 I have in that computer. It's pretty slick, fast and while I haven't played too much with it, no complaints so far. Thanks, MrAlex!


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantalaimon*
> 
> Hey, I think I found a crashing issue. Viewing this image causes Waterfox 26 to crash 100% of the time for me:
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mating_of_Apollo_8_spacecraft_with_Saturn-V.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Using Windows 8.1 by the way.


Crashes for me too in Win7.


----------



## fullmoon

User-agent is not completed, a detail is not complete:
Windows NT => Windows NT 6.2

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 Waterfox/26.0

Alex, please, look it.


----------



## mountiedm

The portable version doesn't save any of my settings or addons.


----------



## Hammerfest

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> User-agent is not completed, a detail is not complete:
> Windows NT => Windows NT 6.2
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.2; Win64; x64; rv:26.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/26.0 Waterfox/26.0
> 
> Alex, please, look it.


Thanks, I was scratching my head on why Netflix was not working!

Made the manual change to the user agent, KAPOW! Netflix!


----------



## kennyparker1337

Can anyone give me direction on how to recompile 32bit programs with 64bit?

I would like to compile a 64bit Chromium.

edit: I am a programmer but I have no idea where to start.


----------



## milkman6453

whats wrong with it, whereever i check the only difference is it says windows NT 6.1.

Your too ADD 6.1/6.2 after windows nt on this waterfox build.

Didnt notice any differeneces though.


----------



## fullmoon

6.1 = windows7
6.2 = windows8
etc


----------



## MrAlex

Hey all I've addressed the issue:

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/development.php?fn_mode=fullnews&fn_id=63

Silly mistake on my part! I've got exams this week, but after I'll be working hard on Waterfox 27, and updating the website and logo to follow Mozilla's style guidelines. It's a long overdue update.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kennyparker1337*
> 
> Can anyone give me direction on how to recompile 32bit programs with 64bit?
> 
> I would like to compile a 64bit Chromium.
> 
> edit: I am a programmer but I have no idea where to start.


Look at the Chrome build documentation, instead of using the 32-Bit compiler, use the 64-Bit. Theoretically, a straight recompile will work, but there are always bugs that can crop up.


----------



## debenportdevin

Waterfox immediately closes whenever there is a vine video embedded in a page. I don't know if this happens just on Waterfox or if it happens in Firefox as well.

Originally thought it might have been an addon or a script, but I disabled all of them and still no luck, the browser closes the second the video element loads. Also tried a clean reinstall to no avail.


----------



## nnq2603

Quote:


> _Originally Posted by_ *pantalaimon*
> 
> Hey, I think I found a crashing issue. Viewing this image causes Waterfox 26 to crash 100% of the time for me:
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mating_of_Apollo_8_spacecraft_with_Saturn-V.jpg


Normal link. My WF 26 on XP SP2 64-bit display image without any issue.


----------



## sp4zzj4zz

Im (happily) using Cyberfox at the moment, but it's SO good to see my first love (64bit browser) Waterfox, finally getting some updates. When 27 drops, I'll definitely be checking it out again!

Kudos to you MrAlex. Well done!


----------



## PalZer0

Will the website update include an update to the "Download" buttons so they more accurately reflect where the project is now being hosted (CodePlex)?


----------



## Marinara

I'm having a very strange issue at them moment. All of the sudden, Waterfox seems to be unable to load certain websites. Even now, more and more sites are starting to not work that were fine earlier. It seems to be getting gradually worse. I took some screenshots: http://imgur.com/DwjUojV,B8EYc0D,i3ezgoK

I'm assuming it's just some silly mistake on my part, but I can't seem to find a solution.


----------



## JoeF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pantalaimon*
> 
> Hey, I think I found a crashing issue. Viewing this image causes Waterfox 26 to crash 100% of the time for me:
> 
> http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mating_of_Apollo_8_spacecraft_with_Saturn-V.jpg
> 
> 
> 
> Using Windows 8.1 by the way.


Works fine here, Win7-64 Enterprise, SP1.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marinara*
> 
> I'm having a very strange issue at them moment. All of the sudden, Waterfox seems to be unable to load certain websites. Even now, more and more sites are starting to not work that were fine earlier. It seems to be getting gradually worse. I took some screenshots: http://imgur.com/DwjUojV,B8EYc0D,i3ezgoK
> 
> I'm assuming it's just some silly mistake on my part, but I can't seem to find a solution.


It's like WF isn't loading the CSS for some sites. Have you tried clearing your cache, wiping cookies, and then doing a clean close-out of WF, rebooting and then restarting WF to see if site behavior returns to normal?


----------



## runeazn

How do I do this?
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems
it's not available in waterfox


----------



## Lord Venom

I personally manually backup then delete all files within the profile folder(s) to reset Firefox/Waterfox (make sure the browser is closed!). The profile folder should be located under %APPDATA%\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\


----------



## Talic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milkman6453*
> 
> ig et flash/youtube crashes when hitting back or forward on video occasionally. Aynone know how to fix?


I'm getting the same problem with flash player through YouTube as well. I'm not sure if it's the Waterfox browser or the x64-variant Flash Player, but I know I'm not getting this problem with x86/32-bit browsers.

Most videos don't automatically play, I have to jump ahead in the vid to start playback & It occasionally crashes midway in long videos. It's quite annoying.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Talic*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *milkman6453*
> 
> ig et flash/youtube crashes when hitting back or forward on video occasionally. Aynone know how to fix?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm getting the same problem with flash player through YouTube as well. I'm not sure if it's the Waterfox browser or the x64-variant Flash Player, but I know I'm not getting this problem with x86/32-bit browsers.
> 
> Most videos don't automatically play, I have to jump ahead in the vid to start playback & It occasionally crashes midway in long videos. It's quite annoying.
Click to expand...

It may help to try changing *media.windows-media-foundation.enabled* to *false*.


----------



## LzbeL

Where is the source code??


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LzbeL*
> 
> Where is the source code??


It's a straight compile from Mozilla's Firefox source code. If you want Waterfox's source code, all you have to do is grab Firefox's because they are the same. Mr Alex just compiles it differently than Mozilla does.


----------



## LzbeL

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Freakie*
> 
> It's a straight compile from Mozilla's Firefox source code. If you want Waterfox's source code, all you have to do is grab Firefox's because they are the same. Mr Alex just compiles it differently than Mozilla does.


Waterfox is a fork of the Mozilla source code, so that the source code is not the same. If I had the same source code, it would be identical to Mozilla, which does not. I want the source code of Waterfox.


----------



## Freakie

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LzbeL*
> 
> Waterfox is a fork of the Mozilla source code, so that the source code is not the same. If I had the same source code, it would be identical to Mozilla, which does not. I want the source code of Waterfox.


Ok, how is it different from Firefox? The fact that it says Waterfox everywhere that it should say Firefox? The Nightly color scheme and icon? The Waterfox updater?

Obviously the color scheme and icon are directly from Mozilla, and the updater is a separate program in both Firefox and Waterfox, so it isn't compiled even with Mozilla's source code.

I do believe that literally the only thing Mr. Alex changes is the name, and then ads his updater as a separate program (though it may still be based on Mozilla's, you'll have to ask him). Now what he does do is change certain flags and compiling parameters when he compiles his version of Firefox to optimize certain sections of the code for a faster end-product, but this isn't changing the code its self per-say, just compiling it a certain way. What that means is that while some sections of Waterfox are compiled the same way as Firefox, there are sections that he compiles differently so that those sections run faster in the finished software because they are using the latest coding implementations instead of the more universal ones that such a big-release software uses. That's it, all he does it compile it with the latest compiling tools to make it as fast as possible on hardware that supports those instructions sets.

And no, he does not release exactly step-by-step every single thing he does to compile Waterfox. From what we can tell, his process is his own and he chooses to do things that way because he wants Waterfox to be "bleeding edge". If you want to compile Firefox into an x64 format with the latest bleeding edge technology, then grab the Firefox source code like he does and have at it!

EDITED for clarity


----------



## Quantum Reality

PS. If Waterfox has the same issue Pale Moon does with not showing a title bar in the browser ( http://i.imgur.com/BnyyLfm.png ) there's a CSS fix for that if you hand edit the userChrome.css with the style from here:

http://userstyles.org/styles/41025/firefox-bring-the-title-back


----------



## mischa143

Initial impressions from a FF user is that Waterfox 26 is noticeably smoother. This is especially apparent when using Youtube or Vimeo, with either 64 bit flash or HTML5 video. The videos stuttered intermittently on 32 bit browsers with 32 bit plugins but this has largely disappeared with Waterfox.








This makes you wonder about all the procrastinating that Mozilla has done about the 'non-importance' of 64 bit browsing. Waterfox PROVES how important it is.

Just been using Waterfox for a few days and have noticed how Waterfox is missing 2 options in Data Choices. This is probably removed due to performance reasons but it would be nice to at least have the option of Telemetry and Crash Reporting for users that want to contribute.




P.S.

Telemetry is still available via _about:telemetry_

Another niggle I have found is geolocation in Firefox and Watefox is inoperative. Don't know of the reason, whether it's new Waterfox install or problem with Firefox base?? Notice that Waterfox doesn't ask for geo permissions.





Might have something to do with this: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=3621

Does anybody else experience or know about this? Workarounds?

Thankyou for your patience.









Mod edit: Please use the edit button instead of multi posting.


----------



## nick fuller

hi with recent coming changes to firefox (Australis) i started to look for another browser to replace firefox i read on mozillazine about waterfox
thought i would give it a try.

now before i switch over to waterfox as default browser i just need a few questions answered please. i can't help notice waterfox 26 current release is built from beta source code
and not from the official release build with all the security fixes applied one been a very important one for SSL and Mozilla security library's version info below.
so i had a look at other waterfox builds witch to my surprise a few of them were build from a beta source code version and not the release version with all patches applied. my question
is there a reason why waterfox is built like this. maybe because of the Intel tool used??. now i also get random flash player crashes i have tried all trouble shooting its just random also on my laptop this happens.

before i fully commit where is waterfoxs source code for the latest release as i would like to inspect it before fully committing my findings with the rest of my questions.
thank you kindly

*Waterfox*

*Library Versions
*

NSPR
Expected minimum version: 4.10.2
Version in use: 4.10.2

NSS
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3 Basic ECC

NSSSMIME
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3 Basic ECC

NSSSSL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3 Basic ECC

NSSUTIL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3
Version in use: 3.15.3

*Firefox*

*NSPR
Expected minimum version: 4.10.2
Version in use: 4.10.2

NSS
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC

NSSSMIME
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC

NSSSSL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC

NSSUTIL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1
Version in use: 3.15.3.1*


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> hi with recent coming changes to firefox (Australis) i started to look for another browser to replace firefox i read on mozillazine about waterfox
> thought i would give it a try.
> 
> now before i switch over to waterfox as default browser i just need a few questions answered please. i can't help notice waterfox 26 current release is built from beta source code
> and not from the official release build with all the security fixes applied one been a very important one for SSL and Mozilla security library's version info below.
> so i had a look at other waterfox builds witch to my surprise a few of them were build from a beta source code version and not the release version with all patches applied. my question
> is there a reason why waterfox is built like this. maybe because of the Intel tool used??. now i also get random flash player crashes i have tried all trouble shooting its just random also on my laptop this happens.
> 
> before i fully commit where is waterfoxs source code for the latest release as i would like to inspect it before fully committing my findings with the rest of my questions.
> thank you kindly


There is no difference between the last beta and release, only the same difference between for each beta and release.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mischa143*
> 
> Another niggle I have found is geolocation in Firefox and Watefox is inoperative. Don't know of the reason, whether it's new Waterfox install or problem with Firefox base?? Notice that Waterfox doesn't ask for geo permissions.


Yes, waterfox ask the geo permission (for me). But yes not works, this is a problem Firefox
http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/04/firefoxs-geolocation-feature-appears-broken-recent-versions/


----------



## LzbeL

Then Waterfox is proprietary, no? :S


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> There is no difference between the last beta and release, only the same difference between for each beta and release.
> Yes, waterfox ask the geo permission (for me). But yes not works, this is a problem Firefox
> http://www.ghacks.net/2013/10/04/firefoxs-geolocation-feature-appears-broken-recent-versions/


obviously there is a difference between the beta source and the release source as these security patches were applied to what mozilla calls a release candidate from what i was reading about the build system. firefox 26 official release version was built from release candidate build 2 some security patches were applied in release candidate build 1 but the finally ones were added in release candidate build 2.

witch fixed the following issues.

https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-117.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-114.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-111.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-108.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-104.html

this is way the library version are different meaning waterfox was built from a beta version of firefox source code

Waterfox

Library Versions

NSPR
Expected minimum version: 4.10.2
Version in use: 4.10.2

NSS
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3 Basic ECC

NSSSMIME
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3 Basic ECC

NSSSSL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3 Basic ECC

NSSUTIL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3
Version in use: 3.15.3

Firefox

NSPR
Expected minimum version: 4.10.2
Version in use: 4.10.2

NSS
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC

NSSSMIME
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC

NSSSSL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC
Version in use: 3.15.3.1 Basic ECC

NSSUTIL
Expected minimum version: 3.15.3.1
Version in use: 3.15.3.1

thats why i asked the question about the reason this is so. is this because of the intel tool used to build waterfox as to why these security patches were left out ?? after reading more about it i have switched back to firefox until i get an answer from the waterfox developer also when the current waterfox version is update with the above issues fixed


----------



## seti

Good information...I had wondered where telemetry had gone and being one that doesn't know all the "About:" options with FF/WF wouldn't have ever known, so thanks for that bit of knowledge.

As far as the other user not wanting to make the jump from FF to WF based solely on the fact that a BETA version was used in lieu of the final release, which came down to a few patches being the difference. I don't know if that would be reason enough to dismiss in my opinion a superior browser. How many security holes are present in all browsers upon release of a final build? More than most regular users would care to know, so it seems no browser would be usable with this mindset. I do thank you for asking about whether this is due to the Intel Compiler or not though, since I find it surprising that Alex has had so many issues anyway in previous builds using the Intel Compiler over others. Thank goodness he persevered and didn't let that stop WF development...I am sure what he finds and through questions such as this it will only serve to eliminate those issues between FF and it's forked development using those other compilers...as well as specifically Intel.

Lovin' the latest build Alex...nothing has stood out as a problem in my day to day surfing or browser use.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mischa143*
> 
> Another niggle I have found is geolocation in Firefox and Watefox is inoperative. Don't know of the reason, whether it's new Waterfox install or problem with Firefox base?? Notice that Waterfox doesn't ask for geo permissions.


I think someone from the Pale Moon forums complained about this too so it *could* be a Mozilla-codebase issue.

I find geolocation to be kind of invasive so I turn it off, m'self, so not concerned about it not working for WF.








Quote:


> a BETA version was used in lieu of the final release


I was not aware of this when I installed WF on my HTPC. It would've been nice to have this disclosure from MrAlex at the time he announced his resumption of regular compiling of FF into WF.


----------



## kronckew

that it is a beta is a conclusion of the earlier poster, not necessarily true. mozilla does make silent updates to libraries on occasion shortly after release. the code could still be a 'release' version. i'd not jump to conclusions until mr. alex comments.

just wait till australis hits the fan...y'all will have other things to worry about than nit-picking.


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> As far as the other user not wanting to make the jump from FF to WF based solely on the fact that a BETA version was used in lieu of the final release, which came down to a few patches being the difference. I don't know if that would be reason enough to dismiss in my opinion a superior browser. How many security holes are present in all browsers upon release of a final build? More than most regular users would care to know, so it seems no browser would be usable with this mindset. I do thank you for asking about whether this is due to the Intel Compiler or not though, since I find it surprising that Alex has had so many issues anyway in previous builds using the Intel Compiler over others. Thank goodness he persevered and didn't let that stop WF development...I am sure what he finds and through questions such as this it will only serve to eliminate those issues between FF and it's forked development using those other compilers...as well as specifically Intel.
> 
> Lovin' the latest build Alex...nothing has stood out as a problem in my day to day surfing or browser use.


from all documentation waterfox is meant to be built with the same code as the official release but waterfox 26 is not this means has not the same security patches applied because waterfox was build from beta source code. with web browsers you need the best security they can offer to help protect sensitive data from being farmed. this is why i asked if it was a result of the intel tool.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> that it is a beta is a conclusion of the earlier poster, not necessarily true. mozilla does make silent updates to libraries on occasion shortly after release. the code could still be a 'release' version. i'd not jump to conclusions until mr. alex comments.
> 
> just wait till australis hits the fan...y'all will have other things to worry about than nit-picking.


this is not a conclusion of any sort this has being based with factual information about the security issues that are present. you can even take a look at one part buy going in troubleshooting information or about:support scrolling to the bottom of the page in firefox 26 looking at the NSS NSSSMIME NSSSSL NSSUTIL base version witch is 3.15.3.1 then repeating the same for waterfox 26.

the official firefox 26 security modules are NSS_3_15_3_1_RTM yet waterfox's is NSS_3_15_3_RTM ] firefox 26 is build from ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/26.0/source/firefox-26.0.source.tar.bz2 witch is the firefox 26 release candidate build 2 source code witch is officially approved as the release version and source. so waterfox has been built from beta source witch is to why these security patches mozilla labeled as high risk are not present in waterfox 26 release.

https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-117.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-114.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-111.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-108.html
https://www.mozilla.org/security/announce/2013/mfsa2013-104.html

i only mean to ask why this is so. but it appears my question will go unanswered and shrugged off by people how don't care about there personal data or wont even take a few seconds themselfs to take a look then ask the questions im asking.


----------



## kronckew

it might be true that those dlls are slightly different, that is not in question.

your calling waterfox a 'beta' and thus somehow substandard, is a conclusion based on your observation of the different version number in those libraries rather than any statement by mozilla or mr alex that they are inferior beta code. that different number doesn't mean the code is beta, just that it may have a difference somewhere, maybe not even in an active function, might be correcting a misspelled name or comment, you'd need to decompile and reverse engineer the libraries and go thru all the functions, and as waterfox is compiled with a different compiler and switches, that would be a daunting task. paranoia should be tempered with reason. your proof doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' criteria to convict. is it possible? yes. is it proven, i do not think so. at worst it might be 'RC'.

even if the dll's are slightly older versions, the main code is 'release'. the slight differences are likely meaningless. it is interesting that no matter what the version numbers, the last modified dates on the dlls are two days NEWER on the waterfox versions.

if you don't like that, copy the dlls from a 64 bit nightly, they 3.15.5.0, they're the latest.
might not work tho.

there are more important things in life to worry about.

waterfox works, is v26, and is faster on the systems it's designed for.

you should not be depending on any minor security imperfections in waterfox v. firefox to ensure your system's security, your security should be based on a layered defence with a firewall (hardware &/or software), anti-malware, HIPS, web filtering, sandboxing, ip blocklists, browser extensions, etc. etc. the browser inbuilt security should not ever need to be triggered.

people are too critical, you want mr alex to publish a waterfox immediately after firefox is released then complain when it is slightly different than mozillas version. use mozilla's then. i'd rather see mr alex devote his time to getting ready for the next version with australis. it's gonna take a lot of work.

this reminds me of a post on another forum, a school janitor was castigated for putting a yellow 'caution - wet floor' warning sign on a spot he'd just mopped up because someone might trip over the sign.


----------



## msuguy71

Anyone else noticing substantial lag and "not responding" freezes since installing this version? I did a completely clean install, creating a new profile, and updated all of my plugins. Scrolling is choppy as well.


----------



## Omlet

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Anyone else noticing substantial lag and "not responding" freezes since installing this version? I did a completely clean install, creating a new profile, and updated all of my plugins. Scrolling is choppy as well.


I experience the same issue, though I rarely get the "Not Responding" error. For me, things start to slow down after a long period of time.


----------



## wopaum

there's a way to use facebook video call with waterfox 26?


----------



## Screemer

After 38 days uptime with 500+ tabs I started noticing some slowdown.. no freezes..


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wopaum*
> 
> there's a way to use facebook video call with waterfox 26?


Do you have flash and Java x64 installed? Not sure if they are used but would think so. Don't have a camera here so can't test but seem to work.


----------



## nick fuller

well i thought i would get a reply to my question from the waterfox developer by now on http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-26-0-25-december-firefox-64-bit/5530#post_21608903
but i guess not im unsure if this is even the right place to contact the waterfox support as it seems to be in tatters multiple places to post message but none of them get a reply does the waterfox developer even provide support for waterfox i can't seem to find the right place to contact to get my question answered.

i personally am a very busy person but always have time to do plenty of stuff online even on the go with my windows phone so i just can't fathom why its so hard to get a response for a support question i have 3 jobs and do night schooling to further my education but still have plenty of time to fulfill my hobbies.

i also wish to download waterfoxes source code.

http://www.mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/ at 3.1 & 3.2

3. Responsibilities
3.1. Distribution of Source Form

All distribution of Covered Software in Source Code Form, including any Modifications that You create or to which You contribute, must be under the terms of this License. You must inform recipients that the Source Code Form of the Covered Software is governed by the terms of this License, and how they can obtain a copy of this License. You may not attempt to alter or restrict the recipients' rights in the Source Code Form.
3.2. Distribution of Executable Form

If You distribute Covered Software in Executable Form then:

such Covered Software must also be made available in Source Code Form, as described in Section 3.1, and You must inform recipients of the Executable Form how they can obtain a copy of such Source Code Form by reasonable means in a timely manner, at a charge no more than the cost of distribution to the recipient; and

You may distribute such Executable Form under the terms of this License, or sublicense it under different terms, provided that the license for the Executable Form does not attempt to limit or alter the recipients' rights in the Source Code Form under this License.

can you please provide the modified source code to the released version of waterfox

now on this topic below:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> it might be true that those dlls are slightly different, that is not in question.
> 
> your calling waterfox a 'beta' and thus somehow substandard, is a conclusion based on your observation of the different version number in those libraries rather than any statement by mozilla or mr alex that they are inferior beta code. that different number doesn't mean the code is beta, just that it may have a difference somewhere, maybe not even in an active function, might be correcting a misspelled name or comment, you'd need to decompile and reverse engineer the libraries and go thru all the functions, and as waterfox is compiled with a different compiler and switches, that would be a daunting task. paranoia should be tempered with reason. your proof doesn't meet the 'beyond a reasonable doubt' criteria to convict. is it possible? yes. is it proven, i do not think so. at worst it might be 'RC'.
> 
> even if the dll's are slightly older versions, the main code is 'release'. the slight differences are likely meaningless. it is interesting that no matter what the version numbers, the last modified dates on the dlls are two days NEWER on the waterfox versions.
> 
> if you don't like that, copy the dlls from a 64 bit nightly, they 3.15.5.0, they're the latest.
> might not work tho.
> 
> there are more important things in life to worry about.
> 
> waterfox works, is v26, and is faster on the systems it's designed for.
> 
> you should not be depending on any minor security imperfections in waterfox v. firefox to ensure your system's security, your security should be based on a layered defence with a firewall (hardware &/or software), anti-malware, HIPS, web filtering, sandboxing, ip blocklists, browser extensions, etc. etc. the browser inbuilt security should not ever need to be triggered.
> 
> people are too critical, you want mr alex to publish a waterfox immediately after firefox is released then complain when it is slightly different than mozillas version. use mozilla's then. i'd rather see mr alex devote his time to getting ready for the next version with australis. it's gonna take a lot of work.
> 
> this reminds me of a post on another forum, a school janitor was castigated for putting a yellow 'caution - wet floor' warning sign on a spot he'd just mopped up because someone might trip over the sign.


please if you cant intellectually comprehend the nature or mentally process the information i have provided please dont bog down my chance at getting a reply you best option is to read about firefox build system and how it all works then do a little researching into the actual nature of these security patches thus learning how they work you anti malware programs on quite a few of these issues are incapable of detecting an problem leaving you open to what ever the exploit is i suggest you look into it further.


----------



## kronckew

i understand your attack, 'intellectually'. i'm sorry you do not like criticism.

i happen to disagree with both your argument and methodology. and the implied insults.
i see no proof that the differences are either important or a security risk or worth demonising waterfox or challenging mr alex's competence. you should supply proof, not me.

i will not lend credence by arguing further. the other users may weigh and decide for themselves.

i shall await comment by mr. alex, who, as the unpaid third party *builder* of waterfox, is the one who can add more specifics.

i do note again that mozilla is the developer, not mr alex.

support is at mr alex's whim, as he has no contract with either of us to provide support within any time-frame
other than at his leisure.

most of us have better things to worry about.

i'm taking my dog out for her sundown poo now. which matters more to me at the moment.

i shall comment no more on this. i await the next release and again thank mr alex for his efforts.


----------



## seti

Mr Fuller,

I can appreciate anyone's effort to try and figure things out on their own or understand a program through the source, but I wonder why you have to make such a request sound so threatening by quoting GPL...as if that will make someone cower and do your bidding in an instance. I for for one understand that Mr Alex is busy and as stated before has no real obligation to anyone on this thread or any user of Waterfox beyond wanting to offer something alternative to what Firefox has to offer. He does this freely in the time he has available for such a thing. I appreciate that this guy is putting his schooling before this program, for that is what will matter for far longer than the life of what is now a gift from him to the world. I don't know if it is just me, but you sound like quite an arrogant person when you don't get things in a time frame you feel is adequate, which I am sure means you are quite frustrated A LOT. What started as a discussion on the quality of the Waterfox build has turned into snide remarks on other's intelligence and just generally being a nuisance. I don't know the relevance of stating you work three jobs and do night schooling has to do with anything, but I feel you are trying to impress us with your schedule, which means nothing in here and why your post seems arrogant. No one has been hostile to you and don't deserve your snide remarks because they don't agree with you. I found your points interesting at first, but now it seems you are only out to criticize a great program for nothing more than to stroke your own ego and impress us with this intellect you aren't shy to tell us about. Good luck with the jobs and night school.


----------



## davcc22

awesome job man top marks even works on slow net converted a chrome user and another user rep+


----------



## PalZer0

What happened to the promised patch for the user agent bug?


----------



## Daikun

MrAlex, can you please change the "Hosted by SourceForge" button on the main page? It's not hosted there anymore.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PalZer0*
> 
> What happened to the promised patch for the user agent bug?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Daikun*
> 
> MrAlex, can you please change the "Hosted by SourceForge" button on the main page? It's not hosted there anymore.


Patience guys. MrAlex is a busy guy, which has been said before. As a university student, I know how it is to balance classes and the work with a job and personal projects. Usually the personal projects are put on the back burner, before I can really do anything with them.


----------



## PalZer0

I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. That being said, according to this blog post, there was supposed to be a patch for the user agent issues already released.

I'm just looking for a status update as it's been nearly a month since that blog post was made. If there's one thing I've learned from witnessing many a failed/buggy game launch (particularly BF4's launch), it's that regular and honest communication is better than silence.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PalZer0*
> 
> I didn't mean to sound ungrateful. That being said, according to this blog post, there was supposed to be a patch for the user agent issues already released.
> 
> I'm just looking for a status update as it's been nearly a month since that blog post was made. If there's one thing I've learned from witnessing many a failed/buggy game launch (particularly BF4's launch), it's that regular and honest communication is better than silence.


Don't worry about it. We get so many people that come into the thread demanding Waterfox this, Waterfox that, as if they think they are paying MrAlex to develop an entire browser, or something.

Hmm... I see what you mean. Like I said though, maybe he has been busy and it was thrown on the back burner for a while. Just be patient, I am sure MrAlex will fix it sooner or later. For now, just follow the guide and fix it manually, like I did.


----------



## VIKINGS

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> I just reinstalled my windows and now it seems that waterfox has an annoying "Downloads" button in the top corner featuring annoying popups every time a download is finished. Is there any way to remove it please, as I use download statusbar? I tried to right click the menu>customize, but while the Customize Toolbar window is opened the button dissapears, soon as i close the window the freaking thing appears again!!!...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here's a pic so you can see exactly what button I'm talking about:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> http://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/955403
> 
> Someone who wanted the older setup reinstated. That said, the tookitUI thing may not work anymore.
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2033461/how-to-switch-back-to-firefoxs-old-download-manager.html
> 
> May or may not work.
> 
> MrAlex, in the event you have time to do more customization than the compiler optimizations, is there any chance you could modify the Waterfox code to separate browser and download history memorization, as well as to reinstate the old download manager?
> 
> Pale Moon does this, but they build for stability rather than speed or jazziness, so Waterfox could be positioned as a good middle ground between Pale Moon and Firefox. Especially since I am given to understand the compiler optimizations can really pack a punch, speedwise.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> The tookitUI worked, thank you very much.


Well tookUI doesn't work anymore, the browser keeps reverting the setting every time I restart.







( Any other suggestions please?


----------



## Screemer

Not trying to stress Mr.Alex or anything but any info on when WF 27 will be released?
Seems FF27 was released today.
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/27.0/

I absolutely love your work Mr.Alex and I try to use only WF.. But sometimes when it takes to long I have to revert to FF.









Keep up the great work..


----------



## Quantum Reality

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/mozilla.support.firefox/dgb5cbN0VsE

Looks like quite a few people have had issues with it and have some workarounds.


----------



## nick fuller

mr alex

where can i download the modified source code for waterfox 26 can you please provided the modified source code as per MPL 2.0

thank you

Capture.JPG 151k .JPG file


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Don't worry about it. We get so many people that come into the thread demanding Waterfox this, Waterfox that, as if they think they are paying MrAlex to develop an entire browser, or something.
> 
> Hmm... I see what you mean. Like I said though, maybe he has been busy and it was thrown on the back burner for a while. Just be patient, I am sure MrAlex will fix it sooner or later. For now, just follow the guide and fix it manually, like I did.


asking for the source code is not demanding its asking alex to provide what he legally is bound by law to make available the modified source code its not hard all alex has to do is zip it up then post it he alex should have it as it was used to build waterfox i have been very patient i have been asking for a very long time for it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Don't worry about it. We get so many people that come into the thread demanding Waterfox this, Waterfox that, as if they think they are paying MrAlex to develop an entire browser, or something.
> 
> Hmm... I see what you mean. Like I said though, maybe he has been busy and it was thrown on the back burner for a while. Just be patient, I am sure MrAlex will fix it sooner or later. For now, just follow the guide and fix it manually, like I did.
> 
> 
> 
> asking for the source code is not demanding its asking alex to provide what he legally is bound by law to make available the modified source code its not hard all alex has to do is zip it up then post it he alex should have it as it was used to build waterfox i have been very patient i have been asking for a very long time for it.
Click to expand...

Hi Nick,

Sorry for the late reply. The source code has always been available here:

http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/ci/master/tree/

I've now updated it here:

https://waterfox.codeplex.com/

I don't know how long you've been asking, but the last few weeks I've had exams and assignments so I haven't managed to look on the forums or go through emails (I receive hundreds).


----------



## godzfire

Microsoft ClickOnce supprt (.NET) is broken in v26. We have a program at work we use to remote to computers which utilizes the .NET Assistant. In v26, it doesn't see the plugin anymore. v24 does not have this problem. Windows 7.


----------



## seti

Alex...you shouldn't have said that you have had exams and the rest...Nick Fuller has made it clear that he has 3 jobs, goes to school, and whatever else, so to avoid his questions is nothing but intentional. Most here knew where the source was and has been for years, but good ole' nick wanted to demand rather than look and repeatedly quote license requirements as a threat. Aside from the Fullerisms...hope you do well on your exams Alex.


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi Nick,
> 
> Sorry for the late reply. The source code has always been available here:
> http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/ci/master/tree/
> I've now updated it here:
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/
> 
> I don't know how long you've been asking, but the last few weeks I've had exams and assignments so I haven't managed to look on the forums or go through emails (I receive hundreds).


hi alex

this code in the git repository on sourceforge in the link below is irrelevant due to it was posted as initial commit in 2012-09-04 for firefox 15.0 that makes it not relevant to waterfox 26 or firefox 26
http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/ci/master/tree/

thank you for posting
https://waterfox.codeplex.com/

i do have some problems with the code tree you have posted that its not the source code used to build the current waterfox 26 binary's its the official release source with just the waterfox banding folder added along with a readme.rtf with no other changes to the code.

waterfox was built from sourcestamp:6d7564bf9e88 NSS_VERSION "3.15.3" witch is candidate build 1
the official firefox is built from sourcestamp:39faf812aaec NSS_VERSION "3.15.3.1" witch is candidate build 2

when you look at the nss version of waterfox 26 it does not match the source code you just provided on codeplex nore does it have the necessary changes that waterfox has for example
changes made to the search engine provider (start page)
changes to the about dialog window for waterfox branding
changes to the configuration files for intels icc build tools
changes to nsis .nsi files for waterfox installer

i even have the file difference from build candidate 1 plus build candidate 2


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



/* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public */
/* License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this */
/* file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */

@@-- ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/candidates/26.0-candidates/build1/source/firefox-26.0.source.tar.bz2||ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/candidates/26.0-candidates/build2/source/firefox-26.0.source.tar.bz2 [email protected]@

@mozilla-release\browser\locales\all-locales line:62
-- mn

@mozilla-release\browser\locales\shipped-locales line:81
-- sw

@mozilla-release\config\system-headers line:416
++ freetype.h
++ ftcache.h
++ ftglyph.h
++ ftsynth.h
++ ftoutln.h
++ ttnameid.h
++ tttables.h
++ t1tables.h
++ ftlcdfil.h
++ ftsizes.h
++ ftadvanc.h
++ ftbitmap.h
++ ftxf86.h

@mozilla-release\content\base\test\csp\test_policyuri_regression_from_multipolicy.html line:15
++ SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish();
@mozilla-release\content\base\test\csp\test_policyuri_regression_from_multipolicy.html line:18
-- SimpleTest.waitForExplicitFinish();

@mozilla-release\content\media\webspeech\recognition\test\Makefile.in line:13
++ hello.ogg \
++ silence.ogg \
++ $(NULL)
-- hello.ogg \
-- silence.ogg \
++ ifneq ($(OS_ARCH), Darwin)
++ MOCHITEST_FILES += \
@mozilla-release\content\media\webspeech\recognition\test\Makefile.in line:13
++ endif

@mozilla-release\dom\bindings\crashtests\crashtests.list line:9
-- load 869038.html
++ skip-if(cocoaWidget) load 869038.html

@mozilla-release\dom\plugins\test\crashtests\crashtests.list line:15
-- load 752340.html
++ skip-if(cocoaWidget) load 752340.html

@mozilla-release\image\src\imgStatusTracker.cpp line:603
-- mInvalidRect.SetEmpty();
@mozilla-release\image\src\imgStatusTracker.cpp line:606
++ mInvalidRect.SetEmpty();

@mozilla-release\image\test\mochitest\Makefile.in line:67
++ test_animation_operators.html \
++ bug900200.png \
++ bug900200-ref.png \
++ clear.gif \
++ clear.png \
++ clear2.gif \
++ clear2-results.gif \
++ green.png \
++ green-background.html \
++ grey.png \
++ keep.gif \
++ keep.png \
++ restore-previous.gif \
++ restore-previous.png \
++ source.png \
++ over.png \

@mozilla-release\image\test\mochitest
++ \image\test\mochitest\bug900200-ref.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\bug900200.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\clear.gif
++ \image\test\mochitest\clear.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\clear2-results.gif
++ \image\test\mochitest\clear2.gif
++ \image\test\mochitest\green-background.html
++ \image\test\mochitest\green.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\grey.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\keep.gif
++ \image\test\mochitest\keep.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\over.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\restore-previous.gif
++ \image\test\mochitest\restore-previous.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\source.png
++ \image\test\mochitest\test_animation_operators.html

@mozilla-release\image\test\reftest\reftest.list line:48
--
-- # Animated image disposal and blending operator tests
-- include animated/reftest.list

@mozilla-release\image\test\reftest\animated
-- \image\test\reftest\animated
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\bug900200-ref.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\bug900200.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\clear.gif
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\clear.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\clear2-results.gif
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\clear2.gif
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\delay-test.html
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\green.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\grey.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\keep.gif
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\keep.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\no-delay-test.html
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\over.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\reftest.list
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\restore-previous.gif
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\restore-previous.png
-- \image\test\reftest\animated\source.png

@mozilla-release\js\src\config\system-headers line:416
++ freetype.h
++ ftcache.h
++ ftglyph.h
++ ftsynth.h
++ ftoutln.h
++ ttnameid.h
++ tttables.h
++ t1tables.h
++ ftlcdfil.h
++ ftsizes.h
++ ftadvanc.h
++ ftbitmap.h
++ ftxf86.h

@mozilla-release\layout\reftests\bugs\reftest.list line:1560
-- fails-if(Android) == 579323-1.html 579323-1-ref.html
++ asserts-if(cocoaWidget,0-1) fails-if(Android) == 579323-1.html 579323-1-ref.html

@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\home\HomeFragment.java line:45
++
++ // Share MIME type.
++ private static final String SHARE_MIME_TYPE = "text/plain";
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\home\HomeFragment.java line:100
++ menu.findItem(R.id.home_share).setVisible(!GeckoProfile.get(getActivity()).inGuestMode());
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\home\HomeFragment.java line:122
++ if (itemId == R.id.home_share) {
++ if (info.url == null) {
++ Log.e(LOGTAG, "Can't share because URL is null");
++ } else {
++ GeckoAppShell.openUriExternal(info.url, SHARE_MIME_TYPE, "", "",
++ Intent.ACTION_SEND, info.getDisplayTitle());
++ }
++ }
++
++ if (itemId == R.id.home_add_to_launcher) {
++ if (info.url == null) {
++ Log.e(LOGTAG, "Can't add to home screen because URL is null");
++ return false;
++ }
++
++ new AddToLauncherTask(info.url, info.getDisplayTitle()).execute();
++ return true;
++ }
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\home\HomeFragment.java line:222
++
++ private static class AddToLauncherTask extends UiAsyncTask {
++ private final String mUrl;
++ private final String mTitle;
++
++ public AddToLauncherTask(String url, String title) {
++ super(ThreadUtils.getBackgroundHandler());
++
++ mUrl = url;
++ mTitle = title;
++ }
++
++ @Override
++ public String doInBackground(Void... params) {
++ return Favicons.getFaviconUrlForPageUrl(mUrl);
++ }
++
++ @Override
++ public void onPostExecute(String faviconUrl) {
++ OnFaviconLoadedListener listener = new OnFaviconLoadedListener() {
++ @Override
++ public void onFaviconLoaded(String url, Bitmap favicon) {
++ GeckoAppShell.createShortcut(mTitle, mUrl, favicon, "");
++ }
++ };
++
++ Favicons.loadFavicon(mUrl, faviconUrl, 0, listener);
++ }
++ }

@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\tests\StringHelper.java.in line:132
++ // Bookmark Options Context Menu items
++ public static final String[] BOOKMARKS_OPTIONS_CONTEXTMENU_ITEMS = new String[] {
++ "Edit",
++ "Add to Home Screen"
++ };

@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\tests\testShareLink.java.in line:23
-- * The test opens the Share menu from the app menu, the URL bar, and a link context menu.
++ * The test opens the Share menu from the app menu, the URL bar, a link context menu and the Awesomescreen tabs
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\tests\testShareLink.java.in line:25
-- public class testShareLink extends BaseTest {
++ public class testShareLink extends AboutHomeTest {
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\tests\testShareLink.java.in line:39
++ // FIXME: This is a temporary hack workaround for a permissions problem.
++ openAboutHomeTab(AboutHomeTabs.READING_LIST);
++
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\tests\testShareLink.java.in line:68
++
++ // Test the share popup in the Bookmarks page
++ openAboutHomeTab(AboutHomeTabs.BOOKMARKS);
++
++ final ListView bookmarksList = findListViewWithTag("bookmarks");
++ mAsserter.is(waitForNonEmptyListToLoad(bookmarksList), true, "list is properly loaded");
++
++ int headerViewsCount = bookmarksList.getHeaderViewsCount();
++ View bookmarksItem = bookmarksList.getChildAt(headerViewsCount);
++ if (bookmarksItem == null) {
++ mAsserter.dumpLog("no child at index " + headerViewsCount + "; waiting for one...");
++ Condition listWaitCondition = new Condition() {
++ @Override
++ public boolean isSatisfied() {
++ if (bookmarksList.getChildAt(bookmarksList.getHeaderViewsCount()) == null)
++ return false;
++ return true;
++ }
++ };
++ waitForCondition(listWaitCondition, MAX_WAIT_MS);
++ headerViewsCount = bookmarksList.getHeaderViewsCount();
++ bookmarksItem = bookmarksList.getChildAt(headerViewsCount);
++ }
++
++ mSolo.clickLongOnView(bookmarksItem);
++ verifySharePopup(shareOptions,"bookmarks");
++
++ // Prepopulate top sites with history items to overflow tiles.
++ // We are trying to move away from using reflection and doing more black-box testing.
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_blank_01.html"));
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_blank_02.html"));
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_blank_03.html"));
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_blank_04.html"));
++ if (mDevice.type.equals("tablet")) {
++ // Tablets have more tile spaces to fill.
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_blank_05.html"));
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_boxes.html"));
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_search.html"));
++ inputAndLoadUrl(getAbsoluteUrl("/robocop/robocop_text_page.html"));
++ }
++
++ // Test the share popup in Top Sites.
++ openAboutHomeTab(AboutHomeTabs.TOP_SITES);
++
++ // Scroll down a bit so that the top sites list has more items on screen.
++ int width = mDriver.getGeckoWidth();
++ int height = mDriver.getGeckoHeight();
++ mActions.drag(width / 2, width / 2, height - 10, height / 2);
++
++ ListView topSitesList = findListViewWithTag("top_sites");
++ mAsserter.is(waitForNonEmptyListToLoad(topSitesList), true, "list is properly loaded");
++ View mostVisitedItem = topSitesList.getChildAt(topSitesList.getHeaderViewsCount());
++ mSolo.clickLongOnView(mostVisitedItem);
++ verifySharePopup(shareOptions,"top_sites");
++
++ // Test the share popup in the Most Recent tab
++ openAboutHomeTab(AboutHomeTabs.MOST_RECENT);
++
++ ListView mostRecentList = findListViewWithTag("most_recent");
++ mAsserter.is(waitForNonEmptyListToLoad(mostRecentList), true, "list is properly loaded");
++
++ // Getting second child after header views because the first is the "Today" label
++ View mostRecentItem = mostRecentList.getChildAt(mostRecentList.getHeaderViewsCount() + 1);
++ mSolo.clickLongOnView(mostRecentItem);
++ verifySharePopup(shareOptions,"most recent");

@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\Tab.java line:604
++ final String oldUrl = getURL();
-- mEnteringReaderMode = ReaderModeUtils.isEnteringReaderMode(mUrl, uri);
++ mEnteringReaderMode = ReaderModeUtils.isEnteringReaderMode(oldUrl, uri);
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\Tab.java line:613
-- Tabs.getInstance().notifyListeners(this, Tabs.TabEvents.LOCATION_CHANGE, uri);
++ Tabs.getInstance().notifyListeners(this, Tabs.TabEvents.LOCATION_CHANGE, oldUrl);
@mozilla-release\mobile\android\base\Tab.java line:632
-- Tabs.getInstance().notifyListeners(this, Tabs.TabEvents.LOCATION_CHANGE, uri);
++ Tabs.getInstance().notifyListeners(this, Tabs.TabEvents.LOCATION_CHANGE, oldUrl);

@mozilla-release\netwerk\base\public\security-prefs.js line:6
-- pref("security.tls.version.max", 1);
++ pref("security.tls.version.max", 2);

@mozilla-release\parser\htmlparser\tests\crashtests\crashtests.list line:1
-- load 30885-1.html
++ skip-if(cocoaWidget) load 30885-1.html

@mozilla-release\security\build\Makefile.in line:389
++ ifneq (,$(filter OS2 WINNT,$(OS_ARCH)))
++ SDK_LIBRARY = $(IMPORT_LIBRARY)
++ else
++ SDK_LIBRARY = $(SHARED_LIBRARY)
++ endif

@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\CertVerifier.cpp line:160
++ // pkix ignores an empty trustanchors list and
++ // decides then to use the whole set of trust in the DB
++ // so we set the evPolicy to unkown in this case
++ if (CERT_LIST_EMPTY(trustAnchors)) {
++ evPolicy = SEC_OID_UNKNOWN;
++ }

@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsIdentityChecking.cpp line:17
++ #include "nsNSSCertTrust.h"
@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsIdentityChecking.cpp line:790
++
++ static void
++ addToCertListIfTrusted(CERTCertList* certList, CERTCertificate *cert) {
++ CERTCertTrust nssTrust;
++ if (CERT_GetCertTrust(cert, &nssTrust) != SECSuccess) {
++ return;
++ }
++ unsigned int flags = SEC_GET_TRUST_FLAGS(&nssTrust, trustSSL);
++
++ if (flags & CERTDB_TRUSTED_CA) {
++ CERT_AddCertToListTail(certList, CERT_DupCertificate(cert));
++ }
++ }
@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsIdentityChecking.cpp line:1040
-- if (policyOIDTag == ev->oid_tag)
-- CERT_AddCertToListTail(certList, CERT_DupCertificate(ev->cert));
++ if (policyOIDTag == ev->oid_tag) {
++ addToCertListIfTrusted(certList, ev->cert);
++ }
@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsIdentityChecking.cpp line:1082
-- if (entry.oid_tag == oid_tag)
-- CERT_AddCertToListTail(certList, CERT_DupCertificate(entry.cert));
++ if (entry.oid_tag == oid_tag) {
++ addToCertListIfTrusted(certList, entry.cert);
++ }

@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsNSSComponent.cpp line:962
-- // Enable the TLS versions given in the prefs, defaulting to SSL 3.0 (min
-- // version) and TLS 1.1 (max version) when the prefs aren't set or set to
-- // invalid values.
++ // Enable the TLS versions given in the prefs, defaulting to SSL 3.0 and
++ // TLS 1.0 when the prefs aren't set or when they are set to invalid values.
@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsNSSComponent.cpp line:967
-- // keep these values in sync with security-prefs.js
++ // keep these values in sync with security-prefs.js and firefox.js
@mozilla-release\security\manager\ssl\src\nsNSSComponent.cpp line:969
-- static const int32_t PSM_DEFAULT_MAX_TLS_VERSION = 2;
++ static const int32_t PSM_DEFAULT_MAX_TLS_VERSION = 1;

@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\ckfw\builtins\certdata.txt line:12379
++ # Distrust "Distrusted AC DG Tresor SSL"
++ # Issuer: CN=AC DGTPE Signature Authentification,O=DGTPE,C=FR
++ # Serial Number: 204199 (0x31da7)
++ # Subject: CN=AC DG Tr..sor SSL,O=DG Tr..sor,C=FR
++ # Not Valid Before: Thu Jul 18 10:05:28 2013
++ # Not Valid After : Fri Jul 18 10:05:28 2014
++ # Fingerprint (MD5): 3A:EA:9E:FC:00:0C:E2:06:6C:E0:AC:39:C1:31E:C8
++ # Fingerprint (SHA1): 5C:E3:39:46:5F:41:A1:E4:23:14:9F:65:54:40:95:40:4D:E6:EB:E2
++ CKA_CLASS CK_OBJECT_CLASS CKO_NSS_TRUST
++ CKA_TOKEN CK_BBOOL CK_TRUE
++ CKA_PRIVATE CK_BBOOL CK_FALSE
++ CKA_MODIFIABLE CK_BBOOL CK_FALSE
++ CKA_LABEL UTF8 "Distrusted AC DG Tresor SSL"
++ CKA_ISSUER MULTILINE_OCTAL
++ \060\113\061\013\060\011\006\003\125\004\006\023\002\106\122\061
++ \016\060\014\006\003\125\004\012\023\005\104\107\124\120\105\061
++ \054\060\052\006\003\125\004\003\023\043\101\103\040\104\107\124
++ \120\105\040\123\151\147\156\141\164\165\162\145\040\101\165\164
++ \150\145\156\164\151\146\151\143\141\164\151\157\156
++ END
++ CKA_SERIAL_NUMBER MULTILINE_OCTAL
++ \002\003\003\035\247
++ END
++ CKA_TRUST_SERVER_AUTH CK_TRUST CKT_NSS_NOT_TRUSTED
++ CKA_TRUST_EMAIL_PROTECTION CK_TRUST CKT_NSS_NOT_TRUSTED
++ CKA_TRUST_CODE_SIGNING CK_TRUST CKT_NSS_NOT_TRUSTED
++ CKA_TRUST_STEP_UP_APPROVED CK_BBOOL CK_FALSE

@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\ckfw\builtins\nssckbi.h line:48
-- #define NSS_BUILTINS_LIBRARY_VERSION_MINOR 94
-- #define NSS_BUILTINS_LIBRARY_VERSION "1.94"
++ #define NSS_BUILTINS_LIBRARY_VERSION_MINOR 95
++ #define NSS_BUILTINS_LIBRARY_VERSION "1.95"

@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\nss\nss.h line:36
-- #define NSS_VERSION "3.15.3" _NSS_ECC_STRING _NSS_CUSTOMIZED
++ #define NSS_VERSION "3.15.3.1" _NSS_ECC_STRING _NSS_CUSTOMIZED
@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\nss\nss.h line:40
-- #define NSS_VBUILD 0
++ #define NSS_VBUILD 1

@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\softoken\softkver.h line:28
-- #define SOFTOKEN_VERSION "3.15.3" SOFTOKEN_ECC_STRING
++ #define SOFTOKEN_VERSION "3.15.3.1" SOFTOKEN_ECC_STRING
@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\softoken\softkver.h line:32
-- #define SOFTOKEN_VBUILD 0
++ #define SOFTOKEN_VBUILD 1

@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\util\nssutil.h line:22
-- #define NSSUTIL_VERSION "3.15.3"
++ #define NSSUTIL_VERSION "3.15.3.1"
@mozilla-release\security\nss\lib\util\nssutil.h line:26
-- #define NSSUTIL_VBUILD 0
++ #define NSSUTIL_VBUILD 1

@mozilla-release\security\nss\TAG-INFO line:1
-- NSS_3_15_3_RTM
++ NSS_3_15_3_1_RTM

@mozilla-release\toolkit\components\jsdownloads\src\DownloadLegacy.js line:198
-- if (appHandler instanceof Ci.nsILocalHandlerApp) {
++ if (aMIMEInfo.preferredAction == Ci.nsIMIMEInfo.useHelperApp &&
++ appHandler instanceof Ci.nsILocalHandlerApp) {

@mozilla-release\toolkit\components\jsdownloads\test\unit\common_test_Download.js line:1442
++ launchWhenSucceeded: true
@mozilla-release\toolkit\components\jsdownloads\test\unit\common_test_Download.js line:1458
-- { launcherPath: launcherPath });
++ { launcherPath: launcherPath,
++ launchWhenSucceeded: true });
@mozilla-release\toolkit\components\jsdownloads\test\unit\common_test_Download.js line:1462
-- do_check_false(download.launchWhenSucceeded);
++ do_check_true(download.launchWhenSucceeded);

@mozilla-release\toolkit\components\jsdownloads\test\unit\head.js line:344
++ mimeInfo.preferredAction = Ci.nsIMIMEInfo.useHelperApp;

@mozilla-release\toolkit\crashreporter\nsExceptionHandler.cpp line:723
++ *
++ * This size is bigger than xul.dll plus some extra for MinidumpWriteDump
++ * allocations.
@mozilla-release\toolkit\crashreporter\nsExceptionHandler.cpp line:724
-- static const SIZE_T kReserveSize = 0xc00000; // 12 MB
++ static const SIZE_T kReserveSize = 0x2400000; // 36 MB
@mozilla-release\toolkit\crashreporter\nsExceptionHandler.cpp line:730
-- gBreakpadReservedVM = VirtualAlloc(NULL, kReserveSize, MEM_RESERVE, 0);
++ gBreakpadReservedVM = VirtualAlloc(NULL, kReserveSize, MEM_RESERVE,
++ PAGE_NOACCESS);
@mozilla-release\toolkit\crashreporter\nsExceptionHandler.cpp line:738
-- VirtualFree(gBreakpadReservedVM, kReserveSize, MEM_RELEASE);
++ VirtualFree(gBreakpadReservedVM, 0, MEM_RELEASE);

@mozilla-release\toolkit\devtools\server\actors\webbrowser.js line:473
++
++ // Number of event loops nested.
++ this._nestedEventLoopDepth = 0;
@mozilla-release\toolkit\devtools\server\actors\webbrowser.js line:620
++ // Pop all nested event loops if we haven't already.
++ while (this._nestedEventLoopDepth > 0)
++ this.postNest();
@mozilla-release\toolkit\devtools\server\actors\webbrowser.js line:669
++ this._nestedEventLoopDepth++;
@mozilla-release\toolkit\devtools\server\actors\webbrowser.js line:777
++ dbg_assert(this._nestedEventLoopDepth === 0,
++ "window shouldn't be closed before all nested event loops have been popped");
@mozilla-release\toolkit\devtools\server\actors\webbrowser.js line:788
++ this._nestedEventLoopDepth--;

@mozilla-release\uriloader\prefetch\nsPrefetchService.cpp line:473
-- rv = mCurrentNode->OpenChannel();
++ nsRefPtr node = mCurrentNode;
++ rv = node->OpenChannel();



*im not sure why your so reluctant to provide the actual source used to build waterfox 26 binary's what is it you dont want people to know or see.*

unlike other people i know you know how the MPL works how you must provide the modified code with all modification then make it publicly visible i know other people dont understand the legality of the obligation under the MPL even for a single developer in school still has to provide it.

i do understand you are very busy this last few weeks but that does not explain why no modified source code was provided for waterfox 16 waterfox 18 waterfox 24 even when i asked for the source code each release of waterfox.

please mr alex can you provide the actual modified source code that has all file edits and modification that was used to build the current released binary's of waterfox 26 please


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Alex...you shouldn't have said that you have had exams and the rest...Nick Fuller has made it clear that he has 3 jobs, goes to school, and whatever else, so to avoid his questions is nothing but intentional. Most here knew where the source was and has been for years, but good ole' nick wanted to demand rather than look and repeatedly quote license requirements as a threat. Aside from the Fullerisms...hope you do well on your exams Alex.


Most here knew where the source was and has been for years
Most knew is has not been changed for years its still code for waterfox 15 were on waterfox 26 that code is illrelevent to my acutal legitimate request.

thank you for trying to help


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*


Don't use it if you don't trust him? Go somewhere else and get a x64 built Firefox for Windows if you don't trust Mr.Alex.
We all love his builds and I for one trust him.


----------



## MrAlex

Hi everyone I'll answer all your questions shortly, I'm just busy getting the next release ready!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> *Snip*


I have no idea where you're getting all of that from.

Go to configure and js/src/configure

Hit Ctrl+F -> find

CC_VERSION=`"${CC}" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`

Change it to:

CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`

Boom, you can now compile with ICC (if you look in the configure files I've uploaded, you'll see this..)! All the branding files are in the branding folder. As for the Makefiles, I couldn't possibly list them all, because I sit and watch the compile and each time there's an incompatibility I set CC=cl and CXX=cl whenever ICC can't process a file. I've spent many hours changing the relevant Makefiles for this.

Why don't you download the source I just uploaded, try and compile it with ICC and then find that...it actually does compile! That's because it's the same source files I've used.

If you're not sure how to build Firefox:

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Simple_Firefox_build

You seem to be criticising me without knowing what you're actually looking for. I don't have time to list every single change, because I spend so many man hours changing so many things to get ICC to compile. And every time there's a new release I have to re-do it all again, because the build structure changes so often.

I have no reason to hide anything, but you're just being extremely pedantic and not even over anything. That's the source I used to build the current version of Waterfox. If you have a conspiracy that it's not...there's not much I can do to change that then I'm afraid!


----------



## PalZer0

Welcome back MrAlex. Hope your exams went well.

There's a couple of things that need attention.

1. What happened to the patch for the user agent issues in Waterfox 26?
2. Any news on Waterfox 27?

Apart from that, I'll leave you with this quote. It's particularly relevant given the context of the previous replies.
Quote:


> Never argue with an idiot. They'll drag you down to their level then beat you with experience.


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I have no idea where you're getting all of that from.


that is the code difference of firefox 26 release candidate 1(AKA Code used for waterfox) VS the officially released firefox 26 release candidate 2 it also shows the code changes to the NSS module
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Go to configure and js/src/configure


these files are missing from the source tree you uploaded
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hit Ctrl+F -> find
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CC_VERSION=`"${CC}" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`
> 
> Change it to:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`


yes i know how to build with intel tools plus what changes need to be made to build firefox with intel tools
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Boom, you can now compile with ICC (if you look in the configure files I've uploaded, you'll see this..)


again 3 main configure files are missing from the source tree plus

Code:



Code:


CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`

these changes are missing from the provided files
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> All the branding files are in the branding folder. As for the Makefiles, I couldn't possibly list them all, because I sit and watch the compile and each time there's an incompatibility I set CC=cl and CXX=cl whenever ICC can't process a file. I've spent many hours changing the relevant Makefiles for this.


the beauty of open source software applications is transparency its free plus anyone can take it modify it or use it in there software as long as they maintain the transparency of the code modifications plus adhere to the licensing
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Why don't you download the source I just uploaded, try and compile it with ICC and then find that...it actually does compile!


yes i did download and guess what it does not build its missing files listed above.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's because it's the same source files I've used.
> If you're not sure how to build Firefox:


actually what you just said is a total lie the source code you just provided is not and can not be the source tree used to build waterfox 26 that is available for download because let me say this as simple as possible again so there is no confusion of the facts.

start waterfox then type in the awesome bar *about:support* then hit enter
now click on the page then hit the end keyboard key or just scroll to the very bottom of the page
now under *Library Versions* of waterfox 26 available for download look at the NSS versons waterfox says *3.15.3*
now repeat the above step for the officially released version of firefox 26 ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/26.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2026.0.exe

the official firefox 26 NSS version on the released version of firefox is ...... 3.15.3.1 this number is different to waterfox 26

now for the epic part the source code you uploaded to codeplex the NSS version of the source code is different to waterfox 26 publicly available for download but as you say thats the source you used. https://waterfox.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#security/nss/TAG-INFO if this code was used then waterfox would have the same number.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> You seem to be criticising me without knowing what you're actually looking for. I don't have time to list every single change, because I spend so many man hours changing so many things to get ICC to compile. And every time there's a new release I have to re-do it all again, because the build structure changes so often.


i know what im looking for its relatively plain and simple the modified source code that was used to build the current released waterfox 26 its that plain that simple thus a perfectly legitimate question that should not be so hard to manage it can be as simple as zipping up *c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release* after you finished building the release

there are only a few .pyc files generated in that tree the rest are made in the objdir so that *c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release* can be zipped up then posted then you dont have to worry as you are providing all changed files been that you cant keep track maybe the addition of source and version control might make your project easily more manageable plus give more depth to the build process this can help will change history too.

this also is the good part about open source all these little changes tweaks adjustments are transparent plus publicly visible just like stipulated in the MPL these changes you made should be in that source tree you uploaded that is one of the main reasons i asked for the source code.

so this is no way a personal attack its just simply asking for the source code with the modifications made to it like defined in the MPL
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I have no reason to hide anything, but you're just being extremely pedantic and not even over anything. That's the source I used to build the current version of Waterfox. If you have a conspiracy that it's not...there's not much I can do to change that then I'm afraid!


i wish i could share you quote(I have no reason to hide anything,) well it seems you do for one you uploaded source code thats not the same used for the current released waterfox you wont provide the actual code that build waterfox 26 with all its changes so you are obviously hiding something or dont want to release something maybe a special code tweak made but with all the above facts that are not rubbish or the rambles of someone who has no clue its plain undeniable true unless definitively proved otherwise i have been a programmer for a little over 10 years 2 of my jobs are software design and development the courses in currently doing are because im going to move in too the gaming industry why would i make any of the above up just over anything or nothing its all legitimate information plus requests.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*


So go away nick fuller?? Just don't use waterfox?? What's the point of this?
Do you really have so little self confidence that you have to find a great peace of software, compiled and released to the masses totally free and then complain and nothing but complain?
Go away, none here is interested in what you have to say. If it was up to me you would be kick/banned from this forum..

Keep it up Mr.Alex..


----------



## MoreThanADev

Quote:


> Go away, none here is interested


I am interested.

I do care about privacy, and since Waterfox's default search engine is StartPage, maybe i am not the only one here ?

Thank you Mr Alex for building Waterfox, keep it up !








Thank you nick fuller for looking at how safe my browser is from backdors or missing security fixes, it does matter for me, keep it up








(even if you could, maybe, use more diplomacy in your requests







)


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yeah, and? Firefox's default page is also a start page. You can set it to be blank any time you like.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MoreThanADev*
> 
> I am interested.
> 
> I do care about privacy, and since Waterfox's default search engine is StartPage, maybe i am not the only one here ?
> 
> Thank you Mr Alex for building Waterfox, keep it up !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you nick fuller for looking at how safe my browser is from backdors or missing security fixes, it does matter for me, keep it up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (even if you could, maybe, use more diplomacy in your requests
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Yeah, and? Firefox's default page is also a start page. You can set it to be blank any time you like.


You can also change the search engine via about:config and searching for "search." Quite self-explanatory from there on. SearchPage uses custom Google search for it's searches, however, it doesn't record your IP, like Google. If anything has backdoors into your browser, it is, believe it or not, Google.
As for security fixes and whatnot, Waterfox is, more than likely, going to have all of the security fixes and bugs that Firefox of the same version has.

Could we maybe move onto another topic. Like... I don't know. Oh, anyone else been having issues with Youtube videos not loading properly and rerouting you back to the homepage? I have the issue in base Firefox as well, so I am assuming it is a Youtube bug. (Yay, Google, yet again.)


----------



## Quantum Reality

That could be the Flash plugin. Remember when it would "randomly" change window focus if you didn't have protected mode turned off?


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> That could be the Flash plugin. Remember when it would "randomly" change window focus if you didn't have protected mode turned off?


That was it. I just reinstalled Flash.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> So go away nick fuller?? Just don't use waterfox?? What's the point of this?


I am sorry nick fuller, I didn't in any way mean to come at you like that.
That was just unnecessary.. I like security and sure want my browser to be safe. However I trust Mr.Alex and I am so fed up with people throwing accusations around not thinking about that he do this for us on his precious free time. Therefore I think he deserves respect. Once more I am sorry I came after you like I did. You did not deserve that.

Keep it up Mr.Alex, looking forward to Waterfox v27.0.


----------



## seti

I don't know...I think Nick is about as concerned about security holes as much as the NSA is about terrorism...not so much. I am getting concerned that Nick is more obsessed with the fact that Waterfox works and works well despite all his efforts to replicate it. This and the fact that in light of his 3 jobs, school, and the rest...he opts to spend the time he does have in relentless pursuit of this answer is a key indicator of this obsession. I have used Waterfox for years with no security issues and any issues I have had were those experienced by the Official Firefox users as well, so like any other software release they get fixed as the build progresses. If fear of holes in your software is a major concern..turn your computer off..most OS's are full of them and you are screwed before you get to any issues that Waterfox might have...and if not there the ISP you use might not be so secure internally or externally. Nick Fuller isn't about that though...I have yet to figure out what he is out for honestly, but when the dev says I use these files....I guess he uses those files, and ball is back in your court Nick...and Nick is stuck.


----------



## godzfire

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *godzfire*
> 
> Microsoft ClickOnce supprt (.NET) is broken in v26. We have a program at work we use to remote to computers which utilizes the .NET Assistant. In v26, it doesn't see the plugin anymore. v24 does not have this problem. Windows 7.


Didn't see any mention of this so just stating it again. This forces us to downgrade back to 24.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hmm. I can't find any case of it being a Firefox 26 issue generally.


----------



## DazzaRPD

For some reason, WF 26.0 keeps trying to update and comes up with this error message



Any idea why this is happening?

The addons are your standard addons: Adblock Edge, NoScript, AVAST, HTTPSEverywhere, LightBeam and Nimbus Screenshot (which I just installed to get the screenshot of WF).
Plugins: Java 7u51, Flash, PDF X-Change VIewer and Silverlight

Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I have no idea where you're getting all of that from.
> 
> 
> 
> that is the code difference of firefox 26 release candidate 1(AKA Code used for waterfox) VS the officially released firefox 26 release candidate 2 it also shows the code changes to the NSS module
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Go to configure and js/src/configure
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> these files are missing from the source tree you uploaded
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hit Ctrl+F -> find
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CC_VERSION=`"${CC}" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`
> 
> Change it to:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes i know how to build with intel tools plus what changes need to be made to build firefox with intel tools
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Boom, you can now compile with ICC (if you look in the configure files I've uploaded, you'll see this..)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> again 3 main configure files are missing from the source tree plus
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> CC_VERSION=`"cl" -v 2>&1 | sed -nre "$_MSVC_VER_FILTER"`
> 
> these changes are missing from the provided files
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> All the branding files are in the branding folder. As for the Makefiles, I couldn't possibly list them all, because I sit and watch the compile and each time there's an incompatibility I set CC=cl and CXX=cl whenever ICC can't process a file. I've spent many hours changing the relevant Makefiles for this.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> the beauty of open source software applications is transparency its free plus anyone can take it modify it or use it in there software as long as they maintain the transparency of the code modifications plus adhere to the licensing
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Why don't you download the source I just uploaded, try and compile it with ICC and then find that...it actually does compile!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> yes i did download and guess what it does not build its missing files listed above.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's because it's the same source files I've used.
> If you're not sure how to build Firefox:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> actually what you just said is a total lie the source code you just provided is not and can not be the source tree used to build waterfox 26 that is available for download because let me say this as simple as possible again so there is no confusion of the facts.
> 
> start waterfox then type in the awesome bar *about:support* then hit enter
> now click on the page then hit the end keyboard key or just scroll to the very bottom of the page
> now under *Library Versions* of waterfox 26 available for download look at the NSS versons waterfox says *3.15.3*
> now repeat the above step for the officially released version of firefox 26 ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/26.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2026.0.exe
> 
> the official firefox 26 NSS version on the released version of firefox is ...... 3.15.3.1 this number is different to waterfox 26
> 
> now for the epic part the source code you uploaded to codeplex the NSS version of the source code is different to waterfox 26 publicly available for download but as you say thats the source you used. https://waterfox.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#security/nss/TAG-INFO if this code was used then waterfox would have the same number.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> You seem to be criticising me without knowing what you're actually looking for. I don't have time to list every single change, because I spend so many man hours changing so many things to get ICC to compile. And every time there's a new release I have to re-do it all again, because the build structure changes so often.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i know what im looking for its relatively plain and simple the modified source code that was used to build the current released waterfox 26 its that plain that simple thus a perfectly legitimate question that should not be so hard to manage it can be as simple as zipping up *c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release* after you finished building the release
> 
> there are only a few .pyc files generated in that tree the rest are made in the objdir so that *c:\Users\Alex\Downloads\mozilla-release* can be zipped up then posted then you dont have to worry as you are providing all changed files been that you cant keep track maybe the addition of source and version control might make your project easily more manageable plus give more depth to the build process this can help will change history too.
> 
> this also is the good part about open source all these little changes tweaks adjustments are transparent plus publicly visible just like stipulated in the MPL these changes you made should be in that source tree you uploaded that is one of the main reasons i asked for the source code.
> 
> so this is no way a personal attack its just simply asking for the source code with the modifications made to it like defined in the MPL
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I have no reason to hide anything, but you're just being extremely pedantic and not even over anything. That's the source I used to build the current version of Waterfox. If you have a conspiracy that it's not...there's not much I can do to change that then I'm afraid!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> i wish i could share you quote(I have no reason to hide anything,) well it seems you do for one you uploaded source code thats not the same used for the current released waterfox you wont provide the actual code that build waterfox 26 with all its changes so you are obviously hiding something or dont want to release something maybe a special code tweak made but with all the above facts that are not rubbish or the rambles of someone who has no clue its plain undeniable true unless definitively proved otherwise i have been a programmer for a little over 10 years 2 of my jobs are software design and development the courses in currently doing are because im going to move in too the gaming industry why would i make any of the above up just over anything or nothing its all legitimate information plus requests.
Click to expand...

first lets bump this topic been of grave importance


----------



## nick fuller

secondly

@Quantum Reality
@JRuxGaming
@Screemer
@seti

mozilla firefox & other mozilla products are great they get even more better because there open source this means you can take there source code then build your own version or use the core of the gecko engine in your very own application
they are giving everyone a free product that is open to all now if it was not for this open source license people like alex would not be able to make waterfox but its because of this license he can they only thing he has to do is follow the small
license provided with the source code all mr alex has to do is provide the modified source code for and files made with the source code but again if it was not for the inital open source license from mozilla alex would not be able to make waterfox.

im not trying to cause issues but it should not take 9 months to even get a response about the source code let alone be provided the wrong source with missing files the whole reason for wanting to see this code is to make sure not only alex compiles with the license
but to make sure no nasty things are added that is where the transparentcy of open source is a good thing heaven forbid mr alex getting in to trouble over licensing issues then not been able to make waterfox any more we don't want that so this will help alex and waterfox

now if you actually read what i have posted then look into it by your self you can see not only valid points but the strange discrepancy with what alex has provided plus there is the main big part the code he provided is not the code used for waterfox 26 this will mostly be the last post i make its clear to me from replies aimed at me im not wanted hear so i guess the only other option is to push at mozilla again to contiune the investigation.


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> ...blah blah blah...


Actually, I don't personally think you're very interested in any source for the reason of "security" or "transparency". Furthermore, I don't think the MPL or any other licence actually refers to the build files, but rather the source code itself. The "source code" is the actual code in C++ or some other programming language and whatever resource files. I don't believe the instructions to the compiler qualify as such. If you can't build it yourself... well... that's your problem.

For the record, you can check if Waterfox contains any sort of malicious code by observing its behaviour. In the simplest of manners, submit the files to any on-line antivirus or anti-malware service. You can also use a plain network traffic monitor to actually observe if Waterfox is accessing anything suspicious and/or out of the ordinary.
You do not need the source code for that.

Apparently, you want the source code (including the build files) for some other reason. Perhaps to make a clone of Waterfox?
If you're so proficient in programming as you claim to be, you should be able to do it without any source nor build files from Waterfox.

You're right in one respect, though: you're not wanted here. Save your implied threats for somewhere else and go continue your "investigation" (what a joke) anywhere you want.


----------



## PalZer0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> For some reason, WF 26.0 keeps trying to update and comes up with this error message
> 
> 
> 
> Any idea why this is happening?
> 
> The addons are your standard addons: Adblock Edge, NoScript, AVAST, HTTPSEverywhere, LightBeam and Nimbus Screenshot (which I just installed to get the screenshot of WF).
> Plugins: Java 7u51, Flash, PDF X-Change VIewer and Silverlight
> 
> Any help or advice would be greatly appreciated


I'm also seeing this. It's also been present on previous versions too so it seems to me like the updater isn't configured correctly.


----------



## seti

Well stated skagon.

Nick...I have said as much regarding your initial claim that you were interested in knowing the difference in the code Mr. Alex uses vs the final build code that Mozilla uses. I found that conversation interesting...until you started being the bully on the pulpit...throwing around threats, quoting documents, and the rest. If you have read anything in this thread you should have read the massive amount of problems Mr Alex first ran into regarding compiling via Intel. It was an uphill battle that Mr Alex pretty much had to use his own resources and others to solve...much to the demand of WF users demanding this and that. There was even a long period when even I thought that he had thrown in the towel on the project, but that wasn't the case. The man has priorities in his life and I think many can hope that the demands of WF don't hold priority over many other things that should be more important in his life. I don't know the man personally, but I do know he has school, maybe a significant other or even kids, and other family/friends...I don't know. However, I respect the idea that he puts those before the demands of something he has made free in addition to those other aspects of his life. When he told you those were the files he used and you said as much that he was a liar...well...you sir have gone to far on this mission of software license man and it doesn't take a genius to see that. In the end Mr Alex did reply regardless of it not fitting within your time frame, as he owes you or the rest of us nothing, and even then you stand in staunch resistance to what you hear in the most insulting way that I have witnessed in awhile. I am not overly active in this group, but when someone comes in with an attack on someone I respect well...game on...call me active.


----------



## kronckew

just found that if you click the little down pointing triangle next to his name it brings up a menu allowing you to choose to add him to your block list, which will remove his posts from the thread, at least for you. saves waiting for a mod or admin to ban him. i for one am tired of his diatribes wasting space here.

he will not accept anything anyone says, facts will not sway him, because in his heart he knows he is right. like any other fanatic, his faith overrides facts, and everyone who disagrees with him is wrong.

with luck he will add all of us to his block list









"And so fare thee well:
Thou never shalt hear Herald any more."
Wm. Shakespeare - Henry V, Act IV, scene III.


----------



## thechas

PalZer0,

The Waterfox update action is driven by Waterfox using the standard Firefox profile and the fact that Firefox has been updated to version 27.

You can expect the Waterfox update failed pop-up from time to time until Alex is able to release Waterfox 27.

Be aware that Waterfox does not always get an update for each new version of the Firefox base code. It depends on how many issues the new 32-bit Firefox code creates for the 64-Bit code.

Chas


----------



## MrAlex

Here's a test build:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/experimental/Waterfox%2027.0%20Test.zip/download

Intel's .dll aren't included. Please run the .exe first and let me know which ones are required.

I'll reply to everyone once I get this done, I need to fix the user string!


----------



## kongkong

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's a test build:
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/experimental/Waterfox%2027.0%20Test.zip/download
> 
> Intel's .dll aren't included. Please run the .exe first and let me know which ones are required.
> 
> I'll reply to everyone once I get this done, I need to fix the user string!


missing file libmmd.dll, still testing, thanks.


----------



## Screemer

Working flawlessly for me.. Might have all needed dll:s already tho since I've tested previous versions.








Quick and fully working so far.. Nice one Mr.Alex..


----------



## kongkong

27.0.1 released?


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kongkong*
> 
> 27.0.1 released?


Not yet, testing phases to make sure it doesn't have any major issues. That is Alex for you.


----------



## seti

No missing DLL's for me either, which is probably because of what was stated before...been running previous builds and have other software that uses Intel Redist Libraries. Thanks Mr. Alex!


----------



## DazzaRPD

No missing .dll's for me either, however I have noted a few bugs when it comes to extensions

Despite being WF 27.0, the user string is still set to 26.0, and as such I cannot install the en-ZA language pack for Waterfox (which I believe was released for Firefox 27.0). I'm aware Mr Alex is still working on this bug, however I thought I should provide extra information anyway.

Also, I cannot tweak any settings upon install of extensions, 2 in particular are Avast! Online Security and Yoono (I've not tested any others yet). These settings are tweakable in WF 26.0 (however the Avast! settings do not save, probably because it's expecting a 32 bit flavour of Firefox)

Good work otherwise, Mr. Alex


----------



## DazzaRPD

No missing .dll's for me either, however I have noted a few bugs when it comes to extensions

Despite being WF 27.0, the user string is still set to 26.0, and as such I cannot install the en-ZA language pack for Waterfox (which I believe was released for Firefox 27.0). I'm aware Mr Alex is still working on this bug, however I thought I should provide extra information anyway.

Also, I cannot tweak any settings upon install of extensions, 2 in particular are Avast! Online Security and Yoono (I've not tested any others yet). These settings are tweakable in WF 26.0 (however the Avast! settings do not save, probably because it's expecting a 32 bit flavour of Firefox)

Good work otherwise, Mr. Alex


----------



## thechas

Alex,

My test has not requested that I add any DLL files.

But, it is reporting as WaterFox 26.

Chas


----------



## Skrek

Hi Everyone,

I'm a newbie to this forum and am a bit lost. Still trying to find my way around.

I have used Waterfox for a couple of years now and find it to be the best browser I have used. But I do have one issue that I can't seem to find mentioned anywhere by anyone else, so I'm wondering if I am missing something here. I'm also not the most savvy computer user either.

There seems to be no facility for Waterfox to remember user names and passwords to websites that I am a registered member of.

Can someone please point me in the right direction to find out about this, or tell me if Waterfox is built for this or not?

I'm running a custom built 64bit computer that was built in 2008. Quad core AMD processor (2.6GHz) with Vista as the operating system. She's an old girl, but still running smoothly.

Thanks,

Shrek


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrek*
> 
> There seems to be no facility for Waterfox to remember user names and passwords to websites that I am a registered member of.
> 
> Can someone please point me in the right direction to find out about this, or tell me if Waterfox is built for this or not?


Waterfox button in the upper left -> Options -> Options -> Security
Check the box for " Remember passwords for sites " if it is unchecked.


----------



## Skrek

Thanks Screemer.

I can't do that. The option is there to remember passwords, but it is blanked or faded out so that I cannot click in the box to enable it. I cannot find out how to have this option enabled, so that I can tick the box. Sorry, I didn't mention that before.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrek*
> 
> Thanks Screemer.
> I cannot find out how to have this option enabled, so that I can tick the box. Sorry, I didn't mention that before.


Try this then, but don't blame me if you break your configuration.









In the address field, type about:config
Acnowldedge that you will be careful.








At the top in the the config there is a search field. Enter this " signon.rememberSignons " without the hyphens " "
Double click on " signon.rememberSignons " without the hyphens " ". Be sure it says exactly that and nothing else
Now if you check where the checkbox is it should be ticked.
Good luck


----------



## Skrek

Thanks Mate. I followed your instructions to the letter and it did not work. it is still faded out with no tick. I even restarted Waterfox to see if that would help, but not to be.

Very strange indeed. Any other suggestions?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrek*
> 
> Thanks Mate. I followed your instructions to the letter and it did not work.


Glad to be of help, even if I offered no solution yet.







In your options, check under privacy if save history is set to " Never remember history " if it is, change it to custom or always save history and try again.
If you set it to custom, check that you don't have "Always use private browsing mode" ticked.


----------



## Skrek

Screemer, you are a legend.









That was the issue and all is well. I even have my username and password for this forum now remembered.

Thank you very much for the assistance!

Skrek


----------



## MrAlex

Hey guys, sorry for the long delay! I present to you 27.0.1. Please let me know if you have any issues, otherwise if you don't this will be the build I distribute:

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/experimental/Waterfox%2027.0.1%20Setup.exe/download

What I've improved:


Finally found how to have a dynamic user agent that shows both Firefox, Waterfox and the correct versions for OS, while also retaining the same user profile (that was always the issue, either had one or the other)!
Managed to reduce the size of Waterfox by 14% while keeping around the same performance for JS/WebGL!
All other improvements since FF26->27.0.1

If this is good, I'll upload and update everything tomorrow. Then I'll try and answer everyone's queries. I have updated the source code as well on CodePlex!


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Skrek*
> 
> Screemer, you are a legend.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you very much for the assistance!


Glad to be of service.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys, sorry for the long delay! I present to you 27.0.1.


Great to see the new release Mr.Alex..







Installation was flawless and so far all is good. Typing this from Waterfox 27.0.1


----------



## Quantum Reality

Looking forward to the official release!


----------



## safari801

Installation went perfectly and no problems at all. Thanks Alex for another great build.


----------



## zymax

Works perfectly here, it seems to work better then nighlty for me


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Working great for me.

You can call me a Waterfox user again







.


----------



## safari801

After 1 day, working great. Better than v26.


----------



## thechas

Installed with no problems.

Have not been able to use Waterfox 27 as extensively as I would like before a review, but everything is working with no issues.

Chas


----------



## Hutchinman

Mr.Alex I have a problem, more of an annoyance really.

Yahoo mail is saying that my Firefox is extremely outdated. It keeps asking me to upgrade to take advantage of new features.

The only time I have seen this message before is with Firefox 10 ESR.

I would like to know what is going on. Thanks.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> Mr.Alex I have a problem, more of an annoyance really.
> 
> Yahoo mail is saying that my Firefox is extremely outdated. It keeps asking me to upgrade to take advantage of new features.
> 
> The only time I have seen this message before is with Firefox 10 ESR.
> 
> I would like to know what is going on. Thanks.


good news, it's only you. Try with a clean install of waterfox.


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> good news, it's only you. Try with a clean install of waterfox.


Sorry mate, it's not just him. I get the same message too (not that I care).


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> Mr.Alex I have a problem, more of an annoyance really.
> 
> Yahoo mail is saying that my Firefox is extremely outdated. It keeps asking me to upgrade to take advantage of new features.
> 
> The only time I have seen this message before is with Firefox 10 ESR.
> 
> I would like to know what is going on. Thanks.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> Sorry mate, it's not just him. I get the same message too (not that I care).


Waterfox doesn't do updates like core Firefox does. You can disable the update checks in the options, under Advanced > Update.


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Waterfox doesn't do updates like core Firefox does. You can disable the update checks in the options, under Advanced > Update.


You've obviously not read what the problem is. Completely unrelated to update checks.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> You've obviously not read what the problem is. Completely unrelated to update checks.


Sorry, it is midnight here, and I have been tired recently. I did read it, and managed to forget exactly what it said, after coming back a few hours later.







Forgive me, as I go to bed.


----------



## MrAlex

To those with Yahoo mail issues, what does your user agent consist of? (Go to whatsmy*useragent*.com for example).


----------



## fullmoon

Ha, the install of waterfox doesn't overwrite the useragent, but a reset of general.useragent.override does it (the string must be empty)


----------



## chorse

Installed Waterfox 27.0.1 and running without any problems. It updated my user agent w/o problems. Win8 Enterprise - 64


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

My UA is Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/27.0 Firefox/27.0.1


----------



## perkas

I also have the yahoo´s problem.
My UA is: *Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/27.0 Firefox/27.0.1*
What should be the UA when update waterfox to 27.0.1?? Can i change it?

Thanks!


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> To those with Yahoo mail issues, what does your user agent consist of? (Go to whatsmy*useragent*.com for example).


Alex, my useragent string is: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/27.0 Firefox/27.0.1
Cheers!


----------



## mwarren2

New version is running great! Why won't the Unity Web Player plug-in install in Waterfox? Win 8.1


----------



## Hutchinman

My user agent is:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Waterfox/27.0 Firefox/27.0.1


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> New version is running great! Why won't the Unity Web Player plug-in install in Waterfox? Win 8.1


i don't use it, but general guidlines for plug-ins:
====================================
if it is a 'plug-in' (ie. adobe flash') it needs to be an x64 version. 32 bit x86 versions will not work in an x64 (64 bit) firefox based browser. they are native intel machine code.

addon 'extensions' (ie. 'adblock plus') are bit level independent and work in either 32 or 64 bit firefox based browsers. they are written in javascript.

the unity version number also may be critical and you may need a version specific to win8.1.
====================================

try googling 'firefox plug-in unity player x64 win 8.1'

.


----------



## Presence

How do I import my bookmarks from a file? I tried to copy/paste the contents of my old profile folder to my new one but that did not work. I had 18. something and I'm trying to use the newest version.

edit: even tried to copy just the bookmarks file and that didn't work either


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Presence*
> 
> How do I import my bookmarks from a file? I tried to copy/paste the contents of my old profile folder to my new one but that did not work. I had 18. something and I'm trying to use the newest version.
> 
> edit: even tried to copy just the bookmarks file and that didn't work either


That's an annoying "feature" of Firefox in its latest versions. You need to "export" the old bookmarks in the old version to an HTML file and then re-import them in the new version.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/Recovering%20important%20data%20from%20an%20old%20profile#w_copying-files-between-profile-folders

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/976475

That said, those above links may help you get the json file or whatever it is, into the new Waterfox.


----------



## Presence

Thanks for the quick reply, but I just realized I had a 'bookmarkbackups' folder with a backup from yesterday. Does Firefox backup bookmarks automatically? It must because I couldn't find an option to enable on my new version.


----------



## 1Kaz

Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work. With Mozilla announcing that they will not be supporting nightly 64 for windows, and their latest patch (30.a01) completely breaking it, I'm happy to see that there are great alternatives available. I installed without a hitch, looking forward to using it.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *1Kaz*
> 
> Just wanted to say thank you for all the hard work. With Mozilla announcing that they will not be supporting nightly 64 for windows, and their latest patch (30.a01) completely breaking it, I'm happy to see that there are great alternatives available. I installed without a hitch, looking forward to using it.


nightly 30.a1 x64 (24FEB14) works fine on my x64 system.


----------



## jsmith00075

Hello guys,

I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions regarding some problems I've got..

Every 2-3 new pages I visit (usually that doesn't happen with pages I have previously visited) it will give me an error that website was not found until I refresh it 4-5 times.

With around 50+ tabs open it starts to lag a LOT while on Aurora/Nightly/etc with 150+ tabs I don't see any lag at all..

Thank you!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsmith00075*
> 
> Hello guys,
> 
> I just wanted to ask you a couple of questions regarding some problems I've got..
> 
> Every 2-3 new pages I visit (usually that doesn't happen with pages I have previously visited) it will give me an error that website was not found until I refresh it 4-5 times.
> 
> With around 50+ tabs open it starts to lag a LOT while on Aurora/Nightly/etc with 150+ tabs I don't see any lag at all..
> 
> Thank you!


Same thing here.


----------



## PooperSmooper

New Waterfox user here.

I just tried downloading & checking out v27.0.1, and one thing I noticed right off the bat was extreme lag while using Google Maps (since they forced the new UI to be the only option). Anyway, now that you can't revert, has anyone seen major lag when trying to even move around in Google Maps on v27.0.1? This is a fresh install with no add-ons or anything yet. Computer specs aren't the problem. Maps works perfectly in IE, Chrome.


----------



## MrAlex

Ok I might have found out what the issue is with websites not recognising Waterfox. They seem to be looking for this:

Quote:


> Mozilla/5.0 (platform; rv:geckoversion) Gecko/geckotrail Firefox/firefoxversion Waterfox/waterforversion


but when they find this:

Quote:


> Mozilla/5.0 (platform; rv:geckoversion) Gecko/geckotrail Waterfox/waterforversion Firefox/firefoxversion


They freak out. Here's a test build:

https://db.tt/EqqPVlPG

Can anyone confirm this (apart from myself)? If so, seems like bad browser recognition to me..

As for the other issues, I'll look into them.


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Browser recognition is exactly why I switched back to firefox.

Battlelog, netflix, and yahoo all had problems for me, and it happened very suddenly too.

I may or may not switch back when this gets fixed, but I thought I should atleast say something about it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Browser recognition is exactly why I switched back to firefox.
> 
> Battlelog, netflix, and yahoo all had problems for me, and it happened very suddenly too.
> 
> I may or may not switch back when this gets fixed, but I thought I should atleast say something about it.


Well I'm attempting to fix it, unfortunately I'm only one person so I can't test every possible outcome. Have you tried the build above? It should resolve the issues..

Edit: Also could I please have examples of the incompatibilities you're getting, I can't seem to reproduce them


----------



## skagon

Alex, just installed (well, copied) the new build and Yahoo Mail gives me no "update your browser" page anymore.
Good job, αγορίνα...


----------



## PsYcHo29388

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Browser recognition is exactly why I switched back to firefox.
> 
> Battlelog, netflix, and yahoo all had problems for me, and it happened very suddenly too.
> 
> I may or may not switch back when this gets fixed, but I thought I should atleast say something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm attempting to fix it, unfortunately I'm only one person so I can't test every possible outcome. Have you tried the build above? It should resolve the issues..
> 
> Edit: Also could I please have examples of the incompatibilities you're getting, I can't seem to reproduce them
Click to expand...

Reinstalled to test out the latest build. Not sure which one I was using when I had compatibility problems.

Netflix - seems to be working fine now, anytime I tried to watch something previously it would bring me to a system requirements page. It didn't do this with my other family members and at this point I was frustrated enough as is so I uninstalled (this was late last year).

Battlelog - simply doesn't work with 64-bit browsers so it's not your fault at all really.

Yahoo - brought me to this crap...



I'll keep Waterfox installed for now, but I'm starting to think the internet just isn't ready for 64 bit browsers.

Yeah I sound stupid for saying that but that's how I feel.

EDIT* I realize I come off as an inconsiderate forum peasant so I'd just like to add in that I am really greatful for all the hard work you've put into this. I was using Waterfox all throughout 2013 and some of 2012 and for that time alone it worked great and I really appreciate your dedication to this.


----------



## Quantum Reality

This is what it looks like for Pale Moon:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140208 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.3.2

The Intenet IS ready, MrAlex just needs to make WF adhere to common conventions is all. I'm sure there's a simple patch for the useragent thing without needing a new installer.

And yes, there's a way:

http://www.howtogeek.com/113439/how-to-change-your-browsers-user-agent-without-installing-any-extensions/


----------



## WetLook

First off, "THANK YOU" for all the time, hard work and pains in getting Waterfox to us!!!
You are much appreciated, even though a lot of people don't acknowledge it.

I am using Windows 7 Professional SP1.

My UA: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:27.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0.2
Waterfox/27.0

I also had trouble logging in to my "AT&T Web Mail" account (Powered by Yahoo).
See Screen Shot "Waterfox Web Mail Access".

WaterfoxWebMailAccess.jpg 484k .jpg file


I added the "Waterfox 27.0.2 Test" files to my Waterfox 27.0.1 program folder.
Rebooted and now am able to log in to my "AT&T Web Mail" account.

I am also using the LastPass Password Manager 3.1.1 add-on.

I noticed when logging on to my "AT&T Web Mail" account, the LastPass Icon
displayed for this operation is not loading correctly.
See Screen Shot "Waterfox Web Mail Access LassPass".

WaterfoxWebMailAccessLassPass.JPG 122k .JPG file


I don't know if anyone else is experiencing this LastPass Icon display glitch.
Could this also be part of the problem with not being able to log in to our Web Mail?

Thank you for your time and help.


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Reinstalled to test out the latest build. Not sure which one I was using when I had compatibility problems.
> 
> Netflix - seems to be working fine now, anytime I tried to watch something previously it would bring me to a system requirements page. It didn't do this with my other family members and at this point I was frustrated enough as is so I uninstalled (this was late last year).
> 
> Battlelog - simply doesn't work with 64-bit browsers so it's not your fault at all really.
> 
> Yahoo - brought me to this crap...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep Waterfox installed for now, but I'm starting to think the internet just isn't ready for 64 bit browsers.
> 
> Yeah I sound stupid for saying that but that's how I feel.
> 
> EDIT* I realize I come off as an inconsiderate forum peasant so I'd just like to add in that I am really greatful for all the hard work you've put into this. I was using Waterfox all throughout 2013 and some of 2012 and for that time alone it worked great and I really appreciate your dedication to this.


Got the same message as PsYcHo29388 when logging into Yahoo Mail with v27.0.1 but was able to click through on the continue without upgrading, unlike WetLook.


----------



## mwarren2

Just dropped in the new files for v27.0.2 and had no problem logging into Yahoo Mail.


----------



## JRuxGaming

So doing a little bit of research on this myself. I found if I have the user agent:

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:27.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0.1 Waterfox/27.0.1

I get this on Chase's website:


However, if I remove *Waterfox/27.0.1*, Like this:

Code:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:27.0.1) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/27.0.1

The out dated browser banner disappears.


Edit: It seems to not recognize the Waterfox fragment, and throws an error at the user for using and unrecognizable browser.

I don't know if this is related because I have only had this minor annoyance when on Chase's website, but it worked for me.

-Rux


----------



## Quantum Reality

I just checked with Pale Moon, same deal. I get the "outdated browser" thing with the default PM useragent.


----------



## thechas

RE: Yahoo Mail and other sites that request that you update your Browser.

Nearly all of the websites that ask you to update your browser are being paid for each user they redirect to switch to Internet Explorer or Firefox. In the case of Firefox, some websites are partners and contribute to the development of Firefox so they want to protect their investment.

Sure, they will imply that it is a security concern. The reality is that they look for only one or two browser signatures. If you do not log in from one of the partner web browsers, you will get the notice to upgrade.

This is not a problem with Waterfox, it is pure and simple marketing by the other browsers.

Chas


----------



## Grumpigeek

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> This is what it looks like for Pale Moon:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140208 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.3.2
> 
> The Intenet IS ready, MrAlex just needs to make WF adhere to common conventions is all. I'm sure there's a simple patch for the useragent thing without needing a new installer.
> 
> And yes, there's a way:
> 
> http://www.howtogeek.com/113439/how-to-change-your-browsers-user-agent-without-installing-any-extensions/


I use the UAControl addon to set the User Agent.

The internet SHOULD be ready but it isn't because of the fact that most smartphones have 32-bit processors.
There are plenty of middle managers who are content to live in the past backed up by the trolls in accounting who don't want to spend any money compiling 64-bit builds.
According to this forum, even Mozilla are abandoning 64-bit Nightly builds and Opera gave up on 64-bit a while back and is now just a clone of Chrome.

One bright spot on the horizon is that 64-bit chips are gradually going to make their way into smartphones this year.
So, in a couple of years there will no longer be any financial incentive to persist with 32-bit browsers. Yay!

The other bright spot is of course, Waterfox.


----------



## skagon

Guys, seriously... calm down.
There's no hidden conspiracy, nor greedy "managers", nor anything else behind 32- vs 64-bit browsers. In reality, as far as website rendering is concerned (in other words, server-side), there is absolutely ZERO difference between a 32-bit and a 64-bit build of a browser.
Firefox (32-bit) and Waterfox (64-bit) will do the exact same job visually and functionally, with absolutely ZERO provisions or customisation from the website.
The differences between Fire- and Water-fox are on the end-user side. Waterfox is not limited to just 2GB of address space and also benefits from modern x86 CPU SIMD instruction sets, because it is built to take advantage of them, while Firefox is built to "compatibility level" so that it can be run even on a Pentium 4 (and maybe even older). Moreover, Waterfox is built using the Intel compiler extensively, which is known to generate more efficient and optimised binaries, compared to Microsoft's Visual Studio, which Mozilla is using for Firefox.
Once again, while Waterfox will run faster and smoother than Firefox, there is no difference in how the two browsers (or should I say, the one browser) handle web content.
For the record, Internet Explorer has been fully 64-bit since I-don't-know-when and nobody noticed (meaning, from those few that still use that abomination). That goes to answer the argument that "the internet is not ready for 64-bit browsers"; the full answer being "the internet is (as it should be) platform-agnostic".

Rather than conspiracy theories, I believe that the "error" pages and notifications witnessed by many of us were not signs of some conspiracy, profiteering or incompatibility, but rather the combination of sloppy programming utilising the User Agent string breakdown and over-zealous web developers trying to cover their collective arses, notifying users that their (unidentified due to programming error) browser is outdated.

In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.


This is it. Then Waterfox don't win to put waterfox/27 in user-agent.


----------



## JoeF

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.


Indeed. These are clueless Web programmers. In this day and age, relying on the User Agent string for anything on the server side is simply brain-dead.
The UA string is trivially changed. I can set it to IE if I wanted to, e.g., with the PrefBar extension...


----------



## DazzaRPD

With Australis scheduled to land sometime between Firefox ver 29 and 30, how will this affect Waterfox?

I know some users are heavily against it, with Pale Moon's developer even stating that Australis changes will not land in Pale Moon, so I'm just enquiring as to how this will affect Waterfox,?

FWIW: So far seen no problems in 27.0.1. Will update to 27.0.2 soon


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry I haven't replied to everyone, but I've been really busy and some great changes are coming to Waterfox in the near future! The 27.0.2 automatic update should be rolling out, so hopefully users will be migrating over!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> Alex, just installed (well, copied) the new build and Yahoo Mail gives me no "update your browser" page anymore.
> Good job, αγορίνα...


Thanks, great to hear









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *PsYcHo29388*
> 
> Browser recognition is exactly why I switched back to firefox.
> 
> Battlelog, netflix, and yahoo all had problems for me, and it happened very suddenly too.
> 
> I may or may not switch back when this gets fixed, but I thought I should atleast say something about it.
> 
> 
> 
> Well I'm attempting to fix it, unfortunately I'm only one person so I can't test every possible outcome. Have you tried the build above? It should resolve the issues..
> 
> Edit: Also could I please have examples of the incompatibilities you're getting, I can't seem to reproduce them
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Reinstalled to test out the latest build. Not sure which one I was using when I had compatibility problems.
> 
> Netflix - seems to be working fine now, anytime I tried to watch something previously it would bring me to a system requirements page. It didn't do this with my other family members and at this point I was frustrated enough as is so I uninstalled (this was late last year).
> 
> Battlelog - simply doesn't work with 64-bit browsers so it's not your fault at all really.
> 
> Yahoo - brought me to this crap...
> 
> 
> 
> I'll keep Waterfox installed for now, but I'm starting to think the internet just isn't ready for 64 bit browsers.
> 
> Yeah I sound stupid for saying that but that's how I feel.
> 
> EDIT* I realize I come off as an inconsiderate forum peasant so I'd just like to add in that I am really greatful for all the hard work you've put into this. I was using Waterfox all throughout 2013 and some of 2012 and for that time alone it worked great and I really appreciate your dedication to this.
Click to expand...

It's not that, instead of searching for just parts of the UA to check for compatibility, they check the whole user string! That in itself is not a good way to detect browsers.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> RE: Yahoo Mail and other sites that request that you update your Browser.
> 
> Nearly all of the websites that ask you to update your browser are being paid for each user they redirect to switch to Internet Explorer or Firefox. In the case of Firefox, some websites are partners and contribute to the development of Firefox so they want to protect their investment.
> 
> Sure, they will imply that it is a security concern. The reality is that they look for only one or two browser signatures. If you do not log in from one of the partner web browsers, you will get the notice to upgrade.
> 
> This is not a problem with Waterfox, it is pure and simple marketing by the other browsers.
> 
> Chas


Well put Chas, thanks!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Grumpigeek*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> This is what it looks like for Pale Moon:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140208 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.3.2
> 
> The Intenet IS ready, MrAlex just needs to make WF adhere to common conventions is all. I'm sure there's a simple patch for the useragent thing without needing a new installer.
> 
> And yes, there's a way:
> 
> http://www.howtogeek.com/113439/how-to-change-your-browsers-user-agent-without-installing-any-extensions/
> 
> 
> 
> I use the UAControl addon to set the User Agent.
> 
> The internet SHOULD be ready but it isn't because of the fact that most smartphones have 32-bit processors.
> There are plenty of middle managers who are content to live in the past backed up by the trolls in accounting who don't want to spend any money compiling 64-bit builds.
> According to this forum, even Mozilla are abandoning 64-bit Nightly builds and Opera gave up on 64-bit a while back and is now just a clone of Chrome.
> 
> One bright spot on the horizon is that 64-bit chips are gradually going to make their way into smartphones this year.
> So, in a couple of years there will no longer be any financial incentive to persist with 32-bit browsers. Yay!
> 
> The other bright spot is of course, Waterfox.
Click to expand...

Thanks! I'm hoping that eventually Waterfox will be able to become it's own beast and become a proper competitor! But for now, I'll be sticking to the small modifications









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> Guys, seriously... calm down.
> There's no hidden conspiracy, nor greedy "managers", nor anything else behind 32- vs 64-bit browsers. In reality, as far as website rendering is concerned (in other words, server-side), there is absolutely ZERO difference between a 32-bit and a 64-bit build of a browser.
> Firefox (32-bit) and Waterfox (64-bit) will do the exact same job visually and functionally, with absolutely ZERO provisions or customisation from the website.
> The differences between Fire- and Water-fox are on the end-user side. Waterfox is not limited to just 2GB of address space and also benefits from modern x86 CPU SIMD instruction sets, because it is built to take advantage of them, while Firefox is built to "compatibility level" so that it can be run even on a Pentium 4 (and maybe even older). Moreover, Waterfox is built using the Intel compiler extensively, which is known to generate more efficient and optimised binaries, compared to Microsoft's Visual Studio, which Mozilla is using for Firefox.
> Once again, while Waterfox will run faster and smoother than Firefox, there is no difference in how the two browsers (or should I say, the one browser) handle web content.
> For the record, Internet Explorer has been fully 64-bit since I-don't-know-when and nobody noticed (meaning, from those few that still use that abomination). That goes to answer the argument that "the internet is not ready for 64-bit browsers"; the full answer being "the internet is (as it should be) platform-agnostic".
> 
> Rather than conspiracy theories, I believe that the "error" pages and notifications witnessed by many of us were not signs of some conspiracy, profiteering or incompatibility, but rather the combination of sloppy programming utilising the User Agent string breakdown and over-zealous web developers trying to cover their collective arses, notifying users that their (unidentified due to programming error) browser is outdated.
> 
> In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.


Well put, glad to see I'm not alone in this! Essentially, they should be checking for say, "Firefox", "Gecko" or the likes and if they see that, don't give out any flags. If only!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JoeF*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> In effect, instead of busting Alex's balls, we should be sending e-mails to the support of the problematic websites, requesting that they rectify their error and correct the client detection code, since the "bug" is server-side.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. These are clueless Web programmers. In this day and age, relying on the User Agent string for anything on the server side is simply brain-dead.
> The UA string is trivially changed. I can set it to IE if I wanted to, e.g., with the PrefBar extension...
Click to expand...

That is true, it's good for checking simple things as long as it's implemented correctly!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> With Australis scheduled to land sometime between Firefox ver 29 and 30, how will this affect Waterfox?
> 
> I know some users are heavily against it, with Pale Moon's developer even stating that Australis changes will not land in Pale Moon, so I'm just enquiring as to how this will affect Waterfox,?
> 
> FWIW: So far seen no problems in 27.0.1. Will update to 27.0.2 soon


I'm not sure about this yet...I like to keep the UI untouched, but if it really is not popular than I'll revert back. I might offer two themes to make things simpler, but can't make any promises or I'll be overloading myself! Still haven't managed to get language packs out properly!


----------



## Sev501

Just want to say thank you for your dedication and all this trouble to make waterfox!! Now been using your test build a few pages back and solves my browser detection problems. Again thank you so much!!


----------



## safari801

Yes, thanks for all the hard work. 27.0.2 works flawlessly.


----------



## jjpjimmy

Just upgraded from wf26 to latest 27 and my download location got reset and locked? to the windows default download location at c:\user\username\downloads.
waterfox's options menu tells me that download location is as before but doesn't match with current behavior.
Checked with about:config with a filter for 'download' and all the cvars has the proper path.
Also tried with a new profile, nada.

Um...so it seems like waterfox 27 doesn't like downloading files to a root of a drive aside from the disk where it was installed to. Made a directory and downloads are fine...

Working fine:
C:\
C:\alsdflkjdf\asdfas\df\as\df\....
D:\elajfs\

Not working: <- downloads files to windows default download location
D:\
J:\
E:\
...


----------



## LunarBird

I think I found a small bug. I was using Firefox 27.0.1 and Polish interface. Then I moved to Waterfox 27.0.2 and everything was the way it was... but GUI language was set to English.

I changed it by editing "general.useragent.locale" in about:config and I have Polish interface now but shouldn't Waterfox recognize it by itself? I mean, I was using Polish language version of Firefox on this very profile...


----------



## Hutchinman

I have a real issue.

Every time I try to open Firefox, Waterfox opens. This is beyond annoying.


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> I have a real issue.
> 
> Every time I try to open Firefox, Waterfox opens. This is beyond annoying.


Actually, I *think* you might be using the generic shortcut in the taskbar, which points to the default browser. If you create a new shortcut pointing to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe", or simply open a Windows Explorer window and navigate to C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\ (or D: or the whatever other drive letter your Windows installation resides in) and double-click the "firefox.exe" executable, Firefox will run. Then, assuming you're using Windows 7 or, God forbid, 8 or Vista, you can simply right-click the taskbar icon and select "Pin this program to taskbar".
I've had the same "problem" simply because the icon of the taskbar shortcut pointing to the default browser is changed by Firefox, but then, when Waterfox gets installed and takes over as default browser, it doesn't change the icon, so you look at the Firefox icon and think the shortcut should run Firefox, when in fact, it'll run the whatever browser is set as default.
Hope that helps.


----------



## Hutchinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> Actually, I *think* you might be using the generic shortcut in the taskbar, which points to the default browser. If you create a new shortcut pointing to "C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe", or simply open a Windows Explorer window and navigate to C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\ (or D: or the whatever other drive letter your Windows installation resides in) and double-click the "firefox.exe" executable, Firefox will run. Then, assuming you're using Windows 7 or, God forbid, 8 or Vista, you can simply right-click the taskbar icon and select "Pin this program to taskbar".
> I've had the same "problem" simply because the icon of the taskbar shortcut pointing to the default browser is changed by Firefox, but then, when Waterfox gets installed and takes over as default browser, it doesn't change the icon, so you look at the Firefox icon and think the shortcut should run Firefox, when in fact, it'll run the whatever browser is set as default.
> Hope that helps.


Nope. I am using the Desktop Shorcut.


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hutchinman*
> 
> Nope. I am using the Desktop Shorcut.


Well, check the shortcut's target. There is no way that a shortcut pointing to one executable will actually run another!
For the record, it is still possible to have "a" desktop shortcut "pointing" to the default browser instead of an actual executable file.


----------



## Hutchinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> Well, check the shortcut's target. There is no way that a shortcut pointing to one executable will actually run another!
> For the record, it is still possible to have "a" desktop shortcut "pointing" to the default browser instead of an actual executable file.


Target is:

"C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe"


----------



## Hutchinman

Never mind. It isn't happening anymore. But it was earlier.


----------



## mwarren2

If Waterfox is open in the background, a click on the Firefox shortcut will also open another instance of Waterfox.


----------



## Hutchinman

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> If Waterfox is open in the background, a click on the Firefox shortcut will also open another instance of Waterfox.


I am well aware of this. It happened after I Ctrl+alt+del ended Waterfox, to be sure it wasn't going.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LunarBird*
> 
> I think I found a small bug. I was using Firefox 27.0.1 and Polish interface. Then I moved to Waterfox 27.0.2 and everything was the way it was... but GUI language was set to English.
> 
> I changed it by editing "general.useragent.locale" in about:config and I have Polish interface now but shouldn't Waterfox recognize it by itself? I mean, I was using Polish language version of Firefox on this very profile...


see mr. alex's post 5652 a few posts above, last sentence.


----------



## headcleaner

@mwarren2

http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/firefox-profiles-run-multiple-firefox-profiles/
this site explains how you can start multiple firefox
So I've shortcuts on my desktop for firefox/firefox beta/aurora/nightly/nightly64bit\palemoon64bit/cyberfox64bit and of course my favourite browser waterfox64bit


----------



## craigarno

Thought I'd share a couple "loose" benchmarks after installing Waterfox 27.0.2. I run a slightly older HP Laptop DV9823CL, AMD Turion X2 Mobile [email protected] with NVIDIA GeForce 7150m / nForce 630m running Vista x64.

Watching the following link in Firefox would achieve about 3 FPS. In Waterfox it's typically 12-15FPS
https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/sdk/demos/webkit/Earth.html

Sometimes I watch the news live at 5pm PST http://www.komonews.com/live
In Firefox Adobe Flash running full screen would skip and stutter along with both CPU's @ 100%. In Waterfox full screen the display is fluid and CPU1 @ ~90%, CPU2 @ ~70%.

This is not a conclusive measure/test, but my experience so far is the added performance improvement makes this older laptop compatible with today's applications!

I also run with Sync enabled to my OwnCloud Weave server and appreciate my Firefox config being used. Everything started up and works wonderfully!
I added Waterfox as the 64-bit browser recommended for Windows. https://arno.com/freesw.html

Whatever you're doing, keep up the good work!


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Hey all

I know this is probably not the right place to ask but I am lost and have no idea where else to go ...

I have a problem whereby if I search for something via the URL bar like I always did previously it just throws up : Error 404 not found ... ... but if I add a space and full stop it google searches correctly ...

Is there a way to make it so that I can search without the whole full stop thing


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emissary of Pain*
> 
> Hey all
> 
> I know this is probably not the right place to ask but I am lost and have no idea where else to go ...
> 
> I have a problem whereby if I search for something via the URL bar like I always did previously it just throws up : Error 404 not found ... ... but if I add a space and full stop it google searches correctly ...
> 
> Is there a way to make it so that I can search without the whole full stop thing


https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/search-web-address-bar

You may want to check your settings in about:config and see if anything could be tweaked.


----------



## remixedcat

Hi, anyone having issues with facebook locking up waterfox and being really sluggish after the new layout change they issued some people a week ago. it hit my account and now FB acts up a lot in waterfox. It's really slow loading photos, my feed is choppy like mad, and I've even re-installed, cleared cache constantly, disabled all flash elements, etc and it's still doing this. It's very annoying and I have to use Chrome to use FB most of the time now. Why can't FB just leave stuff alone?


----------



## wobinda

Eagerly awaiting for Waterfox 28 to come out!!! Come on, Mr. Alex, this is my favorite browser, don't let me down







))))


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Hi, anyone having issues with facebook locking up waterfox and being really sluggish after the new layout change they issued some people a week ago. it hit my account and now FB acts up a lot in waterfox. It's really slow loading photos, my feed is choppy like mad, and I've even re-installed, cleared cache constantly, disabled all flash elements, etc and it's still doing this. It's very annoying and I have to use Chrome to use FB most of the time now. Why can't FB just leave stuff alone?


This... Exactly my issue with FB, sadly this is the only way me and my girlfriend can communicate.


----------



## Sev501

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Hi, anyone having issues with facebook locking up waterfox and being really sluggish after the new layout change they issued some people a week ago. it hit my account and now FB acts up a lot in waterfox. It's really slow loading photos, my feed is choppy like mad, and I've even re-installed, cleared cache constantly, disabled all flash elements, etc and it's still doing this. It's very annoying and I have to use Chrome to use FB most of the time now. Why can't FB just leave stuff alone?


Hmm never encountered that problem yet, probably due to me using the "Social Fixer Add-on" which fixes most or rettains FB to the simplest of things, or the lay out you want to go with/use.


----------



## remixedcat

I have that now and it still doing it!!!


----------



## DazzaRPD

Have you tried with a new Profile? Firefox/Waterfox profiles can sometimes be corrupted. This link explains why having more than one profile is beneficial: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-where-firefox-stores-user-data

I've not had that issue and have no social fixer (or similar) extensions. It may be that an add-on is interfering with Facebook

Kind Regards,
DazzaRPD


----------



## remixedcat

OK, it seems to be a tad better after I reinstalled lastpass... (did process of elimination and found this)

can't understand why a password manager would make a site do that.. it's not like it alters CSS or anything....  really confused about this.


----------



## DazzaRPD

Another reason I prefer S10 (http://www.s10soft.com/passwordvault.htm) over LastPass, as it doesn't tie in with the browser in any way yet can still be used to login to Facebook, Overclock and so on.

The less addons you have, the better it is and the less things could screw up in WF or FF (or even Chrome for that matter). IE (despite its lack of speed and security holes and paranoid timers) is one of the most stable for loading sites, because there's less that could go wrong due to addons interfering in some way or form


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Anyone having trouble commenting or giving thumbs up on YouTube?

If so, I'd be very grateful if anyone could help me fix it.









EDIT: Found out was wrong. Certain cookies weren't made as exceptions.








Here's how I found out how to fix it if anyone else has this problem:


----------



## PalZer0

Is Waterfox 28 currently in development?


----------



## VIKINGS

So I just updated today to waterfox 27.0.2 and the whole damned thing is *TOO BIG*! And I don't mean just the page zoom level(which I tried to fix, so I don't have to zoom out each time I open a new tab, by modifiying the layout.css.devPixelsPerPx and didn't work) I mean the whole freaking program, toolbars and everything, they even look out of focus... check the screenshot below. Any way I can fix this please and return it to previous form(for me previous form was waterfox 16.0.1)?

Olso in my old waterfox when I searched for something using the waterfox start page it took me straight to google. Now it takes me to this ugly startpage.com thing. Can I make it take me to google again?

Thank you.

http://s8.postimg.org/ra1cb34c5/awefull_new_waterfox.jpg


----------



## Quantum Reality

Huh! It's like your fonts got all screwed up. Try this.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/reset-firefox-easily-fix-most-problems

Where it says "Firefox" you can understand it to mean "Waterfox".


----------



## VIKINGS

Cool, thank you. What about the pages being too zoomed in and the waterfox start page?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Cool, thank you. What about the pages being too zoomed in and the waterfox start page?


Zoom issues:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/963009

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/963759

Start page:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/How%20to%20set%20the%20home%20page

Also, double-check that you have no malware or viruses that "hijack" the start page or at the very least screw it up.


----------



## VIKINGS

Gonna try one of those zoom addons and see how things work out, thank you.

As for the second part I don't think you understand exactly what I am asking, so let me try to clear it up.
When I press the Home button I want to be taken to the page in the screenshot below. But, when I enter a search term in it I want it to take me to google, like the old waterfox did.
If I try to enter a search term now it takes me to startpage.com. And if I go to waterfox>options>home page and put google in there then when I press the Home button it's gonna fire up google straight away, without first displaying the page in the screenshot below.
Did that make any sense or am I just confusing you more?

http://s2.postimg.org/ltjda2njt/Untitled.jpg


----------



## thechas

Vikings,

There should be a drop-down arrow at the left side of the search box.

Click it and select manage search engines.

Select Google as the default.

Keep in mind that some add-ons and some mal-ware will force the system to use a different search engine.

Chas


----------



## VIKINGS

Sadly I do not have any drop-down arrow, as you can see in the picture, Chas. Any other suggestions?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Click the button in the search box to open the menu


----------



## VIKINGS

Oh cool, thank you very much guys!


----------



## fishmech

I've been having an issue for a few weeks, on both Waterfox 27.0.1 and 27.0.2, where the browser window randomly flashes black or white for a split second while things are happening, especially while a page is loading or while animated images cycle. My current graphics drivers are Intel Graphics 9.17.10.3347 for the onboard Intel HD Graphics 3000, NVIDIA graphics 335.23 for a GeForce GT 540M. My CPU is a Core i7 2630QM and I'm running Windows 7 Professional.

This graphics issue doesn't happen in Firefox 27 or 28, just in Waterfox.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fishmech*
> 
> I've been having an issue for a few weeks, on both Waterfox 27.0.1 and 27.0.2, where the browser window randomly flashes black or white for a split second while things are happening, especially while a page is loading or while animated images cycle. My current graphics drivers are Intel Graphics 9.17.10.3347 for the onboard Intel HD Graphics 3000, NVIDIA graphics 335.23 for a GeForce GT 540M. My CPU is a Core i7 2630QM and I'm running Windows 7 Professional.
> 
> This graphics issue doesn't happen in Firefox 27 or 28, just in Waterfox.


Uninstall flash and try without.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> I've been having an issue for a few weeks, on both Waterfox 27.0.1 and 27.0.2, where the browser window randomly flashes black or white for a split second while things are happening,


I had something like this happen once; it turned out to be a driver issue for me.


----------



## fishmech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Uninstall flash and try without.


I tried this, it does not change the behavior.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I had something like this happen once; it turned out to be a driver issue for me.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fishmech*
> 
> I tried this, it does not change the behavior.


ok, if driver try it: http://www.wagnardmobile.com/DDU/ and install last driver after.


----------



## bcooper21

Any idea when 28 is out? How long do they usually take its been 2 weeks about.


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry for the late reply everyone, this is a BIG release for Waterfox. This should catapult Waterfox back to the top of the performance charts







Here is a test build, could you guys please let me know what you think?

https://db.tt/sMbyX8TP

So what did those extra delays bring?


A complete, 100% ICC build! Yay! (As opposed to various VC and ICC build).
Profile-Guided optimisation is back, which brings nice performance improvements.
If you're running an Intel CPU, support for AVX2, SSE4.2, SSE4.1 and SSSE3 if your processor supports these instruction sets. AMD users, at the moment you only get up to SSE3 support
Using Mozilla's built in memory allocator as opposed to jemalloc, otherwise crashes occur.
Finally change the About dialogue to talk about Waterfox and to link to the Waterfox website (links not active yet)

Give it a whirl!

Edit: If you have missing .dll's:

http://software.intel.com/sites/default/files/w_ccompxe_redist_msi_2013_sp1.2.176.zip

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> Thought I'd share a couple "loose" benchmarks after installing Waterfox 27.0.2. I run a slightly older HP Laptop DV9823CL, AMD Turion X2 Mobile [email protected] with NVIDIA GeForce 7150m / nForce 630m running Vista x64.
> 
> Watching the following link in Firefox would achieve about 3 FPS. In Waterfox it's typically 12-15FPS
> https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/sdk/demos/webkit/Earth.html
> 
> Sometimes I watch the news live at 5pm PST http://www.komonews.com/live
> In Firefox Adobe Flash running full screen would skip and stutter along with both CPU's @ 100%. In Waterfox full screen the display is fluid and CPU1 @ ~90%, CPU2 @ ~70%.
> 
> This is not a conclusive measure/test, but my experience so far is the added performance improvement makes this older laptop compatible with today's applications!
> 
> I also run with Sync enabled to my OwnCloud Weave server and appreciate my Firefox config being used. Everything started up and works wonderfully!
> I added Waterfox as the 64-bit browser recommended for Windows. https://arno.com/freesw.html
> 
> Whatever you're doing, keep up the good work!


Great to hear and nice to know that older hardware is still good! Edit: Just noticed, that's the exact same specifications on my laptop that I used to compile Waterfox with haha.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Hi, anyone having issues with facebook locking up waterfox and being really sluggish after the new layout change they issued some people a week ago. it hit my account and now FB acts up a lot in waterfox. It's really slow loading photos, my feed is choppy like mad, and I've even re-installed, cleared cache constantly, disabled all flash elements, etc and it's still doing this. It's very annoying and I have to use Chrome to use FB most of the time now. Why can't FB just leave stuff alone?


Usually there are cache/cookie issues. You could try resetting it?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wobinda*
> 
> Eagerly awaiting for Waterfox 28 to come out!!! Come on, Mr. Alex, this is my favorite browser, don't let me down
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ))))


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Hi, anyone having issues with facebook locking up waterfox and being really sluggish after the new layout change they issued some people a week ago. it hit my account and now FB acts up a lot in waterfox. It's really slow loading photos, my feed is choppy like mad, and I've even re-installed, cleared cache constantly, disabled all flash elements, etc and it's still doing this. It's very annoying and I have to use Chrome to use FB most of the time now. Why can't FB just leave stuff alone?
> 
> 
> 
> This... Exactly my issue with FB, sadly this is the only way me and my girlfriend can communicate.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Any idea when 28 is out? How long do they usually take its been 2 weeks about.


It's here now









Eagerly awaiting to see what you guys think of the new build! Thanks!


----------



## remixedcat

Yeah I even used a new profile and it still has issues..

I'll give that a spin n let you know.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's here now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eagerly awaiting to see what you guys think of the new build! Thanks!


I will install now. You literally released this as soon as I was walking to the store. Perfect timing.


----------



## bcooper21

Cant get it works ays something is missing. libiomp5md.dll


----------



## MrAlex

Added a link to the missing libraries above!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Yeah I even used a new profile and it still has issues..
> 
> I'll give that a spin n let you know.


That's worrying, I'll have to look into this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's here now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eagerly awaiting to see what you guys think of the new build! Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> I will install now. You literally released this as soon as I was walking to the store. Perfect timing.
Click to expand...

Good to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Cant get it works ays something is missing. libiomp5md.dll


Sorry, I've linked to the missing libraries above.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry, I've linked to the missing libraries above.


I just came back to download those. xD

Edit: Seems to load and run like a charm. I will check back with any issues I may or may not have.









Edit 2: I don't seem to be having issues on Facebook anymore. Back to using Waterfox for everything. <3


----------



## craigarno

Waterfox 28 Release Test.rar Installed fine on my older Vista x64 Laptop with just a copy of the unpacked file/directory stucture. Watching news (Adobe Flash) runs the CPU typically between 60%-85% with occasional spikes to 97%. The "Earth" OpenGL link https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/sdk/demos/webkit/Earth.html claims between 100-500FPS for rendering. I'm not sure I believe this number, but that's what it says. Earlier 27.0.2 was running 11-15 FPS. I doubt there is a 10x OpenGL improvement between v27.0.2 and v28.

Windows 7 x64 AMD Phenom II X6 1100T 3.3GHz required installing w_ccompxe_redist_intel64_2013_sp1.2.176.msi to get around missing libiomp5md.dll message. Now it also runs fine and displays News (Adobe Flash) fine. Since this is a VM running under Linux, there is no OpenGL driver support for the other test.

I haven't yet specifically tested "Sync", but I haven't seen Sync errors, so I'll assume that is also working until proven otherwise.

Next Firefox update v29 will change how Sync operates. Big ongoing discussion in this thread https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=989756#c14 . I'd like to keep a copy of a Waterfox v28 release around until OwnCloud is able to provide a Weave 1.5 server (currently at Weave 1.1). v28>v29 will also change (fix) DNS caching in Firefox.

Thank you for your effort. So far all looks good on this end!


----------



## remixedcat

Installed the new version! Will report after a day's use.

BTW I just installed the extras before hand and it's all good.


----------



## nick fuller

http://pastebin.com/nq4gcWWe

crashes on 6 different pcs all similar report bex64 any idea


----------



## remixedcat

What are your specs???


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> http://pastebin.com/nq4gcWWe
> 
> crashes on 6 different pcs all similar report bex64 any idea


When do the crashes occur/what are you trying to do in the browser when the crashes occur?


----------



## seti

Seems to be running fine in the 12 hours or so that I have been running it. I know of one plus that got me hyped right up front...the Nasa Night Launch theme works again. It wasn't a big deal the theme in the last two previous builds...I mean it's a theme...but it now works. As far as the "BEX64"...seems a common suggestion for resolving it is running the "Command Prompt" as administrator and running the following command "sfc /scannow". System File Checker will scan for any corruption in system files and attempt to fix them. I guess this could be a starting point in remedying the error.

I did a copy of the test files for WF28 in my existing WF directory and all my needs seem to be met without issue, so far. Thanks MrAlex for the hard work...big fan of WF here and loyal follower...hand me the koolaide.


----------



## remixedcat

Seems ok for the first day. FB is still a bit laggy but not as bad as it was. I think it's more a facebook thing tho. every FB major update like this one is didneyworl like this.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Seems ok for the first day. FB is still a bit laggy but not as bad as it was. I think it's more a facebook thing tho. every FB major update like this one is didneyworl like this.


After about 20 minutes or so is when it starts to get laggy. Like you said, I think it is more of a Facebook problem, than browser, though browser incompatibility might be the issue. I don't think it is something Alex would be able to mess with unless he was secretly working for Facebook.







Either way, Waterfox is a great browser and I will continue to use it.

P.S. I did have one "interesting" issue. I went to close a tab and it close, but at the same time it didn't. The page still showed up, and I was unable to switch tabs. The only way I could view the other tabs was to move the tab to it's own window. However, once I moved another tab to the new window, the second tab and the further tabs would show as the name "New Tab." Just an interesting bug. I have no idea if it is possible to replicate, or how I would replicate it, but I can play around and see how to do it. The only thing that comes to mind is when I double click to close a tab. (That might actually be an extension, I have installed?)


----------



## remixedcat

Yep... 20 minutes.... does FB have a freakin timer on it or what??!!


----------



## BMT

about:home, the screen you get when you open a new tab, etc. all are no longer working for me with the 28 test release.

This is the screen I see with both:



This is with both existing and new profiles.


----------



## JRuxGaming

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> about:home, the screen you get when you open a new tab, etc. all are no longer working for me with the 28 test release.
> 
> This is the screen I see with both:
> 
> 
> 
> This is with both existing and new profiles.


It seems to work for me. What do you have set for your homepage?


----------



## mwarren2

Running for three days now on a HP CORE i7 laptop and an ASUS CORE 7 desktop with no glitches! Looks good to go!


----------



## craigarno

So far Waterfox 28 is running well on my Vista x64 laptop. When I see problems reported here, I try to reproduce them and so far haven't been able to reproduce the problems. WF28 just keeps working on this HP DV9823CL laptop.

Since my last posting I verified Sync... is working with my self hosted Weave (Sync) server. I hope to keep WF28 around for Sync, so I have a vested interest in making sure WF28 works as I'll be living with it a long time. With FF29, Firefox is removing the Sync "_pairing_" interface for Weave server I use from FF code. It will be an unspecified time ( > FF31 ) before Self Hosting and Pairing for the new Weave 1.5 with Firefox Accounts will be available. Apparently this requires significant code changes. https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=989756 Anyone who wants this capability should (*vote*) for this feature. Don't bother commenting unless you think you can contribute something helpful. Votes will be counted.

I noticed WF28 uses almost 600MB of memory, compared to Firefox 28 (32-bit) which uses about 340MB doing the same things. The tradeoff is WF28 can do full screen video at full frame rates. FF28 (32-bit) can do about 3-5fps for Video on the same system. When I'm on the road and want to watch the news, this is a big deal.

I am alerted to memory every once in a while when Vista tells me my 3GB is running low. I'm usually only running Waterfox and Thunderbird when this happens. One time I checked and WF was using 1.2GB of memory. I had many tabs to different discussions and research open. I don't think I can add anymore RAM to this machine and I know I can't upgrade to Windows 7... I tried and most of the drivers don't work.

Bottom line, WF28 runs without any real issues yet on my older slower, but still wonderful HP DV9823CL laptop, which even has a remote control for the "TV"







. (*GOR* = _Good Old Reliable_).


----------



## bcooper21

when wil exe version be on site just for normal install?


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRuxGaming*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> about:home, the screen you get when you open a new tab, etc. all are no longer working for me with the 28 test release.
> 
> This is the screen I see with both:
> 
> 
> 
> This is with both existing and new profiles (screenshot taken with a new profile, I'd never normally use StartPage for search).
> 
> 
> 
> It seems to work for me. What do you have set for your homepage?
Click to expand...

Just the default start page. (Also accessible via about:home normally), works fine in FireFox 28 & WF 27.0.2, but not at all in WF 28.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> when wil exe version be on site just for normal install?


Whenever any known bugs are fixed I'd have thought.


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> When do the crashes occur/what are you trying to do in the browser when the crashes occur?


computer specifications as requested


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



my home computer:
cpu: i7 4960X
motherboard: rampage iv black edition x79 chipset
power: antec HCP-1300
gpu: 2x gtx780ti 3gb in sli mode
memory: 64gb 2133mhz vengeance pro
ssd: 2 M500's in raid
hdd: 2 1tb velociraptor's
monitors: 3 27" Benq
case: coolermaster Scout 2
operating system: windows 7 ultimate 64

4 are work laptops
asus pu500ca-xo053g only new about month old now to replace the old ones with windows xp

friends computer:
cpu: 2 Intel xeon S1356 Quads
memory: 32gb gskills 1333mhz
motherboard: asus s1356 dual xeon motherboard
ssd: 120GB Intel 530
hdd: 2 2TB Seagate
gpu: 3 Quadro fx6000 tri in sli mode
case: ASUS T50A
operating system: windows 7 premium 64



at startup
while in use or random times
tried new profile checked drivers everything is updated checked av systems


----------



## MrAlex

Is anyone having issues changing their default search engine? Just curious because I can't seem to replicate the issue that some users are reporting.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> When do the crashes occur/what are you trying to do in the browser when the crashes occur?
> 
> 
> 
> computer specifications as requested
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> my home computer:
> cpu: i7 4960X
> motherboard: rampage iv black edition x79 chipset
> power: antec HCP-1300
> gpu: 2x gtx780ti 3gb in sli mode
> memory: 64gb 2133mhz vengeance pro
> ssd: 2 M500's in raid
> hdd: 2 1tb velociraptor's
> monitors: 3 27" Benq
> case: coolermaster Scout 2
> operating system: windows 7 ultimate 64
> 
> 4 are work laptops
> asus pu500ca-xo053g only new about month old now to replace the old ones with windows xp
> 
> friends computer:
> cpu: 2 Intel xeon S1356 Quads
> memory: 32gb gskills 1333mhz
> motherboard: asus s1356 dual xeon motherboard
> ssd: 120GB Intel 530
> hdd: 2 2TB Seagate
> gpu: 3 Quadro fx6000 tri in sli mode
> case: ASUS T50A
> operating system: windows 7 premium 64
> 
> 
> 
> at startup
> while in use or random times
> tried new profile checked drivers everything is updated checked av systems
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, your AV doesn't happen to be avast! does it?


----------



## DazzaRPD

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry for the late reply everyone, this is a BIG release for Waterfox. This should catapult Waterfox back to the top of the performance charts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a test build, could you guys please let me know what you think?
> 
> https://db.tt/sMbyX8TP
> So what did those extra delays bring?
> 
> A complete, 100% ICC build! Yay! (As opposed to various VC and ICC build).
> Profile-Guided optimisation is back, which brings nice performance improvements.
> If you're running an Intel CPU, support for AVX2, SSE4.2, SSE4.1 and SSSE3 if your processor supports these instruction sets. AMD users, at the moment you only get up to SSE3 support
> Using Mozilla's built in memory allocator as opposed to jemalloc, otherwise crashes occur.
> Finally change the About dialogue to talk about Waterfox and to link to the Waterfox website (links not active yet)
> 
> Give it a whirl!


Just remembered I am a AMD man now with my laptop (I got it for cheap from a friend looking to offload semi-old hardware.

So with that in mind, I want to ask about the SSE support. From what I understand, SSE is processor-based, therefore I will only get SSE3. Is that correct? Also, does building it using ICC affect AMD products too, since ICC is an Intel product?

Thanks


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> Just remembered I am a AMD man now with my laptop (I got it for cheap from a friend looking to offload semi-old hardware.
> 
> So with that in mind, I want to ask about the SSE support. From what I understand, SSE is processor-based, therefore I will only get SSE3. Is that correct? Also, does building it using ICC affect AMD products too, since ICC is an Intel product?
> 
> Thanks


Dazza, I think I can answer that for you.
As far as the SIMD instruction sets go, it depends on what CPU you have. AMD CPUs didn't get the full SSE4 set until the Bulldozer core (AMD FX line), so if you've got Phenom or earlier, technically speaking, your CPU doesn't officially support the full SSE4 instruction set; so SSE3 is the best you would get anyway.
Only Bulldozer and later cores support SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3 and AVX, while the Piledriver core supports also AVX1.1 .

Regarding the Intel compiler, it has actually been proven to produce higher-performance binaries than Microsoft's but also, on occasion, than AMD's own Open64-derived compiler.


----------



## thechas

Running Waterfox 28 on Windows 7 Pro AMD Quad Core 16GB and Avast with no issues.

Can change search engine with no problems.

As always, thank you for your work and talent.

Chas


----------



## craigarno

I ran into my first WF28 issue today. I tried to install MS-Silverlight x64. In Windows Vista Ultimate SP2 x64 I get

The error that pops up takes me to a Microsoft web page that says the same thing with no additional information http://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/resources/help.aspx?errorID=1518. Clicking on the _here for the latest version of Silverlight_ link then takes me straight back to the Microsoft Silverlight x64 install page where this all started. http://www.microsoft.com/getsilverlight/Get-Started/Install/Default.aspx

I'm trying to view http://ow.ly/vpnsX

Also WF28 blew up once today, but since the system was complaining about being low on memory, I decided that is likely the reason it blew up.

I'm stumped. I like the Khan Academy, so I'm disappointed I can't install Silverlight to watch the video.


----------



## craigarno

Okay, thanks to Sync I'm able to pick up where I left off using Windows 7 x64, and MS-Silverlight tries to install the 32-bit version of Silverlight. I overrode this and installed Silverlight-x64.exe. *Silverlight-64 works fine in Windows 7 x64 with WF28*. So I suspect this is an MS-Silverlight problem with Vista x64, not a WF28 problem. Think I'll stick with Linux, but when I have to use Windows, I'll use Waterfox for the reasons I described earlier which can be summarized as "video performance on a slower machine". MS Support is too much of a hassle, so I'm not going to bother reporting this Silverlight problem for Vista x64.


----------



## mwarren2

Silverlight plug-in version 5.1.30214.0 is running fine on my HP laptop with Win 8.1


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Out of curiosity, your AV doesn't happen to be avast! does it?


as per request
my home computer: bullguard
friends: NOD32
work has on laptops server there entire network: bitdefender corporate security


----------



## tatianalarina

Some pages don't work for me in Waterfox 27.0.2 as they should. For instance this page with maps for the navigation tool Osmand:

http://download.osmand.net/list.php

When I click on a zip file to download it, I get the window asking me to confirm whether I want to download a "download.php" file. It happens both when I double-click the link and when I choose "save the link as".

The standard procedure - emptying the cache, creating the new profile etc. didn't help.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tatianalarina*
> 
> Some pages don't work for me in Waterfox 27.0.2 as they should. For instance this page with maps for the navigation tool Osmand:
> 
> http://download.osmand.net/list.php
> 
> When I click on a zip file to download it, I get the window asking me to confirm whether I want to download a "download.php" file. It happens both when I double-click the link and when I choose "save the link as".
> 
> The standard procedure - emptying the cache, creating the new profile etc. didn't help.


That's a fault with the website, not your browser. Just checked and it does exactly the same in FireFox, Chrome and IE.


----------



## tatianalarina

It worked for me in IE.


----------



## satrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tatianalarina*
> 
> http://download.osmand.net/list.php
> 
> When I click on a zip file to download it, I get the window asking me to confirm whether I want to download a "download.php" file.


Just rename the downloaded file to *.zip, or w/e file extension is listed for the download.


----------



## safari801

Does anyone know why Techspot Shows waterfox 28 available to download on their site? I downloaded and installed and it says ver28. So far no glitches. Is this an official release Alex? I was under the impression only a test build was available.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Does anyone know why Techspot Shows waterfox 28 available to download on their site? I downloaded and installed and it says ver28. So far no glitches. Is this an official release Alex? I was under the impression only a test build was available.


https://waterfox.codeplex.com/ says 28.0, Stable.


----------



## safari801

Funny how it came out of the blue like that. So far working great, though.


----------



## craigarno

I am able to reproduce http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-27-0-1-20-february-firefox-64-bit/5710#post_22048009 about:home issue in Firefox 28 x64 (Linux) using an unmodified config created in FF27. FF28 displays *chrome://branding/locale/browserconfig.properties* in the address bar and shows *browser.startup.homepage=about:home* in the viewing area. This issue suggests to me WF28 is behaving the same as FF28. Good catch, difficult to reproduce.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Does anyone know why Techspot Shows waterfox 28 available to download on their site? I downloaded and installed and it says ver28. So far no glitches. Is this an official release Alex? I was under the impression only a test build was available.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/ says 28.0, Stable.


Thanks for mentioning that! The "test" version didn't work for me properly at all, but the "stable" version on CodePlex worked just fine for me after installation, even with my previous WF profile!
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> I am able to reproduce http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-27-0-1-20-february-firefox-64-bit/5710#post_22048009 about:home issue in Firefox 28 x64 (Linux) using an unmodified config created in FF27. FF28 displays *chrome://branding/locale/browserconfig.properties* in the address bar and shows *browser.startup.homepage=about:home* in the viewing area. This issue suggests to me WF28 is behaving the same as FF28. Good catch, difficult to reproduce.


That's interesting; I wonder if MrAlex somehow fixed that in the stable release as it all seems to work just fine for me with that.

---

Good work with the WF 28 release MrAlex


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry for the late reply everyone, this is a BIG release for Waterfox. This should catapult Waterfox back to the top of the performance charts
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here is a test build, could you guys please let me know what you think?
> 
> https://db.tt/sMbyX8TP
> So what did those extra delays bring?
> 
> A complete, 100% ICC build! Yay! (As opposed to various VC and ICC build).
> Profile-Guided optimisation is back, which brings nice performance improvements.
> If you're running an Intel CPU, support for AVX2, SSE4.2, SSE4.1 and SSSE3 if your processor supports these instruction sets. AMD users, at the moment you only get up to SSE3 support
> Using Mozilla's built in memory allocator as opposed to jemalloc, otherwise crashes occur.
> Finally change the About dialogue to talk about Waterfox and to link to the Waterfox website (links not active yet)
> 
> Give it a whirl!
> 
> 
> 
> Just remembered I am a AMD man now with my laptop (I got it for cheap from a friend looking to offload semi-old hardware.
> 
> So with that in mind, I want to ask about the SSE support. From what I understand, SSE is processor-based, therefore I will only get SSE3. Is that correct? Also, does building it using ICC affect AMD products too, since ICC is an Intel product?
> 
> Thanks
Click to expand...

What happened was a while back Intel was caught purposely decreasing performance if a processor wasn't Intel. They got caught and fined appropriately. That no longer happens and ICC provides great performance boosts than VC does on Windows for any x86 processor which is good news because AMD processors can benefit from it. Unfortunately I can't enable certain flags otherwise AMD users would get left out, which is why I've picked the ones I have. Hope that clears up any issues!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *skagon*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> Just remembered I am a AMD man now with my laptop (I got it for cheap from a friend looking to offload semi-old hardware.
> 
> So with that in mind, I want to ask about the SSE support. From what I understand, SSE is processor-based, therefore I will only get SSE3. Is that correct? Also, does building it using ICC affect AMD products too, since ICC is an Intel product?
> 
> Thanks
> 
> 
> 
> Dazza, I think I can answer that for you.
> As far as the SIMD instruction sets go, it depends on what CPU you have. AMD CPUs didn't get the full SSE4 set until the Bulldozer core (AMD FX line), so if you've got Phenom or earlier, technically speaking, your CPU doesn't officially support the full SSE4 instruction set; so SSE3 is the best you would get anyway.
> Only Bulldozer and later cores support SSE4.1, SSE4.2, SSSE3 and AVX, while the Piledriver core supports also AVX1.1 .
> 
> Regarding the Intel compiler, it has actually been proven to produce higher-performance binaries than Microsoft's but also, on occasion, than AMD's own Open64-derived compiler.
Click to expand...

It's more to do with how Intel's C++ compiler flags work. You can look them up to see what I mean: /Qax and /arch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Running Waterfox 28 on Windows 7 Pro AMD Quad Core 16GB and Avast with no issues.
> 
> Can change search engine with no problems.
> 
> As always, thank you for your work and talent.
> 
> Chas


Great to hear and thanks for the support!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> Okay, thanks to Sync I'm able to pick up where I left off using Windows 7 x64, and MS-Silverlight tries to install the 32-bit version of Silverlight. I overrode this and installed Silverlight-x64.exe. *Silverlight-64 works fine in Windows 7 x64 with WF28*. So I suspect this is an MS-Silverlight problem with Vista x64, not a WF28 problem. Think I'll stick with Linux, but when I have to use Windows, I'll use Waterfox for the reasons I described earlier which can be summarized as "video performance on a slower machine". MS Support is too much of a hassle, so I'm not going to bother reporting this Silverlight problem for Vista x64.


That's good to hear! Yes it does seem that Silverlight gets a bit picky at times, but as long as the x64 version is installed there shouldn't be any issues.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *nick fuller*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Out of curiosity, your AV doesn't happen to be avast! does it?
> 
> 
> 
> as per request
> my home computer: bullguard
> friends: NOD32
> work has on laptops server there entire network: bitdefender corporate security
Click to expand...

Interesting, a while back avast! would sometimes cause BEX64 issues (memory buffer overflow) with certain programs. But I can't seem to reproduce a memory overflow issue like you're reporting.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tatianalarina*
> 
> Some pages don't work for me in Waterfox 27.0.2 as they should. For instance this page with maps for the navigation tool Osmand:
> 
> http://download.osmand.net/list.php
> 
> When I click on a zip file to download it, I get the window asking me to confirm whether I want to download a "download.php" file. It happens both when I double-click the link and when I choose "save the link as".
> 
> The standard procedure - emptying the cache, creating the new profile etc. didn't help.


Yes that does appear to be a website issue. Have you tried contacting the webmaster of said web page?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Does anyone know why Techspot Shows waterfox 28 available to download on their site? I downloaded and installed and it says ver28. So far no glitches. Is this an official release Alex? I was under the impression only a test build was available.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Does anyone know why Techspot Shows waterfox 28 available to download on their site? I downloaded and installed and it says ver28. So far no glitches. Is this an official release Alex? I was under the impression only a test build was available.
> 
> 
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/ says 28.0, Stable.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Funny how it came out of the blue like that. So far working great, though.


Sorry about that! I released it quietly to see if people would report any issues before officially announcing it, but yes it is the official version.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> I am able to reproduce http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-27-0-1-20-february-firefox-64-bit/5710#post_22048009 about:home issue in Firefox 28 x64 (Linux) using an unmodified config created in FF27. FF28 displays *chrome://branding/locale/browserconfig.properties* in the address bar and shows *browser.startup.homepage=about:home* in the viewing area. This issue suggests to me WF28 is behaving the same as FF28. Good catch, difficult to reproduce.


Ok great thanks, I'll look into that and see if a bug report in necessary to Mozilla (unless you're all ready submitted one!)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Does anyone know why Techspot Shows waterfox 28 available to download on their site? I downloaded and installed and it says ver28. So far no glitches. Is this an official release Alex? I was under the impression only a test build was available.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/ says 28.0, Stable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for mentioning that! The "test" version didn't work for me properly at all, but the "stable" version on CodePlex worked just fine for me after installation, even with my previous WF profile!
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> I am able to reproduce http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-27-0-1-20-february-firefox-64-bit/5710#post_22048009 about:home issue in Firefox 28 x64 (Linux) using an unmodified config created in FF27. FF28 displays *chrome://branding/locale/browserconfig.properties* in the address bar and shows *browser.startup.homepage=about:home* in the viewing area. This issue suggests to me WF28 is behaving the same as FF28. Good catch, difficult to reproduce.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's interesting; I wonder if MrAlex somehow fixed that in the stable release as it all seems to work just fine for me with that.
> 
> ---
> 
> Good work with the WF 28 release MrAlex
Click to expand...

Thanks, glad it's working for you!


----------



## craigarno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> I am able to reproduce http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-27-0-1-20-february-firefox-64-bit/5710#post_22048009 about:home issue in Firefox 28 x64 (Linux) using an unmodified config created in FF27. FF28 displays *chrome://branding/locale/browserconfig.properties* in the address bar and shows *browser.startup.homepage=about:home* in the viewing area. This issue suggests to me WF28 is behaving the same as FF28. Good catch, difficult to reproduce.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok great thanks, I'll look into that and see if a bug report in necessary to Mozilla (unless you're all ready submitted one!)
Click to expand...

This one doesn't bother me and is easier for me to work around than try to reproduce. So, No, I haven't submitted this one to Mozilla. The platform I reproduced on is OpenSUSE 12.3 x64 with Firefox 28.


----------



## BreakmanX

Thanks again for all the hard work. Waterfox is the best browser there is.


----------



## WetLook

A BIG THANKS to you Mr. Alex!!!

Running Waterfox Ver. 28.0 on a Win 7 Pro machine with no problems.

I really like Waterfox and have been using it for a few months now.

Again thanks for all your time and hard work.

WetLook


----------



## nick fuller

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Interesting, a while back avast! would sometimes cause BEX64 issues (memory buffer overflow) with certain programs. But I can't seem to reproduce a memory overflow issue like you're reporting.


i found the issue for some reason it was loading waterfox\browser\components\browsercomps.dll twice causing a (memory buffer overflow) when they conflicted
installing 27.0.2 solve the issue


----------



## skagon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's more to do with how Intel's C++ compiler flags work. You can look them up to see what I mean: /Qax and /arch


Actually, we're in agreement, I was saying the same thing. I guess I should have phrased my last sentence (about the Bulldozer and later cores) a bit better.

However, now I'm sitting on an 8-core Bulldozer so... any chance those AVX/SSE4 enhancements work on my CPU as well?
In fact... have you ever tried a benchmark on the effects of each SIMD set on the speed of the browser? Like, baseline to SSE3, then to SSE4, then to AVX?
It'd be interesting to see which set has the most impact...


----------



## Dalrony

Starting yesterday both Waterfox 28.0 and Firefox 28 freeze when I try to open a private window. I have to use task manager to stop the process.

And in Facebook, I'm also getting these freezes. When you're typing something into Facebook, FB opens suggestion boxes and it's when this happens that both Firefox and Waterfox freeze and I have to use task manager.

As I said this started yesterday and I haven't added any addons or made any changes.

EDIT: Both are sometimes freezing when a page tries to open a new tab but not always. I have also Palemoon installed and that is not having the same problem despite having the same setup (addons etc) as Firefox and Waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Could anyone test out the portable version of 28.0? It works for me but I'd like to know if anyone has issues. This version finally has a portable profile as well, so it's a proper portable release! https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/121047

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Dalrony*
> 
> Starting yesterday both Waterfox 28.0 and Firefox 28 freeze when I try to open a private window. I have to use task manager to stop the process.
> 
> And in Facebook, I'm also getting these freezes. When you're typing something into Facebook, FB opens suggestion boxes and it's when this happens that both Firefox and Waterfox freeze and I have to use task manager.
> 
> As I said this started yesterday and I haven't added any addons or made any changes.
> 
> EDIT: Both are sometimes freezing when a page tries to open a new tab but not always. I have also Palemoon installed and that is not having the same problem despite having the same setup (addons etc) as Firefox and Waterfox.


Have you tried a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles


----------



## Dalrony

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dalrony*
> 
> Starting yesterday both Waterfox 28.0 and Firefox 28 freeze when I try to open a private window. I have to use task manager to stop the process.


This turned out to be caused by HTTPS-Everywhere. After removing that addon, I have been able to open private windows.

Quote:


> And in Facebook, I'm also getting these freezes. When I'm typing something into Facebook, FB opens suggestion boxes and it's when this happens that both Firefox and Waterfox freeze and I have to use task manager to shutdown Waterfox or Firefox.


I'm not the only one having this problem. There are a quite a few threads on the Mozilla support pages with exactly the same symptoms.


----------



## craigarno

I'm wondering if Waterfox 28.0 has a memory leak?

I run Waterfox 28.0 on my Vista x64 laptop. It had 3GB of RAM, but kept running out of memory. So I recently bought more memory to max it out at 4GB. I can use Waterfox for about 1/2 day with 10-15 tabs open while I bounce around to different parts of a database, Facebook, and a few reference sites. I'll get a "low memory" message from the OS suggesting to close Waterfox. If I ignore the message than Waterfox pretty quickly goes "poof" and disappears. Then I usually notice about 2-2.5GB free up.

I like Waterfox, it's really fast. I'm wondering why 10-15 tabs of fairly static data, some pictures and a lot of "work" type activity can make it use up 2.5GB of RAM. Once it's restarted with the same pages loaded my system reports 1.5 GB Free.

I'm stumped.


----------



## Annihilannic

Adobe keeps pestering me to update flash to v.13 , but of course the automatic update always takes me to the standard 32-bit download. In fact the Adobe web site seems to deny all existence of a 64-bit version.

waterfoxproject.org/plugins.php still points to http://aihdownload.adobe.com/bin/live/install_flashplayer11x64_mssd_aih.exe. I tried changing 11x64 to 13x64 and it does download an installer, but the installer fails to download what it needs to complete the installation.

https://www.adobe.com/software/flash/about/ and aboutlugins tell me that I'm currently running 12,0,0,77.

Same for everyone?

Annihilannic


----------



## kronckew

adobe flash player beta site (installers are x64 & x86 all in one): http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html

current releases (also dual x64 & x86) : http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/distribution3.html

(both links for version 13)

for waterfox & firefox you need the 'plugin' version, not the IE one.


----------



## Annihilannic

Thanks! Now "You have version 13,0,0,182 installed".


----------



## Annihilannic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> I'm wondering if Waterfox 28.0 has a memory leak?
> ...
> I'm stumped.


I was going to suggest using *about:memory*, doing a measure and then doing one again later in the day to see where it was all going... however when I tried it myself just now in Waterfox 28.0 the application crashed. Does the same happen to you?

ETA: Tried again and it worked, so it may help your diagnosis.


----------



## craigarno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Annihilannic*
> 
> ... however when I tried it myself just now in Waterfox 28.0 the application crashed. Does the same happen to you?


Yes, when this condition occurs, Waterfox usually goes "poof" shortly after, sometimes before I'd have a chance to see what about:memory tells me. I've been watching Taskmgr.exe for overall memory information. It takes about a half day for this to occur, so I haven't found a way to repeat this behavior yet. The application (genealogy program) I'm using this week opens and closes many tabs during normal edit operations. I'm still trying to figure out how to get more information about this behavior. Maybe doing regular surveys of about:memory, like once an hour will let me see any memory buildup trends prior to disaster. Fortunately Waterfox/Firefox recover well after this kind of event. So I only lose a small amount of editing time along with the distraction of having to setup again to pickup where I left off.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *craigarno*
> 
> I'm wondering if Waterfox 28.0 has a memory leak?
> 
> I run Waterfox 28.0 on my Vista x64 laptop. It had 3GB of RAM, but kept running out of memory. So I recently bought more memory to max it out at 4GB. I can use Waterfox for about 1/2 day with 10-15 tabs open while I bounce around to different parts of a database, Facebook, and a few reference sites. I'll get a "low memory" message from the OS suggesting to close Waterfox. If I ignore the message than Waterfox pretty quickly goes "poof" and disappears. Then I usually notice about 2-2.5GB free up.
> 
> I like Waterfox, it's really fast. I'm wondering why 10-15 tabs of fairly static data, some pictures and a lot of "work" type activity can make it use up 2.5GB of RAM. Once it's restarted with the same pages loaded my system reports 1.5 GB Free.
> 
> I'm stumped.


I've been noticing Pale Moon chomping through more memory lately with version 24.4.2, and with that some sluggishness in registering keyboard presses and mouse clicks when memory usage goes over ~500 meg. Could be some code revision that hasn't been fixed up yet.


----------



## craigarno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I've been noticing Pale Moon chomping through more memory lately with version 24.4.2, and with that some sluggishness in registering keyboard presses and mouse clicks when memory usage goes over ~500 meg. Could be some code revision that hasn't been fixed up yet.


I'm considering this possibility as well. I run Firefox 28.0 x64 on my Linux work station and see a similar creeping memory usage issue. It isn't as obvious in this 16GB system as it is in my 4GB laptop. Eliminating possibilities, Windows/Linux, Firefox/Waterfox/Pale Moon, and it appears the common thread is Firefox code. Of course this has yet to be proved with evidence/data.


----------



## Quantum Reality

One other thing that's a recurring issue mentioned on the PM forums is that 64-bit video drivers + native in-browser hardware acceleration can account for high memory usage. One workaround is to disable that, as mentioned on the Mozilla Support site:

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/977581


----------



## craigarno

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Annihilannic*
> 
> I was going to suggest using *about:memory*


Waterfox 28.0, I'm looking at *about:memory* and don't complete the memory information. At the top of the listing I see,
"WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should."
and when I go the the bottom of the listing, I see "*8,378,049.27 MB ── vsize-max-contiguous*" This is on a machine with 4GB RAM and 256GB SSD. This number is slightly less disk space than I have in my server, though I don't think the two numbers are related.

I'm noticing this memory consumption behavior in both Firefox and Thunderbird products. So I submitted Bug reports:

*998755 Thunderbird* Untriaged [email protected] UNCO --- Thunderbird is using too much memory after a few days work with lots of messages and mailboxes
*998753 Firefox* Untriaged [email protected] UNCO --- Feature Request: Firefox uses too much memory, flush page caches as needed

If you are experiencing similar problems, I suggest you "*Vote*" for them using the "Vote" capability in the Bug Report Header (I always have to hunt for it). Voting counts, messaging just spams the email list.

Basically for what I'm doing, Firefox/Waterfox is using 3+GB of RAM and Thunderbird 5+GB. I can't have these two applications consuming 8+ GB of resources for "normal" operation in any of my machines from my lowly laptop with 256GB SSD and 4GB RAM to my workstation with 16GB RAM and scads of disk space.

I hate to bomb and run, but I have to get ready to catch a plane tomorrow. I'll be back at the end of the week, and only able to respond in a limited sense in between.


----------



## Paran0id

Hi all. Who knows how to move tab bar to bottom. Code in userchrome.css
#content > tabbox { -moz-box-direction: reverse; } not working, but other codes work.
Extended not to offer.
Use Waterfox 28.0, Windows 7 x64 Ultimate


----------



## Quantum Reality

Has that tab box thing worked for you before? If so, then perhaps an interface change in the recent Mozilla code has caused it to no longer interpret that code segment as valid CSS. I Googled and found it goes back almost ten years.

EDIT: Also, keep in mind there are specific rules for what you MUST have in a userChrome.css as the first non-comment line:

Code:



Code:


/* This Source Code Form is subject to the terms of the Mozilla Public
 * License, v. 2.0. If a copy of the MPL was not distributed with this
 * file, You can obtain one at http://mozilla.org/MPL/2.0/. */

/*
 * Edit this file and copy it as userChrome.css into your
 * profile-directory/chrome/
 */

/*
 * This file can be used to customize the look of Mozilla's user interface
 * You should consider using !important on rules which you want to
 * override default settings.
 */

/*
 * Do not remove the @namespace line -- it's required for correct functioning
 */
@namespace url("http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul"); /* set default namespace to XUL */


----------



## Paran0id

Hi.
Early use Opera, decided to try waterfox, as x64.
First non-comment line of course there is. Other code working, and they, too, not one year. Search on many many more forums, and where the code works where there is no. Thought maybe someone was faced with the same problem and a have ready solution.
Well, not very desirable to use extensions.
Sorry for my english. Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Out of curiosity, where are you from, Paran0id?

Also, try this:

http://www.ghacks.net/2014/01/20/restore-tabs-bottom-firefox/

Also:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/tab-mix-plus/


----------



## Paran0id

From Russia.

I currently use Tab Mix Plus, too many unnecessary functions for me.

Found this code:
var TabBox = document.getAnonymousNodes(gBrowser)[1];
TabBox.setAttribute("dir","rtl");
But do not know where it prescribe. There are thoughts?


----------



## Letchy

Hi.

I've recently switched to using Waterfox in place of Palemoon. All was working just fine until yesterday. It seems Waterfox has a tonne of trouble loading certain websites such as YouTube and Hotmail; the problem being that Hotmail does not load at all and only shows a blank white space and YouTube looks like this: http://gyazo.com/323bbc1454afd9519c1cb5911aa151b8

Would anyone know why this happens? I am using a 64bit OS and have tried disabling my addons... But to no avail.

Thanks.


----------



## Spurred

I realize this thread section was posted a couple of years ago, but I am trying to access the profile manager using Waterfox 28.0 on a Windows 8.1 64-bit system. I had no problem suffixing the -P switch to the end of the Firefox 28.0 command, but when I suffix the -P switch to the end of the Waterfox command, all I get is a fresh, blank Waterfox page opening. No Profile Manager window pops up. Has there been a syntax change?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spurred*
> 
> I realize this thread section was posted a couple of years ago, but I am trying to access the profile manager using Waterfox 28.0 on a Windows 8.1 64-bit system. I had no problem suffixing the -P switch to the end of the Firefox 28.0 command, but when I suffix the -P switch to the end of the Waterfox command, all I get is a fresh, blank Waterfox page opening. No Profile Manager window pops up. Has there been a syntax change?


There shouldn't be, are you sure that Waterfox/Firefox isn't running when you try to append the -P command?


----------



## Spurred

Thanks for your reply MrAlex.
Quote:


> are you sure that Waterfox/Firefox isn't running when you try to append the -P command?


Umm . . . (shewepish look) no. I did have Waterfox running, although minimized. I closed Waterfox and tried again. Shazam - Thunderbird popped up. I find that very strange, as the Thunderbird program is in a whole other folder, the _Program Files (X86_) folder, as it is a 32-bit program. The path to Thunderbird is entirely different than the path to Waterfox, which is in the _Program Files_ 64-bit folder..

Thunderbird had been minimized, too, so I closed it. With both Thunderbird and Waterfox closed, the -P switch worked as it should.

I appreciate your help, although the Thunderbird connection leaves me wondering.

Tony


----------



## Ianes

I just noticed the new update. But I was wondering if I have to remove my old installation prior to installing the new one. Also, if I uninstall, do I loose all my history etc or not?

Additionally, I'm curious about the plugins. Whevever I use the "Check if you your plugins are up to date" feature inside the browser, and then update from there, I get the "install_flashplayer11x32_mssd_aih.exe" file, not the x64 that waterfoxproject.org links to. Why is that, and is there any real difference?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ianes*
> 
> I just noticed the new update. But I was wondering if I have to remove my old installation prior to installing the new one. Also, if I uninstall, do I loose all my history etc or not?
> 
> Additionally, I'm curious about the plugins. Whevever I use the "Check if you your plugins are up to date" feature inside the browser, and then update from there, I get the "install_flashplayer11x32_mssd_aih.exe" file, not the x64 that waterfoxproject.org links to. Why is that, and is there any real difference?


The x32 has both now. It's misleadingly named, but it will work. I use Pale Moon 64bit, and I can verify that 64bit Flash works.


----------



## DazzaRPD

Waterfox has had high RAM usage lately 700K with only a few tabs open, and around 6 extensions....

I guess it's because the code is bloated as its gearing up before the Australis release hits (in a few days, if Australis is really to hit Waterfox). It happens particularly around flash-heavy sites, so maybe Adobe broke something again, I just thought I'd ought to report it in case I'm not the only one)


----------



## craigarno

I submitted *998753 Firefox Untriaged [email protected] UNCO --- Feature Request: Firefox uses too much memory, flush page caches as needed* to Mozilla some days ago. The feedback I received says it's been flagged as a "_Feature Request_" and something to address this issue will be released in v29. If this is a concern, I suggest visiting the Firefox bugzilla site and voting for this feature (look for the vote button, I always have trouble finding it). The "Vote" URL is *https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/page.cgi?id=voting/user.html&bug_id=998753#vote_998753*


----------



## Lord Venom

So now that 29 is out in the wild now, Australis coming?


----------



## safari801

I just hope everyone doesn't start bugging Alex about wf 29 because FF29 is out. I'm sure he'll be releasing when he can so I hope we can sit tight and wait.


----------



## Gigajoule

Hello, i just logged in here for a simple message.

Please, PLEASE, don't integrate the new Design of FF29 into Waterfox.
It lacks so much functionality and looks more like an abortion of chrome.


----------



## opal

I've been using waterfox for quite a while now but this is the first update (28) that's given me any trouble that I recall. It just stops working - so says the error message - and I have to start it again. This seems to happen several times a day - sometimes with multiple windows and tabs open.. sometimes just one. Anyone else having this problem?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gigajoule*
> 
> Hello, i just logged in here for a simple message.
> 
> Please, PLEASE, don't integrate the new Design of FF29 into Waterfox.
> It lacks so much functionality and looks more like an abortion of chrome.


Honestly? You might want to use Pale Moon instead if esthetics are more important, as Moonchild has said he will NOT incorporate Australis UI features into it.

If you want a very fast 64-bit variant of Firefox, Waterfox is for you.









EDIT:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/ - classic theme restorer for Australis versions of FF (which presumably would include MrAlex's variant)

http://thenextweb.com/apps/2014/04/29/firefox-29-arrives-revamped-sync-tool-customization-mode-mozillas-user-interface-overhaul-australis/ - UI features of Australis

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/181516-firefox-29-available-to-download-with-all-new-swoopy-australis-interface - Another review of Australis


----------



## Lord Venom

Australis isn't _that_ bad. That said, those who want the older interface should checkout the Classic Theme Restorer extension.


----------



## safari801

Yeah, after spending a day with ff29, australis isn't that bad and you can always customize it to your liking. Change is hard for some people but sometimes necessary.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Australis is OK.

What is needed though is for addon developers to update their addons to work better with Australis.


----------



## safari801

That'll take time but it will be interesting to see what happens. FYI, Cyberfox just came out with a new update (28.0.1) and it has it's own profile. I had to import all my old bookmarks.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Yeah, after spending a day with ff29, australis isn't that bad and you can always customize it to your liking. Change is hard for some people but sometimes necessary.


I agree, the only thing I _really_ disliked about Australis was the tabs.

Fixed that right up and made my bookmarks bar auto-show/hide (with a 1.25 second delay before appearing so it doesn't pop up when I don't want it to) by throwing together a userChrome.css.

I'm on my Mac at work right now rather than PC at home (which I have yet to test it on), but you'll be able to see the sort of thing I did with my tabs either way.


----------



## shaggygoblin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *[email protected]*
> 
> WOW a 64bit? I still don't know if i should try it. Cuz it's a modified browser. Kinda sketchy but i await results from others til i try, i applaud you for adding 64bit!


Hmm...do you still walk everywhere as opposed to riding a new invetion called a bycicle or the fantastic automobile? Dude, give it a go, worst case scenario, you have to uninstall it and continue to use SlowFox/Rust(Chrome)/InternetExploiter...


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *shaggygoblin*
> 
> Hmm...do you still walk everywhere as opposed to riding a new invetion called a bycicle or the fantastic automobile? Dude, give it a go, worst case scenario, you have to uninstall it and continue to use SlowFox/Rust(Chrome)/InternetExploiter...


Or maybe you get hooked on using 64 bit browsers that don't get targeted for zero day exploits:thumb:


----------



## throwawyacc

hello,

i installed waterfox and after a couple of hours i decided to switch back to firefox. so i deinstalled it and it said "remove my waterfox personal data and customizations" after i launched firefox all my bookmarks are gone. how can waterfox delete my bookmarks in firefox? it said only watermark files. so what can i do to get my bookmarks back? i hope someone can help me.

sorry for my bad english. it's not my native language.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *throwawyacc*
> 
> hello,
> 
> i installed waterfox and after a couple of hours i decided to switch back to firefox. so i deinstalled it and it said "remove my waterfox personal data and customizations" after i launched firefox all my bookmarks are gone. how can waterfox delete my bookmarks in firefox? it said only watermark files. so what can i do to get my bookmarks back? i hope someone can help me.
> 
> sorry for my bad english. it's not my native language.


Sorry to have to tell you that Waterfox and Firefox use the same profile.
Unless you have a backup of your Firfeox profile, there is no easy way to restore your bookmarks.

You might try a deleted file recovery utility. I don't have a specific one to recommend.

Chas


----------



## pokeseeker

I'm still getting the out of date browser message:
http://i.imgur.com/DKa3Q72.png

My use agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 Waterfox/28.0

Thing is I installed Waterfox 28 on a fresh VM install of Windows 7 and I still get the same message.


----------



## N3C14R

Has anyone got the auto updater in Waterfox to work? I was running Waterfox 27 until like last week when I checked the project website and hey! A new version.


----------



## bcooper21

Will this stay similar to ff and just be upgraded to 64bit.

I know cyberfox is going to keep old ui in there 29 update so i guess its going be similar to palemoon.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> I know cyberfox is going to keep old ui in there 29 update so i guess its going be similar to palemoon.


Pale Moon is pretty different compared to Waterfox and Cyberfox - it's a full-on fork. That said, I actually hope Waterfox is built using 29's source code and using Australis.


----------



## DIMPIE

Hi,

I have not read every post since the update to v28, but I notice the new version gives me a problem with right-click not always working immediately to bring up the context menu







Anyone else experiencing this, as I get it on 2x different machines ???

TIA


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *throwawyacc*
> 
> hello,
> 
> i installed waterfox and after a couple of hours i decided to switch back to firefox. so i deinstalled it and it said "remove my waterfox personal data and customizations" after i launched firefox all my bookmarks are gone. how can waterfox delete my bookmarks in firefox? it said only watermark files. so what can i do to get my bookmarks back? i hope someone can help me.
> 
> sorry for my bad english. it's not my native language.


Hello again.

Just today received an article on file recovery.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147668/how-to-recover-deleted-files.html#tk.nl_today

Also recommend using MozBackup to backup and restore your Mozilla based product profiles. Works for Firefox, Thunderbird and Sea Monkey.

Chas


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Hello again.
> 
> Just today received an article on file recovery.
> 
> http://www.pcworld.com/article/2147668/how-to-recover-deleted-files.html#tk.nl_today
> 
> Also recommend using MozBackup to backup and restore your Mozilla based product profiles. Works for Firefox, Thunderbird and Sea Monkey.
> 
> Chas


Waterfox is using the Firefox profile directory. Meaning they are the same when you launch them. If you don't set them up to use separate profiles manually.
It has been covered several times in this thread. When asked in either of the uninstallers to remove personal data, answer NO. Or you lose your profile data.
And also, while experimenting with new software, always keep backups.


----------



## skagon

I too have been watching the newest developments with Firefox and the Cyberfox creators' decision to 'fork' it, using the old UI.

If I may add my opinion here, I think that Waterfox should remain a faithful 64-bit Firefox 'clone'. The reason that we all (or at least, most of us) started using Waterfox was *not* that we wanted a different browser, but that we wanted the browser we all loved, only in 64-bits. Had we wanted an entirely new browser, we would have used Chrome, Opera or IE (God forbid).

I believe that, in the long term, the decision to 'fork' Cyberfox will work against them. As time passes and new versions of Firefox come out, the gap between Firefox and Cyberfox will only widen, the number of Firefox add-ons that won't work in Cyberfox will only increase, and the profiles of Firefox and Cyberfox will become more and more incompatible.
I don't know if there will be a tool to convert the profiles back and forth -- for the moment, there is a 'copy' tool that will 'migrate' your Firefox profile to the Cyberfox directories, but not the other way around -- but as newer versions come out, the settings and other stored data will only become more and more different.

Even worse, the add-ons (and plug-ins) for Firefox will be made to work under the Australis infrastructure, whereby I seriously doubt that they'll be compatible with the old UI that Cyberfox will be using, especially after a few versions have been released.

All in all... yes, Australis may *suck* (or it may not, it's personal preference), but Waterfox should stay true to what it always has been: a 64-bit variant of Firefox.
Let each user worry about the UI and whether they like or want to use Australis, or use some add-on and keep the old "look and feel".

...my 5 pence.


----------



## JoeF

My two cents on going past 28.0...
I am running 64-bit nightly Firefox builds on my Linux machines, currently up to 31-nightly. I hate running 32-bit builds on 64-bit machines








While I hesitated quite a bit before using the 29-nightly, I got pretty much used to it, in particular with add-ons like Classic Theme Restorer, which allows to move tabs etc. the way they were before.
I do think Waterfox should follow the Firefox 29+ path.
Don't create a fork, which takes a lot of time and effort to maintain. MrAlex is busy as it is, from what I can see from his posts...


----------



## AMD loving man

I am pissed with Mozilla for the Australis (as much as you can be pissed to a company which provides you with free software, but hey it is the internet







).
I have tried Pale Moon so far and it is quite nice. I see that Waterfox might a bit faster and I see the faster release cycle as reducing the risk of add-on incompatibility in the future.
The point is I don't like Australis and I want it out (I know some user above made quite compelling arguments for the opposite and it is a matter of taste and balance of effort and etc.).

So the question is - do we have an official statement from Waterfox project managers on the topic? Thanks.


----------



## kronckew

AMDlm, you can contact the waterfox staff directly here. (except the financial and purchasing managers who you'll need to contact thru the CEO's general secretary)








waterfox project staff directory:

CEO: mr. alex
information technology manager: mr. alex
project managers: mr. alex, mr. alex
resource developement manager: mr. alex
purchasing manager: mr. alex's father
production manager: mr. alex
transportation manager: mr. alex
technical manager: mr. alex
operations manager: mr. alex
financial manager: mr. alex's mother
marketing manager: mr. alex
health and safety manager: mr. alex
human resources manager: mr. alex
education and training liason: mr. alex
chief programmer: mr. alex
general programming staff list: mr. alex, mr. alex, mr. alex
general secretary: mr. alex
receprionist: mr. alex
janitor: mr. alex
chief cook and bottle washer: mr. alex

i too hope mr. alex stays with the mainstream firefox code. australis was a pain in the keester to work around, but the classic theme restorer and classic buttons 3rd party addons tame it down fairly well. my firefox looks & acts much the same as it did 5 years ago even with australis. i just wish they'd stop messing about so much tweaking it. i do NOT want firefox to turn into a chrome clone.

people should also stop pushing cyberfox and pale moon here. if you are now using them, fine. go post in their forum.


----------



## Grumpigeek

There is no such thing as Waterfox project managers.

Waterfox is a one man show built entirely by Alex in his spare time away from studying for a degree.

The fact that he manages this around his study is a credit to his commitment and stamina.

*Future Direction:*
I agree with comments above that Waterfox should remain a faithful 64-bit version of the current release of Firefox.

Given the direction other 64-bit variants seem to be going, that would also make it unique.


----------



## verticalgr

Unique, not.... pcxfirefox is also a 1:1 x64 FF variant. And today version 29 (actually 29.0.1) made it to sourceforge.


----------



## Screemer

Personally I think everyone should use what ever Firefox variant they want.
No need to diss any of them. I prefer Waterfox since it's a great x64 clone of Firefox.
I really like the work Alex does and can't wait for the next version when ever Firefox release a new one..









I still have a hard time understanding why Mozilla can't understand they are losing users just because they are to lazy to release an official x64 version of Firefox for Windows.


----------



## Stige

I'm glad I stumbled upon this thread by accident.


----------



## verticalgr

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Personally I think everyone should use what ever Firefox variant they want.
> No need to diss any of them. I prefer Waterfox since it's a great x64 clone of Firefox.
> I really like the work Alex does and can't wait for the next version when ever Firefox release a new one..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I still have a hard time understanding why Mozilla can't understand they are losing users just because they are to lazy to release an official x64 version of Firefox for Windows.


Well, their latest reply on this is:
Quote:


> Released versions of Firefox are already fully 64-bit on MacOS X and Linux. For 64-bit Firefox on Windows, we are in the process of setting up our automated testing for this platform to make sure that it gets the same daily testing coverage as all of our other platforms do. Windows 64-bit builds of Firefox are already available in our "Nightly" early tester channel, and we have many testers already using these builds without problems. Once we have continuous testing set up, we should have more news to share about timing for a full 64-bit Firefox release on Windows.


----------



## TerminatorT1000

I agree. It is insane logic not to have a 64bit release for Windows from Firefox.
As for loosing users I think the Australis v29 is the final nail in the coffin









Brilliant work Mr. Alex. How can one man do what the Mozilla foundation can't.









Now if the next version kept the old look...


----------



## remixedcat

if people wanted a google chrome interface they would use google chrome. Not a fan. I will have to use a skin to revert back when 29 hits







*le sigh*


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> if people wanted a google chrome interface they would use google chrome. Not a fan. I will have to use a skin to revert back when 29 hits
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *le sigh*


The worst part is, it's a horrible Chrome rip-off at best. Chrome looks better than Firefox does!


----------



## bcooper21

Its still faster than chrome... For me i tried 29.0.1 vs new stable chrome now with firefox 29 it loads pages much faster so its not really worth downgrading to 28 when its slower.

For me its even faster than water fox 28.0


----------



## Quantum Reality

Using FF 32bit on my test Win 8.1 install. The native Australis looks pretty clean, but the tab bar behavior is probably the most disconcerting, since the UI kind of "fades" the tabs in and out. Relatively minor, though, IMO, especially as the classic interface add-on should fix things. I'll give it a go right now actually and see how close it gets to being like Pale Moon.










EDIT: The classic theme restorer works beautifully! It's practically Pale Moon-ish.


----------



## Arakasi

Would anyone like to take a turn at assisting with waterfox crashing ?
I haven't been able to get the latest release working for me.
It crashes on flash objects consistently.
The only version i have been able to use is 18.01.


----------



## DazzaRPD

Have you tried using a clean reinstall of Waterfox? (by that I mean have you uninstalled Waterfox, deleted your profile and re-installed)?

Also do you have the latest version of Flash (version 13)?
Also, there may be addons causing Flash to crash. Try Firefox Safe Mode to troubleshoot it


----------



## Arakasi

Tried a clean, flash 13 yes. crashes in safe mode.


----------



## Arakasi

Uninstalled.

Reinstalled 18.01. Everything working fine again.
Very stupid, don't have patience for that crashing on every page, even ocn just sitting idle.


----------



## DazzaRPD

Have you got any crash reports? I don't know why it is crashing, WF has worked fine for me (WF 28.0.2 on Windows 7) for all versions and using flash-heavy sites like youtube and other video hosting sites

As sad as it sounds, there's no point in using a browser version that's 10 versions behind, so sadly you may have to try another x64 variant of Firefox (such as Pale Moon or Cyberfox) if we can't get this resolved. It may help to try those out anyway, if you don't have issues with them, then the issue is in WF. if not, it's something on your machine


----------



## Arakasi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> Have you got any crash reports? I don't know why it is crashing, WF has worked fine for me (WF 28.0.2 on Windows 7) for all versions and using flash-heavy sites like youtube and other video hosting sites
> 
> As sad as it sounds, there's no point in using a browser version that's 10 versions behind, so sadly you may have to try another x64 variant of Firefox (such as Pale Moon or Cyberfox) if we can't get this resolved. It may help to try those out anyway, if you don't have issues with them, then the issue is in WF. if not, it's something on your machine


*
IE 11, chrome, and Opera work just fine.*

Palemoon had the same crashing and symptoms.
Very strange.

Yet waterfox version 18 is fine.


----------



## Quantum Reality

It sounds like an issue specific to modern Firefoxes and forks thereof. Have you submitted any Pale Moon crash reports to Moonchild over on the PM forums?


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry for the late reply everybody, deadlines and exams are here so I've been busy getting everything together! I won't be very responsive until around the middle of June when it's all over.

Waterfox will cary on being what it has always been, a 64-Bit version of Firefox. So whatever changes happen to Firefox, will happen to Waterfox. Even if Mozilla release stable 64-Bit builds, they won't be optimised, as Mozilla will focus on compatibility and stability over all else. Waterfox focuses on getting as much performance as possible. If you like using Palemoon and Cyberfox, that's great. I had to censor posts on the website because bots kept on spamming Cyberfox all over the disqus boards. Moonchild (the dev of Palemoon) on the other hand is very helpful and in fact has offered help to Waterfox plenty of times!

As for Waterfox 29, it's coming! The update to FF29 changed the build system a lot so I'm working around it and making sure everything runs correctly. I'm also working on an updated website as the current one is out-dated.

Then, over the summer I'll be working on another project that I think lots of you will like, but Waterfox isn't going anywhere, I'll always be developing it so no need to worry about that







.

If there's anything else, just let me know! I'll try to get back as soon as possible.


----------



## Spurred

Good luck on your exams. Obviously, they come first.

I'm having a problem with being unable to close Waterfox. I'm running Windows 8.1 and do not have Firefox installed on this system, just Waterfox. If I click all of the Xs on all of the Waterfox windows to close them, i expect Waterfox to be closed. However, although Waterfox no longer shows up in the Apps list of Task Manager, it then shows up in the list of Background Processes.

What I do not understand is why Waterfox needs to be running in the background, but more importantly, why it needs to retain it's memory usage. I often have several windows open with many tabs open in each window when I run Waterfox. Waterfox uses anywhere from the mid 700 MB to over 1 GB. When Waterfox is running in the background, it retains the same amount of memory usage as it had when it was open.

When I close Waterfox, I would like to get that memory back to use for programs that are open and running. My normal way to get the memory back at this point is to open the Task Manager after closing Waterfox, scroll down to Waterfox in the list of Background Processes, select Waterfox, and click on End Process.

There should be a much ea sire way. Have I configured something wrong?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Indeed. A browser, once closed, should release its memory and close the process that's running. If it's persistent that may be a sign something else is not working right.


----------



## safari801

Thanks Alex. Good luck with exams etc and looking forward to finding out about the new project.


----------



## Arakasi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spurred*
> 
> Good luck on your exams. Obviously, they come first.
> 
> I'm having a problem with being unable to close Waterfox. I'm running Windows 8.1 and do not have Firefox installed on this system, just Waterfox. If I click all of the Xs on all of the Waterfox windows to close them, i expect Waterfox to be closed. However, although Waterfox no longer shows up in the Apps list of Task Manager, it then shows up in the list of Background Processes.
> 
> What I do not understand is why Waterfox needs to be running in the background, but more importantly, why it needs to retain it's memory usage. I often have several windows open with many tabs open in each window when I run Waterfox. Waterfox uses anywhere from the mid 700 MB to over 1 GB. When Waterfox is running in the background, it retains the same amount of memory usage as it had when it was open.
> 
> When I close Waterfox, I would like to get that memory back to use for programs that are open and running. My normal way to get the memory back at this point is to open the Task Manager after closing Waterfox, scroll down to Waterfox in the list of Background Processes, select Waterfox, and click on End Process.
> 
> There should be a much ea sire way. Have I configured something wrong?


A security product can hold certain services and programs causing the memory issue your referring too. Especially the local security authority subsystem service.
Have anything installed protecting http or with browser plug ins ?

Still don't know the cause of my issue.


----------



## Spurred

Thanks for your reply Arakasi -
Quote:


> Have anything installed protecting http or with browser plug ins ?


Yup. I have ESET antivirus installed. ESET has a "Temporarily disable" menu option with presets for 10, 30, 60 minutes, 4 hours, and until reboot. I disables it, reopened Waterfox with several windows and a bunch of tabs open, visited a new page, closed all windows, and opened Task Manager. No Waterfox in the background processes. Your suggestion was right on. I very much appreciate it.

Wish I could reciprocate by helping you with your Flash problem, but Flash works fine with Waterfox on my system. Have you tried installing Firefox 28 on your system and seeing if it, too, crashes with Flash? If it doesn't with a clean install, then the conflict is withing the Waterfox code. If Firefox crashes using your present Waterfox profile folder but doesn't with a clean install, that would tell you something. If Firefox crashes with a clean install, then the problem is a conflict within the Firefox code that Waterfox is based on.


----------



## pokeseeker

I posted this a few pages ago but it got ignored. Here it is again:

I'm still getting the out of date browser message:
http://i.imgur.com/DKa3Q72.png

My use agent:
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 Waterfox/28.0

Thing is I installed Waterfox 28 on a fresh VM install of Windows 7 64 bit and I still get the same message.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokeseeker*
> 
> I posted this a few pages ago but it got ignored. Here it is again:
> 
> I'm still getting the out of date browser message:
> http://i.imgur.com/DKa3Q72.png
> 
> My use agent:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 Waterfox/28.0
> 
> Thing is I installed Waterfox 28 on a fresh VM install of Windows 7 64 bit and I still get the same message.


Workaround: Use a user agent masker that changes the user-agent presented to the website.


----------



## DazzaRPD

Change the User Agent to:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:29.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/29.0 Waterfox/28.0

That'll fix the issue







. When WF 29.0 gets released, the message will automatically disappear as it'll be the latest version of Firefox/WFv


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokeseeker*
> 
> I posted this a few pages ago but it got ignored. Here it is again:
> 
> I'm still getting the out of date browser message:
> http://i.imgur.com/DKa3Q72.png
> 
> My use agent:
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 Waterfox/28.0
> 
> Thing is I installed Waterfox 28 on a fresh VM install of Windows 7 64 bit and I still get the same message.


Chase's browser detection is clearly stupid and appears to take the last part of the useragent to determine the browser. As Waterfox does not match what they're looking for, it displays that message. Due to this, what DazzaRPD suggested above will not work.

I confirmed the following fixes it:

1) Open new tabs, in the address bar type: about:config (and hit enter).
2) Under search, type agent
3) Check if general.useragent.override is listed, if it is not, right click in the white space, select New -> String
4) For "Enter the preference name" type: general.useragent.override (and click OK)
5) In the next box that appears, enter: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 (and click OK)

Hope this helps. For the record, this isn't an issue with Waterfox as such, but rather sloppy programming on Chase's part.


----------



## pokeseeker

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Chase's browser detection is clearly stupid and appears to take the last part of the useragent to determine the browser. As Waterfox does not match what they're looking for, it displays that message. Due to this, what DazzaRPD suggested above will not work.
> 
> I confirmed the following fixes it:
> 
> 1) Open new tabs, in the address bar type: about:config (and hit enter).
> 2) Under search, type agent
> 3) Check if general.useragent.override is listed, if it is not, right click in the white space, select New -> String
> 4) For "Enter the preference name" type: general.useragent.override (and click OK)
> 5) In the next box that appears, enter: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:28.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/28.0 (and click OK)
> 
> Hope this helps. For the record, this isn't an issue with Waterfox as such, but rather sloppy programming on Chase's part.


Thanks! It worked.


----------



## Buzzy62

I'm SERIOUSLY hoping that the bugs that Firefox introduced with their new version 29 are NOT incorporated in the future updates of Waterfox. I can NOT get Roboform to keep it's toolbar visible, the button layout sucks, and I can't get "text and icons" on my toolbar anymore. Any developer with any idea of customer retention would know that you don't forcefully take away functions and features. An even better example is trying to teach a non-techie person how things still work, but look completely different and are in different places than they used to be for the last several years. Try teaching a 70+ yr old person THAT! -ugh-

Firefox had been my go-to browser for a LONG long time. Now, Waterfox has my vote, unless they go the same route. I love it so far, but time will tell! (fingers crossed that a dev will read this and at least consider it)


----------



## Quantum Reality

@Buzzy62: You should probably use Pale Moon, then, since WF will continue to be a straight compile of FF using the Intel compiler to get 64-bit optimizations.


----------



## Buzzy62

Thanks for the tip on Pale Moon! I'll take a look at it now and get started with it.


----------



## Matt Hazard

All right, I can't get the flash plugin to work. Everytime I try to install it, I get an error message, and the box says to "Close this window and try again." Can anyone help with this? Thanks

=============================================EDIT====================================

The exact error message is this:

Installation encountered errors
Error has been encountered. Close this window and try downloading again

==================================EDIT======================================

All right, I found out that the file is no longer stored on Adobe's servers. That's why the download won't work. But it still pisses me off that the WaterFox website's admin won't update the Flash plugin download link.







I mean seriously, even a link to labs.adobe.com would be better than hosting a download link that doesn't even work.

With that being said, I'm currently using Adobe Flash 14 BETA. Anyone else who's interested can download it from adobe labs themselves. Both the 64 bit and 32 bit installations are packaged into the installation executable. So when you install Flash 14 BETA, you will be installing both 32 and 64 bit versions. And no, there is no option to opt out of the 32 bit installation. I tested it, and it works fine. Here is the direct link:

http://labsdownload.adobe.com/pub/labs/flashruntimes/flashplayer/flashplayer14_install_win_pi.exe

Also, here is the page link:

http://labs.adobe.com/downloads/flashplayer.html

Well, hope this helps. And hopefully, Waterfox's website Admin will update the plugin page link. It's both annoying and confusing for us newcomers.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Adobe has updated their installers to now include both versions within the same file. They won't conflict with one another.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Matt Hazard*
> 
> Well, hope this helps. And hopefully, Waterfox's website Admin will update the plugin page link. It's both annoying and confusing for us newcomers.


Any reason why you didn't just download the latest version of Flash directly from Adobe's site? They now bundle 32 and 64bit in the same download.

All you have to do is go to: http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ in Waterfox. Or did you specifically want the beta version for some reason I missed?


----------



## satrow

When it comes to Flash, etc., I always checkout Corrine's blog for direct (clean) download links and uninstallers, etc. http://securitygarden.blogspot.co.uk

If you still get problems, drop back to one of the more recent ESR (Extended Support Release, aka 'Corporate version') versions, 10.3 or 11.7, details of which can be sometimes found by dredging back through the Adobe blog here: https://blogs.adobe.com/flashplayer/ or the equivalent ftp server.


----------



## Matt Hazard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Any reason why you didn't just download the latest version of Flash directly from Adobe's site? They now bundle 32 and 64bit in the same download.
> 
> All you have to do is go to: http://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/ in Waterfox. Or did you specifically want the beta version for some reason I missed?


Simply going to get.adobe.com in Waterfox does not work. I went there, and they only gave me the 32 bit version. I know, I tested it.


----------



## kronckew

firefox 32.0a1 (with australis interface) nightly 21MAY14 with 'classic theme restorer' and 'classic toolbar buttons' add-ons:
with text and icons (you can hide the button effect also)


should also work with waterfox

this is the link for flash betas

they are both x86 and x64, and will install the correct ones for your browsers.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Matt Hazard*
> 
> Simply going to get.adobe.com in Waterfox does not work. I went there, and they only gave me the 32 bit version. I know, I tested it.


From what I remember, I believe the file name was misleading and mentioned something like something like 32bit, and is a small downloader which then downloads the Flash Installer which contains both 32 and 64bit versions. It definitely works, because that's the way I installed it.

Alternatively, you can download the standalone installer (currently) from here. Adobe seem to change download URLs fairly regularly, so it may not work in the future if anyone comes across this post.


----------



## jeboftopeka

FYI, a bit of very good news: LastPass works perfectly, I didn't even have to reinstall.

J.E.B.


----------



## tatianalarina

The site www.budgetbytes.com works under IE 10 but Waterfox keeps on giving me "the connection to the server was reset" error message. Any idea why?


----------



## Spurred

I downloaded and installed Flash from Adobe. The installation program installed the 64-bit version for Waterfox with no problem, and it works as it should.

I also downloaded the standalone version (now version 13) so that I could view SWF files off-line without needing to open Waterfox. That, too, works as it should, However,, unlike the Flash browser installer, the Flash standalone file is not an installer. It is one simple EXE file that you move to whereever you want and setup SWF file types to open with it. I can't tell from the properties if the standalone file is a 32-bit or 64-bit version, Does anybody know how to determine which it is? Windows 8.1 runs it normally whether I place the EXE file under the _Program Files_ or the _Program Files (86)_ folder.


----------



## DIMPIE

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tatianalarina*
> 
> The site www.budgetbytes.com works under IE 10 but Waterfox keeps on giving me "the connection to the server was reset" error message. Any idea why?


Perfectly fine here









> http://prntscr.com/3lw8lh


----------



## tatianalarina

It works for me now, too. I think it was a temporary hiccup.


----------



## Erthkwake

I'm having trouble setting Waterfox as the default browser in Windows 8. Whenever I try, it sets Firefox as the default browser instead even though I installed Waterfox, not Firefox. When I open .html files with the default browser it opens up Firefox.

Does anyone know how I can fix this?


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://winsupersite.com/windows-8/8-enough-changing-default-web-browser

The above may help you.


----------



## blackshap9

What year was the first build of waterfox released?

~Cheers


----------



## Star1

Anyone else suddenly having issues with waterefox? Facebook and some other sites are stuck on loading, works fine in IE


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Star1*
> 
> Anyone else suddenly having issues with waterefox? Facebook and some other sites are stuck on loading, works fine in IE


I'm not having any problems. Windows 7, Waterfox 28.

Chas


----------



## Arakasi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Star1*
> 
> Anyone else suddenly having issues with waterefox? Facebook and some other sites are stuck on loading, works fine in IE


Same here, cant load a mixture of flash/silverlight/scripted pages.
Cant load FB/Netflix
Stuck on version 18.01wf
Not sure what changes in the newer versions but i am forced to use Firefox.
Palemoon and similar variants also do not work.
Latest Firefox works, chrome and IE work.
No 64bit at all.
Have emailed Alex , but i remember him saying he would be busy at this time a few posts back.
Its definitely my computer because my office PC has no troubles on latest versions. Only my home PC.
The weirdest is the fact version 18.01 works lol.
I have to give up unless someone can provide guidance or until i reinstall my OS in the far future.


----------



## Star1

Almost ashamed to say that a reboot (OS, not just waterfox) solved my problem.


----------



## Arakasi

Don't be ashamed, thats what troubleshooting is all about.

I can't say for sure if i restarted the computer after any of the installations, as they usually specify if needed.
Of course i will try that and see, but i severely doubt it, as i recall restarting multiple times trying to solve the issue, after changing settings.


----------



## Spurred

Arakasi, this may be over simplistic, but could it be an ad-on? I had a similar problem with the ad-on _HTPS Everywhere_. Suddenly I couldn't access various sites like Google Images Advanced. The Google Images standard site I could access, but not the advanced site. After changing the _HTTPS Everywhere_ rules to not apply to the Google Images site, all worked normal again.

I'm assuming that you do not have the ad-on _HTTPS Everywhere_ installed, but perhaps you have some ad-on that is interfering with your browser.


----------



## klorinczi

I use Waterfox since about a month under Windows 7 Pro 64bit.
The migration was seamless, I use the same profile and same addons I used earlier.
Great!

I switched to Waterfox from Firefox, because when I use a lot tabs (8-10 windows, 100-200 tabs), Firefox 32 bit crashed when virtual memory usage reached around 1.2Gb+.
I supposed it is because of 32 bit process memory usage limit.

So I switched to 64 bit Waterfox v28.
I'm happy with it, no crashes at all.

BUT, when virtual memory usage reaches 1.4-1.5Gb the computer slows down & slows until a deadlock.
The only thing that helps is the computer reset.
It is even better to suffer Firefox crashing, than having deadlocks with Waterfox and forcing computer resets :-(((

Could be possible to fix these deadlocks caused by Waterfox?


----------



## Quantum Reality

I've had similar issues with Pale Moon when memory usage starts to get up to around 1 MB - I get some sluggishness in the browser and the only cure for it is to close the browser and restart.

MrAlex has been tweaking the memory manager of Waterfox, IIRC, so he may have a permanent fix when he gets around to compiling WF 29.


----------



## tatianalarina

Something strange happens to the RSS reader - when I click on it I get the transparent frame instead of the headings. I'm not sure if I can explain it so I am attaching printscreens. This happens about 90% of the time. Sometimes It's like in the printscreen, with the transparent main frame while the individual headings load correctly, sometimes it's the other way round


----------



## Quantum Reality

@tatianalarina:

Try disabling hardware acceleration.

http://lifehacker.com/disable-firefoxs-hardware-acceleration-to-fix-slowness-749344037


----------



## tatianalarina

It's disabled.


----------



## Arakasi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spurred*
> 
> Arakasi, this may be over simplistic, but could it be an ad-on? I had a similar problem with the ad-on _HTPS Everywhere_. Suddenly I couldn't access various sites like Google Images Advanced. The Google Images standard site I could access, but not the advanced site. After changing the _HTTPS Everywhere_ rules to not apply to the Google Images site, all worked normal again.
> 
> I'm assuming that you do not have the ad-on _HTTPS Everywhere_ installed, but perhaps you have some ad-on that is interfering with your browser.


Hello,

Restarting has happened multiple times so that isnt it.

regarding addons, there are...
Plug-ins : JavaDK 7.0.550.13 - Java, Office2010 , Shockwave Flash, Silverlight
Extensions: ADP
Services: None
Appearance: Litefox

Disabling all of them doesn't help, safe mode with waterfox crashes too.









Post created with Waterfox 28.0 - i can browse OCN, however if i go to Facebook, or Youtube, it crashes.
With Facebook it crashes as soon as the Friendlist loads on the right hand side.
Heck even the timeline loads correctly, but then comes the crash.


----------



## safari801

So I see Google has released 64 bit versions of chrome on the canary channel and dev37 channel. Stable versions are coming later although fooling around with it so far yields no crashes, etc. Yet. News at softwarecrew.com.


----------



## Arakasi

I also downloaded Canary.
I hate chrome though


----------



## safari801

Yeah I agree about chrome but I was just letting the folks know so if they want to play around with the 64 bit version. Be interesting to see how the finished product looks later.


----------



## Spurred

Adobe Reader question - I have the latest version of Adobe Reader installed, but it's not working as it should with Waterfox. It will not open a file in Waterfox. Instead, either I can chose (in Tools>Options>Applications>Portable Documents Format) to use Waterfox's native PDF reader, to use Adobe Reader (Default), to download the file, or to ask every time. Selecting to use Adobe Reader does not open the file in Waterfox. Instead it opens the PDF file in a separate Adobe Reader window. I no longer have the option to "Use Adobe Reader in Waterfox".

The "fix" for this problem in Firefox was to delete the file _mimeTypes.rdf_ in my Profile folder and let Firerfox regenerate that file when it next restarts. The option to open a PDF file in Firefox using Adobe Reader should then be available in the pull down menu.

That "Fix" didn't work in Waterfox. The _mimeTypes.rdf_ was regenerated, but the option didn't become available.

My thinking is that Adobe Reader is a 32-bit program and Waterfox is a 64-bit program, so Adobe cannot open a file in Watrerfox. Is anyone else having this problem with Adobe Reader? I tried searching for posts about it in this forum, but had no luck.


----------



## Quantum Reality

You may also need to enable a setting in the plugins menu:

http://helpx.adobe.com/acrobat/using/display-pdf-browser-acrobat-xi.html

Or in the PDF reader itself:

http://blogs.adobe.com/acrolaw/2007/08/how_do_i_open_a_pdf_in_acrobat_i/

And just as a belt-and-suspenders approach you may want to also check the actual about:config setting (see "HOW TO DISABLE FIREFOX NATIVE PDF VIEWER")

http://dottech.org/97910/firefox-how-to-turn-off-change-built-in-pdf-reader-viewer-in-firefox-19-and-higher/

(Incidentally, I have long preferred to open PDFs externally, as I found my browser had a tendency to lock up on loading large PDFs in-browser, but to each their own.







)


----------



## Spurred

Thanks Quantum.
Quote:


> I have long preferred to open PDFs externally, as I found my browser had a tendency to lock up on loading large PDFs in-browser,


I've experienced that lock-up as well, and will try using the external opening choice.

The other options you've suggested I will try, more to familiarize myself with them, as the external option is sounding like the better choice. Apparently Waterfox agrees, as that is the default choice.


----------



## Esch

Here's a question that has been a long time coming but I kept forgetting to ask...

I have Waterfox 18.0.1 (yes I know, please, no need to comment about it, lol)

The reason why I'm still on that version is because at the time, the next update after that there was a message stating that you had to do a clean install because it was a totally different back end and everything just needs to start fresh. At that time I panicked over this because I had like 30 browser tabs plus several plugins, etc. I figured I would get to it later, but then totally forgot about it till today when I happen to glance the net and saw a post about version 28.

SO, with that said... what steps can I take to transition over to 28 easily? Obviously export bookmarks. Write down plugin names. Save all the browser tabs as bookmarks. Is there anything else I'm missing? Any advice is appreciated, thanks!

E


----------



## Quantum Reality

You pretty much have it all sorted! Don't forget to make darn sure your bookmarks were exported! It's always a pain to reimport them when you need to smush in the json file.


----------



## bcooper21

Is this project dead? I stopped using it because updates took forever switched to cyberfox much faster up to date.


----------



## III-V

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Is this project dead? I stopped using it because updates took forever switched to cyberfox much faster up to date.


No, it's not. Alex is busy with school right now (as of a few pages back, said he'd be more communicative later this month), but is still actively working on Waterfox 29.

I definitely understand your concerns about the slow development cycle, though. It's a bit frustrating.


----------



## Esch

A follow up question... After backing up everything, I just uninstalled 18 and installed 28, and somehow someway, Waterfox kept all of my old tabs, addons, bookmarks, etc. I never had to import them or set anything up. Is this normal? I verified in the "About" section and it does indeed say this is version 28. What kind of black magic is this?!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Probably because you didn't delete your profile folder? IDK. But better the backup you didn't have to make than the backup you should've made


----------



## Esch

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Probably because you didn't delete your profile folder? IDK. But better the backup you didn't have to make than the backup you should've made


Sorry, that last bit is confusing to me, lol.

I did install the new version into the same folder as the old. I assumed uninstalling the old version would have deleted the profile as well. If it kept it then I guess that's a good thing for me then and I don't have to mess with anything else.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Esch*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Probably because you didn't delete your profile folder? IDK. But better the backup you didn't have to make than the backup you should've made
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry, that last bit is confusing to me, lol.
Click to expand...

What I mean is you backed up stuff, but as it turned out you did not need the backups.

That is still _better_ than finding out that a program deleted something you _needed to have_ but had no backups for.


----------



## Esch

AH, yes, that makes a lot more sense now. You're right, thanks


----------



## SKDJ

To start with: Thank you developer(s)! (I will never be one) for creating the x64 browser I've been using since my first x64 system. That would be for about four years now and I am very happy with it and with the progress I've noted. Becuae of you I can take my FF profile into the new era with all historically grown custumizations.

Firefox moving up to version 29.0.1 (?) does seem to bring some new issues. I wonder if anyone recognizes the fact that after the automated (not automatic) Flash Addon in Waterfox, suddenly the sound stopped working. It still works in Firefox but in Waterfox everything has gone silent. I expect it to be an x64 browser/ x32 Flash update issue. Flash version is now 14.0.0.125. It may start working if I reinstall it from x64 IE or something but at least i wanted to mention my bump into the inevitable here. I am now using Firefox again after a long long time.

Firefox only asked me about the Flash update by the way, after I felt I needed to update it's engine to the 29.0.1 version. Without changing that I think avereything would have still worked fine.


----------



## BMT

Firefox 30.0 just got released, so hopefully we might get a Waterfox 30.0 at some point and just skip 29.0.1.


----------



## RealityRipple

Personally, I'm not moving from 28.0. I despise australis.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> Personally, I'm not moving from 28.0. I despise australis.


May I suggest either reskinning your WF, or switching to Pale Moon after a backup + clean uninstall?


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> May I suggest either reskinning your WF, or switching to Pale Moon after a backup + clean uninstall?


You can suggest it all you want, but I'm boycotting any version that has australis regardless. Call it a usage statistic statement.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Ehm... Pale Moon explicitly will NOT have Australis, according to MoonChild.


----------



## RealityRipple

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Ehm... Pale Moon explicitly will NOT have Australis, according to MoonChild.


I said version, not branch. I specifically want to not contribute to any usage statistics that have version numbers matching australis releases, meaning anything that says 29.0, 30.0, 31.0, etc... is not gonna be on my computer.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Pale Moon also has different versioning. Mine is 24.6.2 (latest version, PS), and the user-agent is:

_Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20140610 Firefox/24.0 PaleMoon/24.6.2_

Happy?


----------



## RealityRipple

That's like saying you're not supporting slave labor by buying something that was made in China and assembled in the USA... I don't want anything to do with Gecko 29, XULRunner 29, Firefox 29, Waterfox 29, Palemoon 29.0.0.000repeating, or anything else that was assembled from the same code.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RealityRipple*
> 
> That's like saying you're not supporting slave labor by buying something that was made in China and assembled in the USA... I don't want anything to do with Gecko 29, XULRunner 29, Firefox 29, Waterfox 29, Palemoon 29.0.0.000repeating, or anything else that was assembled from the same code.


Do you know that Pale Moon is built on the older non-Australis code and that Moonchild backports all the security fixes?! And for the nth time, he has stated unequivocally that he will not incorporate Australis into the browser.


----------



## RealityRipple

"Backport" is the wrong word when you just pull the Long Term Support version's latest release... When the next LTS release is made after 24 and Palemoon is still more updated than WF 28 without using any integral 29+ code, I'd consider using it. Until then, it's not what I'm looking for.


----------



## Hutchinman

Classic Theme Restorer is messing with my Waterfox layout despite it being disabled. How do I fix this?


----------



## thechas

Found this posted on the Waterfox Home page.

New version is coming and it will use the new Mozilla UI.

"Waterfox is undergoing some major changes, most importantly within the next few days the website will get a fresh lick of paint. After that, a new release as well with official language packs (about time!).

Stay tuned...

Edit Saturday, 21 June:

Just a small edit, Waterfox will come with the new UI provided by Mozilla."


----------



## remixedcat

ugh -_- I hate the new UI If I wanted to use google chrome i'd use google chrome!


----------



## remixedcat

what are the performance differences between palemoon and waterfox?


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://www.networkworld.com/article/2185649/applications/fast-firefox-faceoff--nightly-vs--pale-moon-vs--waterfox.html

That's one of the search results from checking for benchmark comparisons.


----------



## Arakasi

Well i finally fixed my crashing issue.

-Clean uninstall of Waterfox
-Clean uninstall of Firefox
-Reg scan to delete left overs
-Searched for directory remnants and deleted

- Final step: Installed Nightly

Bye firefox and watersquirrel ( you worked until version 18.01 then died ).


----------



## Rorge

Tried this 'awesome' browser.









Installed it. Did not install properly. Uh oh, bad first sign. Installed it again.

Tried opening it, opened another instance of Firefox instead. Second bad sign. Excuse me, but if this browser has a completely separate executable, shouldn't it run as a different program?

Uninstalled it, installed it again. This time, Waterfox opened, without ANY of my plug-ins, etc. Third bad sign.

Tried opening Firefox, Waterfox opened instead. Repeat, same results. Fourth bad sign.

Unistalled Waterfox. Opened Firefox, all of my profile info is GONE. Just as if I had installed FF from scratch.

Who was it who said you could program again???


----------



## Quantum Reality

First off, before you dump all over MrAlex, you should have made sure to back up your Firefox profile, because it has been explained a few times in this thread that Waterfox uses the "standard" Mozilla supplied pathnames for user profile info.


----------



## Rorge

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> First off, before you dump all over MrAlex, you should have made sure to back up your Firefox profile, because it has been explained a few times in this thread that Waterfox uses the "standard" Mozilla supplied pathnames for user profile info.


Who said I didn't have my profile backed up? I did, and everything is fine, now that I uninstalled everything and started from scratch again.

As far as your other beef, why in the world would I check a 588-page thread on completely unrelated website prior to installing a product that has no 'known issues' on its original product page?

Please show me where it says I should come here first - or for that matter, where does it say that there will be ANY problems with my install (other than a missing dll error)?

http://www.waterfoxproject.org/about.php


----------



## MrAlex

I'm back guys! I've got a Waterfox 30 test build:

Download Here (Note: This is a RAR5 archive, so use an archiving tool that supports this format).

Performance should be best yet, I've been working on this release for a while. I've also switched memory allocator to tcmalloc.

Now as for what's happening with Waterfox:

Monday (fingers crossed everything goes well!), Waterfox is getting a brand new website, which looks great from what I've seen! Waterfox 30 will coincide with this release, as well as proper language packs!

Also if people could test out the Q&A site, that would be great.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm back guys! I've got a Waterfox 30 test build:
> Download Here (Note: This is a RAR5 archive, so use an archiving tool that supports this format).
> Performance should be best yet, I've been working on this release for a while. I've also switched memory allocator to tcmalloc.


So far, so good









Thought I had a bug at first but quickly realised it was down to my userChrome.css customisations not playing nice with Australis.
Interestingly, I don't actually mind Australis so much on Windows, yet I can't stand it on my Mac.

Performance definitely seems better too!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Thank you for getting back finally!







Please hurry and have a proper installer-version soon, eh?







I wanna be able to recommend Waterfox


----------



## thechas

Registered at the new Q&A site with no issues.

Will try the build tomorrow if I get home on time.

Chas


----------



## thechas

Once I found Bandizip and was able to extract the Waterfox 30 archive, the test has been running smoothly.

As I have been for the test builds, I copy the new version of Waterfox to a new folder create a desktop shortcut to the new version.

I did install the Firefox 30 update first, and let Firefox sort out the compatibility of my add-ons.

While I have not done a lot of browsing as yet, so far Waterfox 30 is working just fine.

Chas


----------



## nizda

Works fine here as well, haven't ran into any issues. Latest version of winrar supports rar5 archive, as well.


----------



## pokeseeker

Would the tweaks from this post still apply to Waterfox 30?

http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-28-0-4-april-firefox-64-bit/2050#post_16944929


----------



## chorse

@MrAlex New Q&A site looks good on normal monitor, but is difficult to use on a mobile device or phone. Need a mobile friendly version of the site like the current forum.


----------



## thechas

I have used the Waterfox 30 test build all weekend and have not had any issues with Waterfox.

I do have some add-ons that are not working properly. But, they all appear to be issues with the add-on not being fully compliant for Australis and the transition to revision 30 based code.

Good work Alex!

Chas


----------



## alexstohrh

waterfox 28.0 often (some 1-2 a week? the machine typically runs long term and so the browser does) pops up with a window telling me about updates or better a problem with locating the update. visiting the project page manually works quite nice and shows there is no update. whats wrong with that?


----------



## alexstohrh

my machine has some 6 GB of RAM (discount some reserved areas and a maybe bit for the video).

recently i ran a virtual machine with some 2 GB of assigned VM memory.
clearly it loaded the system a lot making the interaction with the main OS (Win7 64bit) pretty clumsy due to permanent swapping.
rather short after closing the VM it turned out that waterfox did dramatically grow up with its memory consumption.
this lasted a quite noticeable while (the machine went pretty unusable at that time) until all calmed down again after some >5 minutes.
waterfox memory consumption during the phase was up to 4 GB whilst afterwards it only showed 1,2 GB. (i have open a bunch of tabs)

maybe its not a waterfox specific problem as it might happen in firefox as well - just waterfox can use up much more memory in such a case - thus its behaving "worse".
i have no idea what has happened - might have been some delayed operations, some plugin or some sort of garbage or cache cleanup.
the major problem is that it is using so much space making interaction with the machine & the browser drop down to a barely useable state.
if i had less memory in the machine then swapping would probably increase much and the duration of the incident would probably increase to >30 min(?).

Does someone know what that can be or how i am able to determine the root cause operation of that behaviour? (I think i had that happen a few times in the past so i probably will have it happen a few more times in future.)

memory behaviour as taken with Sysinternals process explorer at two different times of progress.



PS: after restarting the browser the memory footprint dropped down to even only 950 MB.


----------



## tomv

Test build works great here, ready for Waterfox 30.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> Test build works great here, ready for Waterfox 30.


same here!


----------



## mwarren2

Five days and NO PROBLEMS with v30! Let the dogs loose!!


----------



## MrAlex

Great thanks everyone for the testing! Here's a preview of the website:

http://www.waterfoxproject.org/test/

Should be live by the latest tomorrow


----------



## tomv

Website looks good! Thanks for everything!


----------



## Quantum Reality




----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Thanks for keeping us updated!


----------



## Procrastinating

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's a preview of the website:
> http://www.waterfoxproject.org/test/


Is there a reason why you are using line graphs to compare performance? It would be easier to read and make more sense to compare stacked bar graphs.


----------



## MrAlex

The website is now live. Also you can download the final version of v30 on codeplex. As for the line graphs, just thought they looked good although they're quite hard to read so will probably switch to bar graphs.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

I can't find 30 on codeplex. Anyone have a link?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/125112


----------



## hammer85

Hey guys, I cannot run any 64bit firefox after 28. So currently I'm using Waterfox 28. When I run the new Waterfox v30 all I get is werfault.exe in task manager & nothing else.This happens for PCXFirefox, FBuild Firefox, Cyberfox i.e. all 64 bit Firefox after 29. v28 run fine as hell. Any clue what the problem could be?


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/125112


Thanks.
Why are you a retired staff now?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hammer85*
> 
> Hey guys, I cannot run any 64bit firefox after 28. So currently I'm using Waterfox 28. When I run the new Waterfox v30 all I get is werfault.exe in task manager & nothing else.This happens for PCXFirefox, FBuild Firefox, Cyberfox i.e. all 64 bit Firefox after 29. v28 run fine as hell. Any clue what the problem could be?


No idea. Might just have to PM or e-mail MrAlex.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

My work hours increased and I want to spend time with my son and GF. Unfortunately the mobile site doesn't have most of the mod tools so I retired as I wouldn't be able to give position the time it deserves.

I almost unretired last month as my work hours dropped again but had to retract it as a few hours later I was told the hours were going back up this month.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hammer85*
> 
> Hey guys, I cannot run any 64bit firefox after 28. So currently I'm using Waterfox 28. When I run the new Waterfox v30 all I get is werfault.exe in task manager & nothing else.This happens for PCXFirefox, FBuild Firefox, Cyberfox i.e. all 64 bit Firefox after 29. v28 run fine as hell. Any clue what the problem could be?


Suspect something in your add-ons or profile conflicts with the Australis interface.

Backup your profile either manually or using a tool such as MozBackup.

Remove all of your add-ons. Make sure to remove all themes and visual enhancements.

Uninstall all older Firefox versions and branches.

If you have the need for a 32-bit browser, install Firefox 30 then Waterfox 30. If not, then just install Waterfox 30.

If that does not clear things up, uninstall and choose the option to remove your profile. (You did back up your profile.)

Install Waterfox 30. Make sure it opens.

If it still does not work, I would scan for malicious software and perhaps run chkdsk on the drive before trying anything more.

If Waterfox 30 opens with a clean install, start restoring your profile.

If Waterfox crashes after your profile is restored, then you know that the problem has to do with a corrupt profile or an incompatible add-in that is still there.

Chas


----------



## hammer85

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Suspect something in your add-ons or profile conflicts with the Australis interface.
> 
> Backup your profile either manually or using a tool such as MozBackup.
> 
> Remove all of your add-ons. Make sure to remove all themes and visual enhancements.
> 
> Uninstall all older Firefox versions and branches.
> 
> If you have the need for a 32-bit browser, install Firefox 30 then Waterfox 30. If not, then just install Waterfox 30.
> 
> If that does not clear things up, uninstall and choose the option to remove your profile. (You did back up your profile.)
> 
> Install Waterfox 30. Make sure it opens.
> 
> If it still does not work, I would scan for malicious software and perhaps run chkdsk on the drive before trying anything more.
> 
> If Waterfox 30 opens with a clean install, start restoring your profile.
> 
> If Waterfox crashes after your profile is restored, then you know that the problem has to do with a corrupt profile or an incompatible add-in that is still there.
> 
> Chas


Nope, tried all that. Doesn't work. I first thought it was a corrupt profile so deleted everything @ profile dir. No Start. Then I deleted the Mozilla folder in AppData. I found out that new 'Mozilla' dir isn't even created i.e. the 64bit Firefox or Waterfox doesn't even access the profile. It crashes before that with no error messages just a 'werfault.exe' in task manager. So no profile related thing. Also 32bit Firefox/other optimized build of Firefox (32bit) work fine. So I don't know what to think. May be clean windows 7 install would sweep away this problem? But I don't want to do that as everything is working fine.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hammer85*
> 
> Nope, tried all that. Doesn't work. I first thought it was a corrupt profile so deleted everything @ profile dir. No Start. Then I deleted the Mozilla folder in AppData. I found out that new 'Mozilla' dir isn't even created i.e. the 64bit Firefox or Waterfox doesn't even access the profile. It crashes before that with no error messages just a 'werfault.exe' in task manager. So no profile related thing. Also 32bit Firefox/other optimized build of Firefox (32bit) work fine. So I don't know what to think. May be clean windows 7 install would sweep away this problem? But I don't want to do that as everything is working fine.


Found this on Technet.

"The werfault.exe is used for Windows Error Reporting. It is a feature that allows Microsoft to track and address errors relating to the operating system, Windows features, and applications. It gives you the option to send data about errors to Microsoft and to receive information about solutions. Look in the Event Log which applications crash.

Try turning it off temporarily and see if this will fix the problem.
a. Click Start and type services in start search and press Enter.
b. Locate Windows Error Reporting service in the services list
c. Right-click on it and click Properties.
d. Open "Startup type" list and select "Disabled" and click OK.
e. Check and see if you are still getting the werfault.exe error."

Sounds like a Windows system crash related to the new build of Mozilla.
Check for an update for your video driver.
How much RAM do you have? And, how much is available for Windows?

You should also post this on the new Waterfox page Q&A section.

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/qa/?qa=ask

You will need to register before posting.

Chas


----------



## hammer85

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Found this on Technet.
> 
> "The werfault.exe is used for Windows Error Reporting. It is a feature that allows Microsoft to track and address errors relating to the operating system, Windows features, and applications. It gives you the option to send data about errors to Microsoft and to receive information about solutions. Look in the Event Log which applications crash.
> 
> Try turning it off temporarily and see if this will fix the problem.
> a. Click Start and type services in start search and press Enter.
> b. Locate Windows Error Reporting service in the services list
> c. Right-click on it and click Properties.
> d. Open "Startup type" list and select "Disabled" and click OK.
> e. Check and see if you are still getting the werfault.exe error."
> 
> Sounds like a Windows system crash related to the new build of Mozilla.
> Check for an update for your video driver.
> How much RAM do you have? And, how much is available for Windows?
> 
> You should also post this on the new Waterfox page Q&A section.
> 
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/qa/?qa=ask
> 
> You will need to register before posting.
> 
> Chas


You won't believe it but it is disabled. I usually disable non-essential services like printer, indexing, error.... There is no BSOD, no freeze, no nothing. Just that Waterfox doesn't startup & werfault in task manager thing.
My system is i3-2120, H61 mobo, ATI 6850HD 1GB graphic (problem present with old & new drivers), 8 GB DDR3 ram, 2 TB HDD... May be starting error reporting service will give me meaningful msg. Isn't this problem just weird.
Thank for helping me. Will post on Q&A.


----------



## mauritos

in waterfox 30.0 i can not put tabs under adress bar,in about:config i putt browser.tabs.onTop;false but nothing changed tabs are still over adress bar????


----------



## Bl00dwerK

Someone PLEASE tell me I can get rid of this Australis look! I stopped using Firefox because of it...


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bl00dwerK*
> 
> Someone PLEASE tell me I can get rid of this Australis look! I stopped using Firefox because of it...


Quoted several times already this thread --

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/


----------



## Baldone

Here is a shot of my Waterfox v28.0 over Firefox 30.0 tweaked. Works for me. *Tried the new Waterfox 30.0 and it scrambled EVERYTHING







* . Uninstalled it and am standing pat where I am with v28.0

FWIW running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit on an i5-4440 based desktop (which was new on 14 May 14).
Extensions in use:
--AdBlock Plus 2.6.3
--DictionarySearch 28.0.0
--Disconnect 3.14.0
--Exif Viewer 2.00
--FireFTP 2.0.19
--FlagFox 5.0.5
--Flash and Video Download 1.58
--ForecastFox 2.2.4
--IE View 1.5.6
--ReminderFox 2.1.5
--Tab Auto Reload 1.0.4
--translator 2.0.3.1
--WOT 20131118


----------



## LaserJock

Just updated to waterfox 30!

How to customize it to get back to having Text AND small icons on toolbars?

Waterfox Rules!

THX


----------



## hammer85

*This should help some people -- How to turn the new Firefox into the old Firefox
*


----------



## mauritos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hammer85*
> 
> *This should help some people -- How to turn the new Firefox into the old Firefox
> *


thanks it helped me adjust waterfox as i wont,they taked astralis look from google chrome.


----------



## blackshap9

I am livid!!!!!!!!!!!!!























I like the Australis design I used the theme before any ways. But Waterfox 3.0 has completely scrambled my ALL IN ONE SIDEBAR. That is the major reason why I even use firefox at all. Besides the 25 add-ons I use but the ones I use all the time are on my AIOS. Most importantly my bookmarks has disappeared from my AIOS.

I have used Waterfox from the first build when I didn't even have grey hair yet and I was very patient when this project went through 2 years without an update allowing every other browser including 32 bit browsers to catch up and even surpass any speed advantage 64bit browser once had but to scramble the entire look and FUNCTION of the browser in my opinion is just too much to bear for me today. I was so frustrated last night trying to repeatedly fix AIOS and all the add-on buttons that I went to bed thinking of OTHER browsers to switch to. After all these years I can't believe I am thinking about switching to Palemoon


----------



## blackshap9

Opps







didn'yt mean to finish yet..

What i dislike the most about thios update is the new "Customize" feature because it just not working correctly. I am happy to read that I am not the only one here feeling completely blind sided and having difficulty because their browser is all scrambled.

Rant over but still disappointed. Most likely I am going back to waterfor 28 until I read here that these things have been fixed.


----------



## Baldone

I too am glad to read I'm not alone in having issues with v30.0. Seems the biggest problem is that tweaks made to Firefox v30.0 to "offset" the problematic Chrome-like UI do NOT successfully port to Waterfox 30.0 like they did with the older version 28.0. Why I haven't a clue.







But suffice it to say that I too found the challenge to "re-tweak" the UI in v30.0 both unwelcome and extremely irritating. Which is why, as stated in my earlier post, I reverted back to v28.0. As I have things setup to reflect my preferences and it's not broke (even fixed the crashing Plugin Container by disabling the protected mode in Flash), I am standing pat with 28.0 period!

Mozilla made a huge mistake in trying to emulate Chrome. And now Mr. Alex has elected to follow suit for which I am sincerely sorry.


----------



## Grumpigeek

Alex has not "tweaked" any part of the Firefox 30.0 UI. He has simply created a 64-bit version of it.

Alex stated that categorically in a previous post, which the whingers here apparently cannot be bothered reading.
If you had, you would know that directing your rants at Alex is utterly stupid and unproductive.

If you have a problem with the Australis UI then at least have the brains to direct your hissy-fits to the right place -> Mozilla.

Those who yearn for the old Firefox can use Waterfox 28.0, Firefox 28.0 etc. or even the Classic Theme Restorer addon mentioned multiple times on this forum.
The rest of us "got a life" and moved on.

Sure the new Australis UI required a bit of re-tweaking but it was hardly rocket science.

I am perfectly happy using Waterfox 30.0 and the Australis interface.


----------



## kronckew

i guess we need to post that:

you can use the excellent *'classic theme restorer' and 'classic button restorer'* addon extensions to 'fix' the abortion that is australis.

after almost every other post.

and also after every australis moan:

Waterfox is NOT coded or programmed by mr. alex, it is straight mozilla firefox code. he does not and is not going to change the code. australis id the brainchild of a group of out of touch zombies at mozilla who have been overly affected by chrome and are doiung their best to turn FF into chrome. if i or most of y'all wanted chrome, we'd use it and not a firefox chrome wannabe.

it does no good to moan about the changes MOZILLA (not mr. alex) has made. moan at the real culprits on the mozilla forum or direct to mozilla. we here can sympathize but all you do here is waste space.

there, that's MY moan for today.

i run both waterfox (default browser) and the nightly x64 33.01a firefox build and it still looks almost like my FF of old. (see attached) they both use the same profile and extensions. and 33.0a1 australis does have a few fixes to theat horrible 'customizer'. which is still a work in progress.

my 'look' - and yes, i can have text and icons up there if i wanted.


p.s. - i am not a coder, programmer and not in any way affiliated with mozilla or mr. alex.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> I am livid!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I like the Australis design I used the theme before any ways. But Waterfox 3.0 has completely scrambled my ALL IN ONE SIDEBAR. That is the major reason why I even use firefox at all. Besides the 25 add-ons I use but the ones I use all the time are on my AIOS. Most importantly my bookmarks has disappeared from my AIOS.
> 
> I have used Waterfox from the first build when I didn't even have grey hair yet and I was very patient when this project went through 2 years without an update allowing every other browser including 32 bit browsers to catch up and even surpass any speed advantage 64bit browser once had but to scramble the entire look and FUNCTION of the browser in my opinion is just too much to bear for me today. I was so frustrated last night trying to repeatedly fix AIOS and all the add-on buttons that I went to bed thinking of OTHER browsers to switch to. After all these years I can't believe I am thinking about switching to Palemoon


Well, AIOS isn't continued developed, the author have closed his forum. please use another add-on, waterfox isn't the problem.
Maybe try omnisidebar, it hasn't of vertical bar but you can put icon on horizontal bar and don't changed the page size.


----------



## blackshap9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Well, AIOS isn't continued developed, the author have closed his forum. please use another add-on, waterfox isn't the problem.
> Maybe try omnisidebar, it hasn't of vertical bar but you can put icon on horizontal bar and don't changed the page size.


Thank you for ignoring my rant and offering solutions rather than the other turko who decided to flame the thread instead. "wtg turko"

1) I learned that in FF 29 they removed the add-on bar (idiots) I found a solution with an add-on that adds the add-on bar back on









2) AIOS did update itself to FF 30 and it is fully functional again. (The original AIOS went bust but I think this one is a fork. Not really sure. I'm getting too old to remember and sometimes care as I have kids now that take up all my extra remembering and caring time







)

3) At least if they are going to use an australis design they could have chosen a nicer one. You really have to wonder what the monkeys are doing over at Mozilla these days. I still greatly dislike the new options layout. Why bother changing something for no reason. Especially if you are going to make it more complicated than it once was and needs to be. (idiots)

Thanks again & cheers









(Still keeping 28 on my laptop for now just in case I am not fully satisfied with 30)


----------



## kronckew

mozilla operates on finding the most appropriate design, performance, and features desired by the user base, and then ensuring they are never implimented.

someone high in their structure was impressed by chrome and is directing the monkeys to turn firefox into chrome come heck or high water.

the steering committee monkeys only have one brain cell between them, and the one who pushed australis on us was not borrowing that cell on that occasion.

all hail mr. alex for navigating the mine field to get waterfox 30 compiled in spite of mozilla.

oh, and real monkeys, sorry for insulting you by calling them monkeys. y'all are better than them.


----------



## blackshap9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> mozilla operates on finding the most appropriate design, performance, and features desired by the user base, and then ensuring they are never implemented.


hehehe:thumb:

Their only competition is chrome and chrome is their main source of income. This relationship is unhealthy at best. maybe Mozilla should think about making their own search engine. I don't even use google and use startpage instead.

If people are so unhappy with the australis design why don't they just go grab a complete theme and change it. With that being said I agree with everybody that Mozilla's' browsers should look different than chrome but the truth is the kids like it and in order to stay relevant you have stay in style. At the same time they could have easily offered the choice to go back to the old style. (idiots)

These insults towards monkeys come s at a good time with the release of Planet of the Apes. Good monkeys, good. I'm stocking up on bananas just in case









PS. Switched laptop over to 30


----------



## WindowsTech

I'll be staying with 28 after seeing 30 when I updated the wife's laptop







. First thing I thought was O-Oh she is going to kill me for wrecking her browser







. Sorry but I hate the look of it and I can't stand not having the tabs on the bottom. If I do go to 30 if use the classic theme restorer.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> ...
> These insults towards monkeys come s at a good time with the release of Planet of the Apes. Good monkeys, good. I'm stocking up on bananas just in case
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


hollywood(land)* exhausted the planet of the apes theme with the 7 films starting in 1968 when i graduated from university. now we have the 8th in 2014. not mentioning the tv series, which was unmentionable.

now i am a pensioner and hollywood STILL hasn't had a new idea since the 60's. how many remakes of remakes of remakes can they make? computer special effects may get better, but the same old story lines...

star wars - also beat to death.

and it continues.

* - the big iconic HOLLYWOOD sign that looms over the city originally read HOLLYWOODLAND and was an advert for the housing developement buiding at the time (1930's). the "LAND" fell down and was not re-erected, and history was made. it was derelect and falling down for quite a while till they figured out it pulled in the punters.


----------



## wopaum

rly , what's the problem with australis? it is so clean.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I use it on my laptop and my only real beef is that the non-active tabs are too hard to see and I don't want to install Stylish just to get a fix for it.


----------



## zalbard

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> After all these years I can't believe I am thinking about switching to Palemoon


If you don't like Australis, why not? It's the only sane choice.


----------



## Arakasi

I no longer use Waterfox, I could not get support or the errors/issues i was having with upgrading.

Palemoon was really good when i was trying it, but it had similar issues.
I switched to Nightly. All problems were fixed.
I also use the two suggested addons in this thread.

'classic theme restorer' and 'classic button restorer'
















I'm good to go.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I use it on my laptop and my only real beef is that the non-active tabs are too hard to see and I don't want to install Stylish just to get a fix for it.


I use tab mix plus for it, is light and powerfull (with only one window)


----------



## mwarren2

*Why does WaterFox use and NOT RELEASE over 1gb of memory?*
Sorry to change the subject (I happen to like Australis. Used with Tab Mix Plus)
When I first load WaterFox v30.0 (also happened with earlier versions of WF)
it claims about 800 to 900 MB of memory with 4 tabs open (three news sites and FaceBook). Over time, less than one hour, this has climbed to over 1.4 GB and sometimes increases to over 1.6 GB. Closing tabs has no affect on reducing the memory use and as WaterFox claims more memory it slows to a crawl, to the point of becoming unresponsive at times. See attached screen shot. Is there a way to get WaterFox to release it's unused memory? Thanks in advance.


----------



## Arakasi

What security product are you using ?
Can you also see how much lsass.exe is using at the same time ?

Is anyone else experiencing this or can confirm ?

What happens when you end the process waterfox.exe in task manager ? Does it make a difference ?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> *Why does WaterFox use and NOT RELEASE over 1gb of memory?*
> Sorry to change the subject (I happen to like Australis. Used with Tab Mix Plus)
> When I first load WaterFox v30.0 (also happened with earlier versions of WF)
> it claims about 800 to 900 MB of memory with 4 tabs open (three news sites and FaceBook). Over time, less than one hour, this has climbed to over 1.4 GB and sometimes increases to over 1.6 GB. Closing tabs has no affect on reducing the memory use and as WaterFox claims more memory it slows to a crawl, to the point of becoming unresponsive at times. See attached screen shot. Is there a way to get WaterFox to release it's unused memory? Thanks in advance.


Pale Moon has a similar memory creep problem; I have to close and restart it once it pushes the 1 GB RAM limit since it starts to get kinda sluggish. There is probably a leak in the base Mozilla code.


----------



## fullmoon

I'm rarely more 1Go, 500 to 700 Mo for me. my settings or add-ons maybe.


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arakasi*
> 
> What security product are you using ?
> Can you also see how much lsass.exe is using at the same time ?
> 
> Is anyone else experiencing this or can confirm ?
> 
> What happens when you end the process waterfox.exe in task manager ? Does it make a difference ?


Win 8.1 w/ Windows Defender
lsass.exe is using 7616 K with 0 CPU cycles
All memory used by waterfox.exe is released when the process is terminated


----------



## Arakasi

Any extensions being used ?

Its definitely not access tokens using the memory judging by your lsass. Utilized when visiting secure sites and sites that require logging in.

Its either a plugin, extention, addon etc, or purely waterfox code. Using version 30 yet ?


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Arakasi*
> 
> Any extensions being used ?
> 
> Its definitely not access tokens using the memory judging by your lsass. Utilized when visiting secure sites and sites that require logging in.
> 
> Its either a plugin, extention, addon etc, or purely waterfox code. Using version 30 yet ?


I am using a number of add-ons (see screen shots) but none seem to abuse their allotted memoy. Yes WF v30


----------



## Quantum Reality

Still, that's definitely a lot of add-ons. Have you tried disabling one at a time to see if memory usage as reported by task manager suddenly rises or falls?


----------



## MrAlex

This is quite a conundrum as Waterfox is meant to be a 64-bit performance version of Firefox. Basically, the Firefox that everyone is (not) used to and presenting in a light that makes it as fast as possible.

^^ That was meant to be posted almost two weeks ago but got saved as a draft instead! OOPS!

Also, if anyone is interested a 64-Bit build with partial support for 32-Bit plugins!! It can find and list 32-Bit plugins in the Add-On manager but when it goes to used them, it crashes. But it's good progress









https://db.tt/l8DtVTkW


----------



## Quantum Reality

Is there a *stable release build* of Waterfox with a proper installer yet?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

WF30 is stable and has an installer
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/index.php


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Still, that's definitely a lot of add-ons. Have you tried disabling one at a time to see if memory usage as reported by task manager suddenly rises or falls?


That will be my next task!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Is there a *stable release build* of Waterfox with a proper installer yet?


Just so everyone is aware, the built-in updater (Help-About Waterfox) worked for me going from v28 to v30.


----------



## Arakasi

WF30 is not stable

HORSE POOP !!!

Mine crashes , has been crashing, and will continue to crash until someone does something about it.

Will it probably work on a new install of windows and new install of wf. Maybe, but what is the ratio of new installs to people who have a pre-existing windows profile ?
Has a clean install been performed and old firefox & wf profile and files/directories been deleted, sure.
All the while, Nightly is working spectacular with 0 crashes. I am not too sure it is coded better or faster then wf though.


----------



## PalZer0

I remember reading a post a while back about AdBlock Plus and how it can cause the behaviour that mwarren2 has described.

I can't find a link for it right now though.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PalZer0*
> 
> I remember reading a post a while back about AdBlock Plus and how it can cause the behaviour that mwarren2 has described.
> 
> I can't find a link for it right now though.


https://adblockplus.org/blog/on-the-adblock-plus-memory-consumption

https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10001&start=0

https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/

Numerous posts and articles dated this year seem to back this up.


----------



## kronckew

1. it's stable on my win7 system that was upgraded to win7 x64 from winxp x86 which was upgraded from win2000, the earliest files i have are from 2009. this incarnation of hardware was from 2012 when i took the ssd out of my pentium D machine and put it in my new i-7 machine (& did an in-place repair install). it's had hundreds of programs added and removed and various incarnations of firefox since it was called phoenix. i have used the same profile for firefox nightlies (x64) and waterfox. have had some crashes in nightlies forcing me to revert to the day before, but so far waterfox 30 has proven stable. it shares the same default profile with the nightlies too. i gave up on adblock when it started to show memory leaks and sluggish behavior, and showed 'selected' ads. i'm using adguard now.

2. yet again i will say that waterfox is not programmed by mr. alex, it is essentially straight firefox code compiled and optimized by mr. alex but the optimizations are in the compiling not the firefox code. so if you have any desire to curse, curse at mozilla, not here at mr. alex. references to horse excreta are unnecessary and annoying.

3. look to your add-ons. most memory leaks start there. disable them then re-enable them until you find the culprit. when you find it, disable it, or replace it with something else of the same function, until they come out with a new version.

4. about:memory from the address window will also give you more info.


----------



## Apolladan

can i run this standalone without affecting my regular firefox install while importing my regular profile to waterfox?


----------



## bigkahuna360

Looks like trash now.


----------



## AtomTM

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bigkahuna360*
> 
> Looks like trash now.


Sir, if that's what you think, why don't you join the development team and help out MrAlex with it. And while you are at it, you could also help him with the look and everything. If you can't, I'd suggest you to provide a bit of critique and guide him, instead of just blatantly talking trash.

Thanks!


----------



## bigkahuna360

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Hsn786*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bigkahuna360*
> 
> Looks like trash now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sir, if that's what you think, why don't you join the development team and help out MrAlex with it. And while you are at it, you could also help him with the look and everything. If you can't, I'd suggest you to provide a bit of critique and guide him, instead of just blatantly talking trash.
> 
> Thanks!
Click to expand...

I would love to if I had the time and had he not already had it looking just fine I'm Waterfox 28. I know there are the addons for that, but it doesn't look the exact same as what I like mine.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Apolladan*
> 
> can i run this standalone without affecting my regular firefox install while importing my regular profile to waterfox?


While you can run both Waterfox and Firefox on the same system, there can be impacts to your Mozilla profile.

At the minimum level, each time you open Waterfox after running Firefox, Waterfox will check your add-ons for compatibility.
Your browsing history and any bookmarks you set in Waterfox will be added to your Firefox profile.
Same for any options and preferences settings.

All of the above stated, I have had no problem opening and using Firefox on my systems where both are installed.

One thing I DO NOT DO is to run different versions of Waterfox and Firefox. I always wait for the new version of Waterfox before installing the related version of Firefox.

Chas


----------



## Grumpigeek

+1 kronckew

I run both Waterfox 30.0 and Firefox 30.0 using the default Australis interface and a dozen or so addons, on 2 different systems. One is Windows 8.1 x64, the other Windows 7 x64.

Both Waterfox and Firefox are perfectly stable on both systems.

Waterfox is simply a 64-bit compile of Firefox, and nothing more. No extra code is added to change the original Firefox functionality.

I am grateful Alex single-handedly provides it to us for free.

@bigkahuna, @arakasi,

Many years experience has taught me that 99% of problems in Firefox, Waterfox and other variants are caused by addons.

When you have a problem, you must be prepared to do a bit of troubleshooting by disabling all addons and then re-enabling them one at a time until you find the culprit.

If you can't cope with undertaking simple troubleshooting steps, go use Internet Explorer instead of posting childish nonsense here.


----------



## Hutchinman

This is the first time that I have replied to your problem and I have read all the discussion between you and the others. I have a few comments that I would like to get off my chest.

1. Post count and length of duration on a forum mean JACK SQUAT with regard to competency on a troubleshooting issue.
2. You have a point that if the Mr.Alex creates ways to ask for help than he should be listening. It is disingenuous otherwise.
3. You need to understand that your case is an extreme outlier. NO ONE ELSE has reported problems like yours ever.
4. Unless other people can replicate your problem, it becomes ridiculously hard to locate and fix what might be causing the problem. Not to mention that it may have NOTHING to do with Waterfox. Without a comprehensive way to rule out other causes you can conclude nothing about what is causing the problem. Not to mention that ruling out other sources may well exceed Mr. Alex's knowledge.

5. You need to realize that the reality of the situation, right or wrong, is not what you want it to be and it is unlikely that you will get it to what you want.

If you have problems with the Waterfox experience, then exercise your right as an intelligent, free-thinking person and switch browsers. You have stated on multiple occasions that the Nightly builds are rock-solid for you. Then what is your problem? *The whole point of Waterfox was 64-bit Firefox.* The Nightly builds are the same thing. Why are you so dead set on Waterfox? It clearly isn't working for you and Nightly is, so why come back? Feature-wise Nightly is better than Waterfox.


----------



## Arakasi

Good and elegant response Hutchinman.

I think i may have found a way to keep speed, while also maintaining a very good level of privacy.

Cyberfox
https://8pecxstudios.com/cyberfox-web-browser

While browsing around i found this article, a very good read and brings up more of my area of expertise. Security.
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/09/23/firefox-burns-chrome-in-our-trustworthy-browser-poll/
http://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2013/08/25/which-web-browser-do-you-trust-poll/#idc-cover

A new one here while i will follow because it is very interesting to see how people truly think about the most important tool of our computers "the browser", the only reason i make it a big deal here hutch:
http://malwaretips.com/threads/nakedsecurity-which-web-browser-do-you-trust-the-most-poll.30363/










Oh and the #1 on your list really has no comparison to my responses as i was suggesting a little level of decency and respect, about how to treat others who have shown there willingness to help here as well as others recognizing the level of care towards the forum and its members. Not really about how it effects troubleshooting. However i truly do like your response.









Thanks
~Arakasi


----------



## Arakasi

I requested most of the hateful comments back and forth be removed. It was childish and disrespectful. On both parts.
It appears to have been done successfully.

Here is what would be respectful and professional going forward.
If someone posts in this thread that they don't like waterfox, members should not attack that person because they are unhappy about waterfox.
Keep this in mind. If a user is posting here because they are having issues with waterfox, chances are they are not going to be happy at any given time during their issues, about the product. Its always going to be like that. " _I am glad waterfox is crashing and i have to be here asking for help_ " said no one ever.
That is the originating members prerogative and doesn't concern other members. Example : " Looks like trash " There is no bad language, and there is nothing wrong here, he is stating his opinion, this is a public forum. Others might want to chime in and agree

If they are asking for help or assistance, then they should be helped ( by whoever decides they want to help here).
If no one wants to help, then thats ok too, but this is suppose to be a troubleshooting thread and a discussion thread concerning waterfox?
Bashing someone leads no where. Also if you bash them because they now hate the browser, do you think they are going to try taking your suggestions ?

I hope this thread can get back on track, in the beginning i started posting here for help. I received none, and i made my decision to move to a different browser, no harm no foul there either.


----------



## mwarren2

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *PalZer0*
> 
> I remember reading a post a while back about AdBlock Plus and how it can cause the behaviour that mwarren2 has described.
> 
> I can't find a link for it right now though.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> https://adblockplus.org/blog/on-the-adblock-plus-memory-consumption
> 
> https://adblockplus.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=10001&start=0
> 
> https://blog.mozilla.org/nnethercote/2014/05/14/adblock-pluss-effect-on-firefoxs-memory-usage/
> 
> Numerous posts and articles dated this year seem to back this up.


I tried disabling both AdBlockPlus and LastPass (top memory users) and the memory use still creeps up to over 1300 MB. I don't believe it is an ad-on. When the memory gets high enough, say over 1100 MB, it also affects my keyboard making it sluggish and unresponsive at times. I also see (Not Responding) in the WaterFox title bar at times.


----------



## opal

quick question.. is it just me or are the browser customizations in release 30 different from before? I could not find a way to use text only (no icons) and have my tabs on the bottom of the menu bar in this version. I rolled back to an earlier version.


----------



## WindowsTech

Well I got sick of being nagged about having an outdated browser everytime I logged in to Hotmail so I upgraded to 30. I used Classic Theme Restorer to get it back to looking the way I want it (tabs on the bottom & menu bar ect) and I'm happy with the look now. I'll report back if it's unstable.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WindowsTech*
> 
> Well I got sick of being nagged about having an outdated browser everytime I logged in to Hotmail so I upgraded to 30. I used Classic Theme Restorer to get it back to looking the way I want it (tabs on the bottom & menu bar ect) and I'm happy with the look now. I'll report back if it's unstable.


Guess what?

Now that Firefox 31 is released, the out of date browser warnings will start all over again.

Chas


----------



## WindowsTech

Well Waterfox is still 30.0 so I have the latest but I don't care if I have to update because my "Classic" setup will stay the same


----------



## Grumpigeek

Yahoo was nagging me about out of date browser too.

I installed the User Agent Switcher addon.

For Waterfox 30.0 I removed the reference to Waterfox in the string and saved it as "Firefox 30.0 x64".

The user agent string now reads: "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.3; Win64; x64; rv:30.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/30.0"

Yahoo didn't like the reference to Waterfox in the original user agent string.


----------



## kronckew

i also had the useragent problem in yahoo calendar, i used about:config to add a string variable *general.useragent.override* and set it to

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1;x64; rv:33.00) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/33.0

same as in my firefox nightly 33.01a. i'll change it now to 34.00


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox is actually ready this time! I'm just updating language packs and making sure everything is ready for a final release.

I keep an eye out on all emails and ways I offer support, and if I can I reply on how to fix things. The problem is, I get so many support requests for such silly things that a simple 5 second search would solve, so I just ignore it otherwise I'd be spending all my time answering everything.

Another thing, Waterfox isn't just Firefox recompiled. It took a long while and lots of modification to get Waterfox to be as fast as it is. Many bug reports with Intel and Mozilla were filed and fixed trying to get everything to work! I can't count how many hours of work have gone into getting Waterfox to what is it. I just never mess around with the UI because I find no need to, so people don't realise how much I've done because I'm just trying to give them the same experience they're used to.


----------



## Arakasi

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox is actually ready this time! I'm just updating language packs and making sure everything is ready for a final release.
> 
> I keep an eye out on all emails and ways I offer support, and if I can I reply on how to fix things. The problem is, I get so many support requests for such silly things that a simple 5 second search would solve, so I just ignore it otherwise I'd be spending all my time answering everything.
> 
> Another thing, Waterfox isn't just Firefox recompiled. It took a long while and lots of modification to get Waterfox to be as fast as it is. Many bug reports with Intel and Mozilla were filed and fixed trying to get everything to work! I can't count how many hours of work have gone into getting Waterfox to what is it. I just never mess around with the UI because I find no need to, so people don't realise how much I've done because I'm just trying to give them the same experience they're used to.


If you can fix my problem in 5 seconds ill donate a lot of money to future builds.
However you cannot. I also cannot either after weeks of trying things.
It sure would be nice to install it and go back to using it.
Until never, using Nightly .


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox is actually ready this time! I'm just updating language packs and making sure everything is ready for a final release.
> 
> I keep an eye out on all emails and ways I offer support, and if I can I reply on how to fix things. The problem is, I get so many support requests for such silly things that a simple 5 second search would solve, so I just ignore it otherwise I'd be spending all my time answering everything.
> 
> Another thing, Waterfox isn't just Firefox recompiled. It took a long while and lots of modification to get Waterfox to be as fast as it is. Many bug reports with Intel and Mozilla were filed and fixed trying to get everything to work! I can't count how many hours of work have gone into getting Waterfox to what is it. I just never mess around with the UI because I find no need to, so people don't realise how much I've done because I'm just trying to give them the same experience they're used to.


Alex,

I FULLY appreciate all of the work and effort that you put into Waterfox!

I do try and answer questions that I believe I can help with as a way of contributing to the community.

Keep up the excellent work!

Chas


----------



## Lex Luger

In my opinion, Waterfox is the best internet browser available. I personally have never encountered any problems, and I see no reason to use regular Firefox over Waterfox. If it wasn't for battlelog requiring 32 bit broswer, I would never use anything else.


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lex Luger*
> 
> If it wasn't for battlelog requiring 32 bit broswer, I would never use anything else.


Check out Battlelogium - it works pretty good as a standalone browser for Battlelog and with Steam integration.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Do you use a 4:3 monitor, by any chance?


----------



## Lord Venom

Classic Theme Restorer is your friend!


----------



## kache

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Do you use a 4:3 monitor, by any chance?


No, but that doesn't mean I like wasting space.
Even with a multi-monitor setup I'm always out of space.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> Classic Theme Restorer is your friend!


Doesn't really help that much:









The built-in glassmyfoxfeatures are incomplete:









And GlassMyFox doesn't work properly on Australis:


----------



## kache

Nvm, found a beta version of GlassMyFox that actually works on Australis:


Now, to find a way to stop the goddamn toolbar button resetting at every restart!


----------



## kache

Ok, I take back my words, properly modified the new australis interface is pretty good, even if it still takes more vertical pixels (mostly because of the tabs) than the previous theme:










How to make the panel icons smaller?


----------



## Hutchinman

Dude, put those pictures inside spoiler tags. Please.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> No, but that doesn't mean I like wasting space.
> Even with a multi-monitor setup I'm always out of space.


Ah, I wondered because your screenshots are rather squarish.


----------



## kache

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Ah, I wondered because your screenshots are rather squarish.


Because all websites are vertical, there is no point going above 1300px width on the browser, except for the rare cases when there are big images to look at.


----------



## thechas

Thank You Alex!

Got the pop-up notification that Waterfox 31 was available.

Waterfox 31 installed and working fine.

Chas


----------



## tomv

Great job on 31, I've been using it sense lunch time today, and it's great. Thank you Alex !


----------



## thegilpins

Waterfox v31 has performance issues for me.

I have a 3770K oc to 4.7 Ghz on Windows 8.1 z77 motherboard.

V30 has a Peackeeper score of 5866, compared to Firefox 30 of 4575

But V31 has a Peacekeeper score of 3623 compared to Firefox 31 of 4732.

So V31 Waterfox is slower than Firefox 31!

This was not the case for Waterfox v30.

Any ideas?

Thanks


----------



## deepor

There's a "click for details" link on your score and you'll get a list of the individual tests that were done. There might be something you can see out of comparing those between Waterfox and normal Firefox 31 scores, and then you can maybe try to see if there's something in about:config that tweaks exactly what feature is used in the tests that have bad scores.


----------



## bIOforger

Same here, I had crashing issues in V30 so updated to V31 hoping it would cure that and it hasn't crashed as yet, good, but its dog slow, using 25% CPU all the time and noticeable lag scrolling any pages. Vanilla firefox is fine.

Sandy i5 o/c to 4.6ghz
8GB RAM, Win7


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> noticeable lag scrolling any pages. Vanilla firefox is fine.


I just updated to WF31 from 30 and am also getting very noticeable lag when scrolling some pages.

_Edit: Actually it's just laggy in general (even when doing things as simple as opening/closing new tabs). Reverting back to WF30 completely fixed the issue, so I'll stick with that for now._


----------



## bIOforger

And it's more noticeable where flash is used on pages that i have seen, such as on facebook. If i open a few tabs with lots of content it grinds into a horrible mess. Its so bad in fact im going back to vanilla ffox :/


----------



## coldroll

I'm having problems with the newest waterfox how do I delete it completely and start out completely fresh with a new copy?


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I'm having problems with the newest waterfox how do I delete it completely and start out completely fresh with a new copy?


You should just be able to use the uninstaller. If you want to keep your bookmarks etc. don't select the delete all data or delete profile data (something along those lines) when using it.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I'm having problems with the newest waterfox how do I delete it completely and start out completely fresh with a new copy?


First, make a backup copy of your Mozilla profile.

Should be at a path similar to:

C:\Users\[user name]\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles

Or you can use a utility like MozBackup.

Make sure you have the Waterfox 31 setup file saved on your computer.

From Programs and Features, uninstall Waterfox and any older versions of Firefox.
Choose the option to leave your profile on the computer.

Install Waterfox and restore your Mozilla profile if you need to.

Chas


----------



## thechas

Comparing Waterfox 31, Firefox 31 and Seamonkey, I see little or no difference in CPU usage.

My idling CPU usage is between 20 and 31%.

Waterfox adds about 6% usage except when first loading.

Chas


----------



## bIOforger

Your idle should be zero - 5%, not 20%+

WFox v30 didn't have this issue and neither did any of the previous versions i've used since it was created.

Now its using 25% cpu on mine when loading and scrolling through pages with lots of content and/or flash components.

When it "settles" cpu usage is normal but there is still noticeable lag scrolling, clicking compared to older versions in my experience.

Conclusion something is wrong, or its an issue with flash maybe.


----------



## mhowie

Same issues here with WF31. Slow to startup, lags when moving between tabs, slow to load, etc. I don't have these issues with FF31 nor did I with WF30.


----------



## Jokerfish

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mhowie*
> 
> Same issues here with WF31. Slow to startup, lags when moving between tabs, slow to load, etc. I don't have these issues with FF31 nor did I with WF30.


Same exact issues here, very long load home page load times, plus WF31 would hard crash to desktop because of plugin_container failures every time I attempted to play any flash videos.

WF is probably the only browser that has not created issues for me in Win 7. Even vanilla Firefox was giving me problems. I love waterfox. I'll give 31 another shot when they update Flash.


----------



## Vowels

I'm getting some startup stutter when loading Waterfox 31 that I didn't get with WF30. My CPU usage spikes on start up and WF31 takes about 1 - 2 seconds to become responsive (opening tabs from about:newtab)


----------



## coldroll

Same issue here as well something definitely got messed up in the update or something.


----------



## fullmoon

I have nothing, just more speed. (i3 - 3220T)
Your config (CPU...) and try with a clean profile.
try it:
- layers.acceleration.disabled true
- gfx.direct2d.disabled true


----------



## CPUOverclock

Oh good, I'm not the only one having lag issues then. I gotta say, I liked the layout of Waterfox before the 30.0 update and since then, the browser has been buggy for me, lagging, some crashing here and there, and the process is using up a lot more memory than it used to. The browser seems slower and heavier than what it used to be. I don't know what happened, but I'm not happy about it.


----------



## bIOforger

Uninstalled V31 and back on v30 again, all is fine once more.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Your idle should be zero - 5%, not 20%+
> 
> WFox v30 didn't have this issue and neither did any of the previous versions i've used since it was created.
> 
> Now its using 25% cpu on mine when loading and scrolling through pages with lots of content and/or flash components.
> 
> When it "settles" cpu usage is normal but there is still noticeable lag scrolling, clicking compared to older versions in my experience.
> 
> Conclusion something is wrong, or its an issue with flash maybe.


Mainly stating that I have more CPU usage in my system than I see for Waterfox.

If it was worth the effort to me, I could shut down some of the 114 processes running in the background. But, I have to keep shutting down the services after updating or installing software and the extra performance is not worth the effort to me anymore.

My quad core AMD with 16GB of RAM runs everything as fast as I need it to run.

The only complaint I have with my system is the time it takes to boot up and be ready to run. Yes, I could speed it up by disabling services if it was worth the effort to me.

Chas


----------



## jsc1973

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wopaum*
> 
> rly , what's the problem with australis? it is so clean.


If I wanted something that looks and works like Chrome, I'd just use Chrome.

Thank God that the Pale Moon devs are sticking to the old FF layout.


----------



## coldroll

The new version of Waterfox is really slow to start hopefully they can fix this soon or I'm going back to the regular version of Firefox.


----------



## BillyIII

Same here. 31 is noticeably slower than 30. Usage pattern hasn't changed.


----------



## coldroll

I even uninstalled Waterfox and restarted with a fresh copy and this issue still persists, so it must be caused by something in the new update.


----------



## fullmoon

Yes, not stable, my waterfox have crash!!!








Go back to v30, Mr. Alex please fix it.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I even uninstalled Waterfox and restarted with a fresh copy and this issue still persists, so it must be caused by something in the new update.


That's odd, I reverted to 30 and it fixed all the issues 31 had


----------



## kache

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jsc1973*
> 
> If I wanted something that looks and works like Chrome, I'd just use Chrome.
> 
> Thank God that the Pale Moon devs are sticking to the old FF layout.


Yes, I moved to Pale Moon as well. Took me a while to fix all the interface to make it as space efficient as possible, but 2 days later everything is nearly perfect and performance is leaps and bounds beyond Waterfox:


----------



## Quantum Reality

I use Firefox on my laptop, and I can't say I've noticed FF 31 giving me any real speed issues. PM (which I use on my desktop) has also been updated to include the security fixes, and I haven't really noticed any sluggishness from it, so it may be the Intel compiler did not compile something properly with WF 31?


----------



## coldroll

Yeah Firefox 31 seems to run fine for me but Waterfox 31 runs terribly.


----------



## Numbing

Just recently changed to waterfox on my laptop sick of chrome bloat and google tracking everything since i updated to 31 seems to go unresponsive a hell a lot more then 30.


----------



## GrumpyOne

Oh why did I update? The last version ran perfect, this thing lags so bad that I'm thinking of uninstalling...


----------



## Quantum Reality

I've been noticing Pale Moon has been having trouble with a couple of websites recently, and I'm wondering if something related to the base firefox code updates may be at fault.


----------



## wobinda

No problems here, so far... No sluggishness, no crash, flash videos running normally


----------



## coldroll

Well I tried using this latest version of Waterfox and It's too slow for me so looks like I'm back to using Firefox until they fix it, uninstalled . (EDIT 5 minutes later...) Just installed the latest version of Firefox no problems whatsoever with performance.


----------



## CPUOverclock

false
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Uninstalled V31 and back on v30 again, all is fine once more.


Forget that, I'm going back to 28.0. I like that design, it didn't give many problems, and it liked my 64-bit computer just fine. Until the memory leaks are fixed, and the Waterfox menu in the top left corner is brought back, as well as the Add-on bar, I'm sticking to 28.0.


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CPUOverclock*
> 
> Forget that, I'm going back to 28.0. I like that design, it didn't give many problems, and it liked my 64-bit computer just fine. Until the memory leaks are fixed, and the Waterfox menu in the top left corner is brought back, as well as the Add-on bar, I'm sticking to 28.0.


You need that addon named "classic theme restorer". What you want isn't coming back (other than using that addon).

There's a Firefox "ESR" = "extended support release", which is currently either v24 or v31 and updated when security issues or bugs are found. Even that one probably won't make you happy because it's currently transitioning into the v31 version. I don't know how long that v24 ESR will be supported or if support is already running out and you're expected to switch to v31 ESR.


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CPUOverclock*
> 
> false
> Forget that, I'm going back to 28.0. I like that design, it didn't give many problems, and it liked my 64-bit computer just fine. Until the memory leaks are fixed, and the Waterfox menu in the top left corner is brought back, as well as the Add-on bar, I'm sticking to 28.0.


Link to ver 28?


----------



## CPUOverclock

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *deepor*
> 
> You need that addon named "classic theme restorer". What you want isn't coming back (other than using that addon).
> 
> There's a Firefox "ESR" = "extended support release", which is currently either v24 or v31 and updated when security issues or bugs are found. Even that one probably won't make you happy because it's currently transitioning into the v31 version. I don't know how long that v24 ESR will be supported or if support is already running out and you're expected to switch to v31 ESR.


It's not that I don't like the sleek design of Waterfox 30+, but I like the add-on bar and I like the menu in the top left. If you combine that with the new, sleek design and fix the memory issues with the browser, its perfect for me. I see that 'Classic Theme Restorer' brings back the add-on bar and possibly the menu button in the top left, but does it really work well with Waterfox 30 and won't give me any more issues than I already have?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Link to ver 28?


https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/120427


----------



## CPUOverclock

Alright, well for the time being, I'll stick to your advice deepor and stay on Waterfox 30 with the 'Classic Theme Restorer.' It's not that bad and seems to satisfy my requirements.


----------



## coldroll

I wonder if the developers of Waterfox know about all the new problems with Waterfox 31.


----------



## kevindd992002

I installed Waterfox 31.0 to upgrade form Waterfox 28.0 and I can't believe it, my 50+ tabs are all gone! What a bummer! Even the sessionstore.js.bak is immediately overwritten with the new sessionstore.js so no backup. Just unbelievable.


----------



## trunks01

Waterfox constantly hangs and a bar which says (Not Responding) covers the tabs. This has been happening for some time, but it is happening more often since upgrading to version 31. I have a relatively new 64-bit build running an i5-3550 CPU @ 3.30 GHz with 16gb of RAM. My main drive is a 128GB SSD.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I wonder if the developers of Waterfox know about all the new problems with Waterfox 31.


The Developer, MrAlex does monitor the forum and also monitors the Q&A section on the Waterfox home page.

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/qa/

Make sure that you post details of your issues there.

I have two systems running Waterfox 31 and have experienced no performance or Memory leak issues.

My laptop has fewer background processes running than my desktop. However, both show about the same impact to CPU and RAM usage when I open Waterfox. Both systems also free up memory when I close Waterfox.

I do not have any specific suggestions for anyone with the performance issues as I am not having any myself.

Chas


----------



## coldroll

I have four other browsers that run flawlessly so I know it's Waterfox causing the issues but thanks for showing me their main site. I have also tried waterfox 30 again and it runs fine too.


----------



## bIOforger

thechas, not much point posting all that without your spec, so whats your spec, are you AMD or Intel?


----------



## Ddreder

So I tried out this browser on my work computer and I have to say it was not pleasant. Chrome was still way faster in all regards. I even tried version 30 since everyone said that they were having issues with the new one and I was pretty disappointed..


----------



## deepor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Ddreder*
> 
> So I tried out this browser on my work computer and I have to say it was not pleasant. Chrome was still way faster in all regards. I even tried version 30 since everyone said that they were having issues with the new one and I was pretty disappointed..


Firefox can be faster than Chrome for a lot of stuff, but that's just on paper really. There's choppiness in the UI and scrolling while stuff loads and that makes it appear slow.

Take another look in 2015. By then those issues might have been solved as the Firefox developers are slowly working towards getting it to run in multiple processes/threads, which should solve that.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> thechas, not much point posting all that without your spec, so whats your spec, are you AMD or Intel?


Laptop is an I5 with 8 GB RAM and Windows 7 x64 Home.

Desktop is AMD Phenom II X4 970 at 3.5GHz with 16GB RAM Windows 7 x64 Pro.

Desktop Experience Index is 5.9 limited by motherboard HDD interface.

I have not run any browser speed tests, but I see no difference with Waterfox 31 compared to the month or so that I was running Waterfox 30.

Chas


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Laptop is an I5 with 8 GB RAM and Windows 7 x64 Home.
> 
> Desktop is AMD Phenom II X4 970 at 3.5GHz with 16GB RAM Windows 7 x64 Pro.
> 
> Desktop Experience Index is 5.9 limited by motherboard HDD interface.
> 
> I have not run any browser speed tests, but I see no difference with Waterfox 31 compared to the month or so that I was running Waterfox 30.
> 
> Chas


Thanks, weird your lappy is similar spec to my desktop, mine is o/c to 4.6ghz and has an SSD. win exp is 6.9 limited by the gfx card.


----------



## coldroll

Well since It's a laptop and uses onboard graphics instead of dedicated GPU that's why your windows exp is stuck at a 6.9 rating.


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> Well since It's a laptop and uses onboard graphics instead of dedicated GPU that's why your windows exp is stuck at a 6.9 rating.


i meant its weird he has no issues with wfox v31 with a very similar core spec to my desktop. I was thinking it was an intel thing, but obviously not. I still reckon its flash being cack as usual.


----------



## coldroll

I think it's either Adobe flash or a coding error.


----------



## Cosanostra

For what it's worth, I upgraded from 30 to 31 a week ago and have been using it without issue since then. With only overclock.net open in a tab, Waterfox 31 is using 577k kb and 2% CPU. After opening Popurls Reddit, The New York Times and The Huffington Post in additional tabs, it is using 629k kb and 3-5%CPU. Closing all the tabs but overclock.net drops the mem usage back down to 570k kb. Checking out several sites using Flash all seemed to work without crashes or slowdowns. I wonder what you guys are running into.


----------



## seti

I am at a loss to all these issues, except to say that I really haven't had any problems with this latest release as Cosanostra too has stated. I don't doubt that there can be issues with unique setups, unique demands, or the like and hate to hear of anyone having issues like the ones reported, but from the likes of a heavy internet users of all kinds of sites...I have had no crashes, excessive memory use, or anything notable of a problem with WF31. I don't generally install on top of other installations with any software I use regularly...preferring to reinstall over upgrading with all the software my primary machine and what I did on my Primary Machine. However, when it comes to the laptop...upgrade away...and that is the path I took for this latest WF31 on it and also have not had any issues with much of the average surfing this unit sees. Good luck to all those with issues...I do hope you find a fix.


----------



## MPep

@ MrAlex,

How can I tell what version Waterfox I am running? I've had V28, just downloaded v31. Closed WF, ran the ...setup.exe. Don't know how to tell which version I'm running. They both appear identical.

Another point I have is the following:
In FF, in the address bar, there was a 'star' shape which you could select to save the current page into your bookmarks.
I don't see that option available in WF.

I've started using WF since FF was either slow to start or did not start at all.
Am running this on a Win8.1 laptop.

Cheers,
MPep


----------



## MPep

Oops..., have only just found the "Menu Bar" where I can check the About WaterFox, show v30.0. Which is interesting in itself as I haven't downloaded it.
Will try again.

Still would like to find out about saving currently open webpage though.

Cheers.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MPep*
> 
> Oops..., have only just found the "Menu Bar" where I can check the About WaterFox, show v30.0. Which is interesting in itself as I haven't downloaded it.
> Will try again.
> 
> Still would like to find out about saving currently open webpage though.
> 
> Cheers.


I do not see the Add to Bookmarks in the menu bar options.
This might be part of the Austrais interface update that Mozilla introduced with Firefox 29.

You can always use the keyboard shortcut of Alt-D to bookmark the current page.

I did find an Extension that adds a star shaped Icon for add a bookmark. It could be that you had an older version of the add-on that is not compatible with the new version.

From the menu bar, click on tools, add-ons, get add-ons. Then search for "Add Bookmark Here" and install the add-on.

Where did you download Waterfox from? If not from the offical Waterfox page, https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ you might not have downloaded the latest version.

Chas


----------



## MPep

Actually, whilst at work today I noted that it is in Chrome that the Star shape is there. Oh well, can't win them all.

I did indeed download from the official page.


----------



## coldroll

Are they going to fix Waterfox any time soon?


----------



## Grumpigeek

@thechas

Try the "Edit Bookmark Plus" addon. It adds some useful features to Firefox for adding and managing bookmarks.


----------



## LaserJock

reply to myself.

WF v31???

No small icon WITH TEXT plus AiOS is now problematic ... so

Palemoon here I come again.....

Someone quit playing ...... ahh geez ... I'll get removed again so no profanity.

I'm back to v28 on WF and if no change in v32 to my liking, canned it will be.

too bad ... it's been good for me and family

time for Chrome?


----------



## Prime2515102

Yeah I don't know what the deal is with 31... It seems to be waiting longer to render pages and the interface has a delay before the buttons and menus start working. After it's running awhile it's ok though, but the seeming delayed render remains and the jittery scrolling before the page is done loading is worse than it was before. I haven't had any stability issues as of yet though.


----------



## coldroll

I give up on Waterfox at least until they fix it.


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I give up on Waterfox at least until they fix it.


Likewise. It's a shame really.

Posted from my S5 using Tapatalk


----------



## seti

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I give up on Waterfox at least until they fix it.


You know ColdRoll...that isn't giving up on anything if "until they fix it" is included. All the belly aching is pretty childish. Cheerleaders trying to get a mass exodus with "I am leaving!" and hoping for "me too!" from the masses. Alex takes the time to put out these builds within his time frame and with every attempt to alleviate issues...no promises, which is the case with many programs. It is open source, so you are encouraged to go it alone on your own route if having someone else do it for you is just to much to tolerate. Oh but you guys were leaving...ten posts ago...separation anxiety?


----------



## coldroll

You misunderstand me I'm just stating that waterfox is barely usable for me right now so I'm waiting until he fixes it. Also there is no reason to be rude. I was just reminding him that it still isn't working very well for me. And for future reference you can be reported for such acts of abuse on here.


----------



## seti

Report away Coldroll! What find offensive is the "me too" mentality when things aren't perfect, which is exactly when those that have ulterior motives pop up. Most of which are groupies from the other browser options trying to get converts. Then there are the trolls...not much to say that hasn't been said about them. I don't know how much help it is to reiterate what has already been said about v31, which is what you were doing. So, if you feel it rude to point out such posts...go ahead tell on me...lol, but whether Alex admits it or any of the lurkers do...it gets tiring reading day in and day out all the belly aching and carrying on when there is nothing to be gleaned from it or useful. I notice you got "me too" followers too...imagine that.


----------



## Jashh

Do you guys have this as well in version 31? Those first three lines, not even following the alphabetic order and looking like the weirdest things i've ever seen in the about:config. Think its something corrupt/viruslike? Check out the value lines. Or is it put there by the new waterfox version?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Don't see it in FF 31 so it may be a add-on you have?


----------



## Jashh

Thanks yes it appeared to have been my weather add-on (which is now incompatible with version 31. It still looked weird though. I hope things get updated and better. We have a new contender now: Chrome released its beta version of 64-bit. But i'm rooting for Waterfox.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

On a particular webpage

I clicked on Print Preview.

The writing at the top is overlapped and no Background Color is displayed.mad.gif

Actually, sometimes I want the Background Color and other times, I don't.smile.gif

This is a bug or an adjustment I need to make?


----------



## StreekG

Hey guys, waterfox 31 is very choppy and slow for me, any idea how to approach this one?
I've tried looking up but nothing, i cannot reset Waterfox like i can with Firefox

I get laggy text boxes, tabs and scrolling. I think it is all since upgrading to version 31


----------



## Quantum Reality

A lot of people have reported such lag issues. You should uninstall and revert to an older version (and disable autoupdates), or switch to Pale Moon for the time being.


----------



## garfield1234

Any one know something about this?

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: waterfox.exe
Application Version: 31.0.0.5319
Application Timestamp: 53d24856
Fault Module Name: xul.dll
Fault Module Version: 31.0.0.5319
Fault Module Timestamp: 53d2480b
Exception Code: 80000003
Exception Offset: 0000000000d51a14
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: 40ca
Additional Information 2: 40ca0e826bded9b0726be55b43aecafd
Additional Information 3: 27e8
Additional Information 4: 27e8257934f2b31dd7d8e0956caeb38a

Read our privacy statement online:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=104288&clcid=0x0409

If the online privacy statement is not available, please read our privacy statement offline:
C:\Windows\system32\en-US\erofflps.txt

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: plugin-container.exe
Application Version: 31.0.0.5319
Application Timestamp: 53d24858
Fault Module Name: mozalloc.dll
Fault Module Version: 31.0.0.5319
Fault Module Timestamp: 53d2463f
Exception Code: 80000003
Exception Offset: 0000000000001748
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: fcdf
Additional Information 2: fcdfd6c063f5e5dc03f1cbbd2a4813bc
Additional Information 3: f642
Additional Information 4: f642deb16b14f6bab9700ee1cfafe890

Read our privacy statement online:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?linkid=104288&clcid=0x0409

If the online privacy statement is not available, please read our privacy statement offline:
C:\Windows\system32\en-US\erofflps.txt

with Waterfox 28 64bits and Mozilla 28 32bits

after MS Updates:

Security Update for Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5.1 on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 for x64-based Systems

(KB2943357)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:46 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2943357

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2978668)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:46 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2978668

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Cumulative Security Update for Internet Explorer 11 for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2976627)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:48 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2976627

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2980245)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:49 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Recommended

Install this update to resolve issues in Windows. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article for more information. After you install this item, you may have to restart your

computer.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2980245

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2976897)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:50 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2976897

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Definition Update for Windows Defender - KB915597 (Definition 1.179.3062.0)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:51 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

Install this update to revise the definition files used to detect spyware and other potentially unwanted software. Once you have

installed this item, it cannot be removed.

More information:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/about/overview.mspx

Help and Support:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52661

Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2918614)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:52 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2918614

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2981580)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 2:53 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

Install this update to resolve issues in Windows. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article for more information. After you install this item, you may have to restart your

computer.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2981580

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Windows Malicious Software Removal Tool x64 - August 2014 (KB890830)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 3:00 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

After the download, this tool runs one time to check your computer for infection by specific, prevalent malicious software

(including Blaster, Sasser, and Mydoom) and helps remove any infection that is found. If an infection is found, the tool will

display a status report the next time that you start your computer. A new version of the tool will be offered every month. If you

want to manually run the tool on your computer, you can download a copy from the Microsoft Download Center, or you can run

an online version from microsoft.com. This tool is not a replacement for an antivirus product. To help protect your computer, you

should use an antivirus product.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/890830

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Security Update for Microsoft .NET Framework 3.5.1 on Windows 7 and Windows Server 2008 R2 SP1 for x64-based Systems

(KB2937610)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 3:17 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2937610

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2978742)

Installation date: ?8/?16/?2014 3:18 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2978742

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Windows Update Agent 7.6.7600.320

Installation date: ?8/?19/?2014 3:30 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

The Windows Update Agent enables your computer to search for and install updates from an update service. The agent can

automatically update itself as needed to communicate with the update service when Windows searches for new updates.

More information:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=118000

Help and Support:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkID=117301

Definition Update for Windows Defender - KB915597 (Definition 1.181.42.0)

Installation date: ?8/?19/?2014 3:38 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

Install this update to revise the definition files used to detect spyware and other potentially unwanted software. Once you have

installed this item, it cannot be removed.

More information:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/about/overview.mspx

Help and Support:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52661

after these updates WF 28/ FF 28 started to crash like is visible in the first paragraphs, first error logged is this, 21.08.2014 :

Faulting application name: waterfox.exe, version: 28.0.0.5203, time stamp: 0x533a03fc
Faulting module name: xul.dll, version: 28.0.0.5203, time stamp: 0x533a03bc
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x000000000063b77f
Faulting process id: 0x173c
Faulting application start time: 0x01cfbd23b57b9257
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\xul.dll
Report Id: e414524a-2919-11e4-bc9a-005056c00008

MS update:

Definition Update for Windows Defender - KB915597 (Definition 1.183.21.0)

Installation date: ?8/?23/?2014 8:57 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

Install this update to revise the definition files used to detect spyware and other potentially unwanted software. Once you have

installed this item, it cannot be removed.

More information:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/about/overview.mspx

Help and Support:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52661

those frequently more and more also, on 28.08.2014:

Faulting application name: plugin-container.exe, version: 28.0.0.5203, time stamp: 0x533a03fe
Faulting module name: mozalloc.dll, version: 28.0.0.5203, time stamp: 0x533a01b8
Exception code: 0x80000003
Fault offset: 0x00000000000012c8
Faulting process id: 0x1f00
Faulting application start time: 0x01cfc2ca151df056
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\plugin-container.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files\Waterfox\mozalloc.dll
Report Id: 8bd1488c-2ebe-11e4-849a-005056c00008

after those 5 crashes in 28.08. I updated Adobe Flash Player Plugin to 14.0.0.179 for Mozilla and 14.0.0.176 for IE same

crashes after... 5 or 6 more I updated on 29.08.2014 WF to v31.0 and even more crashes!!!!!!!!!!!!

also:

Security Update for Windows 7 for x64-based Systems (KB2993651)

Installation date: ?8/?29/?2014 4:11 AM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

A security issue has been identified in a Microsoft software product that could affect your system. You can help protect your

system by installing this update from Microsoft. For a complete listing of the issues that are included in this update, see the

associated Microsoft Knowledge Base article. After you install this update, you may have to restart your system.

More information:
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/2993651

Help and Support:
http://support.microsoft.com

Definition Update for Windows Defender - KB915597 (Definition 1.183.882.0)

Installation date: ?8/?29/?2014 12:43 PM

Installation status: Successful

Update type: Important

Install this update to revise the definition files used to detect spyware and other potentially unwanted software. Once you have

installed this item, it cannot be removed.

More information:
http://www.microsoft.com/athome/security/spyware/software/about/overview.mspx

Help and Support:
http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=52661

I presumed an conflict between WF 31 and still FF 28 so I updated FF to v31.0 ....

Faulting application name: plugin-container.exe, version: 31.0.0.5310, time stamp: 0x53c75e91
Faulting module name: mozalloc.dll, version: 31.0.0.5310, time stamp: 0x53c72e91
Exception code: 0x80000003
Fault offset: 0x0000141b
Faulting process id: 0x1d98
Faulting application start time: 0x01cfc36f7f0640b6
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\plugin-container.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\mozalloc.dll
Report Id: 4f49a0f2-2fb0-11e4-8c64-005056c00008

crashes still continues allot!!!!!!!!!

Crashes are appearing when tru to download from any site anithing (including pictures even from google.com), capture YouTube

clips as *.flv or *.mp4 via Download Helper Plugin, Net Video Hunter, or when even load a page from a link on Google or other

site (especially to pages rich in graphics - photos, flash, etc.) ????

PS:
MBAM scan didn't find any spyware of medium/high risk only some trackware 4-5 quarantined still same acting on FF/WF....

I ussualy have 4-5 windows with 50 or 200 tabs each..., or more, memory leach 2500mb -3000mb, still wierd acting

sessionrestore (if Exit from File menu - taking forever to unload those 2.5gb from ram..., on restart about:sessionrestore with

an blank page must end FF/WF 1-2 time and an third restart I get about restore page with all windows and tab listed > Restore

button voila! in Options > General > Show my Windows and Tabs from Last Time > Home Page: Firefox/Waterfox Start Page if

General > Show my Home Page > http://www.google.com > erase the whole sessionstore.js 1kb instead of 10-18mb in my

profile and must use restore previous version file from windows explorer)????????????????? this behavior started with FF 29 on

another computer now I have it on this one too....

could be some MS Windows 7 (64bits/SP1) updates which screw something ???


----------



## MrAlex

Okay everyone I've noticed some weird performance issues that have definitely been fixed in version 32. I think profiling went wrong and so the compiler essentially unoptimized parts of the program that were critical.

You can test version 32 here. Hopefully it should be back to being faster than most other browsers









Waterfox is now also releasing for Mac! Since Firefox for Mac is lacking in H264 support I added that and enabled MediaStreamingExtensions as well so now the YouTube HTML5 player will work too.

Sorry for not replying in a while, been working really hard on this release to try and fix everything. Let me know if it all works!

Release for everything is tomorrow


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay everyone I've noticed some weird performance issues that have definitely been fixed in version 32. I think profiling went wrong and so the compiler essentially unoptimized parts of the program that were critical.
> You can test version 32 here. Hopefully it should be back to being faster than most other browsers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waterfox is now also releasing for Mac! Since Firefox for Mac is lacking in H264 support I added that and enabled MediaStreamingExtensions as well so now the YouTube HTML5 player will work too.
> 
> Sorry for not replying in a while, been working really hard on this release to try and fix everything. Let me know if it all works!
> Release for everything is tomorrow


Thanks for sorting it all out! I'm going to be reinstalling Windows on a test PC soon, so I'll have a chance to give WF 32 a bit of a workout once you formally release it.


----------



## thechas

Thanks Alex!

The Waterfox 32 preview does appear to be loading pages faster than 31 had.

I have been running Waterfox 32 all evening and have not had any problems.

Keep up the good work!

Chas


----------



## Prime2515102

Alright! v32 seems to be working well! Thanks Alex









Something to note:

In Waterfox and Firefox, I've always noticed that on some pages (almost all) there is a delay, while the page renders, before I am able to scroll down the page. There is a new setting (not sure if it appeared in 31 or 32) named "browser.cache.disk.preload_chunk_count."

The default setting is 4 and I doubled it to 8 and that delay is almost completely gone. On a newly opened instance of Waterfox it is almost as fast as if the page had already been visited in the same session.

The explanation is "Number of data chunks we always preload ahead of read to speed up load of larger content like images. Currently size of one chunk is 256kB, and by default we preload 4 chunks - i.e. 1MB of data in advance" (from http://www.janbambas.cz/new-firefox-http-cache-enabled/).

I also changed "browser.cache.disk.metadata_memory_limit" from 250 to 1000 but I don't think it had any effect.


----------



## seti

Thanks for the hard work Alex! I am sure most understand what "busy" is like, but on the same token most can't understand "busy" with maintaining a software release to the world for free tacked on to it. Totally psyched about the news of a Mac release! Is this something you are looking to release in the coming months or next year? Will this lead to an eventual linux version as well? Regardless of the "whens" I find wine and waterfox a good pair to get me by until then. Thanks again.


----------



## Spurred

Looking forward to using Waterfox 32.

I have a question about Waterfox and video playing. YouTube, Brightcove and other video players work normally in Waterfox. However, I cannot get Adobe Flash videos to play in Waterfox. I have redownloaded and reinstalled the latest version on Adobe Flash (64-bit) on this Windows 8.1 (64-bit) system. Flash videos play normally in Internet Explorer, but do not load at all in Waterfox. I am left with a blank white space where the player should be. Is there a setting I need to change in Waterfox, perhaps in the AboutConfig file? Is the Flash player looking for _Firefox.exe_ rather than _Waterfox.ex_e? Do I need to change a key in the Windows Registry?

Thanks for any help.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay everyone I've noticed some weird performance issues that have definitely been fixed in version 32. I think profiling went wrong and so the compiler essentially unoptimized parts of the program that were critical.
> You can test version 32 here. Hopefully it should be back to being faster than most other browsers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waterfox is now also releasing for Mac! Since Firefox for Mac is lacking in H264 support I added that and enabled MediaStreamingExtensions as well so now the YouTube HTML5 player will work too.
> 
> Sorry for not replying in a while, been working really hard on this release to try and fix everything. Let me know if it all works!
> Release for everything is tomorrow
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for sorting it all out! I'm going to be reinstalling Windows on a test PC soon, so I'll have a chance to give WF 32 a bit of a workout once you formally release it.
Click to expand...

Great, let me know how it goes!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Thanks Alex!
> 
> The Waterfox 32 preview does appear to be loading pages faster than 31 had.
> 
> I have been running Waterfox 32 all evening and have not had any problems.
> 
> Keep up the good work!
> 
> Chas


That's great, glad to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Alright! v32 seems to be working well! Thanks Alex
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Something to note:
> 
> In Waterfox and Firefox, I've always noticed that on some pages (almost all) there is a delay, while the page renders, before I am able to scroll down the page. There is a new setting (not sure if it appeared in 31 or 32) named "browser.cache.disk.preload_chunk_count."
> 
> The default setting is 4 and I doubled it to 8 and that delay is almost completely gone. On a newly opened instance of Waterfox it is almost as fast as if the page had already been visited in the same session.
> 
> The explanation is "Number of data chunks we always preload ahead of read to speed up load of larger content like images. Currently size of one chunk is 256kB, and by default we preload 4 chunks - i.e. 1MB of data in advance" (from http://www.janbambas.cz/new-firefox-http-cache-enabled/).
> 
> I also changed "browser.cache.disk.metadata_memory_limit" from 250 to 1000 but I don't think it had any effect.


No worries! And thanks for that information, I'll look into it! Looks like it could be quite a good thing to increase.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Thanks for the hard work Alex! I am sure most understand what "busy" is like, but on the same token most can't understand "busy" with maintaining a software release to the world for free tacked on to it. Totally psyched about the news of a Mac release! Is this something you are looking to release in the coming months or next year? Will this lead to an eventual linux version as well? Regardless of the "whens" I find wine and waterfox a good pair to get me by until then. Thanks again.


No worries and thanks for the support 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spurred*
> 
> Looking forward to using Waterfox 32.
> 
> I have a question about Waterfox and video playing. YouTube, Brightcove and other video players work normally in Waterfox. However, I cannot get Adobe Flash videos to play in Waterfox. I have redownloaded and reinstalled the latest version on Adobe Flash (64-bit) on this Windows 8.1 (64-bit) system. Flash videos play normally in Internet Explorer, but do not load at all in Waterfox. I am left with a blank white space where the player should be. Is there a setting I need to change in Waterfox, perhaps in the AboutConfig file? Is the Flash player looking for Firefox.exe rather than Waterfox.exe? Do I need to change a key in the Windows Registry?
> 
> Thanks for any help.


Hmm that definitely shouldn't be happening! I'll look into this and get back to you.


----------



## demoneye

I just installed waterfox 32 and seems everything is running smooth .

10x alex


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Just installed WF32, the only thing problem I have is the updater is really slow to download.

The updater was downloading at 100KB/s and the installer downloaded at 4.5MB/s (maxxed my connection), are the downloads coming from different sources?


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> Just installed WF32, the only thing problem I have is the updater is really slow to download.
> 
> The updater was downloading at 100KB/s and the installer downloaded at 4.5MB/s (maxxed my connection), are the downloads coming from different sources?


Hi,

I will ditto this problem.


----------



## Spurred

Thanks for your reply MrAlex.
Quote:


> [Hmm that definitely shouldn't be happening!


I kinda figured that. Waterfox is installed on my new-in-April Windows 8.1 PC. I also have a new, two week old laptop running Windows 8.1, on which I installed Waterfox last week. Flash does not work in Waterfox on either machine. However, on each machine I have now tried logging in as a different user (after creating new user accounts) and opened Waterfox in the new user account on each machine with unaltered default profiles. In both, Flash played as it should, so the problem is not with the Waterfox code. The problem is with my profile.

When I first set up the new PC, I installed Firefox. I copied over my complete Firefox profile folder from my old Windows XP Pro 32-bit machine to my new Windows 8.1 (64-blt) PC. The new profile folder was setup with the same folder path as on the old XP machine, so there was no location mismatch. Then I uninstalled Firefox and installed Waterfox, I set it up to use the same Firefox profile folder, Other than with Flash, I've had no problems with Waterfox on the new Windows 8.1 PC.

Neither Firefox now Waterfox was installed on the new laptop. I installed Waterfox clean. Then, using MozBackup, I imported the Waterfox profile from the new Windows 8.1 PC to the new Windows 8.1 laptop. Whatever the problem is with Flash, it was copied over to the laptop with the profile.

Do you have any ideas where I should look for the conflict and how I can correct it, other than creating my profile from scratch? Can I manually uninstall or delete Adobe Flash from Waterfox and let Adobe install it anew?

Thanks, I realize Adobe Flash is not your responsibility, but I don't think Adobe will be any help.
Tony


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spurred*
> 
> Looking forward to using Waterfox 32.
> 
> I have a question about Waterfox and video playing. YouTube, Brightcove and other video players work normally in Waterfox. However, I cannot get Adobe Flash videos to play in Waterfox. I have redownloaded and reinstalled the latest version on Adobe Flash (64-bit) on this Windows 8.1 (64-bit) system. Flash videos play normally in Internet Explorer, but do not load at all in Waterfox. I am left with a blank white space where the player should be. Is there a setting I need to change in Waterfox, perhaps in the AboutConfig file? Is the Flash player looking for _Firefox.exe_ rather than _Waterfox.ex_e? Do I need to change a key in the Windows Registry?
> 
> Thanks for any help.


Hi Spurred,

Click on Tools, then click on Add-ons. Click Plugins. Look at the list of Plugins. For Shockwave Flash 14.0.0.179. Check to see if it reads Ask to Activate or Always Activate. It should always read, "Always Activate".

Also make sure that you have the latest Java 8 Update 20 installed and set to Always Activate.

Here is the link:  [URL=http://www.oracle.com/technet.../javase/downloads/jre8-downloads-2133155.html [/URL]


----------



## ArJunaZ

I am really hoping the Waterfox version 32.0 update will fix the massive memory leak in version 31.0. I have 8GB or memory and Waterfox can be the only thing running from bootup on my Windows 8.1 PC and I can have just 10 windows open and be using 99% of my memory. Killing Waterfox in task manager will often take me back to only 22% memory used and a restart with the same exact windows open will use only 25% of memory. I can leave it alone and come back later to find it has again reached 99% and the PC will be practically locked up. If I don't run Waterfox the PC will run all my security system (6 HD cameras) for months without a single issue.

Otherwise I really liked Waterfox 30.0 as it was very fast and I could open far more tabs in it than I ever could in Firefox, and it was pretty much bombproof. Firefox gets really whacked out when you open a lot of tabs.

UPDATE September 7, 2014
After updating and running Waterfox Version 32.0 for more than a day I can attest that the memory leak issue still exists.

More on the original issue.
The memory leak is not a consistent problem. I can often run for hours with relatively low memory use with a few Waterfox windows and maybe a couple dozen tabs open, then suddenly the memory will start to climb from say 35% used to 97% used with very little additional use and even when not increasing the number or types of tabs open. After that sometimes killing Waterfox in Task Manager reclaims the memory very quickly, and other times none is reclaimed and a reboot is called for.

I am happy to offer my help testing to resolve this issue.

Waterfox is most noticeably faster than Firefox. i look forward to seeing all the kinks worked out.


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Spurred*
> 
> Neither Firefox now Waterfox was installed on the new laptop. I installed Waterfox clean. Then, using MozBackup, I imported the Waterfox profile from the new Windows 8.1 PC to the new Windows 8.1 laptop. Whatever the problem is with Flash, it was copied over to the laptop with the profile.
> 
> Do you have any ideas where I should look for the conflict and how I can correct it, other than creating my profile from scratch? Can I manually uninstall or delete Adobe Flash from Waterfox and let Adobe install it anew?


Delete prefs.js maybe?
I have also this problem, but I have used another firefox and works, isn't Waterfox, I think flash problem because after a update, flash stop works.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

Question: Does the 32-Bit Firefox Version need to be installed in Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Service Pack 1, in order for the Updates to be installed? The update failed to install.

I have the 32-Bit Firefox Version installed in Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit Service Pack 1 and the slow update, downloaded slowly, but installed successfully.


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ArJunaZ*
> 
> I am really hoping the Waterfox version 32.0 update will fix the massive memory leak in version 31.0. I have 8GB or memory and Waterfox can be the only thing running from bootup on my Windows 8.1 PC and I can have just 10 windows open and be using 99% of my memory. Killing Waterfox in task manager will often take me back to only 22% memory used and a restart with the same exact windows open will use only 25% of memory. I can leave it alone and come back later to find it has again reached 99% and the PC will be practically locked up. If I don't run Waterfox the PC will run all my security system (6 HD cameras) for months without a single issue.
> 
> Otherwise I really liked Waterfox 30.0 as it was very fast and I could open far more tabs in it than I ever could in Firefox, and it was pretty much bombproof. Firefox gets really whacked out when you open a lot of tabs.


That sounds like a different issue.

Either way, after rolling back to v28 when v31 was released I finally updated yesterday, followed Prime2515102's tip on the previous page and everything is as smooth as ever once again. Thanks.


----------



## bIOforger

Nice one Alex and thanks for your continued work on Waterfox's development, its an awesome app


----------



## coldroll

Excellent I just tried the new version of Water fox and the memory leaks appear to be fixed good work!


----------



## BumpShot

just wanted know know if anyone can test this out. on the v.32

I am having a problem with google search. if I click on a search link. it opens a new tab. ( that is the setting i have in Google search ).
It does open a new tab . But, it opens the same page. It will open the link in a mew window. with the right link.

Can anyone test this out?

I just want to know if it is me or WF v.32 . because v.31 works right.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BumpShot*
> 
> just wanted know know if anyone can test this out. on the v.32
> 
> I am having a problem with google search. if I click on a search link. it opens a new tab. ( that is the setting i have in Google search ).
> It does open a new tab . But, it opens the same page. It will open the link in a mew window. with the right link.
> 
> Can anyone test this out?
> 
> I just want to know if it is me or WF v.32 . because v.31 works right.


Interesting.

When I look at the Google Search settings, there is only the option to open the search item in a new window.

When I enable the browser.search.openintab option in about:config, it opens a new tab when I use the search box.

Could it be that Google removed the option to open the search result in a new tab and you still have it in WF31 by default?

Chas


----------



## BumpShot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> When I look at the Google Search settings, there is only the option to open the search item in a new window.
> 
> When I enable the browser.search.openintab option in about:config, it opens a new tab when I use the search box.
> 
> Could it be that Google removed the option to open the search result in a new tab and you still have it in WF31 by default?
> 
> Chas


the google option is checked on mine. It just means to open in a new window. Is just a new tab window.

browser.search.openintab - is the option that sets the search box option.
it is when you put in a search in your searck box in the browser. if it will be on your page or new tab.
My is set to false. But, that is not the problem. It works fine.

I'm talking about being on the google webpage . Do a seach, then clicking on a search link..
then v32 will open a new tab. But the tab shows the same page as the google search.

and it does it on other hyperlinks, too that are suppose to open a new tab. Just wanted someone with v32 to test it.
Open up a few windows , then do it.

I went back down to v31 and it works fine.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I just checked in Pale Moon and it opens search results in a new tab.

browser.search.official is "true" and browser.search.openintab is "false".

EDIT: I got on my laptop this morning, which has the latest Firefox, and using the search function on a right-click of highlighted text also opens the results in a new tab. browser.search.official is "true" and browser.search.openintab is "false" as well.


----------



## jakethesnake438

Any idea on when BF4 Battlelog will support 64bit browsers?
Would love to not need to run IE


----------



## Lord Venom

DICE already released a new plugin over a week ago to support 64-bit browsers because of Chrome 64-bit's stable release on Windows. Just allow the plugin to run.


----------



## jakethesnake438

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> DICE already released a new plugin over a week ago to support 64-bit browsers because of Chrome 64-bit's stable release on Windows. Just allow the plugin to run.


Nice, I have been waiting a while fo this


----------



## BumpShot

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I just checked in Pale Moon and it opens search results in a new tab.
> 
> browser.search.official is "true" and browser.search.openintab is "false".
> 
> EDIT: I got on my laptop this morning, which has the latest Firefox, and using the search function on a right-click of highlighted text also opens the results in a new tab. browser.search.official is "true" and browser.search.openintab is "false" as well.


Thanks for checking.

But, the question Was, to test Waterfox v32. I would assume it works in any other browser. I know it works

As I said its not just google search. it was any link that opens in a new tab. Even the Add-on tab. just easier to test on Google because of the setting option.

I don't understand testing it in Pale Moon or Firefox.

Waterfox v32 was the question. Had no problem with even Water Fox v31. Just wanted someone to look and tell me if it happened with them or it was just me.
It would of helped me narrow it down.

Edit Solved :
had some time to test it on 3 other computers. 2 had no problem. 1 had the problem. I then tried to run the 2 problem computers ( 1 problem computer and mine ) in SAFE mode. And it work again. ok, so it was a add-on. I then look at the 2 computers to see if any add-ons were the same. Found 4 . So, I disabled them all and enabled one at a time. I found it. It is called Tile Tabs. it did not update on start of Waterfox. After updating the add-on it works now on both computers.

So, thanks for trying to test and help with this problem.


----------



## coldroll

I've been using the new version of water fox for two days now and haven't experienced any problems so far great job on fixing those bugs. I've noticed it seems to be quite a bit faster than Firefox as well.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> I've been using the new version of water fox for two days now and haven't experienced any problems so far great job on fixing those bugs. I've noticed it seems to be quite a bit faster than Firefox as well.


same here Zero issue and also it open pages faster than chrome 37 x64 version.... that awesome...


----------



## JRuxGaming

Wow... Just logged into OCN and saw there was the v32 update today. By what I have seen since v31, Waterfox uses about half the RAM it used to. Amazing fixes Alex.







Keep up the excellent work my friend.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Giving it a go on a P4 506 system (OCed to 3.3 GHz) I had lying around w/ 2 gigs DDR RAM.

Not bad, actually! Seems to have a pretty light footprint, but I don't have any add-ons installed as it's a test installation only.

Also! It definitely seems to be really good about releasing memory when a window or tab is closed. Nice work, MrAlex! I just might switch over on my mainbox as Pale Moon seems to be more "sluggish" about releasing memory when windows or tabs are closed.


----------



## DarkflameZM

I have this on going issue with Waterfox portable not remembering anything after a Windows reinstall or even after being copied over to a memory stick / other PC.

It's getting really annoying now, the whole point of portable is that you can take everything with you but for some reason Waterfox portable cannot do this which is just bizarre.

Chrome portable, Firefox portable and Cyberfox portable all remember tabs, sessions, plugins etc but Waterfox Portable does not.

I've tried to contact the developers of Waterfox on this subject a few times but have yet to receive a response.

The support for Waterfox is really lacking in my opinion, i get a replies from the Cyberfox team within 8 hours.

Been waiting months for Waterfox team reply...


----------



## seti

Thanks for the reply Mr. Alex and I know time is pressing more times than not. However, you did mention a Mac release for Waterfox...is that something for the future or coming soon? Your last major post almost sounded like it was coming with the last release of WF.


----------



## geniuszxy

Need help
I want to use Firefox now,
but the plain text "Firefox" is replaced by "Waterfox" almost everywhere
please, how to change it back?


----------



## Lord Venom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geniuszxy*
> 
> Need help
> I want to use Firefox now,
> but the plain text "Firefox" is replaced by "Waterfox" almost everywhere
> please, how to change it back?


You can't. If you want a 64-bit variant with Firefox branding then use pcxFirefox.


----------



## geniuszxy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lord Venom*
> 
> You can't. If you want a 64-bit variant with Firefox branding then use pcxFirefox.


Thanks for your reply
I mean that I have both Firefox and Waterfox installed on my computer.
Firefox first, then Waterfox, and both can be launched.
But whatever I use, the text on (the menu button, the help popup menu, the about dialog... etc) displays "Waterfox", and I want "Firefox"


----------



## wobinda

Thanks, Mr. Alex







Version 32.0 works flawlessly (as all the previous ones). 32.0.1 version coming up soon I hope








Any info about it?


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 32.0.2 is out now.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *geniuszxy*
> 
> Thanks for your reply
> I mean that I have both Firefox and Waterfox installed on my computer.
> Firefox first, then Waterfox, and both can be launched.
> But whatever I use, the text on (the menu button, the help popup menu, the about dialog... etc) displays "Waterfox", and I want "Firefox"


Hello,

I opened Firefox to check, and my Firefox displays the name Firefox in all instances. Waterfox displays Waterfox in all instances.

I would start by looking at your add-ons, I suspect that one of those is getting in the way.

Looking at your screenshot, are you running some sort of launcher application? That could also be the source of your problem.

Chas


----------



## geniuszxy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> I opened Firefox to check, and my Firefox displays the name Firefox in all instances. Waterfox displays Waterfox in all instances.
> 
> I would start by looking at your add-ons, I suspect that one of those is getting in the way.
> 
> Looking at your screenshot, are you running some sort of launcher application? That could also be the source of your problem.
> 
> Chas


Oh, the language pack occurs this problem.
Thanks


----------



## Eggert717

I'm new to Waterfox and was wondering if not getting the little updates can have a affect
on browser security?


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eggert717*
> 
> I'm new to Waterfox and was wondering if not getting the little updates can have a affect
> on browser security?


It's random because the 64bit works differently. https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/32.0.2/releasenotes/
Please report only if you have a specific issue.


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/experimenting-with-context-menus/

I'm actually not totally crazy about that. Can we get back the old menus if need be?


----------



## tompsonn

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> http://msujaws.wordpress.com/2014/05/27/experimenting-with-context-menus/
> 
> I'm actually not totally crazy about that. Can we get back the old menus if need be?


I agree, it stinks.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eggert717*
> 
> I'm new to Waterfox and was wondering if not getting the little updates can have a affect
> on browser security?


Eggert,

I've been using Waterfox for several years now, and I have not had any security issues.

Yes, some of the updates do fix security flaws. But, I rely on my anti-virus and firewall for security over any software updates.

If browser security is a major concern for you, you may have greater peace of mind with Pale-Moon or one of the other 64 bit variations that are updated more often.

Myself, I plan to stick with Waterfox.

Chas


----------



## Dhalmel

I'm having an annoying issue with waterfox and the flash plug-in crashing on Youtube/hulu.

It mostly happens when I use the back or forward button.


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Eggert717*
> 
> I'm new to Waterfox and was wondering if not getting the little updates can have a affect
> on browser security?


Hi Egger717,

If you are concern about getting Browser Security, and want to use 64-Bit Browsers, then use Nightly Firefox 64-Bit Browser that updates each night.

http://nightly.mozilla.org/


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Dhalmel*
> 
> I'm having an annoying issue with waterfox and the flash plug-in crashing on Youtube/hulu.
> 
> It mostly happens when I use the back or forward button.


I've had this for a while. Anytime I use the back button Youtube/ browser freezes, plug in crashes after a few seconds. I normally use tabs but it still catches me once in a while, very annoying.


----------



## chorse

I'm also having the You Tube page freezing issue. It mostly occurs when I use the back button with the expanded video screen size, or sometimes going back before the video is finished. I'm not sure if this is a Waterfox or Firefox problem. It is very annoying.
.


----------



## Lord Venom

Firefox 32.0.3 has been released to fix a NSS vulnerability.


----------



## seti

I have been having a totally annoying freeze in youtube in both WF32 and FF35a1x64. I don't go to Youtube a lot and I don't have freezing on those videos that are embedded on other sites...only when I actually go to Youtube will ALL videos freeze about thirty seconds in and just sit there and buffer for at least 3 minutes or until my patience runs out and I leave. I read in Firefox support that a workaround is to disable Flash playback protection...once I did that the videos would play, but that is not a recommended mode to run flash in by Adobe. I then read about problems with the "YouTube HD" plugin problems with FF. So I re-enabled playback protection and disabled the plugin "YouTube HD"...problem fixed. I ended up removing Youtube HD all together and using a greasemonkey script for my HD settings for Youtube instead. All is good now...FYI!

EDIT: I have also contacted support for Youtube HD to report the problem. Hopefully sooner than later they will fix whatever was causing that freeze.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay guys, here's 32.0.3:

https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2032.0.3%20Setup.exe

Actually done quite a lot of extra work on this even if it's just a bug release. Will be going to release on Thursday. Friday new website will launch which you can see here:

http://213.39.50.27

Let me know what you guys think!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Okay guys, here's 32.0.3:
> 
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2032.0.3%20Setup.exe
> 
> Actually done quite a lot of extra work on this even if it's just a bug release. Will be going to release on Thursday. Friday new website will launch which you can see here:
> 
> http://213.39.50.27
> 
> Let me know what you guys think!


Looks clean and nice. As for WF itself I'll wait until you go to production before I give it a try. It is good that you're back on a regular quick-release schedule though









EDIT: I see you use Profile Guided Optimization. The author of Pale Moon warns _"even though [PGO] relies very heavily on the machine the browser is compiled on - which would generally not be a good measure for a browser that is used over a wide array of different systems"_, so there is a small chance a subset of machines could experience reduced performance with WF because of compiler-directed optimizations. There is a discussion on StackOverflow about it.

I'm not an expert, though, and you may have already tackled and dealt with this issue.


----------



## GTK48

Does Waterfox use it's own profile or does it use Firefox's?


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GTK48*
> 
> Does Waterfox use it's own profile or does it use Firefox's?


Waterfox uses Firefox's profile, there is a way to create a seperate profile but I'm on my phone so can't search the thread.


----------



## bobsleigh

I had a browser crash recently and when I restarted Waterfox it came up with the "this is embarrassing" page but restored my tabs ok. Everything else seems to be fine (history bookmarks etc) except now my titlebar says I am running "Mozilla Firefox" instead of "Waterfox".

I have confirmed in Windows Task Manager that it is definitely Waterfox and it still has the correct icon. I have also tried restarting with addons disabled but the "Firefox" title remains. Renaming my profile and creating a new one restores the "Waterfox" title, but this must have an explanation and hopefully a fix which doesn't involve playing with new profiles.

Running waterfox 32.0 with Classic Theme restorer (although this was disabled in the "addons disabled" test above).


----------



## seti

Good to hear Mr. Alex and thanks for the update. The new site looks cool, as well as seeing more indication of the forthcoming Mac release of Waterfox...looking forward to that. There is already a forum on Overclock for the Mac release if you haven't seen, here. As a side note...Waterfox installed fine on the Windows 10 Tech Preview and has been running quite well in the search for other software updates that haven't fared so well in the transition. Thanks again Mr. Alex.


----------



## GrumpyOne

New build works fine, thanks for all of the hard work.

I still have the same Youtube issue when hitting the back button however. \


----------



## zertyuiop

I think that new Waterfox icon too dark.


----------



## MrAlex

Ok thanks for all the feedback so far. And yes I've had a Mac build for a while, but it requires an external Framework and finding a way to bundle it is proving to be such a pain especially with the new Gatekeeper update.

Okay guys so we've got two versions of 32.0.3 that are ready for release, the one which gets release just depends on who's faster: A PGO version and a version without PGO. Could someone run some external benchmarks and see which runs faster for them?

PGO

Non-PGO

When I benchmark PGO seems faster but that's because it was profiled in this computer.


----------



## demoneye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ok thanks for all the feedback so far. And yes I've had a Mac build for a while, but it requires an external Framework and finding a way to bundle it is proving to be such a pain especially with the new Gatekeeper update.
> 
> Okay guys so we've got two versions of 32.0.3 that are ready for release, the one which gets release just depends on who's faster: A PGO version and a version without PGO. Could someone run some external benchmarks and see which runs faster for them?
> PGO
> Non-PGO
> 
> When I benchmark PGO seems faster but that's because it was profiled in this computer.


can u be more specific which test/s to run ?


----------



## bobsleigh

Hi, just wondering if I've posted this in the right place, is there a proper support forum I could take this too?
Many thanks
Bob
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobsleigh*
> 
> I had a browser crash recently and when I restarted Waterfox it came up with the "this is embarrassing" page but restored my tabs ok. Everything else seems to be fine (history bookmarks etc) except now my titlebar says I am running "Mozilla Firefox" instead of "Waterfox".
> 
> I have confirmed in Windows Task Manager that it is definitely Waterfox and it still has the correct icon. I have also tried restarting with addons disabled but the "Firefox" title remains. Renaming my profile and creating a new one restores the "Waterfox" title, but this must have an explanation and hopefully a fix which doesn't involve playing with new profiles.
> 
> Running waterfox 32.0 with Classic Theme restorer (although this was disabled in the "addons disabled" test above).


----------



## Mr6686

Non-PGO version crashes with me with WebGL (html5test.com and WebGL test on peacekeeper.futuremark.com).
PGO version show me a huge drop in rendering test and Canvas test on Peacekeeper (-33%) and a small drop in javascript (-6%) compare to 32.0 version.


----------



## hcour

When I try to install Waterfox I get an error msg saying it needs Vista 64-bit or higher to install. I'm running Windows 8.1 64-bit.


----------



## boshkabob

I've been having a problem with running Flash games in full screen mode ever since I installed the 32.0 update. When I am in full screen mode, and I am kicked back into windowed mode (for example, to post to my Facebook wall), then Flash player crashes. It crashes 100% of the time, and it only happens in Waterfox since the latest update. No problems at all in IE, Chrome, or Firefox with the same conditions. Have tried uninstalling and reinstalling, clearing all caches, but nothing seems to fix the problem.

Hope I'm posting to the right place. Thanks!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *demoneye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ok thanks for all the feedback so far. And yes I've had a Mac build for a while, but it requires an external Framework and finding a way to bundle it is proving to be such a pain especially with the new Gatekeeper update.
> 
> Okay guys so we've got two versions of 32.0.3 that are ready for release, the one which gets release just depends on who's faster: A PGO version and a version without PGO. Could someone run some external benchmarks and see which runs faster for them?
> PGO
> Non-PGO
> 
> When I benchmark PGO seems faster but that's because it was profiled in this computer.
> 
> 
> 
> can u be more specific which test/s to run ?
Click to expand...

Pretty much anything that you usually use  so like PeaceKeeper, JavaScript benchmarks etc.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobsleigh*
> 
> Hi, just wondering if I've posted this in the right place, is there a proper support forum I could take this too?
> Many thanks
> Bob
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bobsleigh*
> 
> I had a browser crash recently and when I restarted Waterfox it came up with the "this is embarrassing" page but restored my tabs ok. Everything else seems to be fine (history bookmarks etc) except now my titlebar says I am running "Mozilla Firefox" instead of "Waterfox".
> 
> I have confirmed in Windows Task Manager that it is definitely Waterfox and it still has the correct icon. I have also tried restarting with addons disabled but the "Firefox" title remains. Renaming my profile and creating a new one restores the "Waterfox" title, but this must have an explanation and hopefully a fix which doesn't involve playing with new profiles.
> 
> Running waterfox 32.0 with Classic Theme restorer (although this was disabled in the "addons disabled" test above).
Click to expand...

Hi Bob this is the right place for now! That's very interesting. Have you tried running Waterfox with a different profile to see? http://kb.mozillazine.org/Using_multiple_profiles_-_Firefox

The only reason it'd rebrand itself is due to an add-on or language pack.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Non-PGO version crashes with me with WebGL (html5test.com and WebGL test on peacekeeper.futuremark.com).
> PGO version show me a huge drop in rendering test and Canvas test on Peacekeeper (-33%) and a small drop in javascript (-6%) compare to 32.0 version.


Hmm that's not good at all! Does anyone else get a crash with WebGL? And I was worried that would happen with the PGO version. I see an increase in performance since 32.0 but obviously so this system.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *hcour*
> 
> When I try to install Waterfox I get an error msg saying it needs Vista 64-bit or higher to install. I'm running Windows 8.1 64-bit.


What version of Waterfox are you trying to install?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *boshkabob*
> 
> I've been having a problem with running Flash games in full screen mode ever since I installed the 32.0 update. When I am in full screen mode, and I am kicked back into windowed mode (for example, to post to my Facebook wall), then Flash player crashes. It crashes 100% of the time, and it only happens in Waterfox since the latest update. No problems at all in IE, Chrome, or Firefox with the same conditions. Have tried uninstalling and reinstalling, clearing all caches, but nothing seems to fix the problem.
> 
> Hope I'm posting to the right place. Thanks!


Have you tried running Flash 64-Bit on Chrome 64-Bit or Internet Explorer 64-Bit? Most of the time theres nothing I can do about 64-Bit plugins.


----------



## bobsleigh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi Bob this is the right place for now! That's very interesting. Have you tried running Waterfox with a different profile to see? The only reason it'd rebrand itself is due to an add-on or language pack.


Yes I had tried a different profile which had worked but I hadn't wanted to go through moving everything across if it could be avoided. I had also tried disabling addons but hadnt thought of language packs. I had the en-GB one installed, I think when I had updated to WF32 I had forgotten that pack came from WF too and had installed the FF one. The titlebar issue must have been there ever since and it was the crash that drew my attention to it!

I found the correct WF lang pack on the sourceforge page and that fixed the issue, so many many thanks







. Will the pack be good for all 32.x versions or will I need to update it with the new 32.03?

Many thanks again for your help and the quick fix.

Bob


----------



## hcour

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What version of Waterfox are you trying to install?


I downloaded it from Waterfoxprogject.org yesterday, v32.0. I assume that's the latest version?


----------



## WetLook

Is this web site going away: waterfoxproject.org
and being replaced with: 213.39.50.27

Also the DL hyperlink 
at 213.39.50.27 is not working.


----------



## NASSOOR

Hi and thanks for making Waterfox. I have a question/suggestion: Why does Waterfox use the default firefox profile? Why should I tweak my shortcuts and and make a new profile manually?

Pale Moon does this by default, and I expected the same when I installed Waterfox.


----------



## Trommy

After new update Waterfox Portable dont work. Its dont start, when i click and nothing in TaskManager. Whats problem? It was OK before update


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NASSOOR*
> 
> Hi and thanks for making Waterfox. I have a question/suggestion: Why does Waterfox use the default firefox profile? Why should I tweak my shortcuts and and make a new profile manually?
> 
> Pale Moon does this by default, and I expected the same when I installed Waterfox.


I did this so people could transition seamlessly between Firefox and Waterfox, so no-one would have to hassle with moving profiles.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Is this web site going away: waterfoxproject.org
> and being replaced with: 213.39.50.27
> 
> Also the DL hyperlink
> at 213.39.50.27 is not working.


Yes it will be replaced but at the moment it's just a dummy website so not everything is live yet. It will launch with Waterfox 33.0
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> After new update Waterfox Portable dont work. Its dont start, when i click and nothing in TaskManager. Whats problem? It was OK before update


Hi Trommy yes I'm aware of this. It happens every time without reason. I'll be addressing this in Waterfox 32.0.3 portable so that automatic updates are disabled. Your profile data located in /data is unaffected so you can just move it over when the new download is available.


----------



## opal

hi
I'm currently running waterfox 28.
I had updated a while back but when I saw that I could no longer use just text for menus and the tabs were no longer on the bottom. (I couldn't find a control to fix those things)
I stopped updating and rolled my system back.
Have either of those items been asked about before?


----------



## NASSOOR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *NASSOOR*
> 
> Hi and thanks for making Waterfox. I have a question/suggestion: Why does Waterfox use the default firefox profile? Why should I tweak my shortcuts and and make a new profile manually?
> 
> Pale Moon does this by default, and I expected the same when I installed Waterfox.
> 
> 
> 
> I did this so people could transition seamlessly between Firefox and Waterfox, so no-one would have to hassle with moving profiles.
Click to expand...

Well at least giving a warning about it during or after the installation would be nice. Maybe with a link on how to setup multiple profiles.

What I'm thinking is, installing a new browser to be greeted with my old settings for another browser is not what I expected. It was confusing to see that clicking the new Waterfox shortcut loaded up my last session on Firefox.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opal*
> 
> hi
> I'm currently running waterfox 28.
> I had updated a while back but when I saw that I could no longer use just text for menus and the tabs were no longer on the bottom. (I couldn't find a control to fix those things)
> I stopped updating and rolled my system back.
> Have either of those items been asked about before?


Try this awesome add-on: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/


----------



## opal

Cool beans! I'll give that a shot when I have time to do a system restore point.. back up just in case I need to roll back again. I have a lot of system modifications and user styles (stylish) going on because of bad vision (need text.. can't see icons well) , that need to be compatible with the addon.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opal*
> 
> hi
> I'm currently running waterfox 28.
> I had updated a while back but when I saw that I could no longer use just text for menus and the tabs were no longer on the bottom. (I couldn't find a control to fix those things)
> I stopped updating and rolled my system back.
> Have either of those items been asked about before?


You can still use text for menus with the new UI by following this guide: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/what-happened-to-the-file-edit-and-view-menus

As for tabs I'm not quire sure what you mean but maybe the add-on NASSOOR said would help.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NASSOOR*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *NASSOOR*
> 
> Hi and thanks for making Waterfox. I have a question/suggestion: Why does Waterfox use the default firefox profile? Why should I tweak my shortcuts and and make a new profile manually?
> 
> Pale Moon does this by default, and I expected the same when I installed Waterfox.
> 
> 
> 
> I did this so people could transition seamlessly between Firefox and Waterfox, so no-one would have to hassle with moving profiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well at least giving a warning about it during or after the installation would be nice. Maybe with a link on how to setup multiple profiles.
> 
> What I'm thinking is, installing a new browser to be greeted with my old settings for another browser is not what I expected. It was confusing to see that clicking the new Waterfox shortcut loaded up my last session on Firefox.
Click to expand...

I did try that at one point but unfortunately people didn't like it and complained. Although I definitely need to include an FAQ point about it! Thanks for bringing it up, it had slipped my mind that maybe people wouldn't know why that was happening.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *opal*
> 
> Cool beans! I'll give that a shot when I have time to do a system restore point.. back up just in case I need to roll back again. I have a lot of system modifications and user styles (stylish) going on because of bad vision (need text.. can't see icons well) , that need to be compatible with the addon.


Okay great! There are built in accessibility features if you're unaware: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/accessibility-features-firefox-make-firefox-and-we


----------



## VIKINGS

Hello World,

So the damned waterfox did it again... It updated, forcibly I might add(said it was some stupid security update and didn't give me the choice to not install it), and now everything is messed up again. Tabs are on top again(even though in about:config tabsontop is still set to false), the adress toolbar looks aweful... is there any way to just revert back to an older/previous version?(preferably a fast&easy way that doesn't require an uninstall)
I'm seriously starting to hate developers more and more each day(yahoo, google, waterfox, etc.) why can't they understand that people are set in their ways and don't like things to change?! Don't they have anything like that in their lives that they can relate to, are they even still human?!?!

Thank you.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Hello World,
> 
> So the damned waterfox did it again... It updated, forcibly I might add(said it was some stupid security update and didn't give me the choice to not install it), and now everything is messed up again. Tabs are on top again(even though in about:config tabsontop is still set to false), the adress toolbar looks aweful... is there any way to just revert back to an older/previous version?(preferably a fast&easy way that doesn't require an uninstall)
> I'm seriously starting to hate developers more and more each day(yahoo, google, waterfox, etc.) why can't they understand that people are set in their ways and don't like things to change?! Don't they have anything like that in their lives that they can relate to, are they even still human?!?!
> 
> Thank you.


In defense of MrAlex, he primarily recompiles the Mozilla Code for 64 bit operating systems. So, if the Mozilla Foundation (Firefox) decides to change the UI, Waterfox users get the new UI by default.

As to going back to the old version, you likely do not need to. There are a number of postings in this thread about add-ons and tweaks to change the UI back to the older look and feel.

Note that the update from 32.0 to 32.0.3 went seamlessly on my systems running Waterfox.

Chas


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Hello World,
> 
> So the damned waterfox did it again... It updated, forcibly I might add(said it was some stupid security update and didn't give me the choice to not install it), and now everything is messed up again. Tabs are on top again(even though in about:config tabsontop is still set to false), the adress toolbar looks aweful... is there any way to just revert back to an older/previous version?(preferably a fast&easy way that doesn't require an uninstall)
> I'm seriously starting to hate developers more and more each day(yahoo, google, waterfox, etc.) why can't they understand that people are set in their ways and don't like things to change?! Don't they have anything like that in their lives that they can relate to, are they even still human?!?!
> 
> Thank you.


You may have no choice but to switch to Pale Moon if you want to gain more control over your browser than the base Firefox code offers.


----------



## VIKINGS

In the end I managed to find an addon that helped me fix the problems, for now.... but I'm scared about the future...








Here's the link in case anyone else needs it. Thanks for trying to help guys.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Hello World,
> 
> So the damned waterfox did it again... It updated, forcibly I might add(said it was some stupid security update and didn't give me the choice to not install it), and now everything is messed up again. Tabs are on top again(even though in about:config tabsontop is still set to false), the adress toolbar looks aweful... is there any way to just revert back to an older/previous version?(preferably a fast&easy way that doesn't require an uninstall)
> I'm seriously starting to hate developers more and more each day(yahoo, google, waterfox, etc.) why can't they understand that people are set in their ways and don't like things to change?! Don't they have anything like that in their lives that they can relate to, are they even still human?!?!
> 
> Thank you.


You can always use palemoon has old ui and 64bit problem is it has alot of comparability issues with addons.

Just wait till this hits live... New options menu no longer old one.


----------



## Kozmos

Any one is facing a problem with playing YouTube videos after updating to Waterfox 32.0.3? Especially/Not just with using HTML5 for youtube videos.

Edit: Rolled back to WaterFox 32.0 and the problem has disappeared.


----------



## Trommy

How you rolled back? Me too didnt like new update =| Some Flash didnt work correctly


----------



## Kozmos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> How you rolled back? Me too didnt like new update =| Some Flash didnt work correctly


I've downloaded it from here: http://www.downloadcrew.com/article/25911-waterfox

And yeah I found out there is some noticeable lag with loading some web pages like FB, I thought it is due to some maintenance my ISP is doing at my area, but everything became normal when I rolled back to ver.32 so yeah I guess there is something not right with 32.0.3


----------



## Quantum Reality

Hey, is there any official word on a Waterfox for Mac OS?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *VIKINGS*
> 
> Hello World,
> 
> So the damned waterfox did it again... It updated, forcibly I might add(said it was some stupid security update and didn't give me the choice to not install it), and now everything is messed up again. Tabs are on top again(even though in about:config tabsontop is still set to false), the adress toolbar looks aweful... is there any way to just revert back to an older/previous version?(preferably a fast&easy way that doesn't require an uninstall)
> I'm seriously starting to hate developers more and more each day(yahoo, google, waterfox, etc.) why can't they understand that people are set in their ways and don't like things to change?! Don't they have anything like that in their lives that they can relate to, are they even still human?!?!
> 
> Thank you.


Did you try the addon Classic Theme Restorer?
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/classicthemerestorer/
Seem to work for me.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kozmos*
> 
> Any one is facing a problem with playing YouTube videos after updating to Waterfox 32.0.3? Especially/Not just with using HTML5 for youtube videos.
> 
> Edit: Rolled back to WaterFox 32.0 and the problem has disappeared.


Flash and/or youtube videos are working just fine with WF 32.0.3, have you checked that you've got the latest version of flash installed etc?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *NASSOOR*
> 
> Hi and thanks for making Waterfox. I have a question/suggestion: Why does Waterfox use the default firefox profile? Why should I tweak my shortcuts and and make a new profile manually?
> 
> Pale Moon does this by default, and I expected the same when I installed Waterfox.


Waterfox has always essentially been a drop-in 64bit replacement for FireFox, so if anything I'd expect it to use my default/pre-existing profile.
It's not a fork with different features like Pale Moon.

I chose to setup a different profile for WaterFox and modify my shortcuts to use it, but that may well be beyond some users of WaterFox and as such I expect more people would be fustrated/confused if it didn't use any pre-existing FireFox profile by default. (I could see a common scenario being: Where's my bookmarks gone? Where are my passwords? This is stupid I'll just go back to Firefox).


----------



## Storm Eagle

Hello there. Having a problem with Waterfox. It's the newest version, currently. I use fullscreen mode, but today, every time I try to go into fullscreen mode, the address bar and tabs are usually supposed to disappear, but they aren't. This is what it looks like for me.



I know it isn't much of a problem, but it's incredibly annoying for me.


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://lifehacker.com/5524602/keep-firefox-toolbars-visible-in-full-screen-mode

try that maybe?


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

I have Waterfox 64-bit 32.0 installed on my Dell Laptop Computer. FireFox 32-bit had been installed, but I uninstalled Firefox 32-bit and just running Waterfox 64-bit version. Anyway, I tried upgrading Waterfox, but it claims other instance of Firefox is running and Waterfox 64-Bit does not upgrade to the latest version through Waterfox's Upgrade procedure.

How do I upgrade Waterfox, without uninstalling Waterfox and reinstalling Waterfox?


----------



## Storm Eagle

Yes! That worked! Thank you.


----------



## Kozmos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Flash and/or youtube videos are working just fine with WF 32.0.3, have you checked that you've got the latest version of flash installed etc?


Yes I did, I have the latest flash version. The problem is about videos buffering, I thought it has something to do with flash player but I was wrong.

For example, a 5 minutes video is buffering, it will buffer 1 minute then it will freeze and will not continue to the end of the video. I had to refresh the page again and the problem with all youtube videos was the same, beside I felt an obvious degradation of the performance, all other webpages were loading slower than ever.

I rolled back to WF 32.0 and I never faced these 2 problems anymore


----------



## SirMacke

I have somewhat the same issue.

1. Video loads and plays, after 10-15 sec hte vidoe freezes and audio continues.
2. Buffers 5-10% and will not continue.
3. Buffers 5-10%, gets stuck. After 1-2 minutes, buffers entire video, but cannot press play, reload the video.

Back down to 32.0 will solve this? Where can I download it?

And yes, it is Waterfox, not flashplayer and so on.
On 3 seperate computers.

EDIT:
Found and installed 32.0, all issues insta-solved.


----------



## Kozmos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SirMacke*
> 
> I have somewhat the same issue.
> 
> 1. Video loads and plays, after 10-15 sec *hte vidoe freezes and audio continues.*
> 2. Buffers 5-10% and will not continue.
> 3. Buffers 5-10%, gets stuck. After 1-2 minutes, buffers entire video, but cannot press play, reload the video.
> 
> Back down to 32.0 will solve this? Where can I download it?
> 
> And yes, it is Waterfox, not flashplayer and so on.
> On 3 seperate computers.
> 
> EDIT:
> Found and installed 32.0, all issues insta-solved.


I forgot to mention this issue, yes I faced the same thing too.


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kozmos*
> 
> I forgot to mention this issue, yes I faced the same thing too.


Not to mention that in Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Service Pack 1, WaterFox Upgrade 32.03 can't be installed through the Installed Waterfox Version 32.0

"Software Update Failed

The update could not be installed. Please make sure there are no other copies of Firefox running on
your computer, and then restart Firefox to try again.

OK "

Why doesn't the Error message say Waterfox, instead of Firefox, where Firefox had been uninstalled, a while ago.

Something is wrong in the complilation of Waterfox 32.03.

That Software Update Failed in Normal Windows 7 Mode.

The Update on same computer worked without problems in Safe Mode for Windows 7.
And the Update held booting back into Normal Windows 7 Mode.


----------



## Quantum Reality

NOTE: Anybody contemplating a switch to Pale Moon should know that the GUID is now unique to that browser and does not "piggyback" on the Firefox GUID anymore. If you want to keep all your addons, install version 24 of PM, put in your addons, THEN roll up to the latest version.

THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR MRALEX. Pale Moon is being "forked" because Moonchild increasingly wants to be able to do development on a code base that doesn't involve compensating for Australis. Waterfox uses Australis, so there is no reason to adopt a new GUID for WF.

However it is clear that the Profile-Guided Optimization is causing issues, so I would suggest other forms of optimization.

Also, one thing I would like to suggest is if some veteran WF users who are conversant in the use of virtual machines become a "core group" of beta testers who can rapidly test use cases before releasing WF. What is happening now is MrAlex releases WF and almost invariably there are bugs and problems that crop up because of lack of pretesting. A lot of this could probably be avoided if there were some "shakedown cruises" on clean Windows Vista, 7 and 8 installations to isolate and correct issues.

(and frankly, to me it doesn't look very professional when the first "release" is always some dropbox URL, especially as WF was premiered at a major event a couple of years ago and has even been reviewed on Youtube. This would go a long way to "professionalizing" the browser and positioning it as a credible 64-bit Firefox variant that has the advantage of preserving the FF GUID and so guaranteeing 100% add-on compatibility with FF.)


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> NOTE: Anybody contemplating a switch to Pale Moon should know that the GUID is now unique to that browser and does not "piggyback" on the Firefox GUID anymore. If you want to keep all your addons, install version 24 of PM, put in your addons, THEN roll up to the latest version.
> 
> THIS IS NOT A RECOMMENDATION FOR MRALEX. Pale Moon is being "forked" because Moonchild increasingly wants to be able to do development on a code base that doesn't involve compensating for Australis. Waterfox uses Australis, so there is no reason to adopt a new GUID for WF.
> 
> However it is clear that the Profile-Guided Optimization is causing issues, so I would suggest other forms of optimization.
> 
> Also, one thing I would like to suggest is if some veteran WF users who are conversant in the use of virtual machines become a "core group" of beta testers who can rapidly test use cases before releasing WF. What is happening now is MrAlex releases WF and almost invariably there are bugs and problems that crop up because of lack of pretesting. A lot of this could probably be avoided if there were some "shakedown cruises" on clean Windows Vista, 7 and 8 installations to isolate and correct issues.
> 
> (and frankly, to me it doesn't look very professional when the first "release" is always some dropbox URL, especially as WF was premiered at a major event a couple of years ago and has even been reviewed on Youtube. This would go a long way to "professionalizing" the browser and positioning it as a credible 64-bit Firefox variant that has the advantage of preserving the FF GUID and so guaranteeing 100% add-on compatibility with FF.)


New palemoon has a lot of issues with it not worth it anymore I just gave into Australis with classic restore add-on.

Adblock plus or most addons dev's wont support them now and there being force to make there own addons or make them compatible them self's on the forums.


----------



## bcooper21

Any time frame for waterfox 33?


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f242*
> 
> someone has performance comparsion except tests which posted on oficial site? i make tests but *results* were lower than expected (each test runs three times and better result was accepted)
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Octane 2.0 JavaScript Benchmark, points
> 
> chrome
> firefox
> waterfox
> Peacekeeper - The Universal Browser Test, points
> 
> chrome
> waterfox
> firefox
> SunSpider 1.0.2 JavaScript Benchmark, ms
> 
> internet explorer
> firefox
> cyberfox
> V8 Benchmark Suite - version 7, points
> 
> chrome
> firefox
> waterfox
> Kraken JavaScript Benchmark, ms
> 
> cyberfox
> waterfox
> firefox
> Rightware Browsermark, points
> 
> chrome
> waterfox
> cyberfox
> BMark - A HTML5 3D Benchmark, points
> 
> chrome
> internet explorer
> waterfox
> Dromaeo: JavaScript Performance Testing, runs/s
> 
> waterfox
> cyberfox
> firefox
> RoboHornet, points
> 
> chrome
> palemoon
> firefox


Benchmarks are not everything just because chrome has highest does not mean much. For some reason firefox runs faster on my pc it all depends.

Same with anything really all android phones have high end specs but always free up and lock up much more than iphone and have higher benchmarks really you cant go off them alone.


----------



## amiew

Sorry, but can't find an answer to this anywhere. Firefox won't help me because they say it is YOUR problem, even though it's a KNOWN FF problem.

I have a problem using WF (or FF) with Facebook. The site is slow and jerky and sometimes videos in posts won't load. I have found that the only browser I have no problem on FB with is Opera, and I'm tired of having to use a separate browser for one site. Not crazy about FB anyway, but have to be there for a group I'm involved with.

I know there is a fix for this, but I can't find it anywhere. I'm not a techie, so please use layman's language as much as possible. Thank you.

Amie


----------



## DazzaRPD

1) Check which Flash you are using by visiting Flash Player help on Adobe.
Also, make sure you are using 64 bit flash. Firefox is a 32 bit program, thus Waterfox's flash request won't work on it (as Waterfox is a 64 bit program and won't work with 32 bit flash). To definitely make sure you are using 64 bit flash, download Flash Player from Waterfox

2) Check the version of Java that you have. As with Flash, this will have to be the latest version and 64 bit. To check Java, visit the Java Update Checker website and click on the red button. This will check Java on your PC and let you know if you have the latest one.

The reason why I say check these 2 things first is Facebook is a Flash and Java heavy website, so if you don't have the latest 64 bit versions, it may cause issues when visiting the site. If you've checked them and they still do not work, come back and we'll try and help

Hope this helps,
DazzaRPD


----------



## Panwaffles

Some people have been reporting that clearing the web cache and the facebook cookies has helped them in reducing the jerkiness and things not appearing.


----------



## amiew

Thanks. I'll check the Java and Flash versions, but I'm pretty sure I have 64-bit. I run CCleaner a couple of times a day, and still have problems, so don't think it's cookies.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *DazzaRPD*
> 
> 1) Check which Flash you are using by visiting Flash Player help on Adobe.
> Also, make sure you are using 64 bit flash. Firefox is a 32 bit program, thus Waterfox's flash request won't work on it (as Waterfox is a 64 bit program and won't work with 32 bit flash). To definitely make sure you are using 64 bit flash, download Flash Player from Waterfox
> 
> 2) Check the version of Java that you have. As with Flash, this will have to be the latest version and 64 bit. To check Java, visit the Java Update Checker website and click on the red button. This will check Java on your PC and let you know if you have the latest one.
> 
> The reason why I say check these 2 things first is Facebook is a Flash and Java heavy website, so if you don't have the latest 64 bit versions, it may cause issues when visiting the site. If you've checked them and they still do not work, come back and we'll try and help
> 
> Hope this helps,
> DazzaRPD


Also, Facebook can be used without Java, so unless Java is needed I would suggest disabling the plugin or telling WF to ask you each time a webpage wants to use Java.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey everyone! It's that time again: Waterfox 33.0 for Windows and finally Mac! Get it here: http://213.39.50.27/

If you guys see any issues with the website or Waterfox itself let me know! For the Mac version, I added support for H264/MP4 which Firefox is still lacking!


----------



## fullmoon

very good speed with javascript. No issue.









Use a new profile if a issue occur.


----------



## fullmoon

go to aboutreferences

I'm alone with this issue?


----------



## fullmoon

me too.








but javascript perform is very good


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f242*
> 
> AppCrash on about:support page


I had no idea that page even existed. Thanks for the heads up!









(If anyone cares, this is what it looks like with Pale Moon:



Should be similar with Firefox or Waterfox)

EDIT: This is hella neat, check the about:buildconfig - if you wanna know exactly how WF gets compiled, see if the screen comes up. Here's PM's version:


----------



## blackps

It's crashing when installing then the WaterFox icons has many problems on Windows 8.1 x64


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> go to aboutreferences
> 
> I'm alone with this issue?


Is it not working for you? It should be showing the new interface.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *f242*
> 
> AppCrash on about:support page


Yes I'm aware of that but I don't really want to push back the update. Would people mind if this comes as a bug patch in a week or so after this main release?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackps*
> 
> It's crashing when installing then the WaterFox icons has many problems on Windows 8.1 x64


Could you be more specific? Do you have any screenshots?


----------



## blackps

I'll install and send them now.


----------



## fullmoon

Strange, preference bug only in a tab with my profil (browser.preferences.inContent to false).

I have found, experiments.supported to false and works.


----------



## blackps




----------



## blackps

+ many other problems,the program is not digitally signed and the problem from up corner left is not only there,even in addons when i right click a addon i see the numbers.


----------



## blackps

about:support is crashing waterfox


----------



## fullmoon

experiments.supported to false


----------



## blackps

Strange, preference bug only in a tab with my profil (browser.preferences.inContent to false).

I have found, experiments.supported to false and works.

Same problems,no change.


----------



## blackps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> experiments.supported to false


Did no help.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackps*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> experiments.supported to false
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did no help.
Click to expand...

Have you tried using a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles


----------



## zertyuiop

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried using a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles


New Profile does not work too. This error may be related with non-english localizations/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> Strange, preference bug only in a tab with my profil (browser.preferences.inContent to false).
> 
> I have found, experiments.supported to false and works.


What bug are you getting?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *zertyuiop*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried using a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
> 
> 
> 
> New Profile does not work too. This error may be related with non-english localizations/
Click to expand...

This is interesting. Could it be a system issue then? Tested it on some other Windows computers and none have this issue.

A new profile should remove all settings, add-ons and data so localization wouldn't have any affect on it. Hmm.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *zertyuiop*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried using a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
> 
> 
> 
> New Profile does not work too. This error may be related with non-english localizations/
Click to expand...

Do you have this error as well? Could you take a screenshot?


----------



## fullmoon

in aboutreference
Erreur d'analyse XML : entité non définie
Emplacement : aboutreferences
Numéro de ligne 270, Colonne 7 :

^

and in a new profil in preference window, "advanced" is empty.

for about:support
webgl.disabled to true
experiments.supported to false

WebGl is buggy?


----------



## blackps

If i create a new profile it's working but about:support is crashing waterfox.


----------



## MrAlex

Ok I've got the issue sorted. I know what's wrong with preferences and about:support. Also there was a bug in 33.0 that caused those display issues. Just updating everything to 33.0.2 now and will include WebGL etc fixes  should be ready for tomorrow!


----------



## amiew

Sorry, but I searched and can't find answers to these two issues.

How on earth do I get WF to save my tabs? I have it set to reopen tabs when it starts, and I've even tried going into about:config and setting the QuitWarning line to true, but it doesn't work and still will not save my tabs. This is so aggravating. I've had to create a bookmark folder with all my start tabs in it to open all of them when I start. The problem with that is that they are all pinned during the day, so I have to manually pin every one of them.

Also, I'm having a problem with it not connecting to the start page, then hanging up when I first start it. I have to go into Task Manager to close it, then when I restart, it works fine.

I'm on Windows 8, btw.


----------



## kevindd992002

I'm also getting random website crashes with 33.0. Is this an acknowledged problem, MrAlex?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Sounds like a Javascript implementation issue. Have you installed NoScript and selectively whitelisted parts of the site(s) you use to verify the domain sending the crashing JS?

EDIT:

Is that IP address or https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ the official site of the Waterfox project?


----------



## MrAlex

Okay so everyone who gets crashes on 33.0 could you please try 33.0.2: http://213.39.50.27/

I've resolved a few issues and was wondering if it solves it for you guys as well.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *amiew*
> 
> Sorry, but I searched and can't find answers to these two issues.
> 
> How on earth do I get WF to save my tabs? I have it set to reopen tabs when it starts, and I've even tried going into about:config and setting the QuitWarning line to true, but it doesn't work and still will not save my tabs. This is so aggravating. I've had to create a bookmark folder with all my start tabs in it to open all of them when I start. The problem with that is that they are all pinned during the day, so I have to manually pin every one of them.
> 
> Also, I'm having a problem with it not connecting to the start page, then hanging up when I first start it. I have to go into Task Manager to close it, then when I restart, it works fine.
> 
> I'm on Windows 8, btw.


Hmm that should definitely not be happening! I'm assuming you've already tried this: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/restore-previous-session#w_configuring-session-restore

Also, worse comes to worse could you try using a new profile to see if that fixes your issues? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Sounds like a Javascript implementation issue. Have you installed NoScript and selectively whitelisted parts of the site(s) you use to verify the domain sending the crashing JS?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> Is that IP address or https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ the official site of the Waterfox project?


The IP will be the new website waterfoxproject.org will move onto, but I'm just testing it first to make sure there aren't any issues moving over! So once 33 is ready waterfoxproject.org will resolve to the IP of the new server  it's a much better server than what the current website is on!


----------



## MrAlex

Does WebGL run? I'm confused as to what's causing these crashes now.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does WebGL run? I'm confused as to what's causing these crashes now.


Same thing was happening to me on 33.0.2 and to answer your question, any WebGL seems to completely crash Waterfox with this version.
Even things as simple as: http://get.webgl.org/

Reverted back to 32.0.3 and WebGL works fine.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does WebGL run? I'm confused as to what's causing these crashes now.
> 
> 
> 
> Same thing was happening to me on 33.0.2 and to answer your question, any WebGL seems to completely crash Waterfox with this version.
> Even things as simple as: http://get.webgl.org/
> 
> Reverted back to 32.0.3 and WebGL works fine.
Click to expand...

This here is exactly the reason why I suggested assembling some people with virtual machines with known clean Windows installations to test out Waterfox. This would help chase down bugs and implementation issues.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kozmos*
> 
> I faced this too with WF, especially with FB and youtube where you can find flash player is playing great role. I faced the same slowing down/lagging issue as well.
> 
> I tested this with FF 33.0.0/1/2 to see if it will be the same situation, but the problem has disappeared.
> 
> Also I would like to add that WF 32.0 was working fine with no slowing down with flash player contents.
> 
> Maybe it has something to do with compiling the newer version of WF?
> 
> OR maybe it has something to do with an addon (Ad Block Plus) is making some conflicts with flash player?
> 
> This is something I can't tell cause I did not test it.


Hmm, interesting. I reverted to 32.0.3 and I'll try to test that. I hope I won't encounter frequent Flash player crashes also.


----------



## SanderValdur

I must say, I'm very impressed, I'm currently using it and I love it one bit so far







- Finally they decided to make 64 bit Firefox


----------



## seti

I meant to say so for sometime now, since the MAC release of WF anyway, that all is well on the MAC front and I glad to say I am now using WF 100% across all my machines. Thanks Alex...great work!


----------



## amiew

I don't know if this has anything to do with Flash, but it's a problem for me. I'm very active on G+, and usually check notifications through Gmail. Can't do this anymore. I just get a really quick "error" message, then it goes into an endless loading loop. Works fine in Chrome, which seems to be more flash-friendly, but I hate Chrome.


----------



## Kozmos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Hmm, interesting. I reverted to 32.0.3 and I'll try to test that. I hope I won't encounter frequent Flash player crashes also.


Good luck..
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amiew*
> 
> I don't know if this has anything to do with Flash, but it's a problem for me. I'm very active on G+, and usually check notifications through Gmail. Can't do this anymore. I just get a really quick "error" message, then it goes into an endless loading loop. Works fine in Chrome, which seems to be more flash-friendly, but I hate Chrome.


Then there is another possible reason maybe causing this problem.

Would you mind posting the names of all plugins and addons you are using with WF?


----------



## amiew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kozmos*
> 
> Good luck..
> Then there is another possible reason maybe causing this problem.
> 
> Would you mind posting the names of all plugins and addons you are using with WF?


I've had most of these extensions forever, and they update automatically.

*Extensions:*

AdblockPlus
Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon
Check4Change
Classic Retweet
Classic Theme Restorer
Download Helper 4.9.24
EverSync
Forecastfox
google-no-tracking-url
Greasemonkey
Integrated Google Calendar
JavaScript Debugger
LastPass
Lazarus Form Recovery
Lightbeam
Multiple Tab Handler
PageRank for Firefox
Pin It button
Redirect Cleaner
Reminder Fox
Screengrab
ShareThis
Simple Timer
StumbleUpon
The Addon Bar (restored)
Troubleshooter
Tumblr Post
X-notifier

*Plugins*

Shockwave Flash 15.0.0.189
VLC Web Plugin 2.1.3.0

*Greasemonkey Scripts*

Turkmaster
Turkopticon


----------



## Kozmos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amiew*
> 
> I've had most of these extensions forever, and they update automatically.
> 
> *Extensions:*
> 
> AdblockPlus
> Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon
> Check4Change
> Classic Retweet
> Classic Theme Restorer
> Download Helper 4.9.24
> EverSync
> Forecastfox
> google-no-tracking-url
> Greasemonkey
> Integrated Google Calendar
> JavaScript Debugger
> LastPass
> Lazarus Form Recovery
> Lightbeam
> Multiple Tab Handler
> PageRank for Firefox
> Pin It button
> Redirect Cleaner
> Reminder Fox
> Screengrab
> ShareThis
> Simple Timer
> StumbleUpon
> The Addon Bar (restored)
> Troubleshooter
> Tumblr Post
> X-notifier
> 
> *Plugins*
> 
> Shockwave Flash 15.0.0.189
> VLC Web Plugin 2.1.3.0
> 
> *Greasemonkey Scripts*
> 
> Turkmaster
> Turkopticon


AdblockPlus
Adblock Plus Pop-up

These two. try to disable both of these addons and try again.

Any enhancement?


----------



## kevindd992002

Is it recommended for WF/FF to have each tab run their individual process?


----------



## RevZ

WebGL (more specifically, the WebGL test element in Browsermark) worked in 32.0.3 for me, now crashes in 33... What's the status on that by now?


----------



## MrAlex

Still have issues with getting WebGL to not crash! I've looked at the changes to WebGL in FF33 but nothing should be causing this. Maybe there are compiler flags Intel C++ (would be odd though) doesn't like.

What's even more frustrating is that when I run a debug build, WebGL works! So it's almost impossible to find out what's causing the crashes. If anyone has any ideas, I'm open to suggestions..

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> NoScript can also be set to globally block WebGL, which I set as a matter of routine.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Problem is VM's don't do well with 3D content at all. And ones that do need expensive workstations, so not the best cost-effective way to do it. Posting these beta builds though seems to be helping though, as I'm pretty sure I know what the issue is, just testing it out now!
> 
> 
> 
> It's not even a matter of needing to extensively shake down 3D content, even simpler things like does WF crash with Java and Flash when going to major websites, or the get WebGL test.
> 
> Like I said, common use case testing in VMs known to be clean windows installs would be a big frakkin' help.
Click to expand...

I have a variety of real systems which I test WF on, haven't managed to recreate and issues with Java/Flash. I get what you're saying though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it recommended to enable to separate process per tab in FF/WF?
> 
> Is it also recommended to disable hardware acceleration?


Depends on if you need to or not. If you're browsing just fine, leave everything as is. But if you're curious turn it on!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> I have tried E10S on nightly, and I'm sure, no E10S on FF33. I haven't multiprocess in task manager.


Interesting. Just in-case you don't know, you have to manually open E10S windows on FF33 as the autostart option got removed. (Need menu bar to open an E10s tab)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Kozmos*
> 
> You are welcome.
> In case you are facing troubles with much crashes, yes it is recommended to disable hardware acceleration.
> 
> Most probably it has something to do with flash player which triggers some issue with hard acceleration is ON.
> 
> 
> 
> How about the problem regarding wf slowing down when there are multiple tabs with flash content on them? Is that also an issue with hardware acceleration? And is it adobe's fault?
Click to expand...

Hmm ideally it shouldn't be happening at all. Although who knows with flash.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Kozmos*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> How about the problem regarding wf slowing down when there are multiple tabs with flash content on them? Is that also an issue with hardware acceleration? And is it adobe's fault?
> 
> 
> 
> I faced this too with WF, especially with FB and youtube where you can find flash player is playing great role. I faced the same slowing down/lagging issue as well.
> 
> I tested this with FF 33.0.0/1/2 to see if it will be the same situation, but the problem has disappeared.
> 
> Also I would like to add that WF 32.0 was working fine with no slowing down with flash player contents.
> 
> Maybe it has something to do with compiling the newer version of WF?
> 
> OR maybe it has something to do with an addon (Ad Block Plus) is making some conflicts with flash player?
> 
> This is something I can't tell cause I did not test it.
Click to expand...

Hmm yes I'm thinking maybe some add-ons could be causing this. I'll have a look either way!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *SanderValdur*
> 
> I must say, I'm very impressed, I'm currently using it and I love it one bit so far
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Finally they decided to make 64 bit Firefox


That's great, glad you're enjoying using Waterfox!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> I meant to say so for sometime now, since the MAC release of WF anyway, that all is well on the MAC front and I glad to say I am now using WF 100% across all my machines. Thanks Alex...great work!


Awesome, glad it works well on Mac! You can give 33.0.2 a whirl as well: https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/osx64/installer/Waterfox%2033.0.2%20Setup.mpkg.zip

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it recommended for WF/FF to have each tab run their individual process?


Depends! I think I answered above 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> WebGL (more specifically, the WebGL test element in Browsermark) worked in 32.0.3 for me, now crashes in 33... What's the status on that by now?


Yes I'm aware. It's annoying as I'm struggling very much to sort it out.


----------



## thechas

Alex,

All I can think of is to accumulate as many details as we can give you of the crash reports.

Here is from attempting to go to Webgl.org from a Google search.

Problem signature:
Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
Application Name: waterfox.exe
Application Version: 33.0.2.5416
Application Timestamp: 54519150
Fault Module Name: mozglue.dll
Fault Module Version: 33.0.2.5416
Fault Module Timestamp: 54518e74
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Offset: 000000000000d2a1
OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
Locale ID: 1033
Additional Information 1: 3c26
Additional Information 2: 3c26f2be14c1853e424c184d47177c16
Additional Information 3: ba67
Additional Information 4: ba674299905d94d3d37d454845efaf28

Windows 7, x64, all updates, Waterfox, Firefox, Sea Monkey installed.

Chas


----------



## kevindd992002

Wouldn't running individual processes per tab consume more memory though?


----------



## amiew

Never mind


----------



## MrAlex

Finally!! All fixed. A lot of stability issues will be sorted out in the latest (and hopefully final!) build: download.

The reasons for WebGL crashes and the likes was that I never compiled with jemalloc because it's very unstable with ICC. Turns out it got turned on by default and so I couldn't figure out for the life of me why it wasn't working! Thanks everyone for submitting your crash info, helped a lot!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Alex,
> 
> All I can think of is to accumulate as many details as we can give you of the crash reports.
> 
> Here is from attempting to go to Webgl.org from a Google search.
> 
> Problem signature:
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: waterfox.exe
> Application Version: 33.0.2.5416
> Application Timestamp: 54519150
> Fault Module Name: mozglue.dll
> Fault Module Version: 33.0.2.5416
> Fault Module Timestamp: 54518e74
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Offset: 000000000000d2a1
> OS Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 1033
> Additional Information 1: 3c26
> Additional Information 2: 3c26f2be14c1853e424c184d47177c16
> Additional Information 3: ba67
> Additional Information 4: ba674299905d94d3d37d454845efaf28
> 
> Windows 7, x64, all updates, Waterfox, Firefox, Sea Monkey installed.
> 
> Chas


Thanks a lot for your help!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Wouldn't running individual processes per tab consume more memory though?


Yes, but on the bright side you should get a more stable browsing experience. So if a tab crashes the whole browser doesn't come down with it. And also if you use huge amounts of tabs, it should be more stable


----------



## bcooper21

Downloaded final of 33.0.2 my question is why is UI different than firefox 33.0.2.

The ui i get when i go to options looks like what is used in Aurora or Nightly some im kinda confused...

Is this based off stable firefox or newer ones?


----------



## Taburetkin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> build: download.


old link


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Downloaded final of 33.0.2 my question is why is UI different than firefox 33.0.2.
> 
> The ui i get when i go to options looks like what is used in Aurora or Nightly some im kinda confused...
> 
> Is this based off stable firefox or newer ones?


Everything is Firefox 33.0.2 base code. The new content UI is already available, I just enabled it by default. Not a good idea?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taburetkin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> build: download.
> 
> 
> 
> old link
Click to expand...

Might have to refresh your cache.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Everything is Firefox 33.0.2 base code. The new content UI is already available, I just enabled it by default. Not a good idea?
> Might have to refresh your cache.


No problem for me its fine i was just wondering. Might as well keep it enabled and get used to it since it will prob be default soon.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, but on the bright side you should get a more stable browsing experience. So if a tab crashes the whole browser doesn't come down with it. And also if you use huge amounts of tabs, it should be more stable


Makes sense. And if I get those glitchy flash-based video issues, that could also help, right?

EDIT:

I tried enabling this settings by modifying these:

browsers.tabs.remote=true
browsers.tabs.remote.autostart=true
layer.offmainthreadcomposition.enabled=true

After restarting the browser, my tabs have lines on them now which is what I expected but when I check task manager I see only one instance of waterfox under processes. I'm not sure if I get it correctly, but out-of-process (remote) tabs should be taking up individual process for each which means several process instances, right?


----------



## thechas

Thank you MrAlex!!!

Installed the new build of Waterfox 33.0.2 today and have had no problems.

Every website and transition page that I had problems with last week all worked properly with the new build.

Thank you again for the work and effort you put into the project.

Chas


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Downloaded final of 33.0.2 my question is why is UI different than firefox 33.0.2.
> 
> The ui i get when i go to options looks like what is used in Aurora or Nightly some im kinda confused...
> 
> Is this based off stable firefox or newer ones?


I'm using a full Firefox theme (Noia) and did not see any changes to the UI with the new Waterfox 33.0.2 build.

I'm also running the "Classic Theme Restorer" extension which also may block UI changes.

Chas


----------



## kevindd992002

Just to continue my post here, I upgrade to the recompiled 33.0.2 and now the browser.tabs.remote.autostart seems to have no effect. Setting it to false or true does not automatically make my tabs OOP's now for some reason. I think this is another bug that needs to be fixed, MrAlex. It was working fine before the upgrade just a few minutes ago.


----------



## malcomX

very large memory leaks the browser is using 3 times more in task manager then shown in about:memory
error message WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should.
already had 9 crashes with no crash data just crash to desktop.

browse randomly hangs on web pages having to close the browser to get it working when i resize the browser everything detaches and the window goes white, this does not happen in palemoon or cyberfox same happens in firefox


----------



## Mr6686

WOW, last build show me a 50% drop of performance in javascript compare to version 32 (last build without performance issue on my PC, see post 6111).


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Thank you MrAlex!!!
> 
> Installed the new build of Waterfox 33.0.2 today and have had no problems.
> 
> Every website and transition page that I had problems with last week all worked properly with the new build.
> 
> Thank you again for the work and effort you put into the project.
> 
> Chas


Great, glad to know it works!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Just to continue my post here, I upgrade to the recompiled 33.0.2 and now the browser.tabs.remote.autostart seems to have no effect. Setting it to false or true does not automatically make my tabs OOP's now for some reason. I think this is another bug that needs to be fixed, MrAlex. It was working fine before the upgrade just a few minutes ago.


Don't worry, the same happens in Firefox as well. I think they've disabled it on purpose.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> very large memory leaks the browser is using 3 times more in task manager then shown in about:memory
> error message WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should.
> already had 9 crashes with no crash data just crash to desktop.
> 
> browse randomly hangs on web pages having to close the browser to get it working when i resize the browser everything detaches and the window goes white, this does not happen in palemoon or cyberfox same happens in firefox


Unfortunately there's nothing I can do for about:memory. But it sounds like this could be a profile issue. If you add -no-remote -p to a Waterfox shortcut and create a test profile could you see if the same still happens?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> WOW, last build show me a 50% drop of performance in javascript compare to version 32 (last build without performance issue on my PC, see post 6111).


Yes I see, I'm looking into this. Hopefully will have it resolved by this afternoon.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Great, glad to know it works!
> Don't worry, the same happens in Firefox as well. I think they've disabled it on purpose.
> 
> Unfortunately there's nothing I can do for about:memory. But it sounds like this could be a profile issue. If you add -no-remote -p to a Waterfox shortcut and create a test profile could you see if the same still happens?
> 
> Yes I see, I'm looking into this. Hopefully will have it resolved by this afternoon.


yes this was new profile the about memory is waterfox only firefox, palemon and cyberfox not have the error. waterfox is showing 3 times more ram usage in task manager or killswitch then what is allocated in about:memory waterfox has memory leaks. it has crash 12 more times with no report same on my other computer waterfox has the random hangs just like firefox where the window detached and goes white but palemoon and cyberfox do not. i tried the other waterfox with webgl crash at its does not have the memory leak and is faster with javascript.

sorry alex something very broken in this release


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Don't worry, the same happens in Firefox as well. I think they've disabled it on purpose.


Do you know the reason why though?


----------



## fullmoon

last Waterfox is good, no issue with me too.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Makes sense. And if I get those glitchy flash-based video issues, that could also help, right?
> 
> EDIT:
> 
> I tried enabling this settings by modifying these:
> 
> browsers.tabs.remote=true
> browsers.tabs.remote.autostart=true
> layer.offmainthreadcomposition.enabled=true
> 
> After restarting the browser, my tabs have lines on them now which is what I expected but when I check task manager I see only one instance of waterfox under processes. I'm not sure if I get it correctly, but out-of-process (remote) tabs should be taking up individual process for each which means several process instances, right?


The last Nightlys have the same thing. And I'm not sure than e10s works on FF33.


----------



## Valle641

Hi, Since i update to Waterfox 32 i have noticed youtube videos loading EXTREMELY SLOWLY for no reason. it works fine on Waterfox 31. I have tried the HTML5 player but its the same thing. I got 2 computers, i had to REVERT back to Waterfox 31 because this this issue IS SO BAD. I guess they must have done something very bad to cause this to happen. I can watch livestreams via twitch no problem. i can watch videos in chrome no problem, when i go back to Waterfox 31 i can watch videos with out any problems. Using windows 8.1 64-bit.w/64-bit processor. Surely someone is having this problem or am i just stupid?


----------



## MrAlex

OK Very final build is up now: 213.39.50.27. If you've downloaded a previous version of 33.0.2 you'll need to refresh your cache. to get this to work.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Don't worry, the same happens in Firefox as well. I think they've disabled it on purpose.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know the reason why though?
Click to expand...

Not sure at all. Can't find anything in their blog posts.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Valle641*
> 
> Hi, Since i update to Waterfox 32 i have noticed youtube videos loading EXTREMELY SLOWLY for no reason. it works fine on Waterfox 31. I have tried the HTML5 player but its the same thing. I got 2 computers, i had to REVERT back to Waterfox 31 because this this issue IS SO BAD. I guess they must have done something very bad to cause this to happen. I can watch livestreams via twitch no problem. i can watch videos in chrome no problem, when i go back to Waterfox 31 i can watch videos with out any problems. Using windows 8.1 64-bit.w/64-bit processor. Surely someone is having this problem or am i just stupid?


Something is definitely wrong! Could you try the latest version? Everything should be up to scratch.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> WOW, last build show me a 50% drop of performance in javascript compare to version 32 (last build without performance issue on my PC, see post 6111).


Latest build should've fixed the latest performance issues. Let me know 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Great, glad to know it works!
> Don't worry, the same happens in Firefox as well. I think they've disabled it on purpose.
> 
> Unfortunately there's nothing I can do for about:memory. But it sounds like this could be a profile issue. If you add -no-remote -p to a Waterfox shortcut and create a test profile could you see if the same still happens?
> 
> Yes I see, I'm looking into this. Hopefully will have it resolved by this afternoon.
> 
> 
> 
> yes this was new profile the about memory is waterfox only firefox, palemon and cyberfox not have the error. waterfox is showing 3 times more ram usage in task manager or killswitch then what is allocated in about:memory waterfox has memory leaks. it has crash 12 more times with no report same on my other computer waterfox has the random hangs just like firefox where the window detached and goes white but palemoon and cyberfox do not. i tried the other waterfox with webgl crash at its does not have the memory leak and is faster with javascript.
> 
> sorry alex something very broken in this release
Click to expand...

Yes something definitely doesn't seem right. I'm trying to reproduce the issues but struggling to do so. Does seem like an issue due to lack of jemalloc in Waterfox. What are your system specs by chance?


----------



## kevindd992002

Just a suggestion, why don't you change the filenames of the installer repacks of the same version?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Just a suggestion, why don't you change the filenames of the installer repacks of the same version?


I will do. I keep forgetting after I upload the file to do so! So is all good on your end performance wise once again?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I will do. I keep forgetting after I upload the file to do so! So is all good on your end performance wise once again?


So far, yes, but it's too early to tell







I'll let you know throughout the course of my usage but I really wanted to try E10's as it looks very promising


----------



## thechas

MrAlex,

I'm not finding the download link in the last post for the new 33.0.2 build.

I will test it as soon as I can download and install it.

Thank you again,

Chas


----------



## WetLook

MrAlex,

Also I don't see the latest version on: waterfoxproject.org/
Was this overlooked?
Is this web site being used yet?

Also what is going on with the Waterfox Community Forum: http://213.39.50.27/community/
I do not see any posts.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> MrAlex,
> 
> I'm not finding the download link in the last post for the new 33.0.2 build.
> 
> I will test it as soon as I can download and install it.
> 
> Thank you again,
> 
> Chas


It should be this: download. If you've downloaded from that exact link before just clear your cache and it should download the latest build.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> MrAlex,
> 
> Also I don't see the latest version on: waterfoxproject.org/
> Was this overlooked?
> Is this web site being used yet?
> 
> Also what is going on with the Waterfox Community Forum: http://213.39.50.27/community/
> I do not see any posts.


Waterfoxproject.org will resolve to 213.39.50.27 once I know the build is ready (i.e no one has any issues), so hopefully later tonight! Also the community forums are empty because I just put them online so once the website gets update properly I'm sure they'll get busy. Contact form has become too hectic for me to reply to everyone now so forums will be much easier to manage.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I will do. I keep forgetting after I upload the file to do so! So is all good on your end performance wise once again?
> 
> 
> 
> So far, yes, but it's too early to tell
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll let you know throughout the course of my usage but I really wanted to try E10's as it looks very promising
Click to expand...

That's good to hear! Also you can still enable it! You just have to open an E10s tab manually. If you're on windows make sure the menu bar is active, then go File > New e10s window


----------



## thechas

I figured it out.

Just copy and paste the IP address. http://213.39.50.27/

Chas


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's good to hear! Also you can still enable it! You just have to open an E10s tab manually. If you're on windows make sure the menu bar is active, then go File > New e10s window


Well, yes I knew that but you can just imagine that I have hundreds of tabs opened right now and those won't use the E10 mechanism since they disabled the effect of browser.tabs.remote.autostart!


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not sure at all. Can't find anything in their blog posts.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Something is definitely wrong! Could you try the latest version? Everything should be up to scratch.
> Latest build should've fixed the latest performance issues. Let me know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes something definitely doesn't seem right. I'm trying to reproduce the issues but struggling to do so. Does seem like an issue due to lack of jemalloc in Waterfox. What are your system specs by chance?


here my specs i play heaps of games so my pc is not an issue
ROG Rampage V Extreme S2011-3
i7 5930K
64GB 2400Mhz
3x M550s raid 0
2x Titian black edition sli
watercooled


----------



## thechas

Running the latest build of 33.0.2.

No issues so far.

Thanks!

Chas


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That's good to hear! Also you can still enable it! You just have to open an E10s tab manually. If you're on windows make sure the menu bar is active, then go File > New e10s window
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well, yes I knew that but you can just imagine that I have hundreds of tabs opened right now and those won't use the E10 mechanism since they disabled the effect of browser.tabs.remote.autostart!
Click to expand...

Ah right fair enough! Yes that does seem like a PITA!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not sure at all. Can't find anything in their blog posts.
> 
> Quote:
> 
> Something is definitely wrong! Could you try the latest version? Everything should be up to scratch.
> Latest build should've fixed the latest performance issues. Let me know
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes something definitely doesn't seem right. I'm trying to reproduce the issues but struggling to do so. Does seem like an issue due to lack of jemalloc in Waterfox. What are your system specs by chance?
> 
> 
> 
> here my specs i play heaps of games so my pc is not an issue
> ROG Rampage V Extreme S2011-3
> i7 5930K
> 64GB 2400Mhz
> 3x M550s raid 0
> 2x Titian black edition sli
> watercooled
Click to expand...

Ah I see you've got a fair bit of RAM! How much is Waterfox taking up in 33.0.2?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Running the latest build of 33.0.2.
> 
> No issues so far.
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> Chas


Excellent, glad to hear!


----------



## CynicalUnicorn

I need opinions and it's been a bit since I started a flame war.







What's the general consensus on Pale Moon vs Waterfox? I've been running Pale Moon since earlier this week and have been quite satisfied with it. Is it even worth it to download Waterfox to try because they're practically identical, or is Waterfox objectively better in every way, or...?


----------



## WetLook

MrAlex,

First off thanks for all your time, hard work and help with the Waterfox browser.
I know you put in a lot of time working on this project.

I just installed WF Ver. 33.0.2 and so far have had no problems.

I see listed under "Tools" "Add-ons" there is "OpenH264 Video Codec provided by Cisco Systems, Inc."

I also see a message above this add-on that reads "Will be installed shortly." suggesting that it will be downloaded and installed.

Is this add-on installed correctly, having the "Will be installed shortly." message?

Again Thanks & Stay Safe.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I need opinions and it's been a bit since I started a flame war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the general consensus on Pale Moon vs Waterfox? I've been running Pale Moon since earlier this week and have been quite satisfied with it. Is it even worth it to download Waterfox to try because they're practically identical, or is Waterfox objectively better in every way, or...?


The main purpose of Pale Moon is for people who want a Firefox-like experience without Australis and don't really care for the new feature sets.

Waterfox is for those who don't mind Australis and want a 64-bit browser with the Firefox feature set.

In particular, Pale Moon is now truly forked off with its own GUID separate from Firefox's, so if you care about 100% compatibility of your browser with all extensions you will want to use Waterfox.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah right fair enough! Yes that does seem like a PITA!
> 
> Ah I see you've got a fair bit of RAM! How much is Waterfox taking up in 33.0.2?


yes alex

new profile no addon waterfox start 189,000k on waterfox home page the one with the logo on it in 1 hour of no use it in task manager be 623,000k with no use in 2 hour it over 1gb if i try
to use it with from no use waterfox shutter when page loads everything jerky when navigating. now new profile no addon restore my tabs session from other profile 182 tabs waterfox use 2.3gb ram
total in about:memory but in task manager is using 5gb.

it randomly cashes to desktop waterfox just close with no session restore or error report. if on new profile with restore my tabs session from other profile 182 tabs then no use waterfox in 1 hour if not crash to desktop it use 9gb the webgl crash version is fine no issue and faster it just crash with webgl. but it has random window hang like others firefox does it too then the browser breask from window and everything goes white make small window visit page https://www.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/desktop/customize/ then when hang make large window very bad







i have had waterfox to 18gb ram it not crash but was not usable i hope help and you fix soon thanks alex


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> The main purpose of Pale Moon is for people who want a Firefox-like experience without Australis and don't really care for the new feature sets.
> 
> Waterfox is for those who don't mind Australis and want a 64-bit browser with the Firefox feature set.
> 
> In particular, Pale Moon is now truly forked off with its own GUID separate from Firefox's, so if you care about 100% compatibility of your browser with all extensions you will want to use Waterfox.


yes i choose use waterfox because palemoon it broken and not get security fix from mozilla i not like australis i use classic theme restore but not use palemoon because security waterfox is now my default









palemoon fork is death of it


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *CynicalUnicorn*
> 
> I need opinions and it's been a bit since I started a flame war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's the general consensus on Pale Moon vs Waterfox? I've been running Pale Moon since earlier this week and have been quite satisfied with it. Is it even worth it to download Waterfox to try because they're practically identical, or is Waterfox objectively better in every way, or...?


Don't worry, we're all friends here







. PaleMoon has become its own beast really. Plus the whole point of Waterfox is to be the fastest 64-Bit variant of Firefox. That's why builds take so long, because I've got to patch Firefox to make sure Intel's C++ compiler works properly. But the advantage are some nice performance gains over what Firefox offer, and most likely Palemoon as I'm not sure if it includes the newest performance upgrades since last I checked it used an ESR as a base. Up to you what you like really!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> MrAlex,
> 
> First off thanks for all your time, hard work and help with the Waterfox browser.
> I know you put in a lot of time working on this project.
> 
> I just installed WF Ver. 33.0.2 and so far have had no problems.
> 
> I see listed under "Tools" "Add-ons" there is "OpenH264 Video Codec provided by Cisco Systems, Inc."
> 
> I also see a message above this add-on that reads "Will be installed shortly." suggesting that it will be downloaded and installed.
> 
> Is this add-on installed correctly, having the "Will be installed shortly." message?
> 
> Again Thanks & Stay Safe.


No worries, glad you like to use Waterfox! Hmmm not sure about that, I'll have a look. Doesn't really matter anyway as H264 works just fine and was more of a licensing issue for Mozilla.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah right fair enough! Yes that does seem like a PITA!
> 
> Ah I see you've got a fair bit of RAM! How much is Waterfox taking up in 33.0.2?
> 
> 
> 
> yes alex
> 
> new profile no addon waterfox start 189,000k on waterfox home page the one with the logo on it in 1 hour of no use it in task manager be 623,000k with no use in 2 hour it over 1gb if i try
> to use it with from no use waterfox shutter when page loads everything jerky when navigating. now new profile no addon restore my tabs session from other profile 182 tabs waterfox use 2.3gb ram
> total in about:memory but in task manager is using 5gb.
> 
> it randomly cashes to desktop waterfox just close with no session restore or error report. if on new profile with restore my tabs session from other profile 182 tabs then no use waterfox in 1 hour if not crash to desktop it use 9gb the webgl crash version is fine no issue and faster it just crash with webgl. but it has random window hang like others firefox does it too then the browser breask from window and everything goes white make small window visit page https://www.mozilla.org/fr/firefox/desktop/customize/ then when hang make large window very bad
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i have had waterfox to 18gb ram it not crash but was not usable i hope help and you fix soon thanks alex
Click to expand...

Hmm the memory usage is definitely correct for the amount of RAM you have, but it definitely shouldn't crash. And you say there's no crash report? Even on 33.0.2 because I re-enabled the crash reporter? Very strange, I'll see what I can find out for you!


----------



## BMT

So far, so good with the latest build MrAlex, thanks!









By default, if you go to http://www.youtube.com/html5 you'll see MSE & H.264 is disabled.

To fix it...
1) Go to about:config
2) Right click, New -> Boolean
3) Enter "media.mediasource.ignore_codecs"
4) Select true

Restart Waterfox. Go back to http://www.youtube.com/html5 and you'll see the option is now enabled!

Edit: Seems the videos H.264 video plays fine on Youtube that way, but there's no audio. WebM VP9 video works as expected.
Back to the drawing board.


----------



## kevindd992002

Isn't the latest version of WF seem to be having some memory leaks? I have a lot of tabs but not enough to warrant around 2GB of RAM! I noticed that earlier when it was sluggish i was browsing with it for some reason.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Isn't the latest version of WF seem to be having some memory leaks? I have a lot of tabs but not enough to warrant around 2GB of RAM! I noticed that earlier when it was sluggish i was browsing with it for some reason.


With 25 tabs open (and some of the pages are rather image intensive), Adblock Plus, etc. WaterFox is using just over 1GB RAM for me, which is around what it normally has been in this situation for me.

A 64bit program is always going to use more memory than a 32bit equivalent, I've had WaterFox using way more than 2GB RAM in normal use before. 2GB RAM being used doesn't seem wrong at all to me.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> With 25 tabs open (and some of the pages are rather image intensive), Adblock Plus, etc. WaterFox is using just over 1GB RAM for me, which is around what it normally has been in this situation for me.
> 
> A 64bit program is always going to use more memory than a 32bit equivalent, I've had WaterFox using way more than 2GB RAM in normal use before. 2GB RAM being used doesn't seem wrong at all to me.


I wouldn't mind the amount of RAM it will use as long as it doesn't turn all sluggish on me, but when it reaches that amount of RAM then it's really annoying to use because of the sluggishness. This did not happen with 32.x.x. And it is set to not open tabs until I select them so only a handful of tabs are loaded.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I use Firefox on my laptop, so I could get it out and test to see how the 32-bit version behaves, but that being said, MrAlex likes to use cutting-edge memory allocators so the behavior could be different.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm the memory usage is definitely correct for the amount of RAM you have, but it definitely shouldn't crash. And you say there's no crash report? Even on 33.0.2 because I re-enabled the crash reporter? Very strange, I'll see what I can find out for you!


no sorry mr alex but it not normal as firefox not do it palemoon or cyberfox i ask a tech friend he says the memory leak because no jemalloc waterfox need ac_add_options --enable-jemalloc in build option he say or large memory holes appear with great security risk that why message in about:memory show he told me to stop using till fixed.

me hope you fix soon so i can use waterfox again


----------



## MichaelHT

I've been running Waterfox for about 1 year with no problems on a HP laptop running Windows 7 and a core i7 processor. Friday morning of last week having done no upgrades or adding any new programs to the machine Waterfox started acting crazy.

Any page that has Flash on it runs slower than it should. Load times take longer for pages and when I try to scroll down the scroll bar moves down and the page eventually catches up. When scrolling the page is very jumpy, for lack of a better term to describe it. When I open a Flash menu it takes forever to make a change or close it. I've uninstall Waterfox and Flash, cleaned up the machine, rebooted and reinstalled both programs and still the problem persists. When I run Firefox it runs just fine.

Has anyone else experienced this problem and if you have how did you fix it.

Thanks
Mike Trubow


----------



## Teddals

I have been trying out the latest version of Waterfox for a couple of weeks now on a dual core unit running Win7 64-Bit with 10gig RAM & I am impressed with the speed of operation. One nagging item that comes up is that it doesn't allow me to enter any script writing on some web-sites where you have open button operated tabs to select a subject buy either right or left clicking the mouse on it to get a drop down message ect for selection or copying & paste items on web pages. The process works fine on Internet Explorer 9.0 (my preferred IE over other IE versions). I have all the possible add-ons with Java installed & enabled on Waterfox plus a few other media add-ons but can't seem to get this script writing to work. Has anybody any suggestions on how to get this to work?

Cheers

Teddals


----------



## MrAlex

The website has now been updated and is live! Hopefully it won't take too long for the records to update everything!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> With 25 tabs open (and some of the pages are rather image intensive), Adblock Plus, etc. WaterFox is using just over 1GB RAM for me, which is around what it normally has been in this situation for me.
> 
> A 64bit program is always going to use more memory than a 32bit equivalent, I've had WaterFox using way more than 2GB RAM in normal use before. 2GB RAM being used doesn't seem wrong at all to me.
> 
> 
> 
> I wouldn't mind the amount of RAM it will use as long as it doesn't turn all sluggish on me, but when it reaches that amount of RAM then it's really annoying to use because of the sluggishness. This did not happen with 32.x.x. And it is set to not open tabs until I select them so only a handful of tabs are loaded.
Click to expand...

Hmm that definitely doesn't sound good! But I'm still using the default malloc as always.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I use Firefox on my laptop, so I could get it out and test to see how the 32-bit version behaves, but that being said, MrAlex likes to use cutting-edge memory allocators so the behavior could be different.


I only released test builds of those. I use mozalloc by default because jemalloc doesn't work well with ICC.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm the memory usage is definitely correct for the amount of RAM you have, but it definitely shouldn't crash. And you say there's no crash report? Even on 33.0.2 because I re-enabled the crash reporter? Very strange, I'll see what I can find out for you!
> 
> 
> 
> no sorry mr alex but it not normal as firefox not do it palemoon or cyberfox i ask a tech friend he says the memory leak because no jemalloc waterfox need ac_add_options --enable-jemalloc in build option he say or large memory holes appear with great security risk that why message in about:memory show he told me to stop using till fixed.
> 
> me hope you fix soon so i can use waterfox again
Click to expand...

I can't enable jemalloc unfortunately, I use mozalloc instead. Either way there shouldn't be any security issues because of it!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MichaelHT*
> 
> I've been running Waterfox for about 1 year with no problems on a HP laptop running Windows 7 and a core i7 processor. Friday morning of last week having done no upgrades or adding any new programs to the machine Waterfox started acting crazy.
> 
> Any page that has Flash on it runs slower than it should. Load times take longer for pages and when I try to scroll down the scroll bar moves down and the page eventually catches up. When scrolling the page is very jumpy, for lack of a better term to describe it. When I open a Flash menu it takes forever to make a change or close it. I've uninstall Waterfox and Flash, cleaned up the machine, rebooted and reinstalled both programs and still the problem persists. When I run Firefox it runs just fine.
> 
> Has anyone else experienced this problem and if you have how did you fix it.
> 
> Thanks
> Mike Trubow


Hmm that doesn't sound very good. Have you tried running a fresh profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Teddals*
> 
> I have been trying out the latest version of Waterfox for a couple of weeks now on a dual core unit running Win7 64-Bit with 10gig RAM & I am impressed with the speed of operation. One nagging item that comes up is that it doesn't allow me to enter any script writing on some web-sites where you have open button operated tabs to select a subject buy either right or left clicking the mouse on it to get a drop down message ect for selection or copying & paste items on web pages. The process works fine on Internet Explorer 9.0 (my preferred IE over other IE versions). I have all the possible add-ons with Java installed & enabled on Waterfox plus a few other media add-ons but can't seem to get this script writing to work. Has anybody any suggestions on how to get this to work?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Teddals


Hmm we can't really help unless we know what the script is. Have you tried a fresh profile as well? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm that definitely doesn't sound good! But I'm still using the default malloc as always.


What do we need to actually troubleshoot this issue? Hey, for what it's worth thanks for the activity you're recently doing in the forums now, it's very different from last time


----------



## Teddals

Quote:


> Hmm we can't really help unless we know what the script is. Have you tried a fresh profile as well? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles


Thanks for the reply, but when I try to reset profile by opening the 'Help' window in Waterfox, there is no 'Troubleshoot' coming up to allow me to refresh profile.
When I talk about 'script', I mean when I open a tab in a dropbox view (similar to the 'Get notified when others reply' at the bottom of this post that when I try to
open the tab which in default displays 'Immediately' nothing happens.
This may not be the case on this page but on other pages I'm looking which ask through selections via a tab button I cannot open it.
Usually when I am using IE the operation will open when I click on it there are more options displayed for selection or to type in a script if required.
As for copy & paste, if I highlite words or images to copy nothing happens where there should be an option on right click of mouse to do this.
I have tried this in this reply post when doing an amendment but when the words are highlited & I right click on them to copy nothing happens,
My firewall is not blocking this process so I'm stumped as to what is the cause.
When I was using an earlier version of Firefox (albiet 32-Bit) I did not have this problem.
I hope this description is understandable.

Cheers

Teddals

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit
10 Gig RAM
AMD Athlon Dual Core Processor 5000+ 2.6 GHz
NMVidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti Display Adaptor


----------



## 28rommel

Hello,
About 3 days ago, I sent a message directly to the developer of WaterFox, but it may not have been received or I may have followed incorrect protocol (I never did receive a reply), so I will try my question/concern here:

Due to a recent large media and news blitz, a website touting the ability to play retro 1980's arcade games has exploded with visits and hits. It is said that it has hundreds of thousands, if not a million or so, new visitors. Playing the retro game brings me back to my childhood/teenage years ! This Internet Arcade is found on the website called the "Internet Archive." Here is the direct link: https://archive.org/details/internetarcade .
The Internet Arcade operator, Jason Scott, highly recommends users to download and use WaterFox as the browser of choice to play games on this website. This is how I found WaterFox.

The reason WaterFox is recommended is because most games play at a 75% to 100% of normal game speed. When using Chrome to play, the games play at about 25% to 50% speed (sometimes it is really, really s-l-o-w). The game controls are performed by default using keys on your keyboard to move up, down, shoot, etc. Of course using the keyboard to play games can be extremely challenging if not almost impossible. You can use your own gamepad/controller, but not all browsers recognize your controller, so they do not function at all. I have been in contact with Jason Scott, and have been sharing just one difficulty with WaterFox ... it does not recognize my Xbox Controller.

WaterFox is great .... but to play these arcade games using my Xbox controller, it is not functional. I am forced to use Chrome if I want to play using my controller.
*So I am seeking help and support here, in hopes of trying to get my Xbox controller to work with WaterFox.* I am not a software or hardware specialist, by any means. I only have a small to moderate knowledge of computers in general. If you can help, please give me instructions "in English" that I can understand (baby-steps please).

Here is some additional information supplied by the Internet Arcade operator, they may help those of you who are specialist in this area. It sounds a bit foreign to me, but I'm sure it means something to those who have great abilities with software/hardware:

Jason Scott says that his team "has basically nothing to do with Gamepad Support. We used Emscripten to compile it in. Whatever Emscripten does and whatever the generic Gamepad API loader does, we do - we do no development on it."
He goes on to tell his users to "visit the Gamepad API Tester. This is a nice little page that will show what the current version of the Gamepad API thinks your controller is. If you can't see it, or it acts weird, it's the API." Here is the direct link to this "Gamepad API Tester" :
http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/doodles/gamepad/gamepad-tester/tester.html

When using this Gamepad API Tester, my Xbox Controller is immediately recognized using Chrome, but when the tester is opened using WaterFox it is a No-Go. Of course my preference (and those of thousands of others) would be to use WaterFox. *Can you help ?*
Thank you !









PS: My system in not new, but not too old either. Here are some specs if you need them ...

Widows 7 64-bit
Processor : AMD Athlon II X2 245 (2 cores)
Memory : 4.00 GB
Graphics : NVidia GForce 315
Gaming Graphics : 2299 MB Total available graphics memory.
--- Dedicated Graphics Memory : 512 MB
DirectX 10 version


----------



## BMT

Edit: Please ignore, information was incorrect.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *28rommel*
> 
> He goes on to tell his users to "visit the Gamepad API Tester. This is a nice little page that will show what the current version of the Gamepad API thinks your controller is. If you can't see it, or it acts weird, it's the API." Here is the direct link to this "Gamepad API Tester" :
> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/doodles/gamepad/gamepad-tester/tester.html
> 
> 
> 
> Firefox (and therefore Waterfox) does not support the Gamepad API, currently and therefore unfortunately there's nothing MrAlex can do about this, it's something that Mozilla would need to implement support of for Firefox before it came to Waterfox.
Click to expand...

Then why on Earth is the website developer insisting Waterfox is the browser of choice without explaining that gamepads won't work?


----------



## sciprophet5

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Then why on Earth is the website developer insisting Waterfox is the browser of choice without explaining that gamepads won't work?


Who knows, this sounds like a question that should be directed to Jason Scott. In fact, on the Internet Arcade page it says the following:
Quote:


> odd controllers make proper playing of the systems on a keyboard or joypad a pale imitation of the original experience. Please report any issues to the Internet Arcade Operator, Jason Scott.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Then why on Earth is the website developer insisting Waterfox is the browser of choice without explaining that gamepads won't work?


When you read the linked article on the API Tester page it was talking about "special builds" of Firefox, which are linked to (but all links are broken, so I assume got removed) and then later on said "It does not seem possible to detect this in Firefox just yet - everything is event-based, and all the event handlers need to be attached to window, which prevents a typical technique of detecting event handlers from working."

As it turns out, that article is outdated and it does indeed work in vanilla Firefox, as shown here (I plugged in a USB PS3 controller).



However, it doesn't work in Waterfox, so seems to have indeed been broken somehow.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm that definitely doesn't sound good! But I'm still using the default malloc as always.
> 
> 
> 
> What do we need to actually troubleshoot this issue? Hey, for what it's worth thanks for the activity you're recently doing in the forums now, it's very different from last time
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything you can do on your part. I'm going to try and get jemalloc working with ICC. It should sort out a lot of memory issues if I get it working in time for 34.0!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Teddals*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm we can't really help unless we know what the script is. Have you tried a fresh profile as well? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the reply, but when I try to reset profile by opening the 'Help' window in Waterfox, there is no 'Troubleshoot' coming up to allow me to refresh profile.
> When I talk about 'script', I mean when I open a tab in a dropbox view (similar to the 'Get notified when others reply' at the bottom of this post that when I try to
> open the tab which in default displays 'Immediately' nothing happens.
> This may not be the case on this page but on other pages I'm looking which ask through selections via a tab button I cannot open it.
> Usually when I am using IE the operation will open when I click on it there are more options displayed for selection or to type in a script if required.
> As for copy & paste, if I highlite words or images to copy nothing happens where there should be an option on right click of mouse to do this.
> I have tried this in this reply post when doing an amendment but when the words are highlited & I right click on them to copy nothing happens,
> My firewall is not blocking this process so I'm stumped as to what is the cause.
> When I was using an earlier version of Firefox (albiet 32-Bit) I did not have this problem.
> I hope this description is understandable.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Teddals
> 
> Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit
> 10 Gig RAM
> AMD Athlon Dual Core Processor 5000+ 2.6 GHz
> NMVidia GeForce GTX 750 Ti Display Adaptor
Click to expand...

Hmm, right I'll look into this and see what I can come up with!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *28rommel*
> 
> Hello,
> About 3 days ago, I sent a message directly to the developer of WaterFox, but it may not have been received or I may have followed incorrect protocol (I never did receive a reply), so I will try my question/concern here:
> 
> Due to a recent large media and news blitz, a website touting the ability to play retro 1980's arcade games has exploded with visits and hits. It is said that it has hundreds of thousands, if not a million or so, new visitors. Playing the retro game brings me back to my childhood/teenage years ! This Internet Arcade is found on the website called the "Internet Archive." Here is the direct link: https://archive.org/details/internetarcade .
> The Internet Arcade operator, Jason Scott, highly recommends users to download and use WaterFox as the browser of choice to play games on this website. This is how I found WaterFox.
> 
> The reason WaterFox is recommended is because most games play at a 75% to 100% of normal game speed. When using Chrome to play, the games play at about 25% to 50% speed (sometimes it is really, really s-l-o-w). The game controls are performed by default using keys on your keyboard to move up, down, shoot, etc. Of course using the keyboard to play games can be extremely challenging if not almost impossible. You can use your own gamepad/controller, but not all browsers recognize your controller, so they do not function at all. I have been in contact with Jason Scott, and have been sharing just one difficulty with WaterFox ... it does not recognize my Xbox Controller.
> 
> WaterFox is great .... but to play these arcade games using my Xbox controller, it is not functional. I am forced to use Chrome if I want to play using my controller.
> *So I am seeking help and support here, in hopes of trying to get my Xbox controller to work with WaterFox.* I am not a software or hardware specialist, by any means. I only have a small to moderate knowledge of computers in general. If you can help, please give me instructions "in English" that I can understand (baby-steps please).
> 
> Here is some additional information supplied by the Internet Arcade operator, they may help those of you who are specialist in this area. It sounds a bit foreign to me, but I'm sure it means something to those who have great abilities with software/hardware:
> 
> Jason Scott says that his team "has basically nothing to do with Gamepad Support. We used Emscripten to compile it in. Whatever Emscripten does and whatever the generic Gamepad API loader does, we do - we do no development on it."
> He goes on to tell his users to "visit the Gamepad API Tester. This is a nice little page that will show what the current version of the Gamepad API thinks your controller is. If you can't see it, or it acts weird, it's the API." Here is the direct link to this "Gamepad API Tester" :
> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/doodles/gamepad/gamepad-tester/tester.html
> 
> When using this Gamepad API Tester, my Xbox Controller is immediately recognized using Chrome, but when the tester is opened using WaterFox it is a No-Go. Of course my preference (and those of thousands of others) would be to use WaterFox. *Can you help ?*
> Thank you !
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> PS: My system in not new, but not too old either. Here are some specs if you need them ...


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *28rommel*
> 
> He goes on to tell his users to "visit the Gamepad API Tester. This is a nice little page that will show what the current version of the Gamepad API thinks your controller is. If you can't see it, or it acts weird, it's the API." Here is the direct link to this "Gamepad API Tester" :
> http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/doodles/gamepad/gamepad-tester/tester.html
> 
> 
> 
> Firefox (and therefore Waterfox) does not support the Gamepad API, currently and therefore unfortunately there's nothing MrAlex can do about this, it's something that Mozilla would need to implement support of for Firefox before it came to Waterfox.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then why on Earth is the website developer insisting Waterfox is the browser of choice without explaining that gamepads won't work?
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sciprophet5*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Then why on Earth is the website developer insisting Waterfox is the browser of choice without explaining that gamepads won't work?
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows, this sounds like a question that should be directed to Jason Scott. In fact, on the Internet Arcade page it says the following:
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> odd controllers make proper playing of the systems on a keyboard or joypad a pale imitation of the original experience. Please report any issues to the Internet Arcade Operator, Jason Scott.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Then why on Earth is the website developer insisting Waterfox is the browser of choice without explaining that gamepads won't work?
> 
> 
> 
> When you read the linked article on the API Tester page it was talking about "special builds" of Firefox, which are linked to (but all links are broken, so I assume got removed) and then later on said "It does not seem possible to detect this in Firefox just yet - everything is event-based, and all the event handlers need to be attached to window, which prevents a typical technique of detecting event handlers from working."
> 
> As it turns out, that article is outdated and it does indeed work in vanilla Firefox, as shown here (I plugged in a USB PS3 controller).
> 
> 
> 
> However, it doesn't work in Waterfox, so seems to have indeed been broken somehow.
Click to expand...

This is the current build configurations fault! Basically the Windows 8.1 SDK is needed to get gamepads to work (for Vista, 7, 8+). Unfortunately when building with ICC and VC10, even though it's configured and detects the 8.1 SDK it never actually builds with it! I've been trying to get this to work for a while but I might have figured out what's wrong. So hopefully for v34.0 we're looking at gamepad and jemalloc support


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't think there's anything you can do on your part. I'm going to try and get jemalloc working with ICC. It should sort out _a lot_ of memory issues if I get it working in time for 34.0!


I really hope you can do that as the point of having a 64-bit variant of FF is for it to be memory efficient and not the other way around, right?


----------



## thepersuader

Hi there:

Love Waterfox-though for me the memory usage is higher than on Firefox.

I confess I go between Waterfox and Firefox. Basically, when one messes up, I go to the other. By the time the other messes up, I switch back.

Right now, both are stuffed, at least on their latest version. I had to downgrade to v. 32 to type this.

Neither Firefox nor Waterfox displays much text. This is a known bug on Mozilla (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1090298) but the solution of turning OMTC off does not seem to work.

Here's how Waterfox looks on my computer when using Firefox:



Is this something you could look at, please? Maybe there is a solution that does not involve turning OMTC off. I can confirm that it's really, really hard to do anything in about:config:



Yes, I had to it all blind &#8230;


----------



## Jokerfish

Unfortunately, after the update I'm back to the problem with viewing GIF files where it plays the first 1-2 seconds, then freezes the browser until the rest is loaded, then resumes but skips ahead for as long as the load time took. This varies depending on the size of the file. This happened with several earlier versions of Waterfox as well. 32.0 worked flawlessly for me.


----------



## btgbullseye

Problem: I just updated to 33.0.2 via the auto-update system, and now taking any link anywhere is causing Waterfox to crash, and take my video drivers with it. (bookmarks work fine)

Going to try reinstalling with a direct download from the site.

[EDIT] Did not work. Even tried disabling all my addons, to no significant effect. (just delaying the lock of the interactive area of the browser, and then delaying the crash of the browser and video driver) Now using Firefox 34.0 Beta until you get this sorted.

[EDIT2] Bookmarks work for the first bookmark used, unless there are 2 tabs or more open. Even causes a crash when trying to edit settings.


----------



## sciprophet5

So far 33.0.2 is running just fine for me. Even the YouTube loading problem that others have mentioned (due to that 'HD' extension), has gone away. I had bookmarked trouble videos to double check on a future update and everything loads up just fine for me now.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't enable jemalloc unfortunately, I use mozalloc instead. Either way there shouldn't be any security issues because of it!


no there is security issue with memory leak if not use jemalloc
quote my tech friend

Code:



Code:


Jemalloc translates how firefox handles its memory allocation, Think of Jemalloc as a spider and the memory as a web, Now think of malloc() as a broken ball of spider web that continues breaking and growing in size., Firefox is a Jemalloc application and requires it to prevent large memory fragmentation over time with the memory fragmentation it will eventually become predictable and allow an attacker to have a field day.

he say you watch



he say simlar happen if Jemalloc disable


----------



## Teddals

Hi Mr Alex,

I have found that updating today to the new version (33.0.2-10Nov14) seems to have cured the script, copy & paste problem as I can now click on tabs & get a response & high-lite script, right click & this gives me the copy & paste option.









Cheers

Teddals


----------



## futer

Hello,

Unfortunately after updating today Waterfox to 33.0.2 any script or extensions don't works for making "Multirow Bookmarks Toolbar". I have only two lines of bookmark toolbar right now. I don't know why, but I assume that errors are common after updating to new Waterfox version.
Some help with that would be appreciated









Cheers

I have found solution:

If you are using the MBT extension,
simply add this userChrome.css file, or style whtvr. ;-)

Code:



Code:


@namespace url(http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul);
#PersonalToolbar {
max-height: none !important;
}


----------



## kickmic

Hello,

the Sync function is no longer working with latest or previous build. I have to revert to Firefox to sync bookmarks with other devices

thanks


----------



## Mr6686

Will we be entitled to version 33.0.3 or 33.1?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't think there's anything you can do on your part. I'm going to try and get jemalloc working with ICC. It should sort out a lot of memory issues if I get it working in time for 34.0!
> 
> 
> 
> I really hope you can do that as the point of having a 64-bit variant of FF is for it to be memory efficient and not the other way around, right?
Click to expand...

Well, it's expected to use a bit more memory for performance gains, just not as much as what you're experiencing









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thepersuader*
> 
> Hi there:
> 
> Love Waterfox-though for me the memory usage is higher than on Firefox.
> 
> I confess I go between Waterfox and Firefox. Basically, when one messes up, I go to the other. By the time the other messes up, I switch back.
> 
> Right now, both are stuffed, at least on their latest version. I had to downgrade to v. 32 to type this.
> 
> Neither Firefox nor Waterfox displays much text. This is a known bug on Mozilla (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1090298) but the solution of turning OMTC off does not seem to work.
> 
> Here's how Waterfox looks on my computer when using Firefox:
> 
> 
> 
> Is this something you could look at, please? Maybe there is a solution that does not involve turning OMTC off. I can confirm that it's really, really hard to do anything in about:config:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, I had to it all blind &#8230;


This looks like an issue with the Firefox code base itself. 33.0.3/33.1 seems to have resolved these issues, but 34.0 releases in 11 days so I might release the next Waterfox update then.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jokerfish*
> 
> Unfortunately, after the update I'm back to the problem with viewing GIF files where it plays the first 1-2 seconds, then freezes the browser until the rest is loaded, then resumes but skips ahead for as long as the load time took. This varies depending on the size of the file. This happened with several earlier versions of Waterfox as well. 32.0 worked flawlessly for me.


 Seems to be an issue with the 33.0.2 codebase, but the next release will sort it out.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Problem: I just updated to 33.0.2 via the auto-update system, and now taking any link anywhere is causing Waterfox to crash, and take my video drivers with it. (bookmarks work fine)
> 
> Going to try reinstalling with a direct download from the site.
> 
> [EDIT] Did not work. Even tried disabling all my addons, to no significant effect. (just delaying the lock of the interactive area of the browser, and then delaying the crash of the browser and video driver) Now using Firefox 34.0 Beta until you get this sorted.
> 
> [EDIT2] Bookmarks work for the first bookmark used, unless there are 2 tabs or more open. Even causes a crash when trying to edit settings.


Unfortunately, same issue as above!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *sciprophet5*
> 
> So far 33.0.2 is running just fine for me. Even the YouTube loading problem that others have mentioned (due to that 'HD' extension), has gone away. I had bookmarked trouble videos to double check on a future update and everything loads up just fine for me now.


Glad to hear it's at least working for you!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I can't enable jemalloc unfortunately, I use mozalloc instead. Either way there shouldn't be any security issues because of it!
> 
> 
> 
> no there is security issue with memory leak if not use jemalloc
> quote my tech friend
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Jemalloc translates how firefox handles its memory allocation, Think of Jemalloc as a spider and the memory as a web, Now think of malloc() as a broken ball of spider web that continues breaking and growing in size., Firefox is a Jemalloc application and requires it to prevent large memory fragmentation over time with the memory fragmentation it will eventually become predictable and allow an attacker to have a field day.
> 
> he say you watch
> 
> 
> 
> he say simlar happen if Jemalloc disable
Click to expand...

Your friend is very right. Fortunately enough Waterfox isn't that popular that people will want to find security vulnerabilities. At least I hope not! Great video by the way. Hopefully jemalloc will be working next release 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Teddals*
> 
> Hi Mr Alex,
> 
> I have found that updating today to the new version (33.0.2-10Nov14) seems to have cured the script, copy & paste problem as I can now click on tabs & get a response & high-lite script, right click & this gives me the copy & paste option.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Teddals


Excellent! Glad it works well for you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *futer*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Unfortunately after updating today Waterfox to 33.0.2 any script or extensions don't works for making "Multirow Bookmarks Toolbar". I have only two lines of bookmark toolbar right now. I don't know why, but I assume that errors are common after updating to new Waterfox version.
> Some help with that would be appreciated
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Cheers
> 
> I have found solution:
> 
> If you are using the MBT extension,
> simply add this userChrome.css file, or style whtvr. ;-)
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> @namespace url(http://www.mozilla.org/keymaster/gatekeeper/there.is.only.xul);
> #PersonalToolbar {
> max-height: none !important;
> }


Hmm that could be due to an incompatibility with the add-on since it hasn't been update in a while! But looks like you've found a fix for it though. Maybe message the developer and let them know?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kickmic*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> the Sync function is no longer working with latest or previous build. I have to revert to Firefox to sync bookmarks with other devices
> 
> thanks


Hmm that's not good at all. Haven't heard of any other reports of this, I'll have a look for you though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Will we be entitled to version 33.0.3 or 33.1?


Possibly, I'm not too sure yet. I've got quite a lot of work to do, but 34.0 comes out in about 11 days, so hopefully that won't be too far off to wait? What do you think?


----------



## bobsleigh

I seem to be getting a lot of lockups with 33.0.2 where Waterfox will randomly freeze (goes pale with "not responding" and uses a lot of CPU) after opening a new page. I haven't managed to find a pattern but reverting to 32.0.3 seems to have fixed it for now.

PS I miss the new darker blue icon - any chance of bringing this back?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kickmic*
> 
> Hello,
> the Sync function is no longer working with latest or previous build. I have to revert to Firefox to sync bookmarks with other devices
> thanks


Do you mean you can't set up new sync or you have a working profile with working sync and it doesn't work?
I have it fully working in WF33.02. Tho I run agains private old version sync server. Not FF default.


----------



## w0wkin

I have used firefox alpha builds before...but one day it is started to eat all available RAM in my PC, this is happened only when firefox is running in background for hours. I switched to waterfox some time ago, I think it was just same alpha firefox build but an earlier version, no problem with memory leak... and now, again, after updating to 33.0.2 I have this problem. I tried to report this bug to mozilla with no luck, because the 64-bit version is build only for test purposes, they mean if it builded then it's OK. The question is, is there any chances that somebody fixes this annoying bug?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well, it's expected to use a bit more memory for performance gains, just not as much as what you're experiencing


Yes and it should perform faster but I'm experiencing the other way around.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *w0wkin*
> 
> I have used firefox alpha builds before...but one day it is started to eat all available RAM in my PC, this is happened only when firefox is running in background for hours. I switched to waterfox some time ago, I think it was just same alpha firefox build but an earlier version, no problem with memory leak... and now, again, after updating to 33.0.2 I have this problem. I tried to report this bug to mozilla with no luck, because the 64-bit version is build only for test purposes, they mean if it builded then it's OK. The question is, is there any chances that somebody fixes this annoying bug?


MrAlex, this is the exact same thing that's happening to me.


----------



## thepersuader

Thank you so much, MrAlex—great to get a personal reply. I’ll look forward to downloading the latest in 11 days.


----------



## Chazzalis666

Good afternoon, at least it is where i am. Ever since updating waterfox to 33.0.2 i have been unable to get a connection to any page. immediately on opening up, it says "firefox is unable to establish a connection to the server. And i know there's nothing wrong with my internet or computer because just before updating i was using it and it was fine. At the least its a thorn in my spine, and i'd really appreciate some feedback and maybe a manual download of the previous version? I really dont care about new updates, the version before this one worked impeccably and i've had zero issues up til' now. Waterfox is the only browser that runs without lag for me (i dont even count to 2 until waterfox comes up, chrome takes 12 seconds, and internet explorer well over 18 seconds). Sure, the seconds dont matter, but when your wasting an afternoon on the computer i'm sure everyone would expect an immediate reaction from near every command.


----------



## kickmic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Do you mean you can't set up new sync or you have a working profile with working sync and it doesn't work?
> I have it fully working in WF33.02. Tho I run agains private old version sync server. Not FF default.


with existing profile
created a new profile in case the profile was the issue - same issue

im using the most recent ff sync version
i can open the profile using firefox and sync works


----------



## kickmic

@Mr Alex

I should mention I am using FF v 34 on my machine where I have WF and FFv34 on my 32bit secondary machine


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Unfortunately, same issue as above!


Ok, good to know... Waiting on the v34.0.


----------



## malcomX

watefox get update 33.1 ?? have many fix for graphics hardware fix for window hang too please update waterfox


----------



## futer

Hello,

Today I had several crash on Windows 7 x64.
Quote:


> Signature of the problem:
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: waterfox.exe
> Application Version: 33.0.2.5423
> Application Timestamp: 545be681
> The name of the module with the error: mozalloc.dll
> Version of the module with the error: 33.0.2.5423
> Timestamp module with the error: 545be3d9
> Exception code: 80000003
> Moving exception: 00000000000017a8
> Operating System Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 1045
> Additional Information 1: 27e6
> Additional Information 2: 27e673e7166faf1d4e58aad1b1cd60ce
> Additional Information 3: 7d46
> Additional Information 4: 7d46677037ba2bfb8862fc13cb3bf921


?

Cheers


----------



## 28rommel

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This is the current build configurations fault! Basically the Windows 8.1 SDK is needed to get gamepads to work (for Vista, 7, 8+). Unfortunately when building with ICC and VC10, even though it's configured and detects the 8.1 SDK it never actually builds with it! I've been trying to get this to work for a while but I might have figured out what's wrong. So hopefully for v34.0 we're looking at gamepad and jemalloc support


Thank you Mr. Alex !
Look forward to your team hopefully solving the *gamepad problem.*
You say this may take place in your v34.0 update.
Any idea when (approx.) this may happen ?
Is there a way for you and your team to inform me when this is complete ?
Thanks.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *28rommel*
> 
> Thank you Mr. Alex !
> Look forward to your team hopefully solving the *gamepad problem.*
> You say this may take place in your v34.0 update.
> Any idea when (approx.) this may happen ?
> Is there a way for you and your team to inform me when this is complete ?
> Thanks.


Note: Firefox 29 ships with the Gamepad API enabled by default, as do Nightly and Aurora builds. Starting with Firefox 24, the Gamepad API was available behind a preference. You can enable it in those versions by loading about:config and setting the dom.gamepad.enabled preference to true.

https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/Gamepad

gamepad work firefox









edut: my tech friend say may not work x64 controller may not support


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Great browser, use it all the time now.

Force DX11
Use memory cache of 3GB (seems to be working from what i can tell)
Handles heaps of HD pictures - whereas the 32bit firefox cant handle it and displays a black frame.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

But just 1 thing.

Why are there features missing in HTML5test?

http://html5test.com/


----------



## bcooper21

Will there be a water fox 33.1?

Might be better to skip it and update to 34 as fast as possible since 34 is coming out Nov 24 any way.


----------



## tatianalarina

Since the update I've experienced some strange behaviour when switching between tabs - I can't make a switch or I get two or more tabs displayed at the same time, bleeding into one another. I'm not sure if I can explain it so here's a printscreen:



I don't open +500 tabs like some people here, twenty is the tops. But this happens even with very few ones. Has anyone else experienced this?


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> But just 1 thing.
> 
> Why are there features missing in HTML5test?
> 
> http://html5test.com/


probably because the underlying html code is the same as in firefox.

using firefox nightly x64









using waterfox33.0.2


----------



## Lopser

Google Maps are displayed incorrectly when they rotate.

Good:

Not good:


windows 7 ultimate sp1, intel HD Graphics 2500 (driver version 10.18.10.3621).


----------



## msuguy71

Now that is what I call continental drift!


----------



## Mr6686

Another new version of Firefox, 33.1.1, that fix a startup crash; what has Mozilla done with version 33?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bobsleigh*
> 
> I seem to be getting a lot of lockups with 33.0.2 where Waterfox will randomly freeze (goes pale with "not responding" and uses a lot of CPU) after opening a new page. I haven't managed to find a pattern but reverting to 32.0.3 seems to have fixed it for now.
> 
> PS I miss the new darker blue icon - any chance of bringing this back?


This seems to be in line with the issue Mozilla have been addressing in their numerous 33.x.x patches! Look out for 34.0 (hopefully) next week!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *w0wkin*
> 
> I have used firefox alpha builds before...but one day it is started to eat all available RAM in my PC, this is happened only when firefox is running in background for hours. I switched to waterfox some time ago, I think it was just same alpha firefox build but an earlier version, no problem with memory leak... and now, again, after updating to 33.0.2 I have this problem. I tried to report this bug to mozilla with no luck, because the 64-bit version is build only for test purposes, they mean if it builded then it's OK. The question is, is there any chances that somebody fixes this annoying bug?


64-Bit mozalloc does have some issues. Unfortunately Intel C++ compiler and jemalloc have issues but I'm working on resolving them!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well, it's expected to use a bit more memory for performance gains, just not as much as what you're experiencing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes and it should perform faster but I'm experiencing the other way around.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *w0wkin*
> 
> I have used firefox alpha builds before...but one day it is started to eat all available RAM in my PC, this is happened only when firefox is running in background for hours. I switched to waterfox some time ago, I think it was just same alpha firefox build but an earlier version, no problem with memory leak... and now, again, after updating to 33.0.2 I have this problem. I tried to report this bug to mozilla with no luck, because the 64-bit version is build only for test purposes, they mean if it builded then it's OK. The question is, is there any chances that somebody fixes this annoying bug?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> MrAlex, this is the exact same thing that's happening to me.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, I'm working my hardest to get this working!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thepersuader*
> 
> Thank you so much, MrAlex-great to get a personal reply. I'll look forward to downloading the latest in 11 days.


Great, thanks for the support!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Chazzalis666*
> 
> Good afternoon, at least it is where i am. Ever since updating waterfox to 33.0.2 i have been unable to get a connection to any page. immediately on opening up, it says "firefox is unable to establish a connection to the server. And i know there's nothing wrong with my internet or computer because just before updating i was using it and it was fine. At the least its a thorn in my spine, and i'd really appreciate some feedback and maybe a manual download of the previous version? I really dont care about new updates, the version before this one worked impeccably and i've had zero issues up til' now. Waterfox is the only browser that runs without lag for me (i dont even count to 2 until waterfox comes up, chrome takes 12 seconds, and internet explorer well over 18 seconds). Sure, the seconds dont matter, but when your wasting an afternoon on the computer i'm sure everyone would expect an immediate reaction from near every command.


Sure you can get older versions from: http://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/134906 or http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/?source=navbar

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kickmic*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Do you mean you can't set up new sync or you have a working profile with working sync and it doesn't work?
> I have it fully working in WF33.02. Tho I run agains private old version sync server. Not FF default.
> 
> 
> 
> with existing profile
> created a new profile in case the profile was the issue - same issue
> 
> im using the most recent ff sync version
> i can open the profile using firefox and sync works
Click to expand...

Hmm that shouldn't be happening at all. Nothing this article can help with? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-troubleshooting-and-tips

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> watefox get update 33.1 ?? have many fix for graphics hardware fix for window hang too please update waterfox


Mozilla are releasing WAY too many updates for me to keep up-to-date with! At the moment I'm going to focus on 34.0 which hopefully will fix all these issues!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *futer*
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Today I had several crash on Windows 7 x64.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Signature of the problem:
> Problem Event Name: APPCRASH
> Application Name: waterfox.exe
> Application Version: 33.0.2.5423
> Application Timestamp: 545be681
> The name of the module with the error: mozalloc.dll
> Version of the module with the error: 33.0.2.5423
> Timestamp module with the error: 545be3d9
> Exception code: 80000003
> Moving exception: 00000000000017a8
> Operating System Version: 6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.48
> Locale ID: 1045
> Additional Information 1: 27e6
> Additional Information 2: 27e673e7166faf1d4e58aad1b1cd60ce
> Additional Information 3: 7d46
> Additional Information 4: 7d46677037ba2bfb8862fc13cb3bf921
> 
> 
> 
> ?
> 
> Cheers
Click to expand...

I'll look into this, looks like another malloc issue.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *28rommel*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This is the current build configurations fault! Basically the Windows 8.1 SDK is needed to get gamepads to work (for Vista, 7, 8+). Unfortunately when building with ICC and VC10, even though it's configured and detects the 8.1 SDK it never actually builds with it! I've been trying to get this to work for a while but I might have figured out what's wrong. So hopefully for v34.0 we're looking at gamepad and jemalloc support
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you Mr. Alex !
> Look forward to your team hopefully solving the *gamepad problem.*
> You say this may take place in your v34.0 update.
> Any idea when (approx.) this may happen ?
> Is there a way for you and your team to inform me when this is complete ?
> Thanks.
Click to expand...

Hopefully everything will be resolved for 34.0. If things go well and I don't run into any compilation issues, that should be around the week of the 24th. You can keep an eye on the news page: https://waterfoxproject.org/development.php

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *28rommel*
> 
> Thank you Mr. Alex !
> Look forward to your team hopefully solving the *gamepad problem.*
> You say this may take place in your v34.0 update.
> Any idea when (approx.) this may happen ?
> Is there a way for you and your team to inform me when this is complete ?
> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Note: Firefox 29 ships with the Gamepad API enabled by default, as do Nightly and Aurora builds. Starting with Firefox 24, the Gamepad API was available behind a preference. You can enable it in those versions by loading about:config and setting the dom.gamepad.enabled preference to true.
> 
> https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Guide/API/Gamepad
> 
> gamepad work firefox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> edut: my tech friend say may not work x64 controller may not support
Click to expand...

I've had to disable it for the last few releases, but should be fixed soon hopefully!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Great browser, use it all the time now.
> 
> Force DX11
> Use memory cache of 3GB (seems to be working from what i can tell)
> Handles heaps of HD pictures - whereas the 32bit firefox cant handle it and displays a black frame.


Great to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> But just 1 thing.
> 
> Why are there features missing in HTML5test?
> 
> http://html5test.com/


Some things are different due to the build environment, but I'm working on getting the missing things in .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Will there be a water fox 33.1?
> 
> Might be better to skip it and update to 34 as fast as possible since 34 is coming out Nov 24 any way.


Will be skipping until Nov 24!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tatianalarina*
> 
> Since the update I've experienced some strange behaviour when switching between tabs - I can't make a switch or I get two or more tabs displayed at the same time, bleeding into one another. I'm not sure if I can explain it so here's a printscreen:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't open +500 tabs like some people here, twenty is the tops. But this happens even with very few ones. Has anyone else experienced this?


It's one of the big bugs Mozilla has with the 33.x.x release! There are too many bugs for me to keep up with this release, so going straight to 34.0.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> Google Maps are displayed incorrectly when they rotate.
> 
> Good:
> 
> Not good:
> 
> 
> windows 7 ultimate sp1, intel HD Graphics 2500 (driver version 10.18.10.3621).


I'm going to sound like a broken record, but wait until 34.0. Too many 33.x.x releases for me to keep up to date with unfortunately!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Now that is what I call continental drift!










, brilliant.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Another new version of Firefox, 33.1.1, that fix a startup crash; what has Mozilla done with version 33?


No idea but it's driving me nuts. Hard to keep up. Let's hope 34.0 isn't so...temperamental.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This seems to be in line with the issue Mozilla have been addressing in their numerous 33.x.x patches! Look out for 34.0 (hopefully) next week!
> Mozilla are releasing WAY too many updates for me to keep up-to-date with! At the moment I'm going to focus on 34.0 which hopefully will fix all these issues!
> It's one of the big bugs Mozilla has with the 33.x.x release! There are too many bugs for me to keep up with this release, so going straight to 34.0.
> I'm going to sound like a broken record, but wait until 34.0. Too many 33.x.x releases for me to keep up to date with unfortunately!


they fix many issue waterfox have NSS 3.17.2 are you update ? security ?

my tech friend say he do POC for waterfox he say add to mitre may not accept he add to forums for others but not so ethical they are


----------



## goldelmalaga

I would like to know more about Waterfox. Where is it developed?


----------



## Sybex

What happened?
got an error when updating waterfox ( auto update)
updated twice and happened both times

Are you able to reproduce this problem consistently?
havent tried to update again after the 2nd update

What steps did you take to reproduce this problem?

ran update aagain

What action did you expect to occur when this bug appeared?
for it to update

Any additional information that will help us diagnose the issue:
this is the first time waterfox has notified me an update is available, usually i have to update manually

Browser, active browser addons, and operating system:
waterfox, win 7 64bit waterfox is my default browser

URL where the issue occurs:

dont know, window popped up and i just clicked yes to update and it happened , it seemed to update and shows the correct ver number but thought it wise for you to see the error.

i am just a user so thought best to leave it to the experts, i really don't know if its significant or not.. sorry. if i am wasting your time, but love waterfox and thought it better to say something


----------



## Trommy

Sit on 32.0 version. Dont know a problems. New not equal better


----------



## vili4kata

Hello! I have a problem - when I try to install the bg.xpi add-on for Bulgarian language on Waterfox, I get a message that says that the file is corrupted. Could you help me? Thank you!


----------



## Panermk2

If you want to mess up your toolbar the use the latest update.

I HATE having the stupid address bar locked IN-PLACE and UNMOVABLE below the tabs bar in the latest Firefox update.

Which I why I don't use Firefox much. They have adopted the to heck with what people want attitude.

Now you can imagine how happy I was when the latest waterfox update did the same DAMN thing.

So for now I un-installed and am now using an older version of waterfox. Just like I was with firefox.

So then why should I use ether?

Well the search is on for a new browser.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sybex*
> 
> 
> What happened?
> got an error when updating waterfox ( auto update)
> updated twice and happened both times
> 
> Are you able to reproduce this problem consistently?
> havent tried to update again after the 2nd update
> 
> What steps did you take to reproduce this problem?
> 
> ran update aagain
> 
> What action did you expect to occur when this bug appeared?
> for it to update
> 
> Any additional information that will help us diagnose the issue:
> this is the first time waterfox has notified me an update is available, usually i have to update manually
> 
> Browser, active browser addons, and operating system:
> waterfox, win 7 64bit waterfox is my default browser
> 
> URL where the issue occurs:
> 
> dont know, window popped up and i just clicked yes to update and it happened , it seemed to update and shows the correct ver number but thought it wise for you to see the error.
> 
> i am just a user so thought best to leave it to the experts, i really don't know if its significant or not.. sorry. if i am wasting your time, but love waterfox and thought it better to say something


Interesting.

I recommend that you try downloading the full installer from the Waterfox website and installing it.
https://waterfoxproject.org/

I checked my system, and in the Waterfox directory the file libiomp5md.dll is there with a date of 11/6/14.

This is a library file for the Intel compiler that MrAlex uses when building Waterfox from the Mozilla source.

Chas


----------



## safari801

Bye.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This seems to be in line with the issue Mozilla have been addressing in their numerous 33.x.x patches! Look out for 34.0 (hopefully) next week!
> Will be skipping until Nov 24!


but *firefox 34 dec 1st ?? we get waterfox 33.1.1 ??*


----------



## kronckew

he said in the bit you quoted '34.0', implying that the 33.x.x patches would be rolled up into 34 so he doesn't need to do twice the work.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> he said in the bit you quoted '34.0', implying that the 33.x.x patches would be rolled up into 34 so he doesn't need to do twice the work.


not twice work firefox 34 not Nov 24 firefox 34 dec 1st this 2 week plent time for update fix large memory leak fix bugs fix security waterfox not safe in current state
or does alex not care user saftey ?? just skip build ??


----------



## blaze0079

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not twice work firefox 34 not Nov 24 firefox 34 dec 1st this 2 week plent time for update fix large memory leak fix bugs fix security waterfox not safe in current state
> or does alex not care user saftey ?? just skip build ??


you do realize that waterfox is freeware and its the holiday season, if you're so worried about bug fixes that you cant wait 2 weeks why not use another browser until waterfox get updated?


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blaze0079*
> 
> you do realize that waterfox is freeware and its the holiday season, if you're so worried about bug fixes that you cant wait 2 weeks why not use another browser until waterfox get updated?


more memory leaks waterfox has big security holes they be exploited but only affect waterfox 33.0.2









i tell http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6250#post_23123689 alex

i tell more http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6260#post_23133510

he see http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6270#post_23139767

but no update i try help


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not twice work firefox 34 not Nov 24 firefox 34 dec 1st this 2 week plent time for update fix large memory leak fix bugs fix security waterfox not safe in current state
> or does alex not care user saftey ?? just skip build ??


Waterfox is maintained by one person, MrAlex. He only has so much spare time and does this as a hobby, not a job.

He's seen and acknowledged your points regarding security issues, but has already said _it's unlikely that there will a Waterfox update until Firefox 34 has been released_.

In my opinion, that's fair enough - if you're going to spend your spare time doing something, you should probably make sure that it makes sense before you do it - and with the Firefox 33 branch MrAlex would have wasted a lot of his spare time if he tried to keep up with every update.

So yes, I'm sure he cares, but no, he does not have an infinite amount of spare time to dedicate to working on Waterfox.

If you have an issue with that, then I would advise you not to use Waterfox until whenever MrAlex releases version 34.

For the record, I've been using Waterfox for years and have never had any problems from potential security issues it may have had.


----------



## WetLook

malcomX

Maybe you could contact MrAlex and offer him some help!
As stated multiple time in these posts, he is mainly working on WF by himself.


----------



## kickmic

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm that shouldn't be happening at all. Nothing this article can help with? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-troubleshooting-and-tips


no, i've created new profiles etc and while the profile that syncs if i run ff, it will not sync when i run wf.
the sync button wont show activity, just does nothing - but i can close wf, open ff and sync works

clean installs, new profiles etc across devices and still no change


----------



## seti

MalcomX...Alex answered your question...I don't know if he could have been any clearer that with all the fixes that come out for Firefox between builds...Alex has decided for Waterfox to not jump and make a new build at the same pace as Firefox, so he opts to do Waterfox updates in a manner that several patches are done at once. In this instance...he will skip 33.x.x and do this with release 34. That is how it has been done for some time now as far as I know and in all this time there are very few that have had issue with this process. However, for those that can't wait or don't subscribe to Mr Alex's methods...they are free to take the source for Waterfox and go at it according to their own wishes. So feel free to go that route if Waterfox is in such a dire state in its current form that you cannot wait.

I also wanted to tip my hat to you Mr. Alex for doing such a great job at addressing so many question here on the forum. My gosh it is good to see your posts, but I feel for ya when they are a page long answering questions. However, that is the kind of person you are...helpful and devoted to Waterfox...which I know many people appreciate. Thanks for all the hard work.


----------



## AnonCoward

For a couple of months now, waterfox updater has failed for me because libiomp5md.dll is missing.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Waterfox is maintained by one person, MrAlex. He only has so much spare time and does this as a hobby, not a job.
> 
> He's seen and acknowledged your points regarding security issues, but has already said _it's unlikely that there will a Waterfox update until Firefox 34 has been released_.
> 
> In my opinion, that's fair enough - if you're going to spend your spare time doing something, you should probably make sure that it makes sense before you do it - and with the Firefox 33 branch MrAlex would have wasted a lot of his spare time if he tried to keep up with every update.
> 
> So yes, I'm sure he cares, but no, he does not have an infinite amount of spare time to dedicate to working on Waterfox.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, then I would advise you not to use Waterfox until whenever MrAlex releases version 34.
> 
> For the record, I've been using Waterfox for years and have never had any problems from potential security issues it may have had.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> malcomX
> 
> Maybe you could contact MrAlex and offer him some help!
> As stated multiple time in these posts, he is mainly working on WF by himself.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> MalcomX...Alex answered your question...I don't know if he could have been any clearer that with all the fixes that come out for Firefox between builds...Alex has decided for Waterfox to not jump and make a new build at the same pace as Firefox, so he opts to do Waterfox updates in a manner that several patches are done at once. In this instance...he will skip 33.x.x and do this with release 34. That is how it has been done for some time now as far as I know and in all this time there are very few that have had issue with this process. However, for those that can't wait or don't subscribe to Mr Alex's methods...they are free to take the source for Waterfox and go at it according to their own wishes. So feel free to go that route if Waterfox is in such a dire state in its current form that you cannot wait.
> 
> I also wanted to tip my hat to you Mr. Alex for doing such a great job at addressing so many question here on the forum. My gosh it is good to see your posts, but I feel for ya when they are a page long answering questions. However, that is the kind of person you are...helpful and devoted to Waterfox...which I know many people appreciate. Thanks for all the hard work.


when report security issue most update fix program he could warned users unsafe not let use but no

quote my tech friend

i find it rather funny when people go i have used an outdated version on XXXX product for year with no security issues, i
laugh because most of these attacks are unseen and unknown its not like an attacker wants to have big bright red warnings saying
hay i am stealing your personal data and your passwords, no they in most attacks just collect your data then store it for later, most of these
exploits are most likely to have been fixed in a newer version so when the arbitrary code is executed on an outdated browser with the current flaw
the attacker is able to steal or remote execute code on the users computer, now if they used the newer patched version when the arbitrary code is
executed the attack is null and void has no affect because the flaw was fixed.

think of your web browser as an anti-virus and the browser updates as virus definitions you don't visit websites and install software with outdated anti-virus
you could say i have been using a outdated anti-virus and never had and viruses or issues why should i update or care now, in the mean time a rat was installed
letting the attacker just take there time slowly collecting your data, you don't walk around a nuclear power station without a radiation tag or suit in the radiation areas just because
you can't see the radiation does not mean you have not been affected ?



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



most cases when using an outdated browser on the internet you have encounter one or more threats to your browser security and have lost personal
data as a result that would not have happened if running the newer version, when you look at the case studies you can see in most attacks they are automated
by scripts, bots and other means there sole purpose is to find a weak spot then exploit it, if its personal data its archived if its executed code remotely to download a
file that lays dormant until activated like a root kit you wont know as they don't want to you to know there stealing your data because you will change that information
before they can use it, when you get a letter from your financial institution saying your late on the house loan, car load and the boat loan but your thinking to your self
i don't have any of these loans right then right there you realize your computer was compromised by a Romanian hacker that stole your personal information which they
then used to create a fake identity for financial gain, most of these new age exploits are just for your personal data this information is gold and can be sole many times over
for the purpose of identity freud.

look malcom i have done my part i have emailed the developer about 11 major security issues with waterfox with the information how to produce the issues and potential fix them
i have done my part to help you out its up to the developer to fix these issues, personally i would stop using the browser as its clean the developer just mashes compiler command
together and hopes for the best with little to no regards to user safety which is outline in the emails sent clearly shown by the profile guided linking of the library's leaving undefined symbols
allowing an entry point created, i have shared these exploits to jorge and a few forum members for further analysis so they are public knowledge and if not fixed they will be exploited,
malcom in future if your not going to listen to my advisement then please don't ask for it.



he help fix waterfox i help fix but code broken outdate like browser
one for 32 https://waterfox.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#browser/config/version.txt
one for 15 http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/ci/master/tree/browser/config/version.txt
not build missing files contaminated with old files
forgive english not good i try more better


----------



## chorse

@MalcomX: I think if you want to be completely up to date with Firefox then you should stay with Firefox or Nightlies. I appreciate your concerns, but Waterfox will probably always lag Firefox. It's up to you to decide whether the delay is an acceptable risk or not. Personally I am still on waterfox v32, and will happily wait for WF 34 before I upgrade.

In reality if your connected to the Internet you are at risk, whether it's the browser, OS, or some other vulnerability. Waterfox will always lag a few weeks behind Firefox, for me that's not an issue, but I can understand if it's an issue for you. If this is the case, Waterfox is probably not the browser for you.

Just my two cents worth.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> quote my tech friend
> 
> i find it rather funny when people go i have used an outdated version on XXXX product for year with no security issues, i
> laugh because most of these attacks are unseen and unknown its not like an attacker wants to have big bright red warnings saying
> hay i am stealing your personal data and your passwords, no they in most attacks just collect your data then store it for later, most of these
> exploits are most likely to have been fixed in a newer version so when the arbitrary code is executed on an outdated browser with the current flaw
> the attacker is able to steal or remote execute code on the users computer, now if they used the newer patched version when the arbitrary code is
> executed the attack is null and void has no affect because the flaw was fixed.
> 
> think of your web browser as an anti-virus and the browser updates as virus definitions you don't visit websites and install software with outdated anti-virus
> you could say i have been using a outdated anti-virus and never had and viruses or issues why should i update or care now, in the mean time a rat was installed
> letting the attacker just take there time slowly collecting your data, you don't walk around a nuclear power station without a radiation tag or suit in the radiation areas just because
> you can't see the radiation does not mean you have not been affected ?


I find it funny when people like 'your friend' make generalised comments without taking into consideration things like the fact that someone may be running their browser in a sandbox, that people wouldn't know how to check if a RAT etc. had been installed on their PC and so on.

Not to mention that I highly doubt Waterfox is anywhere near popular enough to be targeted for exploits on a big scale. People would be much better of trying to find vulnerabilities that have been present in Windows for years. Or a vulnerability in Firefox (and therefore Waterfox) so that it can be exploited on a much wider scale.

Any PC connected to the internet is at risk, full stop. There are things that can make it less at risk, or more at risk, but if you want to use the internet it's the game you play assuming that it can't be compromised in some way is idiotic. All you need is one 0-day exploit to come along.

Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you're taking the time to report security issues. I just wanted to point out the above.


----------



## Sempre

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Now that is what I call continental drift!










nice one


----------



## malcomX

false
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> I find it funny when people like 'your friend' make generalised comments without taking into consideration things like the fact that someone may be running their browser in a sandbox, that people wouldn't know how to check if a RAT etc. had been installed on their PC and so on.
> 
> Not to mention that I highly doubt Waterfox is anywhere near popular enough to be targeted for exploits on a big scale. People would be much better of trying to find vulnerabilities that have been present in Windows for years. Or a vulnerability in Firefox (and therefore Waterfox) so that it can be exploited on a much wider scale.
> 
> Any PC connected to the internet is at risk, full stop. There are things that can make it less at risk, or more at risk, but if you want to use the internet it's the game you play assuming that it can't be compromised in some way is idiotic. All you need is one 0-day exploit to come along.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you're taking the time to report security issues. I just wanted to point out the above.


ask my tech friend i did

when sandboxing a web browser they are never meant to run on a system without patches, browser update, firewalls, or anti-virus software.
the sandbox phad simply adds another layer of protection and has never been claimed to be full-proof, but could improve security of a fully patched system with all patches
applied including the sandbox web browser .

think of a virtual sandbox as a fish tank with no lids, fish have tendency to jump out and flip flop on the floor no ?

waterfox was brought to my attention by malcom which has been around for a few year now no, with claims of over 3 millions download this would appear popular no.
for 10 years i have worked as a security advisor i have not seen many programs, website and other at some stage in there cycle not have had or have been a target in
one form or another, take xxxx program has 1000 users the program gets weather updates then shows as a desktop widget someone decides to make a program that changes
the check for weather updates to download a password stealer but makes it self replicate and send its self to everyone in the infected users email list just because that someone could,
take someone decides to take everyones personal and credit card information from apples server just because someone could, it matters not the size or popularity of the website, company, program.

malcom recap on previous words i am not a person in the middle any more questions asked will result in no reply, its clear your not listening, unless you have questions not relating to the browser then
please not pm me.

he say sandbox not full safe


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> he say sandbox not full safe


I never said it was, and you missed the point of my post - which was that any device connected to the internet should not be assumed to be 'safe', but never mind.

Sure, you can make things more (using anti-virus & anti-spyware software, sandboxes, keeping all software up to date, etc.) or less safe, but assuming you're safe even if you do everything you can is just stupid, it only takes one exploit that hasn't been detected to compromise a system.

---

On topic, I'm looking forward to seeing Waterfox 34 when it's released soon


----------



## Wixels

Hi guys, I'm new to this forum.
I've been using Waterfox for a couple of months now but I've had an issue with youtube videos since I installed it.
When watching youtube videos in HTML5 there are a lot of issues for me. Some of them work fine but especially the ones that use webm/VP9 codec have problems.
When skipping forward or back in the video the player just keeps loading or the video gets distorted (like with an unsupported codec) and I can only hear the sound. Sometimes waterfox just closes during the playback of the video.
It seems I only have this issue on youtube but no other video sites(maybe other codecs on other sites?). Videos that use adobe flash don't have issues.
When using chrome there are also no issues.

I've tried reinstalling waterfox and launching in safe-mode but the issue persists.

I'm running Windows7 64-bit.

Is there anything else I can try? Do you need some logs to analyse?

Thanks in advance


----------



## bcooper21

Firefox 34 is out now. Like the new search alot easy to use and gives you all choices as you search.

I heard firefox is switching to yahoo soon so its good you can easily switch back to google...


----------



## bcooper21

Also heads up that firefox 35 will be using MSE enabled by default. Alot of people seem against this but at same time alot people are complaining that firefox does not have 60 fps playable on twitch.tv and youtube with this it will out of the gate from now on.


----------



## WindowsTech

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wixels*
> 
> Hi guys, I'm new to this forum.
> I've been using Waterfox for a couple of months now but I've had an issue with youtube videos since I installed it.
> When watching youtube videos in HTML5 there are a lot of issues for me. Some of them work fine but especially the ones that use webm/VP9 codec have problems.
> When skipping forward or back in the video the player just keeps loading or the video gets distorted (like with an unsupported codec) and I can only hear the sound. Sometimes waterfox just closes during the playback of the video.
> It seems I only have this issue on youtube but no other video sites(maybe other codecs on other sites?). Videos that use adobe flash don't have issues.
> When using chrome there are also no issues.
> 
> I've tried reinstalling waterfox and launching in safe-mode but the issue persists.
> 
> I'm running Windows7 64-bit.
> 
> Is there anything else I can try? Do you need some logs to analyse?
> 
> Thanks in advance


I was having the same problems and upgrading and downgrading Waterfox didn't help so I ditched it for PaleMoon now all is good and no need for Classic Theme Restorer


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WindowsTech*
> 
> I was having the same problems and upgrading and downgrading Waterfox didn't help so I ditched it for PaleMoon now all is good and no need for Classic Theme Restorer


Palemoon has problems of its own, compatibility being biggest one. Most of the addons i use did not work on it at all then there is fact alot sites are not working correctly even with Firefox compatibility mode. I rather just use classic theme restorer then i have 0 issues.


----------



## WindowsTech

Well my addons are working and I'm having none of the issues that Water has and I'm having no problems at all.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WindowsTech*
> 
> Well my addons are working and I'm having none of the issues that Water has and I'm having no problems at all.


Depends what addons you use alot of ones i use dont work. Reddit enhancement suite, Adblock plus, Google privacy, Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon, Element Hiding Helper for Adblock Plus, Zenmate.


----------



## WindowsTech

Adblock plus, Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon are working for me. I was having problems with pages not being displayed properly, slow loading and 50% of youtube vids would not playing more than 3min. Now all is working and it's faster as well. I will continue to use it until I have probs and then go back to Waterfox.


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Firefox 34 is out now. Like the new search alot easy to use and gives you all choices as you search.
> 
> I heard firefox is switching to yahoo soon so its good you can easily switch back to google...


Hi bcooper21,
FireFox 34 has not been released to the Download channels. Nor can it be downloaded via the Web-site.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi bcooper21,
> FireFox 34 has not been released to the Download channels. Nor can it be downloaded via the Web-site.


I should have been clear the final relase is on the beta channel.

Because i was firefox 34 beta 11 now im Firefox 34.0 stable. Seems like final so it should be up very soon i would think and 35 on beta with MSE and 60fps playback.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *WindowsTech*
> 
> I was having the same problems and upgrading and downgrading Waterfox didn't help so I ditched it for PaleMoon now all is good and no need for Classic Theme Restorer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palemoon has problems of its own, compatibility being biggest one. Most of the addons i use did not work on it at all then there is fact alot sites are not working correctly even with Firefox compatibility mode. I rather just use classic theme restorer then i have 0 issues.
Click to expand...

Stay with 24.7 of Pale Moon; that still has the Firefox GUID in it and will work with all add-ons. Once MoonChild sorts out the issues, you can upgrade to the latest version.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Stay with 24.7 of Pale Moon; that still has the Firefox GUID in it and will work with all add-ons. Once MoonChild sorts out the issues, you can upgrade to the latest version.


Well im not sure if there's much they can do any way its pretty much up to developers of addons now. Palemoon is quite different than firefox now so all new addons will need to be made or ported over.

I already asked a few dev's of addons i use and they said they dont have time to put it on palemoon and its to small of a userbase to be worth it.

I did try rolling back to 24.7 and few addons said im using to old of a version of firefox.


----------



## RSB965

Hi new on forum but i follow waterfox i think for beginning...
Problem is crash on *html5test* or for example *google maps*...(works on firefox nightly 64)
is it any solution or rollback waterfox or wait for new release...
i didn`t find solution read this forum constantly (my english is not good enough) + dont understand some programers+internet+web stuff works..
Thanks advance...


----------



## futer

Hello,
After changing youtube to html5 player I don't have sound after some seconds of movie so I had to change it to classical flash again.


----------



## Screemer

Hi guys and especially MrAlex..

Any news on release of v34?
Think I read a while back that it was expected week of 24:th.. That week is at it's end now.









Also will v34 solve HTML5 probs and other weird probs ppl have been reporting lately

Not trying to stress you Alex but I really am looking forward to v34.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hi guys and especially MrAlex..
> 
> Any news on release of v34?
> Think I read a while back that it was expected week of 24:th.. That week is at it's end now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also will v34 solve HTML5 probs and other weird probs ppl have been reporting lately
> 
> Not trying to stress you Alex but I really am looking forward to v34.


Its any day according to this site Dec 1.

Im looking forward to this update i kinda like the one click search. Then in next update there is 60fps video playback.

https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Its any day according to this site Dec 1.
> 
> Im looking forward to this update i kinda like the one click search. Then in next update there is 60fps video playback.
> 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar


Hmm, I was kind of interested in release of Waterfox v34 not Firefox v34.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hmm, I was kind of interested in release of Waterfox v34 not Firefox v34.


If your interested in Waterfox you best know when firefox is coming out since there one in the same. He obviously cant make waterfox 34 without firefox 34 out.


----------



## malcomX

not wait no more use cyberfox now default cyberfox 34.0 out now


----------



## Screemer

Hmm
ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/34.0.5/win32/

Seems to me v34.0.5 i out.. Even tho it's not on their official site.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not wait no more use cyberfox now default cyberfox 34.0 out now


Yes cyberfox is always updated sooner its done by alot more people.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Yes cyberfox is always updated sooner its done by alot more people.


only one developer


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> only one developer


There there site is very confusing 8pecxstudios sort of implies there is more than one person doing everything.

Then in contact info it uses words like Where are we..and Our implying more than one and a team of people.


----------



## Marctraider

Great job on waterfox!

Im a big fervant of using intel compiler myself, and all the performance improvements that can come with it.

just curious what optimizations have all been used/applied?

and is there a source code from waterfox so i could attempt my own compilation?


----------



## JRNoob

I really really need help here. i like waterfox and prefer it over chrome and internet explrr. so i have this really irratating search.us.com spamming virus crap that i cant get rid of, i hav tried everything. its gone from my chrome and internet explrr, but not waterfox. like i said i like waterfox and want to keep using it. theres like almost no help, i dono who to even ask.


----------



## blackps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JRNoob*
> 
> I really really need help here. i like waterfox and prefer it over chrome and internet explrr. so i have this really irratating search.us.com spamming virus crap that i cant get rid of, i hav tried everything. its gone from my chrome and internet explrr, but not waterfox. like i said i like waterfox and want to keep using it. theres like almost no help, i dono who to even ask.


Use Malwarebytes Anti-Malware


----------



## AnonCoward

Updater.exe failed once again. I bet this would be quite simple to fix.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> he help fix waterfox i help fix but code broken outdate like browser
> one for 32 https://waterfox.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#browser/config/version.txt
> one for 15 http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/ci/master/tree/browser/config/version.txt
> not build missing files contaminated with old files
> forgive english not good i try more better


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marctraider*
> 
> Great job on waterfox!
> 
> Im a big fervant of using intel compiler myself, and all the performance improvements that can come with it.
> 
> just curious what optimizations have all been used/applied?
> 
> and is there a source code from waterfox so i could attempt my own compilation?


link there to code but code mix of many files from other version mixed breaks code not build code outdated
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Its any day according to this site Dec 1.
> 
> Im looking forward to this update i kinda like the one click search. Then in next update there is 60fps video playback.
> 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar


i see 60fps in 33 now 34 openh264









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> Updater.exe failed once again. I bet this would be quite simple to fix.


Updater.exe never work broken always

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Updater.exe never work broken always


What should we do to update our browsers, if the auto-update doesn't work?


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> Updater.exe failed once again. I bet this would be quite simple to fix.


Updater.exe never work broken always


----------



## GTO66

I don't really see the use for waterfox anymore now that Mozilla has brought back the 64bit version with their nightly releases.

https://nightly.mozilla.org/


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> Updater.exe failed once again. I bet this would be quite simple to fix.


I'm not sure why you don't have that DLL file, it's in my Waterfox install directory dated 06/11/2014. Did you download a portable version by any chance? It's possible that version doesn't include the required Intel redistributable libraries for that to work.

If that's the case, you can just download the libraries directly from Intel here & install them (I've linked to the version used for Waterfox version 33.0.2).

Having said that, I've never bothered using the Waterfox updater, I just check back every now and then to see if there's been a new release or not.

---
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not wait no more use cyberfox now default cyberfox 34.0 out now


Last time I used Cyberfox it had a ton of issues and I ended up having to manually go through my registry to fix all the problems it caused and a ton of sites would not render correctly, after those monumental muckups, I lost any confidence I had in the developer and I don't ever plan to use it again.

---

Personally, I'm looking forward to the official stable Firefox 64bit Windows release starting with Firefox 37, considering it's been 64bit on Mac & Linux for ages now it seems long overdue.


----------



## AnonCoward

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> I'm not sure why you don't have that DLL file, it's in my Waterfox install directory dated 06/11/2014. Did you download a portable version by any chance? It's possible that version doesn't include the required Intel redistributable libraries for that to work.


It's not the portable version. It was working for a while, I think, and then suddenly stopped. Checking the folder, I have one libiomp5md.dll but the date is 12/10/2014 (I'm guessing the second number is the month in your format, dates look different around here) so an older version apparently.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> It's not the portable version. It was working for a while, I think, and then suddenly stopped. Checking the folder, I have one libiomp5md.dll but the date is 12/10/2014 (I'm guessing the second number is the month in your format, dates look different around here) so an older version apparently.


Interesting, you're correct about the date format - it's from 6th November 2014 - if you view file properties, then click the details tab it's version 5.0.2014.401 for my copy of Waterfox.

I just tried running updater.exe, it did nothing (I'm assuming because there's no update available), but I certainly didn't get any DLL errors, so I'm guessing somehow you've ended up with outdated DLLs in your install directory.

I'd be tempted download the Waterfox 33.0.2 installer again and re-run it, you won't loose any settings etc. and hopefully that should overwrite any outdated files. (Make sure to quit waterfox before installing if you do go that route, else the installer won't be able to overwrite the files). Alternatively I believe the Intel redistributable libraries link I provided should also fix the issue (unless the older dll in the installation directory ends up taking priority over a version installed elsewhere, which is possible).


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Last time I used Cyberfox it had a ton of issues and I ended up having to manually go through my registry to fix all the problems it caused and a ton of sites would not render correctly, after those monumental muckups, I lost any confidence I had in the developer and I don't ever plan to use it again.


never had issue only make same entry in registry as firefox CyberfoxURL CyberfoxHTML FirerfoxURL FirefoxHTML mozilla folder 8pecxstudios folder no other entry found








they must be user error

any news on security fix alex for memory leaks


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> never had issue only make same entry in registry as firefox CyberfoxURL CyberfoxHTML FirerfoxURL FirefoxHTML mozilla folder 8pecxstudios folder no other entry found
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> they must be user error


No, it was when Cyberfox first came out. The developer clearly did not know what they were doing and it created a load of registry entries that it should not have and the uninstaller provided did not remove them. It also used a non-default user agent string which broke many websites.

Just because you've not had a problem, doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't exist, please don't talk about things you clearly have no idea about, as all it does is make you look very stupid.









Anyway, this topic is not for talking about competing browsers, that should be done on their respective forums, not here so let's get back on topic...
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> any news on security fix alex for memory leaks


When there is, I'm sure MrAlex will post here. Most likely with a new version of Waterfox to download.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> No, it was when Cyberfox first came out. The developer clearly did not know what they were doing and it created a load of registry entries that it should not have and the uninstaller provided did not remove them. It also used a non-default user agent string which broke many websites.
> 
> Just because you've not had a problem, doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't exist, please don't talk about things you clearly have no idea about, as all it does is make you look very stupid.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, this topic is not for talking about competing browsers, that should be done on their respective forums, not here so let's get back on topic...
> When there is, I'm sure MrAlex will post here. Most likely with a new version of Waterfox to download.


i use since first cyberfox http://virtualcustoms.net/showthread.php/48631-Cyberfox-x64-bit-version-of-Firefox i know i follow long time like waterfox
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Anyway, this topic is not for talking about competing browsers, that should be done on their respective forums, not here so let's get back on topic...
> When there is, I'm sure MrAlex will post here. Most likely with a new version of Waterfox to download.


yes agree hope waterfox 34 fix major security issues eta on 34


----------



## blackshap9

I have been a supporter of firefox before it was even named firefox. I have also been an early adopter of the waterfox project and have been a loyal user even through the almost 2 year hiatus of updates. However, ever since joining mozilla this browser has really been in the dumps. It is so slow that ironically I am using palemoon to post this here.

I am having difficulty coming to terms with inability of waterfox to perform basic browsing. If the project can't keep up with mozzila's release schedule then it needs to open the project up or ask mozzila for help. Otherwise it shoiuld think about a *conscious uncoupling*.

Going from a stable updated waterfox to a browser that is simply unusable should *never* happen period.


----------



## msuguy71

I am using the latest Waterfox and it is not slow. Maybe you have a bad install.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> I have been a supporter of firefox before it was even named firefox. I have also been an early adopter of the waterfox project and have been a loyal user even through the almost 2 year hiatus of updates. However, ever since joining mozilla this browser has really been in the dumps. It is so slow that ironically I am using palemoon to post this here.


----------



## blackshap9

Bad install? I never heard of that in a browser before but ok . But it is running sloppy on 2 separate computers that have nothing to do with each other and are never connected to each other n any way. My gaming rig and my work laptop. Granted one is slower than the other but tabs should open super quick on my gaming rig where it is installed on my ssd drive. Specs in my signature and my work laptop is only 3 years old albeit it is only a HP Pavilion g series, 64 bit, win7 and compared to what is being built nowadays it could be considered last generation stuff inside but for email, basic browsing, linkedin, twitter the browser is just not performing very well at all whereas my palemoon browser which I installed at the beginning of the summer as a backup browser is super fast. I am going to install the nightly 64bit firefox and start trying other 64bit browsers and I also will try to reinstall this thing. I am at that point of no return and it has happened a few times since the merge.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> But it is running sloppy on 2 separate computers that have nothing to do with each other and are never connected to each other n any way. My gaming rig and my work laptop. Granted one is slower than the other but tabs should open super quick on my gaming rig where it is installed on my ssd drive. Specs in my signature and my work laptop is only 3 years old albeit it is only a HP Pavilion g series, 64 bit, win7 and compared to what is being built nowadays it could be considered last generation stuff inside but for email, basic browsing, linkedin, twitter the browser is just not performing very well at all whereas my palemoon browser which I installed at the beginning of the summer as a backup browser is super fast. I am going to install the nightly 64bit firefox and start trying other 64bit browsers and I also will try to reinstall this thing. I am at that point of no return and it has happened a few times since the merge.


It's more than possible that your Waterfox/Firefox profile has become bloated which can definitely cause slowdowns - personally I've only ever once had Waterfox be slower than Firefox which wasn't caused by a profile issue and that was with a dodgy recent build (32.0.x if I recall correctly), the one before it and 33.0.2 are/were definitely faster than Firefox for me.

If that were the case, then Palemoon being faster would be a likely scenario, considering Palemoon uses a different profile and therefore would not have the same problem.

There's a new profile how-to here, though obviously you'll need to specify waterfox.exe and C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe instead of firefox.exe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe as needed.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Honestly, I blame the Firefox fast-release cycle for MrAlex's Waterfox problems. There just isn't enough time to get in good beta testing and shakedowns of a program being compiled with a non-default memory allocator and extreme optimizations when the bugfix decimal-point releases come almost as fast as the initial testing gets done.

I would suggest "freezing" the compilation mechanism at each major number increment and using the same compiler settings for the minor decimal point security fixes unless there is a pressing reason to change the compiler's behavior and subsequent exhaustive retesting.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Honestly, I blame the Firefox fast-release cycle for MrAlex's Waterfox problems. There just isn't enough time to get in good beta testing and shakedowns of a program being compiled with a non-default memory allocator and extreme optimizations when the bugfix decimal-point releases come almost as fast as the initial testing gets done.
> 
> I would suggest "freezing" the compilation mechanism at each major number increment and using the same compiler settings for the minor decimal point security fixes unless there is a pressing reason to change the compiler's behavior and subsequent exhaustive retesting.


Cyberfox has there updates day of or day or so after and they have little to no bugs at all. I had less bugs with it in fact that waterfox.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Cyberfox has there updates day of or day or so after and they have little to no bugs at all. I had less bugs with it in fact that waterfox.


same day firefox or before release they fast







like 12 types builds

how waterfox 34.0 word alex from


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> how waterfox 34.0 word alex from


Whenever it's done. Asking MrAlex for updates every few days isn't going to make it happen any faster.


----------



## blackshap9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> It's more than possible that your Waterfox/Firefox profile has become bloated which can definitely cause slowdowns - personally I've only ever once had Waterfox be slower than Firefox which wasn't caused by a profile issue and that was with a dodgy recent build (32.0.x if I recall correctly), the one before it and 33.0.2 are/were definitely faster than Firefox for me.
> 
> If that were the case, then Palemoon being faster would be a likely scenario, considering Palemoon uses a different profile and therefore would not have the same problem.
> 
> There's a new profile how-to here, though obviously you'll need to specify waterfox.exe and C:\Program Files\Waterfox\waterfox.exe instead of firefox.exe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe as needed.


Ok Thanks much much







I'll give that a try because the the 3 other browsers are all working great.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Honestly, I blame the Firefox fast-release cycle for MrAlex's Waterfox problems. There just isn't enough time to get in good beta testing and shakedowns of a program being compiled with a non-default memory allocator and extreme optimizations when the bugfix decimal-point releases come almost as fast as the initial testing gets done.
> 
> I would suggest "freezing" the compilation mechanism at each major number increment and using the same compiler settings for the minor decimal point security fixes unless there is a pressing reason to change the compiler's behavior and subsequent exhaustive retesting.


Yes, in my op I did speculate that Mozilla's release cycle could be to blame. I hope Mr. Alex is making good coin for these his headaches. How can one person keep up with Mozilla's release cycle and then my question is; is he obligated to do so?


----------



## RevZ

MrAlex, I'm using 33.0.2 and still get crashes on any page that uses WebGL. New profile does not help. Is there still an ongoing issue?


----------



## AnonCoward

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> I'd be tempted download the Waterfox 33.0.2 installer again and re-run it, you won't loose any settings etc. and hopefully that should overwrite any outdated files. (Make sure to quit waterfox before installing if you do go that route, else the installer won't be able to overwrite the files).


The installer did indeed replace the dll with the one you had, and I'd expect updater.exe to work once again. It's still strange how I ended up with a wrong version. I don't remember doing anything fancy with my installation, just getting the usual updates. I hope the problem doesn't resurface.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Whenever it's done. Asking MrAlex for updates every few days isn't going to make it happen any faster.


he on here all time last 4 hour not stop write 30 second post working on 34 or any sign happen something surely not take to time make post








a hello nice would be


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> The installer did indeed replace the dll with the one you had, and I'd expect updater.exe to work once again. It's still strange how I ended up with a wrong version. I don't remember doing anything fancy with my installation, just getting the usual updates. I hope the problem doesn't resurface.


Glad to hear that sorted you out








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> he on here all time last 4 hour not stop write 30 second post working on 34 or any sign happen something surely not take to time make post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> a hello nice would be


In the past MrAlex hasn't tended to give updates much unless there's a major problem that he wants to let us know about, generally he'll just post a test build when it's done.

Personally I doubt I'm going to be using Waterfox much more now anyway, because with today's release of Firefox Developer Edition (which is what I use on my Mac at work), they released a 64bit Windows version (firefox-36.0a2.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe).

For those of you that don't know what Firefox Developer Edition is, it's an official Firefox release based on the Aurora channel (which is in between the Nightly and Beta releases). So likely to be more stable than Nightly, but less stable than a beta - plus some added features useful for us web-developers. Personally, I haven't had any major issues with it.


----------



## Screemer

An interested question tho is...
Will Mozilla x64 version contain the customations that MrAlex has done to better performance like in Waterfox?
If not I think some of us will continue to wait for MrAlex superb bulds.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Glad to hear that sorted you out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the past MrAlex hasn't tended to give updates much unless there's a major problem that he wants to let us know about, generally he'll just post a test build when it's done.
> 
> Personally I doubt I'm going to be using Waterfox much more now anyway, because with today's release of Firefox Developer Edition (which is what I use on my Mac at work), they released a 64bit Windows version (firefox-36.0a2.en-US.win64-x86_64.installer.exe).
> 
> For those of you that don't know what Firefox Developer Edition is, it's an official Firefox release based on the Aurora channel (which is in between the Nightly and Beta releases). So likely to be more stable than Nightly, but less stable than a beta - plus some added features useful for us web-developers. Personally, I haven't had any major issues with it.


dev editon for test tools with more tracking by mozilla try cyberfox you must

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> An interested question tho is...
> Will Mozilla x64 version contain the customations that MrAlex has done to better performance like in Waterfox?
> If not I think some of us will continue to wait for MrAlex superb bulds.


firefox 35 out soon alex skip 34 i feel


----------



## MrAlex

Hi all!

There have been a flood of posts recently that I'll be replying to soon. Apologies for being so inactive, I had assignments due the last week for uni so I've been working and handing those in, but since that's done I'm working on Waterfox again! Early next week the release should be ready.

Will keep you all update on everything









Alex


----------



## MrAlex

For anyone who doesn't want to read through this big reply, go to the bottom of the reply and see my opinions on a certain topic. It's the big block of text. Please note they're just my opinions and I could be very wrong, but I like being very open with everyone who uses Waterfox, since it means so much to me!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *goldelmalaga*
> 
> I would like to know more about Waterfox. Where is it developed?


Developed by a final year university student. Started when I was 16 and had a break for a few months last year, but it's become pretty much full time now. Come next March it'll be 4 years that I've been working on Waterfox. It started first as just a straight 64-Bit recompilation of Firefox, but that wasn't good enough. So I've spend so many hours making it possible to compile Firefox with Intel's C++ compiler, which brought fantastic performance improvements to Waterfox. AMD systems benefit as well!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sybex*
> 
> 
> What happened?
> got an error when updating waterfox ( auto update)
> updated twice and happened both times
> 
> Are you able to reproduce this problem consistently?
> havent tried to update again after the 2nd update
> 
> What steps did you take to reproduce this problem?
> 
> ran update aagain
> What action did you expect to occur when this bug appeared?
> for it to update
> 
> Any additional information that will help us diagnose the issue:
> this is the first time waterfox has notified me an update is available, usually i have to update manually
> 
> Browser, active browser addons, and operating system:
> waterfox, win 7 64bit waterfox is my default browser
> 
> URL where the issue occurs:
> 
> dont know, window popped up and i just clicked yes to update and it happened , it seemed to update and shows the correct ver number but thought it wise for you to see the error.
> 
> i am just a user so thought best to leave it to the experts, i really don't know if its significant or not.. sorry. if i am wasting your time, but love waterfox and thought it better to say something


I've seen this pop up a few times, it doesn't affect anything but it's annoying and I'm trying to get rid of it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Trommy*
> 
> Sit on 32.0 version. Dont know a problems. New not equal better


That's fair enough. 34.0 bring in a better memory allocator though, so you might want to update for security.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *vili4kata*
> 
> Hello! I have a problem - when I try to install the bg.xpi add-on for Bulgarian language on Waterfox, I get a message that says that the file is corrupted. Could you help me? Thank you!


Strange, always get issues with that language pack! I'll look into it .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panermk2*
> 
> If you want to mess up your toolbar the use the latest update.
> 
> I HATE having the stupid address bar locked IN-PLACE and UNMOVABLE below the tabs bar in the latest Firefox update.
> 
> Which I why I don't use Firefox much. They have adopted the to heck with what people want attitude.
> 
> Now you can imagine how happy I was when the latest waterfox update did the same DAMN thing.
> 
> So for now I un-installed and am now using an older version of waterfox. Just like I was with firefox.
> 
> So then why should I use ether?
> 
> Well the search is on for a new browser.


Sorry about that, but I don't mess around with any of the UI stuff. Waterfox is meant to be a seamless alternative to Firefox, but faster.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Sybex*
> 
> 
> What happened?
> got an error when updating waterfox ( auto update)
> updated twice and happened both times
> 
> Are you able to reproduce this problem consistently?
> havent tried to update again after the 2nd update
> 
> What steps did you take to reproduce this problem?
> 
> ran update aagain
> What action did you expect to occur when this bug appeared?
> for it to update
> 
> Any additional information that will help us diagnose the issue:
> this is the first time waterfox has notified me an update is available, usually i have to update manually
> 
> Browser, active browser addons, and operating system:
> waterfox, win 7 64bit waterfox is my default browser
> 
> URL where the issue occurs:
> 
> dont know, window popped up and i just clicked yes to update and it happened , it seemed to update and shows the correct ver number but thought it wise for you to see the error.
> 
> i am just a user so thought best to leave it to the experts, i really don't know if its significant or not.. sorry. if i am wasting your time, but love waterfox and thought it better to say something
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Interesting.
> 
> I recommend that you try downloading the full installer from the Waterfox website and installing it.
> https://waterfoxproject.org/
> 
> I checked my system, and in the Waterfox directory the file libiomp5md.dll is there with a date of 11/6/14.
> 
> This is a library file for the Intel compiler that MrAlex uses when building Waterfox from the Mozilla source.
> 
> Chas
Click to expand...

Thanks for helping, seems this is a prevalent issue that I need to get resolved!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This seems to be in line with the issue Mozilla have been addressing in their numerous 33.x.x patches! Look out for 34.0 (hopefully) next week!
> Will be skipping until Nov 24!
> 
> 
> 
> but *firefox 34 dec 1st ?? we get waterfox 33.1.1 ??*
Click to expand...

Builds are ready, testing everything and the likes!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> he said in the bit you quoted '34.0', implying that the 33.x.x patches would be rolled up into 34 so he doesn't need to do twice the work.


Yep, pretty much!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> he said in the bit you quoted '34.0', implying that the 33.x.x patches would be rolled up into 34 so he doesn't need to do twice the work.
> 
> 
> 
> not twice work firefox 34 not Nov 24 firefox 34 dec 1st this 2 week plent time for update fix large memory leak fix bugs fix security waterfox not safe in current state
> or does alex not care user saftey ?? just skip build ??
Click to expand...

Of course I do! 34.0 is cleaning up a lot of these issues.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *blaze0079*
> 
> you do realize that waterfox is freeware and its the holiday season, if you're so worried about bug fixes that you cant wait 2 weeks why not use another browser until waterfox get updated?
> 
> 
> 
> more memory leaks waterfox has big security holes they be exploited but only affect waterfox 33.0.2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i tell http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6250#post_23123689 alex
> 
> i tell more http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6260#post_23133510
> 
> he see http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6270#post_23139767
> 
> but no update i try help
Click to expand...

Don't worry I saw and am grateful. Fixes aren't always straightforward though!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not twice work firefox 34 not Nov 24 firefox 34 dec 1st this 2 week plent time for update fix large memory leak fix bugs fix security waterfox not safe in current state
> or does alex not care user saftey ?? just skip build ??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Waterfox is maintained by one person, MrAlex. He only has so much spare time and does this as a hobby, not a job.
> 
> He's seen and acknowledged your points regarding security issues, but has already said it's unlikely that there will a Waterfox update until Firefox 34 has been released.
> 
> In my opinion, that's fair enough - if you're going to spend your spare time doing something, you should probably make sure that it makes sense before you do it - and with the Firefox 33 branch MrAlex would have wasted a lot of his spare time if he tried to keep up with every update.
> 
> So yes, I'm sure he cares, but no, he does not have an infinite amount of spare time to dedicate to working on Waterfox.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, then I would advise you not to use Waterfox until whenever MrAlex releases version 34.
> 
> For the record, I've been using Waterfox for years and have never had any problems from potential security issues it may have had.
Click to expand...

This is it essentially, thanks for your support.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> malcomX
> 
> Maybe you could contact MrAlex and offer him some help!
> As stated multiple time in these posts, he is mainly working on WF by himself.


Don't worry I can understand the frustration users feel! I try my best though.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kickmic*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm that shouldn't be happening at all. Nothing this article can help with? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-sync-troubleshooting-and-tips
> 
> 
> 
> no, i've created new profiles etc and while the profile that syncs if i run ff, it will not sync when i run wf.
> the sync button wont show activity, just does nothing - but i can close wf, open ff and sync works
> 
> clean installs, new profiles etc across devices and still no change
Click to expand...

Hmm, this isn't acceptable. I'll see if I can create some test cases, then get back to you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> MalcomX...Alex answered your question...I don't know if he could have been any clearer that with all the fixes that come out for Firefox between builds...Alex has decided for Waterfox to not jump and make a new build at the same pace as Firefox, so he opts to do Waterfox updates in a manner that several patches are done at once. In this instance...he will skip 33.x.x and do this with release 34. That is how it has been done for some time now as far as I know and in all this time there are very few that have had issue with this process. However, for those that can't wait or don't subscribe to Mr Alex's methods...they are free to take the source for Waterfox and go at it according to their own wishes. So feel free to go that route if Waterfox is in such a dire state in its current form that you cannot wait.
> 
> I also wanted to tip my hat to you Mr. Alex for doing such a great job at addressing so many question here on the forum. My gosh it is good to see your posts, but I feel for ya when they are a page long answering questions. However, that is the kind of person you are...helpful and devoted to Waterfox...which I know many people appreciate. Thanks for all the hard work.


Thanks for the support seti, it's greatly appreciated!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> For a couple of months now, waterfox updater has failed for me because libiomp5md.dll is missing.


Ignoring the silent updater, does the Menu>About updater not do it's job? If so let me know, that shouldn't be happening!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Waterfox is maintained by one person, MrAlex. He only has so much spare time and does this as a hobby, not a job.
> 
> He's seen and acknowledged your points regarding security issues, but has already said it's unlikely that there will a Waterfox update until Firefox 34 has been released.
> 
> In my opinion, that's fair enough - if you're going to spend your spare time doing something, you should probably make sure that it makes sense before you do it - and with the Firefox 33 branch MrAlex would have wasted a lot of his spare time if he tried to keep up with every update.
> 
> So yes, I'm sure he cares, but no, he does not have an infinite amount of spare time to dedicate to working on Waterfox.
> 
> If you have an issue with that, then I would advise you not to use Waterfox until whenever MrAlex releases version 34.
> 
> For the record, I've been using Waterfox for years and have never had any problems from potential security issues it may have had.
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> malcomX
> 
> Maybe you could contact MrAlex and offer him some help!
> As stated multiple time in these posts, he is mainly working on WF by himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> MalcomX...Alex answered your question...I don't know if he could have been any clearer that with all the fixes that come out for Firefox between builds...Alex has decided for Waterfox to not jump and make a new build at the same pace as Firefox, so he opts to do Waterfox updates in a manner that several patches are done at once. In this instance...he will skip 33.x.x and do this with release 34. That is how it has been done for some time now as far as I know and in all this time there are very few that have had issue with this process. However, for those that can't wait or don't subscribe to Mr Alex's methods...they are free to take the source for Waterfox and go at it according to their own wishes. So feel free to go that route if Waterfox is in such a dire state in its current form that you cannot wait.
> 
> I also wanted to tip my hat to you Mr. Alex for doing such a great job at addressing so many question here on the forum. My gosh it is good to see your posts, but I feel for ya when they are a page long answering questions. However, that is the kind of person you are...helpful and devoted to Waterfox...which I know many people appreciate. Thanks for all the hard work.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> when report security issue most update fix program he could warned users unsafe not let use but no
> 
> quote my tech friend
> 
> i find it rather funny when people go i have used an outdated version on XXXX product for year with no security issues, i
> laugh because most of these attacks are unseen and unknown its not like an attacker wants to have big bright red warnings saying
> hay i am stealing your personal data and your passwords, no they in most attacks just collect your data then store it for later, most of these
> exploits are most likely to have been fixed in a newer version so when the arbitrary code is executed on an outdated browser with the current flaw
> the attacker is able to steal or remote execute code on the users computer, now if they used the newer patched version when the arbitrary code is
> executed the attack is null and void has no affect because the flaw was fixed.
> 
> think of your web browser as an anti-virus and the browser updates as virus definitions you don't visit websites and install software with outdated anti-virus
> you could say i have been using a outdated anti-virus and never had and viruses or issues why should i update or care now, in the mean time a rat was installed
> letting the attacker just take there time slowly collecting your data, you don't walk around a nuclear power station without a radiation tag or suit in the radiation areas just because
> you can't see the radiation does not mean you have not been affected ?
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> most cases when using an outdated browser on the internet you have encounter one or more threats to your browser security and have lost personal
> data as a result that would not have happened if running the newer version, when you look at the case studies you can see in most attacks they are automated
> by scripts, bots and other means there sole purpose is to find a weak spot then exploit it, if its personal data its archived if its executed code remotely to download a
> file that lays dormant until activated like a root kit you wont know as they don't want to you to know there stealing your data because you will change that information
> before they can use it, when you get a letter from your financial institution saying your late on the house loan, car load and the boat loan but your thinking to your self
> i don't have any of these loans right then right there you realize your computer was compromised by a Romanian hacker that stole your personal information which they
> then used to create a fake identity for financial gain, most of these new age exploits are just for your personal data this information is gold and can be sole many times over
> for the purpose of identity freud.
> 
> look malcom i have done my part i have emailed the developer about 11 major security issues with waterfox with the information how to produce the issues and potential fix them
> i have done my part to help you out its up to the developer to fix these issues, personally i would stop using the browser as its clean the developer just mashes compiler command
> together and hopes for the best with little to no regards to user safety which is outline in the emails sent clearly shown by the profile guided linking of the library's leaving undefined symbols
> allowing an entry point created, i have shared these exploits to jorge and a few forum members for further analysis so they are public knowledge and if not fixed they will be exploited,
> malcom in future if your not going to listen to my advisement then please don't ask for it.
> 
> 
> 
> he help fix waterfox i help fix but code broken outdate like browser
> one for 32 https://waterfox.codeplex.com/SourceControl/latest#browser/config/version.txt
> one for 15 http://sourceforge.net/p/waterfoxproj/code/ci/master/tree/browser/config/version.txt
> not build missing files contaminated with old files
> forgive english not good i try more better
Click to expand...

Sorry about that MalcomX! Waterfox source code is actively updated on github, which is why it'll appear out-dated on other sources. It takes way too long keeping them all in sync. Also I appreciate the effort you make to post in English, being multilingual I know it can be very hard, especially with such long posts! But your memory tips have come in handy. I'm testing out tcmalloc and the results are very promising!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> @MalcomX: I think if you want to be completely up to date with Firefox then you should stay with Firefox or Nightlies. I appreciate your concerns, but Waterfox will probably always lag Firefox. It's up to you to decide whether the delay is an acceptable risk or not. Personally I am still on waterfox v32, and will happily wait for WF 34 before I upgrade.
> 
> In reality if your connected to the Internet you are at risk, whether it's the browser, OS, or some other vulnerability. Waterfox will always lag a few weeks behind Firefox, for me that's not an issue, but I can understand if it's an issue for you. If this is the case, Waterfox is probably not the browser for you.
> 
> Just my two cents worth.


That's true, but he does also have a point. It's important that I keep Waterfox secure, after all no-one wants to use a vulnerable program!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> quote my tech friend
> 
> i find it rather funny when people go i have used an outdated version on XXXX product for year with no security issues, i
> laugh because most of these attacks are unseen and unknown its not like an attacker wants to have big bright red warnings saying
> hay i am stealing your personal data and your passwords, no they in most attacks just collect your data then store it for later, most of these
> exploits are most likely to have been fixed in a newer version so when the arbitrary code is executed on an outdated browser with the current flaw
> the attacker is able to steal or remote execute code on the users computer, now if they used the newer patched version when the arbitrary code is
> executed the attack is null and void has no affect because the flaw was fixed.
> 
> think of your web browser as an anti-virus and the browser updates as virus definitions you don't visit websites and install software with outdated anti-virus
> you could say i have been using a outdated anti-virus and never had and viruses or issues why should i update or care now, in the mean time a rat was installed
> letting the attacker just take there time slowly collecting your data, you don't walk around a nuclear power station without a radiation tag or suit in the radiation areas just because
> you can't see the radiation does not mean you have not been affected ?
> 
> 
> 
> I find it funny when people like 'your friend' make generalised comments without taking into consideration things like the fact that someone may be running their browser in a sandbox, that people wouldn't know how to check if a RAT etc. had been installed on their PC and so on.
> 
> Not to mention that I highly doubt Waterfox is anywhere near popular enough to be targeted for exploits on a big scale. People would be much better of trying to find vulnerabilities that have been present in Windows for years. Or a vulnerability in Firefox (and therefore Waterfox) so that it can be exploited on a much wider scale.
> 
> Any PC connected to the internet is at risk, full stop. There are things that can make it less at risk, or more at risk, but if you want to use the internet it's the game you play assuming that it can't be compromised in some way is idiotic. All you need is one 0-day exploit to come along.
> 
> Don't get me wrong, I appreciate that you're taking the time to report security issues. I just wanted to point out the above.
Click to expand...

Yes that's my hope as well. From estimated calculations (there isn't a way for me to keep track .of active users, because I see that as an invasion of privacy) there are probably about ~200,000 active users? A drop in the ocean compared to the market share of every other browser!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> he say sandbox not full safe
> 
> 
> 
> I never said it was, and you missed the point of my post - which was that any device connected to the internet should not be assumed to be 'safe', but never mind.
> 
> Sure, you can make things more (using anti-virus & anti-spyware software, sandboxes, keeping all software up to date, etc.) or less safe, but assuming you're safe even if you do everything you can is just stupid, it only takes one exploit that hasn't been detected to compromise a system.
> 
> ---
> 
> On topic, I'm looking forward to seeing Waterfox 34 when it's released soon
Click to expand...

It's almost ready







.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Wixels*
> 
> Hi guys, I'm new to this forum.
> I've been using Waterfox for a couple of months now but I've had an issue with youtube videos since I installed it.
> When watching youtube videos in HTML5 there are a lot of issues for me. Some of them work fine but especially the ones that use webm/VP9 codec have problems.
> When skipping forward or back in the video the player just keeps loading or the video gets distorted (like with an unsupported codec) and I can only hear the sound. Sometimes waterfox just closes during the playback of the video.
> It seems I only have this issue on youtube but no other video sites(maybe other codecs on other sites?). Videos that use adobe flash don't have issues.
> When using chrome there are also no issues.
> 
> I've tried reinstalling waterfox and launching in safe-mode but the issue persists.
> 
> I'm running Windows7 64-bit.
> 
> Is there anything else I can try? Do you need some logs to analyse?
> 
> Thanks in advance


Unfortunately not yet, as Mozilla haven't supported YouTube HTML5 100% yet, so technically it should be 'for testing only'. Hopefully with each release it becomes more stable though!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Firefox 34 is out now. Like the new search alot easy to use and gives you all choices as you search.
> 
> I heard firefox is switching to yahoo soon so its good you can easily switch back to google...


Yes, I won't be releasing 34.0.5 because all it does is makes Yahoo! the default search, and I use StartPage either way. I prefer not to make such a huge mess of version numbers and keep it at 34.0 so everyone knows.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Also heads up that firefox 35 will be using MSE enabled by default. Alot of people seem against this but at same time alot people are complaining that firefox does not have 60 fps playable on twitch.tv and youtube with this it will out of the gate from now on.


I hope they're not against it! It's part of the HTML5 specification. It shouldn't impede, but enhances everyone's browser experience!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *WindowsTech*
> 
> I was having the same problems and upgrading and downgrading Waterfox didn't help so I ditched it for PaleMoon now all is good and no need for Classic Theme Restorer
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Palemoon has problems of its own, compatibility being biggest one. Most of the addons i use did not work on it at all then there is fact alot sites are not working correctly even with Firefox compatibility mode. I rather just use classic theme restorer then i have 0 issues.
Click to expand...

To each their own really! Moon Child (developer of Palemoon) is a good developer and he has a different vision for his browser than Waterfox does, so sort of different boats really!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WindowsTech*
> 
> Adblock plus, Adblock Plus Pop-up Addon are working for me. I was having problems with pages not being displayed properly, slow loading and 50% of youtube vids would not playing more than 3min. Now all is working and it's faster as well. I will continue to use it until I have probs and then go back to Waterfox.


That's fair enough 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi bcooper21,
> FireFox 34 has not been released to the Download channels. Nor can it be downloaded via the Web-site.
> 
> 
> 
> I should have been clear the final relase is on the beta channel.
> 
> Because i was firefox 34 beta 11 now im Firefox 34.0 stable. Seems like final so it should be up very soon i would think and 35 on beta with MSE and 60fps playback.
Click to expand...

Yep, 34.0 will be release this week for definite!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RSB965*
> 
> Hi new on forum but i follow waterfox i think for beginning...
> Problem is crash on *html5test* or for example *google maps*...(works on firefox nightly 64)
> is it any solution or rollback waterfox or wait for new release...
> i didn`t find solution read this forum constantly (my english is not good enough) + dont understand some programers+internet+web stuff works..
> Thanks advance...


Sorry about that! Definitely shouldn't be happening, what's your system specifications?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *futer*
> 
> Hello,
> After changing youtube to html5 player I don't have sound after some seconds of movie so I had to change it to classical flash again.


It's better to use Flash for YouTube at the moment anyway, it's HTML5 YouTube isn't fully supported yet on Firefox.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hi guys and especially MrAlex..
> 
> Any news on release of v34?
> Think I read a while back that it was expected week of 24:th.. That week is at it's end now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also will v34 solve HTML5 probs and other weird probs ppl have been reporting lately
> 
> Not trying to stress you Alex but I really am looking forward to v34.


Yep, will be ready this week!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hi guys and especially MrAlex..
> 
> Any news on release of v34?
> Think I read a while back that it was expected week of 24:th.. That week is at it's end now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also will v34 solve HTML5 probs and other weird probs ppl have been reporting lately
> 
> Not trying to stress you Alex but I really am looking forward to v34.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Its any day according to this site Dec 1.
> 
> Im looking forward to this update i kinda like the one click search. Then in next update there is 60fps video playback.
> 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
Click to expand...

Yep it's almost ready for release. If it works properly, I'll enable 60fps in this build instead of 35.0 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Its any day according to this site Dec 1.
> 
> Im looking forward to this update i kinda like the one click search. Then in next update there is 60fps video playback.
> 
> https://wiki.mozilla.org/RapidRelease/Calendar
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm, I was kind of interested in release of Waterfox v34 not Firefox v34.
Click to expand...

 Haha don't worry, it's coming this week!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not wait no more use cyberfox now default cyberfox 34.0 out now


That's great and all, but I'm not a fan of Cyberfox at all. I like Palemoon. The developer is nice and supportive. Cyberfox on the other hand...

Back in the beginning of 2013 I had a break from Waterfox because I couldn't find a way to balance both my studies and Waterfox. People wanted updates though and I couldn't really find out how to help them, because ICC wasn't working properly with the builds and I just couldn't get anywhere!

Low and behold one day, spam starts making its way in anything that Waterfox was on, disqus, sourceforge etc. And what was this spam? Why of course it was bots showcasing Cyberfox! My sourceforge rating took a tumble as it got hammered by negative votes (by bots). And unsurprisingly cyberfox's positive vote count is maxed out at 2 Billion...yeah..right.

Unfortunately I was too late as the damage had been done, a mass exodus of users from Waterfox to Cyberfox. All I could do was damage control. Report the problems to sourceforge (which they rectified, that should be evidence enough!) and then remove all the spam.

Edit: I'm probably wrong here as it does appear to be compiled with ICC by checking the buildconfig, I'll check through the source code as well. Props to whomever for making the builds so quick. Either way, point still stands above.

Anyway, I don't like causing issues or controversy. Everyone is free to use whatever they like best! That's the point of the web after all (and it's good as well!), but it's very annoying when I get so many people and suspicious posts about Cyberfox all the time. Disqus used to be flooded until I put in a filter to block any mention of Cyberfox. I try to be as neutral as possible and I thought it's time I fill in the gaps. Sorry for the long post and MalcomX this isn't directed at you, more of a PSA.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hmm
> ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/34.0.5/win32/
> 
> Seems to me v34.0.5 i out.. Even tho it's not on their official site.


34.0.5 aren't different codebase wise, Mozilla just set Yahoo! as default on US browsers (doesn't affect Waterfox) so I'll be sticking to 34.0 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> not wait no more use cyberfox now default cyberfox 34.0 out now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes cyberfox is always updated sooner its done by alot more people.
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Yes cyberfox is always updated sooner its done by alot more people.
> 
> 
> 
> only one developer
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> only one developer
> 
> 
> 
> There there site is very confusing 8pecxstudios sort of implies there is more than one person doing everything.
> 
> Then in contact info it uses words like Where are we..and Our implying more than one and a team of people.
Click to expand...

To these quotes, see my reply above about my opinions on this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Marctraider*
> 
> Great job on waterfox!
> 
> Im a big fervant of using intel compiler myself, and all the performance improvements that can come with it.
> 
> just curious what optimizations have all been used/applied?
> 
> and is there a source code from waterfox so i could attempt my own compilation?


Hi Marc! You can see the compiler flags I use here:

https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/blob/master/.mozconfig

34.0 is better optimised as I worked around some key issues without using MSVC at all! Download the source and let me know how it goes!


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> This is it essentially, thanks for your support.
> [...]
> That's great and all, but I'm not a fan of Cyberfox at all. I like Palemoon. The developer is nice and supportive. Cyberfox on the other hand...
> 
> Back in the beginning of 2013 I had a break from Waterfox because I couldn't find a way to balance both my studies and Waterfox. People wanted updates though and I couldn't really find out how to help them, because ICC wasn't working properly with the builds and I just couldn't get anywhere!
> 
> Low and behold one day, spam starts making its way in anything that Waterfox was on, disqus, sourceforge etc. And what was this spam? Why of course it was bots showcasing Cyberfox! My sourceforge rating took a tumble as it got hammered by negative votes (by bots). And unsurprisingly cyberfox's positive vote count is maxed out at 2 Billion...yeah..right.
> 
> Unfortunately I was too late as the damage had been done, a mass exodus of users from Waterfox to Cyberfox. All I could do was damage control. Report the problems to sourceforge (which they rectified, that should be evidence enough!) and then remove all the spam.


No problem, and as always, thanks for the update MrAlex.

I totally agree with regards to Cyberfox, after the original issues I had when trying it a while back (causing registry issues and uninstaller not working properly) I lost faith in the developer and I don't know quite how to describe it, but it seems like some people are pretty... hostile? About trying to get you to use it.

I've lost count of the number of times I've been told by random people you "need" to try Cyberfox. Long story short, I just don't trust it, am not going to use it and wish people would stop talking about it/trying to force it down my throat.


----------



## BakedBeans

I've discovered a malfunction in the source code related to the startup code of the browser which is causing me to consume too much ram on startup


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BakedBeans*
> 
> I've discovered a malfunction in the source code related to the startup code of the browser which is causing me to consume too much ram on startup


Good that you found that! Mind showing me the issue? Either post here or PM me (or whatever method really!)


----------



## Grumpigeek

I tried Cyberfox once.

The experience was a disaster. It totally borked my PC and I had to do a clean install of Windows.

Never again.


----------



## mhowie

What's the general consensus around here regarding the variant pcxfirefox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mhowie*
> 
> What's the general consensus around here regarding the variant pcxfirefox?


Never used it, but I've communicated with the developer a few times to solve issues with ICC and the likes. He's quite a nice guy too!


----------



## gijs007

@ MrAlex
Is waterfox 34 going to include a malloc memory manager? In a previous post I read that you were testing it, and it had some performance improvements.









I haven't read anything new on that and was wondering if the tests are going well. Please excuse me if I overlooked your reply.

I recently (1-2 weeks ago) contacted cyberfox through their website asking them what the differences are between cyberfox and waterfox, but haven't had a reply from them.
+ The fact that nobody knows who they are makes me avoid them (at least for now).

Direct contact with an open minded and understanding developer is definitely a














Wish more developers were like that









Btw: does a faster browser also mean it consumes less battery on a laptop?
I wonder if AVX and such don't increase the power usage of the CPU (haswell)


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Mr Alex.

It has been a long time since I posted here as in the past giving programing and technical advice. I feel it nessessary to respond to yourself and many of these other posts I have read over the last while to clear up so much hateful misinformation.

Lets start with your reply here Low and behold one day, spam starts making its way in anything that Waterfox was on, disqus, sourceforge etc. And what was this spam? Why of course it was bots showcasing Cyberfox! My sourceforge rating took a tumble as it got hammered by negative votes (by bots). And unsurprisingly cyberfox's positive vote count is maxed out at 2 Billion...yeah..right.
I have worked with the Cyberfox developer from the start in fact Cyberfox came about because I used to be a Waterfox user and you were having many issues with waterfox then no more builds were coming out. You said you could not ballance school and waterfox then, but you did not even take time to infform your own user base of this. You were on this site daily yet ignoring everyone and any post having to do with your browser.

So I have a friend that was a programming wizzard and I had been making my own x64 browsers for my personal use for a few years when I asked if he had time could he look into doing one since you were not doing waterfox anymore at the time and ppl needed a good x64 varient of firefox that was stable so Cyberfox was born.

Not once during the time Cyberfox has been out has the developer been involved in any spamming with any other browser out there on the market he only started this as a favor to me, in fact if you knew the developer of Cyberfox personally you would laugh at the accusation the guy works like a dog on so many projects he has 0 time to play such childhood games.
Lets get this straight the reason for the backlash agaisnt waterfox was your own doing by ignoring your own user base by not responding to them at all the Cyberfox developer had nothing to do with any of it. In fact the Cyberfox developer spends a lot of time on his site with your userbase as they pm him with bugs in your browser asking him how to fix them.

One of my main reasons for asking my friend to start Cyberfox in the first place was not even for the Intel compiled builds I was looking for one tailored to AMD users like myself as almost everyone compiles for Intel users but none for AMD users Intel compliers can have adverse effects on AMD machines. The Cyberfox developer works exteremly hard at both and is working on them with every beta or nightly build that comes out from Firefox to work out any bugs before hand so he is primed and ready when the final build is released to be able to get the builds to his userbase quickly and he is only one man.

The most important thing though that sould be mentioned is simple as for misleading a userbase that's under your wing you talk of working with the Intel people to have your bugs fixed. Yet the truth is they stopped helping you as everytime it came down to a bug your reported it ended up being the compiler flags you were using that resulted in the issue and they were getting tired of sorting through all the code to find out it was not a compiler issue. In the links you posted to show how the Intel were helping you they said this right in there posts. So what you did to get around bugs was just to disable the compile completly on certain parts like the jemalloc. You completly disabled that as a bug fix leaving a gaping hole in the browser and there is others, not informing your userbase this is what you have done and saying you have fixed the bugs you are deciving your user base.

I have seen enough spam said about the Cyberfox developer that is baseless and untrue if you want to look at where all these issues are coming from or being started from look at your own userbase first.


----------



## MrAlex

Before anything gets heated, I'd just like to mention this is a discussion, I don't want this to become a flame war.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> 
> *snip*


The information is not hateful, it's just how I see things. And I state that (try and see from my position). That's fair enough that you wanted an alternative to Waterfox when builds weren't coming out. That doesn't exactly justify all the spam that was appearing on the website, with pretty much all the posts being about cyberfox. I assume that it's him, why would anyone else have the need to do so (as with the vote fuzzing on sourceforge)?

I was posting every so often the issues I'd have with the build (here on OCN). I chose not to release a botched product just for the sake of releasing an update. Being at uni takes up a lot of my time and it affects how often I can post. I worked on WF as much as I could but at the time ICC just wasn't working well with Firefox.

It's fair enough he works hard, but he's not the only person working hard... As for the Intel issues, Intel got caught back before Waterfox was made about their crippling AMD performance. You have to purposefully enable flags to put AMD users at a disadvantage, of which I do not do (have a look at about:buildconfig).

I posted on the Intel support forums about the issues I was getting. If Clang, MSVC, GCC can all compile the code, then it's just a fair assumption something is not working as intended with ICC. In fact xunxun made a nice report here where issues were addressed. There have always been issues with jemalloc+WebGL and ICC. I've only disabled jemalloc on the current build. Mozalloc was used for a very long time by Mozilla, so I'd assume that using it for one build would be alright, given that Waterfox isn't big enough to be a target of malicious attacks (we've mentioned it before in this thread).

I've got nothing to hide from anyone here and I always try to reply to any questions. I don't gain anything by alienating anyone. It doesn't make sense that users of Waterfox would spam a product they do not use.

I don't want this to become a duel and create a Waterfox v Cyberfox mentality. It's not good, it doesn't accomplish anything. We're both working for the community and that should be good for everyone.


----------



## ThunderStruck-1

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I don't want this to become a duel and create a Waterfox v Cyberfox mentality. It's not good, it doesn't accomplish anything. We're both working for the community and that should be good for everyone.


Mr Alex.

I also am not here to start or have this become a flame war, as you can see I have never spammed your forum or sites with any type of posts in the past and I am not here now to change that.

The assumption that the Cyberfox developer was behind any spam attacks against your project or sites is what I came here to clear up as I believe no one should be getting blamed for things they have not done. As I said in my post the developer of Cyberfox I have known for over a decade. I was a big fan of waterfox back in the day as I always used to complain how much better x64 systems are yet we are held back by not enough x64 programs that can make use of all the benefits an x64 system gives us. If you were too look at the site where Cyberfox originated from before he made a dedicated site for it due to the popularity of it. You will find large posts from myself about the Waterfox project and links back to your sites and so on as I was a large booster of your browser.

As things happened though and you were unable to make new builds and since myself I have just personal ones I do on the side for myself but nothing mainstream as I don't have the time to dedicate to a project of that nature. I asked my friend if he would like to take a stab at making an x64 browser as it was unclear if Waterfox would ever return. He is also a very busy guy but he loves to take on challenges and loves to write programming code so he took on my project.

As stated in my earlier post it was more so asking him to make them tailored to AMD machines, He started with Intel as he is an Intel user himself and got that build perfected using the Intel compiler and then working with me he got the AMD builds perfected tweaking for AMD users like myself. I am giving you this background information just to understand what kind of guy he is. To squash this notion that he would go around spamming your or anyone else project for any reason he is not that type of person, that he just made the browser as a favor to me and keeps it updated as he does as just a side project among the many other projects he is involved with.

What I am letting you know is it's not the Cyberfox developer that is behind any of the spam he has always said he is not in any type of competition with any other firefox variant browser it's a side project for him he does as a favor to myself. That's what I wanted to clear up you know the internet as well as the rest of us we cannot control people that get angry and do stupid things or say stupid things but I wanted the blame game to stop because the Cyberfox developer does not deserve such things being said when he is behind none of it and just doing a favor for a friend.


----------



## MrAlex

Right, 34.0 is done in preliminary testing so I'll upload a build for everyone to test as well with tcmalloc (memory allocator used by Chrome). Should solve memory issues. Unfortunately about:memory doesn't work currently because of this.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *ThunderStruck-1*
> *snip*


That's fair enough. It was the only logical thing I could deduce. But glad it's all cleared up now either way.


----------



## MrAlex

All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).


----------



## uglydwarf

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).


Does not start - immediate error:



(Windows 7, older versions of Waterfox run fine)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uglydwarf*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).
> 
> 
> 
> Does not start: "Couldn´t load XPCOM."
Click to expand...

Could you take a screenshot please?

Thanks!


----------



## Screemer

I copied mine ontop of my v33 install and it seem to be working fine.
HTML5 now works and give a 475 / 555 at http://html5test.com/


----------



## blackps

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uglydwarf*
> 
> Does not start - immediate error:
> 
> 
> 
> (Windows 7, older versions of Waterfox run fine)


I had the same problem with Avast,if you have Avast antivirus has deleted a file and that's why you get the error,avast think it's a virus ( i think it's a false positive ) , i reported the error to avast.


----------



## uglydwarf

Yes, Avast is to blame. Thank you!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *uglydwarf*
> 
> Yes, Avast is to blame. Thank you!


Great to know it's sorted out. I was trying to figure out what was wrong! Avast works fine with Waterfox when it's signed but doesn't like it when it's unsigned.

Thanks blackps, I'll keep that in mind for future releases.


----------



## bcooper21

Yea avast has to many false positives for any software it does not know...

I uninstalled that crap recently just stick with windows defender and malware bytes. It will protect you and not screw things up like avast.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Developed by a final year university student. Started when I was 16 and had a break for a few months last year, but it's become pretty much full time now. Come next March it'll be 4 years that I've been working on Waterfox. It started first as just a straight 64-Bit recompilation of Firefox, but that wasn't good enough. So I've spend so many hours making it possible to compile Firefox with Intel's C++ compiler, which brought fantastic performance improvements to Waterfox. AMD systems benefit as well!
> 
> I've seen this pop up a few times, it doesn't affect anything but it's annoying and I'm trying to get rid of it.
> 
> That's fair enough. 34.0 bring in a better memory allocator though, so you might want to update for security.
> 
> Strange, always get issues with that language pack! I'll look into it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Sorry about that, but I don't mess around with any of the UI stuff. Waterfox is meant to be a seamless alternative to Firefox, but faster.
> 
> Thanks for helping, seems this is a prevalent issue that I need to get resolved!
> 
> Builds are ready, testing everything and the likes!
> 
> Yep, pretty much!
> 
> Of course I do! 34.0 is cleaning up a lot of these issues.
> 
> Don't worry I saw and am grateful. Fixes aren't always straightforward though!
> 
> This is it essentially, thanks for your support.
> 
> Don't worry I can understand the frustration users feel! I try my best though.
> 
> Hmm, this isn't acceptable. I'll see if I can create some test cases, then get back to you.
> 
> Thanks for the support seti, it's greatly appreciated!
> 
> Ignoring the silent updater, does the Menu>About updater not do it's job? If so let me know, that shouldn't be happening!
> 
> Sorry about that MalcomX! Waterfox source code is actively updated on github, which is why it'll appear out-dated on other sources. It takes way too long keeping them all in sync. Also I appreciate the effort you make to post in English, being multilingual I know it can be very hard, especially with such long posts! But your memory tips have come in handy. I'm testing out tcmalloc and the results are very promising!
> 
> That's true, but he does also have a point. It's important that I keep Waterfox secure, after all no-one wants to use a vulnerable program!
> 
> Yes that's my hope as well. From estimated calculations (there isn't a way for me to keep track .of active users, because I see that as an invasion of privacy) there are probably about ~200,000 active users? A drop in the ocean compared to the market share of every other browser!
> 
> It's almost ready
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Unfortunately not yet, as Mozilla haven't supported YouTube HTML5 100% yet, so technically it should be 'for testing only'. Hopefully with each release it becomes more stable though!
> 
> Yes, I won't be releasing 34.0.5 because all it does is makes Yahoo! the default search, and I use StartPage either way. I prefer not to make such a huge mess of version numbers and keep it at 34.0 so everyone knows.
> 
> I hope they're not against it! It's part of the HTML5 specification. It shouldn't impede, but enhances everyone's browser experience!
> 
> To each their own really! Moon Child (developer of Palemoon) is a good developer and he has a different vision for his browser than Waterfox does, so sort of different boats really!
> 
> That's fair enough
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yep, 34.0 will be release this week for definite!
> 
> Sorry about that! Definitely shouldn't be happening, what's your system specifications?
> 
> It's better to use Flash for YouTube at the moment anyway, it's HTML5 YouTube isn't fully supported yet on Firefox.
> 
> Yep, will be ready this week!
> 
> Yep it's almost ready for release. If it works properly, I'll enable 60fps in this build instead of 35.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Haha don't worry, it's coming this week!
> 
> That's great and all, but I'm not a fan of Cyberfox at all. I like Palemoon. The developer is nice and supportive. Cyberfox on the other hand...
> Back in the beginning of 2013 I had a break from Waterfox because I couldn't find a way to balance both my studies and Waterfox. People wanted updates though and I couldn't really find out how to help them, because ICC wasn't working properly with the builds and I just couldn't get anywhere!
> 
> Low and behold one day, spam starts making its way in anything that Waterfox was on, disqus, sourceforge etc. And what was this spam? Why of course it was bots showcasing Cyberfox! My sourceforge rating took a tumble as it got hammered by negative votes (by bots). And unsurprisingly cyberfox's positive vote count is maxed out at 2 Billion...yeah..right.
> Unfortunately I was too late as the damage had been done, a mass exodus of users from Waterfox to Cyberfox. All I could do was damage control. Report the problems to sourceforge (which they rectified, that should be evidence enough!) and then remove all the spam.
> 
> Edit: I'm probably wrong here as it does appear to be compiled with ICC by checking the buildconfig, I'll check through the source code as well. Props to whomever for making the builds so quick. Either way, point still stands above.
> 
> Anyway, I don't like causing issues or controversy. Everyone is free to use whatever they like best! That's the point of the web after all (and it's good as well!), but it's very annoying when I get so many people and suspicious posts about Cyberfox all the time. Disqus used to be flooded until I put in a filter to block any mention of Cyberfox. I try to be as neutral as possible and I thought it's time I fill in the gaps. Sorry for the long post and MalcomX this isn't directed at you, more of a PSA.
> 
> 34.0.5 aren't different codebase wise, Mozilla just set Yahoo! as default on US browsers (doesn't affect Waterfox) so I'll be sticking to 34.0
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To these quotes, see my reply above about my opinions on this.
> 
> Hi Marc! You can see the compiler flags I use here:
> https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/blob/master/.mozconfig
> 
> 34.0 is better optimised as I worked around some key issues without using MSVC at all! Download the source and let me know how it goes!


Thats problem i have with palemoon i liked it for everything else but its just not compatible anymore and there not going to add MSE or anything of sort to it so browsing will become worse and worse and there will be some things the browser just wont do any more. Like fact silverlight is going away soon netflix will only work with HTML5/MSE.


----------



## Panwaffles

Damn, my 34.0 ended up being at 4GB of RAM usage after a night of browsing. Wasn't this version supposed to reduce the amount? I saw it even peak at 6GB, I've never had numbers anywhere close to it in the past.

EDIT: Been using it for another 2 hours, seems to be stable and not overly excessive right now.


----------



## malcomX

bsod.JPG 18k .JPG file


new watefox max system memory cause bsod







left on night
many issue present PartitionAlloc use you must if not jemalloc
https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/Source/***/PartitionAlloc.h#34


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Thats problem i have with palemoon i liked it for everything else but its just not compatible anymore and there not going to add MSE or anything of sort to it so browsing will become worse and worse and there will be some things the browser just wont do any more. Like fact silverlight is going away soon netflix will only work with HTML5/MSE.


Yeah that's a shame. I'm sure Moonchild has a plan!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Damn, my 34.0 ended up being at 4GB of RAM usage after a night of browsing. Wasn't this version supposed to reduce the amount? I saw it even peak at 6GB, I've never had numbers anywhere close to it in the past.
> 
> EDIT: Been using it for another 2 hours, seems to be stable and not overly excessive right now.


Oof! It is supposed to! It works well on about 5 different systems I've managed to test myself. Have you got a comparison to usual? What's your total system memory?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> bsod.JPG 18k .JPG file
> 
> 
> new watefox max system memory cause bsod
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> left on night
> many issue present PartitionAlloc use you must if not jemalloc
> https://chromium.googlesource.com/chromium/blink/+/master/Source/***/PartitionAlloc.h#34


Hmm, not got either. 25GB usage?! Please tell me you've got a system with 64GB of RAM or had like a thousand tabs open?

Also could I have your system specs, I want to see if it's a recurring thing with certain configurations or not since I can't reproduce any leaks or so.


----------



## Panwaffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oof! It is supposed to! It works well on about 5 different systems I've managed to test myself. Have you got a comparison to usual? What's your total system memory?


I think the average usage after my "normal" day would be around 1.6-2.2GB with the previous versions. My total memory is 8GB. I've been using the test build all day and it's sitting at 1.4GB, so at least now it doesn't seem out of the ordinary. I'm pretty sure what caused the "leak" was a tumblr page/blog that had at least a few hundred MBs of image/video content on it and the RAM usage just kept increasing to a point that it froze my browser, even though I tried closing the tab.


----------



## bcooper21

As for cyberfox or waterfox i can say i find waterfox overall faster on my pc. So take your pick for me waterfox is faster for some reason but gets slower updates slightly so if you always want update right away cyberfox might be better but i find running same version waterfox loads pages faster and benchmarks better.

Both are great honestly.


----------



## Screemer

Hmm, don't know if it's just me or if there is a problem in the build.
I don't seem to be able to change anything in the options menu.
It open aboutreferences but I cannot click on anything at all in there. Not the tabs to the left and not any settings.
Anyone else have this problem? Is it a known problem I have missed info about? Will it be fixed?

Btw. I am running the preview of Waterfox v34.0


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yeah that's a shame. I'm sure Moonchild has a plan!
> 
> Oof! It is supposed to! It works well on about 5 different systems I've managed to test myself. Have you got a comparison to usual? What's your total system memory?
> 
> Hmm, not got either. 25GB usage?! Please tell me you've got a system with 64GB of RAM or had like a thousand tabs open?
> Also could I have your system specs, I want to see if it's a recurring thing with certain configurations or not since I can't reproduce any leaks or so.


spec here http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6230#post_23110317
test more i try bsod again drive corrupt windows install had to home page youtube octane markbench only 3 open tabs
left night increase over time octane blame possible crash it cause. weird fragments memory crash on sites waterfox does


----------



## bcooper21

For some reason waterfox is not loading sites correctly.

Flash, Silverlight, Java updated to latest.

edit: Updated to 34.0 same issue.

edit: not adblock no addons same thing


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).


how you get score http://octane-benchmark.googlecode.com/svn/latest/index.html crash waterfox does no score
crash mega.co.nz upload


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oof! It is supposed to! It works well on about 5 different systems I've managed to test myself. Have you got a comparison to usual? What's your total system memory?
> 
> 
> 
> I think the average usage after my "normal" day would be around 1.6-2.2GB with the previous versions. My total memory is 8GB. I've been using the test build all day and it's sitting at 1.4GB, so at least now it doesn't seem out of the ordinary. I'm pretty sure what caused the "leak" was a tumblr page/blog that had at least a few hundred MBs of image/video content on it and the RAM usage just kept increasing to a point that it froze my browser, even though I tried closing the tab.
Click to expand...

Yes that makes sense then, either the website has too many objects and there's a memory leak or it's tcmalloc. Tcmalloc tries to anticipate memory usage, so say you're using memory intensive web pages frequently, it won't release the memory back to system in anticipation you'll carry on using memory as such.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> As for cyberfox or waterfox i can say i find waterfox overall faster on my pc. So take your pick for me waterfox is faster for some reason but gets slower updates slightly so if you always want update right away cyberfox might be better but i find running same version waterfox loads pages faster and benchmarks better.
> 
> Both are great honestly.


Well cf uses just the O3 switch which makes releases much quicker, Waterfox uses /Qparallel (makes loops that are safe to be run in parallel, parallelised), /Qax (whenever ICC finds code that can be improved by processor instructions such as AVX, SSE4 etc it does, the processor doesn't need to support the instructions so this is a safe flag to use (intel only, doesn't affect AMD) and /arch:SSE3 (makes all the base code use SSE3 wherever possible like Qax, except this is forced and for all processors (AMD is supported too ) but getting these flags to work sometimes takes a while.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hmm, don't know if it's just me or if there is a problem in the build.
> I don't seem to be able to change anything in the options menu.
> It open aboutreferences but I cannot click on anything at all in there. Not the tabs to the left and not any settings.
> Anyone else have this problem? Is it a known problem I have missed info about? Will it be fixed?
> 
> Btw. I am running the preview of Waterfox v34.0


Hmmm, seems to be your system. Just tested 2 different systems, one AMD and the other Intel+NVIDIA and they can both interact with the options menu. Could be a hardware issue. Have you tried an empty profile? If it still doesn't work you can use the old interface by setting browser.preferences.inContent to false in about:config.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yeah that's a shame. I'm sure Moonchild has a plan!
> 
> Oof! It is supposed to! It works well on about 5 different systems I've managed to test myself. Have you got a comparison to usual? What's your total system memory?
> 
> Hmm, not got either. 25GB usage?! Please tell me you've got a system with 64GB of RAM or had like a thousand tabs open?
> Also could I have your system specs, I want to see if it's a recurring thing with certain configurations or not since I can't reproduce any leaks or so.
> 
> 
> 
> spec here http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-33-0-2-10-november-firefox-64-bit/6230#post_23110317
> test more i try bsod again drive corrupt windows install had to home page youtube octane markbench only 3 open tabs
> left night increase over time octane blame possible crash it cause. weird fragments memory crash on sites waterfox does
Click to expand...

I wonder why this is happening to your system. I've just tested Octane on two systems right now, Intel+NVIDIA and AMD APU laptop and both run Octane without crashing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> For some reason waterfox is not loading sites correctly.
> 
> Flash, Silverlight, Java updated to latest.
> 
> edit: Updated to 34.0 same issue.
> 
> edit: not adblock no addons same thing


This looks like an image problem right? Has happened a few times with Firefox as well, they've got a support article here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/fix-problems-images-not-show

Let me know if it helps. You could also try a blank profile to see if that helps too.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> All right everyone, Waterfox 34.0 test build: download. Let me know if tcmalloc solves your memory issues. JavaScript performance has seemed to improve significantly. (16% increase on Octane).
> 
> 
> 
> how you get score http://octane-benchmark.googlecode.com/svn/latest/index.html crash waterfox does no score
> crash mega.co.nz upload
Click to expand...

I'm not sure yet mate. Have you tried a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles

Usually solves the issue unfortunately it's a hassle to do often.


----------



## malcomX

it new profile it new windows lost last windows from bsod one drive damage
anyone try http://octane-benchmark.googlecode.com/svn/latest/index.html
try mega.co.nz upload file

see if not only


----------



## Screemer

Strange, Options menu works perfectly in fail safe mode. But only partly (can use tab key on General tab) but no mouse interaction in standard mode.
Posting this if more people run into problems. Might be my theme or something. Will check that next.
Fail safe mode (hold shift while clicking Waterfox icon) works perfectly.

Tested to use default theme now. And Options menu was fully working.

I am using Clasic compact theme v.29.0a1

Great work Mr.Alex just as we are used to.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Strange, Options menu works perfectly in fail safe mode. But only partly (can use tab key on General tab) but no mouse interaction in standard mode.
> Posting this if more people run into problems. Might be my theme or something. Will check that next.
> Fail safe mode (hold shift while clicking Waterfox icon) works perfectly.
> 
> Tested to use default theme now. And Options menu was fully working.
> 
> I am using Clasic compact theme v.29.0a1
> 
> Great work Mr.Alex just as we are used to.


try mega.co.nz upload file see if crash tnx


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> try mega.co.nz upload file see if crash tnx


I can confirm Waterfox 34 crashes when attempting to upload to Mega.co.nz. FYI - MrAlex, specs are in signature and yes I used a new profile, antivirus enabled/disabled makes no difference.


----------



## bcooper21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes that makes sense then, either the website has too many objects and there's a memory leak or it's tcmalloc. Tcmalloc tries to anticipate memory usage, so say you're using memory intensive web pages frequently, it won't release the memory back to system in anticipation you'll carry on using memory as such.
> 
> Well cf uses just the O3 switch which makes releases much quicker, Waterfox uses /Qparallel (makes loops that are safe to be run in parallel, parallelised), /Qax (whenever ICC finds code that can be improved by processor instructions such as AVX, SSE4 etc it does, the processor doesn't need to support the instructions so this is a safe flag to use (intel only, doesn't affect AMD) and /arch:SSE3 (makes all the base code use SSE3 wherever possible like Qax, except this is forced and for all processors (AMD is supported too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) but getting these flags to work sometimes takes a while.
> 
> Hmmm, seems to be your system. Just tested 2 different systems, one AMD and the other Intel+NVIDIA and they can both interact with the options menu. Could be a hardware issue. Have you tried an empty profile? If it still doesn't work you can use the old interface by setting browser.preferences.inContent to false in about:config.
> 
> I wonder why this is happening to your system. I've just tested Octane on two systems right now, Intel+NVIDIA and AMD APU laptop and both run Octane without crashing.
> 
> This looks like an image problem right? Has happened a few times with Firefox as well, they've got a support article here: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/fix-problems-images-not-show
> Let me know if it helps. You could also try a blank profile to see if that helps too.
> 
> I'm not sure yet mate. Have you tried a new profile? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
> Usually solves the issue unfortunately it's a hassle to do often.


Umm really weird Clear cookies and cache worked but for some reason uninstalling did not affect it so i guess an uninstall leaves part's of browser still there.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> it new profile it new windows lost last windows from bsod one drive damage
> anyone try http://octane-benchmark.googlecode.com/svn/latest/index.html
> try mega.co.nz upload file
> 
> see if not only


Can confirm this happens, will have a look to see what's causing it









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> try mega.co.nz upload file see if crash tnx
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm Waterfox 34 crashes when attempting to upload to Mega.co.nz. FYI - MrAlex, specs are in signature and yes I used a new profile, antivirus enabled/disabled makes no difference.
Click to expand...

Yes I see it happening now as well. I've tried other HTML5 upload forms without any crashes. Can any of you see if you find any other HTML5 website with upload function that crash?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bcooper21*
> 
> Umm really weird Clear cookies and cache worked but for some reason uninstalling did not affect it so i guess an uninstall leaves part's of browser still there.


Yes it's an old issue that's been happening for years. Strange it still happens.


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Can confirm this happens, will have a look to see what's causing it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I see it happening now as well. I've tried other HTML5 upload forms without any crashes. Can any of you see if you find any other HTML5 website with upload function that crash?


Just a thought, but I'm thinking it might be something to do with the cryptographic libraries used - it would explain both the Octane test and Mega crashes, as both make extensive use of javascript cryptographic functions.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *BMT*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Can confirm this happens, will have a look to see what's causing it
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I see it happening now as well. I've tried other HTML5 upload forms without any crashes. Can any of you see if you find any other HTML5 website with upload function that crash?
> 
> 
> 
> Just a thought, but I'm thinking it might be something to do with the cryptographic libraries used - it would explain both the Octane test and Mega crashes, as both make extensive use of javascript cryptographic functions.
Click to expand...

Wait, Octane crashes for you as well? I can run it fine on any system I've tested so far, and each are very different from the other. Do any other benchmarks crash? Such as sunspider?


----------



## BMT

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Wait, Octane crashes for you as well? I can run it fine on any system I've tested so far, and each are very different from the other. Do any other benchmarks crash? Such as sunspider?


Sorry I hadn't actually tested Octane myself and was making an assumption based on what malcomX said.

I just re-tested WF34 and can confirm Octane works just fine for me, that particular issue seems to specific to malcomX's system.


----------



## msuguy71

Hi all, been having weird display corruption issues in Waterfox since updating to the new Cataylst Omega drivers when hardware acceleration is checked in the Waterfox options. I unchecked hardware acceleration to see if it is any better. Here is a screenshot



Any thoughts?

Rick

System specs:

i4790K
Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB
16GB DDR3 1866 ram
XFX DD R9 270X
Gigabyte 6870OC
Windows 8.1 pro x64


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Hi all, been having weird display corruption issues in Waterfox since updating to the new Cataylst Omega drivers when hardware acceleration is checked in the Waterfox options. I unchecked hardware acceleration to see if it is any better. Here is a screenshot
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Rick
> 
> System specs:
> 
> i4790K
> Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB
> 16GB DDR3 1866 ram
> XFX DD R9 270X
> Gigabyte 6870OC


Are you running Win7? There was an update that is causing problems with graphic drivers, especially AMD. It's KB3004394 and Microsoft is recommending you uninstall it. Just a thought.


----------



## msuguy71

Oops, sorry. Running Windows 8.1 Pro x64


----------



## Screemer

Tested Octane 2.0
Octane Score: 17289

Sunspider 1.0.2
RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)

Total: 229.1ms +/- 7.8%

No crashes on laptop over WIFI..


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

Help > About Waterfox 33.0.2 is still reporting that it is Up to Date.


----------



## gijs007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well cf uses just the O3 switch which makes releases much quicker, Waterfox uses /Qparallel (makes loops that are safe to be run in parallel, parallelised), /Qax (whenever ICC finds code that can be improved by processor instructions such as AVX, SSE4 etc it does, the processor doesn't need to support the instructions so this is a safe flag to use (intel only, doesn't affect AMD) and /arch:SSE3 (makes all the base code use SSE3 wherever possible like Qax, except this is forced and for all processors (AMD is supported too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) but getting these flags to work sometimes takes a while.


Does a faster browser also mean it consumes less battery on a laptop because it finishes rendering and such quicker and can go back to idle?
I wonder if AVX and such don't increase the power usage of my CPU (haswell)

I've just updated to waterfox 34 from waterfox 33.
Memory usage is about 1/3th less with malloc during normal usage:thumb: and the browser feels smoother too.

CPU usage is about the same (less peaks during benchmarks, average is slightly higher and the browser is no longer unresponsive)
Benchmark scores are 6% better (tested with sunspider and peacekeeper) and browsermark reported 10% faster.









Btw: did you change the waterfox logo?








Which Windows SDK do you use to build waterfox?
Which Intel Compiler version?
Which visual studio version?


----------



## pokeseeker

Where's the portable version of Waterfox 34?


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I found this issue.

I am using Win 7 Pro SP1. with WF Ver.33.0.2

*Latest* LastPass browser extension for Firefox 2.0+ is Ver. 3.1.50

When I go to "Tools", "Extensions", and click on the "Tools for all add-ons" Drop Down Arrow at the top right and click on "Check for Updates", the "Available Updates" that is found is "LastPass 3.1.75 Update".

This *LastPass 3.1.75 Update, is for: Safari* (No Binary Features)
LastPass browser extension for Apple Safari without a binary component. Features dependent on a binary component such as automatic logoff after idle and sharing of login state with other browsers will not function.
Supports Safari 5+

The latest LastPass update for WF/FF 2.0+ is Ver. 3.1.50.

When a new LastPass extension update becomes available for WF/FF, will it be recognized and will we be able to update the LastPass extension in WF?


----------



## RevZ

Waterfox just gave me an update prompt for 34.0, but trying to apply it gets me the following:

Code:



Code:


updater.exe - System Error

The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.

I updated to the current build in the same way and it worked fine back then; is there something different about the update feature in this build?
I'm just asking because I'd rather have a working internal update feature than to have to monitor for updates elsewhere all the time..









EDIT: Manually downloading WF34.0 from your page and attempting to install it yields a regsvr32 crash during installation:


Spoiler: AppCrash report



Code:



Code:


Source
Microsoft(C) Register Server

Summary
Stopped working

Date
‎15-‎12-‎2014 1:35

Status
Report sent

Description
Faulting Application Path:      C:\Windows\System32\regsvr32.exe

Problem signature
Problem Event Name:     BEX64
Application Name:       regsvr32.exe
Application Version:    6.1.7600.16385
Application Timestamp:  4a5bcdd6
Fault Module Name:      libtcmalloc_minimal.dll_unloaded
Fault Module Version:   0.0.0.0
Fault Module Timestamp: 5485ab64
Exception Offset:       000007fef65bf3b3
Exception Code: c0000005
Exception Data: 0000000000000008
OS Version:     6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
Locale ID:      1043
Additional Information 1:       0939
Additional Information 2:       09397ec0804715e735a35ac2b02c60bb
Additional Information 3:       5087
Additional Information 4:       50876f7daca86a2580dc29c9393de942

Extra information about the problem
Bucket ID:      168343674





Is this the Data Execution Prevention mechanism kicking in, by any chance?









EDIT 2: Just tried it with Avast disabled, same issue. Disabling DEP, still the same issue. Disabling both, situation remains unchanged.
WF34 _does_ seem to work fine, but I wonder what exactly it was that it was trying to register when it failed.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Hi all, been having weird display corruption issues in Waterfox since updating to the new Cataylst Omega drivers when hardware acceleration is checked in the Waterfox options. I unchecked hardware acceleration to see if it is any better. Here is a screenshot
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Rick
> 
> System specs:
> 
> i4790K
> Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB
> 16GB DDR3 1866 ram
> XFX DD R9 270X
> Gigabyte 6870OC
> Windows 8.1 pro x64


Is this isolated to the Omega drivers?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Tested Octane 2.0
> Octane Score: 17289
> 
> Sunspider 1.0.2
> RESULTS (means and 95% confidence intervals)
> 
> Total: 229.1ms +/- 7.8%
> 
> No crashes on laptop over WIFI..


Great to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Help > About Waterfox 33.0.2 is still reporting that it is Up to Date.


Update should be available now 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well cf uses just the O3 switch which makes releases much quicker, Waterfox uses /Qparallel (makes loops that are safe to be run in parallel, parallelised), /Qax (whenever ICC finds code that can be improved by processor instructions such as AVX, SSE4 etc it does, the processor doesn't need to support the instructions so this is a safe flag to use (intel only, doesn't affect AMD) and /arch:SSE3 (makes all the base code use SSE3 wherever possible like Qax, except this is forced and for all processors (AMD is supported too
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ) but getting these flags to work sometimes takes a while.
> 
> 
> 
> Does a faster browser also mean it consumes less battery on a laptop because it finishes rendering and such quicker and can go back to idle?
> I wonder if AVX and such don't increase the power usage of my CPU (haswell)
> 
> I've just updated to waterfox 34 from waterfox 33.
> Memory usage is about 1/3th less with malloc during normal usage:thumb: and the browser feels smoother too.
> 
> CPU usage is about the same (less peaks during benchmarks, average is slightly higher and the browser is no longer unresponsive)
> Benchmark scores are 6% better (tested with sunspider and peacekeeper) and browsermark reported 10% faster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Btw: did you change the waterfox logo?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Which Windows SDK do you use to build waterfox?
> Which Intel Compiler version?
> Which visual studio version?
Click to expand...

I don't think there'll be anything that noticeable! Good to hear about the memory usage and benchmarks!







yes changed the logo as well!

Edit forgot to add specs:

-> Windows 7.1 SDK

ICC 13 SP1 Update 3

Visual Studio 2010

Maintains compatibility with XP this way 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokeseeker*
> 
> Where's the portable version of Waterfox 34?


 It's coming, I have to make separate builds for portable so it'll be ready tomorrow at the earliest.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I found this issue.
> 
> I am using Win 7 Pro SP1. with WF Ver.33.0.2
> 
> *Latest* LastPass browser extension for Firefox 2.0+ is Ver. 3.1.50
> 
> When I go to "Tools", "Extensions", and click on the "Tools for all add-ons" Drop Down Arrow at the top right and click on "Check for Updates", the "Available Updates" that is found is "LastPass 3.1.75 Update".
> 
> This *LastPass 3.1.75 Update, is for: Safari* (No Binary Features)
> LastPass browser extension for Apple Safari without a binary component. Features dependent on a binary component such as automatic logoff after idle and sharing of login state with other browsers will not function.
> Supports Safari 5+
> 
> The latest LastPass update for WF/FF 2.0+ is Ver. 3.1.50.
> 
> When a new LastPass extension update becomes available for WF/FF, will it be recognized and will we be able to update the LastPass extension in WF?


It depends on the add-on, but usually it'll update when an update is available automatically. LastPass mentioned they don't support 64-Bit builds, but usually everything works fine. Just have to wait for an update I'm afraid if anything is broken!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Waterfox just gave me an update prompt for 34.0, but trying to apply it gets me the following:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> updater.exe - System Error
> 
> The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
> 
> I updated to the current build in the same way and it worked fine back then; is there something different about the update feature in this build?
> I'm just asking because I'd rather have a working internal update feature than to have to monitor for updates elsewhere all the time..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: Manually downloading WF34.0 from your page and attempting to install it yields a regsvr32 crash during installation:
> 
> 
> Spoiler: AppCrash report
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Source
> Microsoft(C) Register Server
> 
> Summary
> Stopped working
> 
> Date
> ‎15-‎12-‎2014 1:35
> 
> Status
> Report sent
> 
> Description
> Faulting Application Path:      C:\Windows\System32\regsvr32.exe
> 
> Problem signature
> Problem Event Name:     BEX64
> Application Name:       regsvr32.exe
> Application Version:    6.1.7600.16385
> Application Timestamp:  4a5bcdd6
> Fault Module Name:      libtcmalloc_minimal.dll_unloaded
> Fault Module Version:   0.0.0.0
> Fault Module Timestamp: 5485ab64
> Exception Offset:       000007fef65bf3b3
> Exception Code: c0000005
> Exception Data: 0000000000000008
> OS Version:     6.1.7601.2.1.0.256.1
> Locale ID:      1043
> Additional Information 1:       0939
> Additional Information 2:       09397ec0804715e735a35ac2b02c60bb
> Additional Information 3:       5087
> Additional Information 4:       50876f7daca86a2580dc29c9393de942
> 
> Extra information about the problem
> Bucket ID:      168343674
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this the Data Execution Prevention mechanism kicking in, by any chance?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT 2: Just tried it with Avast disabled, same issue. Disabling DEP, still the same issue. Disabling both, situation remains unchanged.
> WF34 does seem to work fine, but I wonder what exactly it was that it was trying to register when it failed.


That updater issue is very strange. It shouldn't have any issue with libiomp5md.dll unless something is interfering. Did you have an AV enabled when doing the automatic update?

As for the installer, amazon's CDN cached the old installer instead of the new one that fixes the issue! Basically the installer is trying to register tcmalloc except it's not meant to be registered so regsvr32 crashes, but it doesn't affect anything at all! Just doesn't look very good to have it crashing as it'll confuse people! Everything should be sorted now.


----------



## btgbullseye

Waterfox 34.0... Full-blown video driver crash caused by Waterfox. (running GeForce 344.75 drivers on a GT 630m video card)


----------



## msuguy71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this isolated to the Omega drivers?


No, I noticed it on AMD's previous beta release which was 14.11 (the first drivers used since building my new machine). I don't seem to have the issue when hardware acceleration is turned off though.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Waterfox 34.0... Full-blown video driver crash caused by Waterfox. (running GeForce 344.75 drivers on a GT 630m video card)


Does this happen often? Is it on certain pages?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this isolated to the Omega drivers?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I noticed it on AMD's previous beta release which was 14.11 (the first drivers used since building my new machine). I don't seem to have the issue when hardware acceleration is turned off though.
Click to expand...

Oh I see, so it doesn't occur with hardware acceleration on! Hmm, and I suppose Firefox works fine? Have you tried running safe mode? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode

Even Firefox says this about hw acceleration:

Quote:


> With some graphics card and graphics driver setups, Firefox may crash or have trouble showing text or objects on pages when using hardware acceleration. You can try turning off hardware acceleration to see if it fixes the problem.


You shouldn't notice a difference between it on or off though since you have quite a powerful CPU.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does this happen often? Is it on certain pages?
> Oh I see, so it doesn't occur with hardware acceleration on! Hmm, and I suppose Firefox works fine? Have you tried running safe mode? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode
> Even Firefox says this about hw acceleration:
> You shouldn't notice a difference between it on or off though since you have quite a powerful CPU.


any fix mega.co.nz issue many site issue same waterfox show desktop just close it does
fix soon i hope


----------



## godzfire

The option to remove search engines in WaterFox 34 is missing, please add it back:


----------



## kevindd992002

Waterfox on two of my computers detected that there is an update avaialbe (34.0) and upgraded successfully. One of my computers though does not detect the update and it says "waterfox is up to date" even though it is just 33.0. Why is this?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this isolated to the Omega drivers?
> 
> 
> 
> No, I noticed it on AMD's previous beta release which was 14.11 (the first drivers used since building my new machine). I don't seem to have the issue when hardware acceleration is turned off though.
Click to expand...

ISTR this is a known issue with Firefox and variants from time to time.


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does this happen often? Is it on certain pages?


It happens identically to how I described the same issue with 33.0.2, except it's a much shorter time between the lock of the view area, and the crash.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Problem: I just updated to 33.0.2 via the auto-update system, and now taking any link anywhere is causing Waterfox to crash, and take my video drivers with it. (bookmarks work fine)
> 
> Going to try reinstalling with a direct download from the site.
> 
> [EDIT] Did not work. Even tried disabling all my addons, to no significant effect. (just delaying the lock of the interactive area of the browser, and then delaying the crash of the browser and video driver) Now using Firefox 34.0 Beta until you get this sorted.
> 
> [EDIT2] Bookmarks work for the first bookmark used, unless there are 2 tabs or more open. Even causes a crash when trying to edit settings.


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

LastPass does support both 32bit or the 64bit Windows Installer.

I also noticed when I tried updating LastPass thru the extension updater, just now, it did update to the "LastPass 3.1.75 Update".



I didn't see this update listed for FF, but for LastPass for Safari.
I also see that this update was installed and is working.

This screen shot shows a new option in the 3.1.75 Update, that shows the number of web site, that are using the same password/user name being used.



I am using Win 7 Pro SP1. with WF Ver.33.0.2

I will try WF 34.0 soon.


----------



## kevindd992002

Is the Multiprocess FireFox back in WF 34.0?


----------



## malcomX

waterfox setup1 crash mega.co.nz
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/meganz/ crash addon too
waterfox close show desktop random visit many sites waterfox 34.0 broken
please soon fix


----------



## msuguy71

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oh I see, so it doesn't occur with hardware acceleration on! Hmm, and I suppose Firefox works fine? Have you tried running safe mode? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode
> 
> Even Firefox says this about hw acceleration:
> 
> You shouldn't notice a difference between it on or off though since you have quite a powerful CPU.


Well, that is disappointing. You are correct, I don't seem to notice a difference with HW acceleration off, well except for the fact that my screen is not all messed up







. Even though it does not seem to make a difference, my weirdness makes me annoyed that I can't use a feature.









Rick


----------



## cooperb21

For some reason this is happening on twitch flash all up to date.


----------



## cooperb21

Ok so this has nothing to do with waterfox. Its happen on all browsers...

Come to find out some ISP and corporate networks are blocking twitch's dns servers its really odd to me such huge site is blocked on some isp's.

Change dns to OpenDNS Servers and now it works.

http://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/articles/1444294-how-to-switch-your-dns


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does this happen often? Is it on certain pages?
> Oh I see, so it doesn't occur with hardware acceleration on! Hmm, and I suppose Firefox works fine? Have you tried running safe mode? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode
> Even Firefox says this about hw acceleration:
> You shouldn't notice a difference between it on or off though since you have quite a powerful CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> any fix mega.co.nz issue many site issue same waterfox show desktop just close it does
> fix soon i hope
Click to expand...

Don't worry I'm working on it! I've fixed the most important bugs in the release so that'll give me time to see what's causing x64 34.0 branch to crash.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *godzfire*
> 
> The option to remove search engines in WaterFox 34 is missing, please add it back:


Can you let me know if it's fixed in 34.0.1?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Waterfox on two of my computers detected that there is an update avaialbe (34.0) and upgraded successfully. One of my computers though does not detect the update and it says "waterfox is up to date" even though it is just 33.0. Why is this?


It depends on how long Waterfox has been run for. It's different for each computer, but it should have reached it by now?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does this happen often? Is it on certain pages?
> 
> 
> 
> It happens identically to how I described the same issue with 33.0.2, except it's a much shorter time between the lock of the view area, and the crash.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Problem: I just updated to 33.0.2 via the auto-update system, and now taking any link anywhere is causing Waterfox to crash, and take my video drivers with it. (bookmarks work fine)
> 
> Going to try reinstalling with a direct download from the site.
> 
> [EDIT] Did not work. Even tried disabling all my addons, to no significant effect. (just delaying the lock of the interactive area of the browser, and then delaying the crash of the browser and video driver) Now using Firefox 34.0 Beta until you get this sorted.
> 
> [EDIT2] Bookmarks work for the first bookmark used, unless there are 2 tabs or more open. Even causes a crash when trying to edit settings.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Hmm that's not good at all. Does the crash reporter let you submit any reports? If you go to about:crashes is anything there?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> LastPass does support both 32bit or the 64bit Windows Installer.
> 
> I also noticed when I tried updating LastPass thru the extension updater, just now, it did update to the "LastPass 3.1.75 Update".
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't see this update listed for FF, but for LastPass for Safari.
> I also see that this update was installed and is working.
> 
> This screen shot shows a new option in the 3.1.75 Update, that shows the number of web site, that are using the same password/user name being used.
> 
> 
> 
> I am using Win 7 Pro SP1. with WF Ver.33.0.2
> 
> I will try WF 34.0 soon.


So I'm assuming it works now? Thanks, let me know how it goes on v34!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is the Multiprocess FireFox back in WF 34.0?


It wasn't removed, you just have to manually do it by going File>New e10s window. (You'll need to enable the menu bar on Windows for that).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oh I see, so it doesn't occur with hardware acceleration on! Hmm, and I suppose Firefox works fine? Have you tried running safe mode? https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/troubleshoot-firefox-issues-using-safe-mode
> 
> Even Firefox says this about hw acceleration:
> 
> You shouldn't notice a difference between it on or off though since you have quite a powerful CPU.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, that is disappointing. You are correct, I don't seem to notice a difference with HW acceleration off, well except for the fact that my screen is not all messed up
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> . Even though it does not seem to make a difference, my weirdness makes me annoyed that I can't use a feature.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rick
Click to expand...

Yes I can imagine it being annoying! The 34.0 branch has introduced some strange bugs, lets see if 35.0 resolves the issues.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Ok so this has nothing to do with waterfox. Its happen on all browsers...
> 
> Come to find out some ISP and corporate networks are blocking twitch's dns servers its really odd to me such huge site is blocked on some isp's.
> 
> Change dns to OpenDNS Servers and now it works.
> 
> http://help.twitch.tv/customer/portal/articles/1444294-how-to-switch-your-dns


That is strange! Thanks for the update.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Don't worry I'm working on it! I've fixed the most important bugs in the release so that'll give me time to see what's causing x64 34.0 branch to crash.
> Can you let me know if it's fixed in 34.0.1?


where find 34.0.1?


----------



## djnforce9

Is there a direct download link to Waterfox v34.0.1? The "? -> About" method is not working for me. It states "Waterfox is up to date" when it's not. I was sure to run the browser for a while in order to give it time to check the update server.


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

It still didn't reach until now. I had to manually update it. Isn't that weird?

Well, what I wanted was to open all my tabs in different process. I guess that was the feature that was removed, right? You can manually open a new instance of a multiprocess tab but not ran ALL current tabs.


----------



## djnforce9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> It still didn't reach until now. I had to manually update it. Isn't that weird?


How did you manually update to v34.0.1? I can't find a download link to it and I am not sure of the URL Waterfox uses to access the update.

EDIT: Never mind, I see that v34.0.1 is now up on the main page (it was not there earlier today).


----------



## Pongro

Quote:


> Can you let me know if it's fixed in 34.0.1?


I can confirm that you can remove the engines (although they stay in the list, can you remove them completely?).
How can I move them though? I haven't been able to since 34 (that I know of, it's been a while since I last did it).


----------



## malcomX

me find pref not work https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1106476 fix mozila not apply







now you fix in waterfox


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> It still didn't reach until now. I had to manually update it. Isn't that weird?
> 
> Well, what I wanted was to open all my tabs in different process. I guess that was the feature that was removed, right? You can manually open a new instance of a multiprocess tab but not ran ALL current tabs.


That is weird. There are two timers set: The first is how long to check for an update which is set at 1 day. The second is how long to wait before prompting the user, which is set a 1 day. So at most it should be two days (although usually it happens within hours of release of update). Hmm.

Oh right yes I see, because I build this as a "release", the option for autostart isn't available, I'd have to build Waterfox as a nightly for that option to come back, which would enable a lot of unstable feature which wouldn't be good!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pongro*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Can you let me know if it's fixed in 34.0.1?
> 
> 
> 
> I can confirm that you can remove the engines (although they stay in the list, can you remove them completely?).
> How can I move them though? I haven't been able to since 34 (that I know of, it's been a while since I last did it).
Click to expand...

Ah that's interesting, I'll have a look into that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> me find pref not work https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1106476 fix mozila not apply
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> now you fix in waterfox


Hmm seems 34.0 broke a lot of preliminary features. It'll be fixed for the next release


----------



## AnonCoward

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Waterfox just gave me an update prompt for 34.0, but trying to apply it gets me the following:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> updater.exe - System Error
> 
> The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.


I had this problem the last patch. My dll was an older version than some of the people here had. I got the full installer which worked and updated the dll as well, but again with this patch I have the same problem. I'm guessing there's a new version of the dll again.


----------



## RevZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> I had this problem the last patch. My dll was an older version than some of the people here had. I got the full installer which worked and updated the dll as well, but again with this patch I have the same problem. I'm guessing there's a new version of the dll again.


Weird. I too updated with the full installer, but now it updated to .1 just fine automatically! I guess sometimes things do not register properly?


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

Well, the update from 34 to 34.0.1 was detected now on that same computer.

Is there no way to force the autostart at all if it's not in the FF release? And why did they remove it anyway?


----------



## malcomX

fix language https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1025437 install error


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm that's not good at all. Does the crash reporter let you submit any reports? If you go to about:crashes is anything there?


It has a crash from 33.0.2 for Adobe Flash Player when I went to Youtube for testing, but nothing for the crashes that are preventing use of Waterfox for browsing. I'm getting and trying 34.0.1 now.

[EDIT] It crashed mid-download of the update, so I'm going to manually update.

[EDIT2] No change... Freezes visible area or crashes the video driver within a minute of starting.


----------



## Pongro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah that's interesting, I'll have a look into that.


Thanks for that. I don't know if it's been already asked, but is it possible to install the sumatraPDF pdf plugin on waterfox? It installs on firefox, but not here.

Right now I have pdfs open the program itself, because the default plugin is a bit sluggish in comparison.


----------



## Jokerfish

I'm having an issue where 34 won't load any site info or the front page for Microsoft Onedrive, only blank tabs when I try to visit the site. 32 seemed fine with it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Waterfox just gave me an update prompt for 34.0, but trying to apply it gets me the following:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> updater.exe - System Error
> 
> The program can't start because libiomp5md.dll is missing from your computer. Try reinstalling the program to fix this problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I had this problem the last patch. My dll was an older version than some of the people here had. I got the full installer which worked and updated the dll as well, but again with this patch I have the same problem. I'm guessing there's a new version of the dll again.
Click to expand...

Hmm something is not right there, the redistributables are all the same version. Only difference is when they were timestamped when I signed them. Do you know if this happens when Waterfox is opened by another program?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *AnonCoward*
> 
> I had this problem the last patch. My dll was an older version than some of the people here had. I got the full installer which worked and updated the dll as well, but again with this patch I have the same problem. I'm guessing there's a new version of the dll again.
> 
> 
> 
> Weird. I too updated with the full installer, but now it updated to .1 just fine automatically! I guess sometimes things do not register properly?
Click to expand...

Maybe the above happened?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> fix language https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1025437 install error


Ah thanks, fixed it now! If you get the old file, delete your cache and it should download the newer one 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm that's not good at all. Does the crash reporter let you submit any reports? If you go to about:crashes is anything there?
> 
> 
> 
> It has a crash from 33.0.2 for Adobe Flash Player when I went to Youtube for testing, but nothing for the crashes that are preventing use of Waterfox for browsing. I'm getting and trying 34.0.1 now.
> 
> [EDIT] It crashed mid-download of the update, so I'm going to manually update.
> 
> [EDIT2] No change... Freezes visible area or crashes the video driver within a minute of starting.
Click to expand...

 That is very strange that it's happening to you. Could you link me to the crash report? It should've uploaded to Mozilla.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pongro*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah that's interesting, I'll have a look into that.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for that. I don't know if it's been already asked, but is it possible to install the sumatraPDF pdf plugin on waterfox? It installs on firefox, but not here.
> 
> Right now I have pdfs open the program itself, because the default plugin is a bit sluggish in comparison.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately 64-Bit build don't seem like they'll be happening  https://github.com/sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf/wiki/Why-no-64-bit-builds%3F

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Jokerfish*
> 
> I'm having an issue where 34 won't load any site info or the front page for Microsoft Onedrive, only blank tabs when I try to visit the site. 32 seemed fine with it.


I can confirm the same is happening. I'll have a look, shouldn't be any reason for this! The rest of office online and outlook works as well!


----------



## fullmoon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pongro*
> 
> Thanks for that. I don't know if it's been already asked, but is it possible to install the sumatraPDF pdf plugin on waterfox? It installs on firefox, but not here.
> 
> Right now I have pdfs open the program itself, because the default plugin is a bit sluggish in comparison.


https://github.com/sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf/wiki/Browser-plugin


----------



## Quantum Reality

PDF X-Change claims to come in 32 and 64bit versions.


----------



## Lopser

This link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 34.01, but Firefox 34 open it.


----------



## Pongro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Unfortunately 64-Bit build don't seem like they'll be happening
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://github.com/sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf/wiki/Why-no-64-bit-builds%3F


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *fullmoon*
> 
> https://github.com/sumatrapdfreader/sumatrapdf/wiki/Browser-plugin


Thanks to both of you, I don't know how I missed those.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> PDF X-Change claims to come in 32 and 64bit versions.


Thanks to you too, I'll give it a try!


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That is very strange that it's happening to you. Could you link me to the crash report? It should've uploaded to Mozilla.


Unfortunately, it doesn't give a crash report... It crashed the video driver, and Waterfox at the same time so no report is made. If it makes a log file, then could you point me to where it's stored?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That is very strange that it's happening to you. Could you link me to the crash report? It should've uploaded to Mozilla.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it doesn't give a crash report... It crashed the video driver, and Waterfox at the same time so no report is made. If it makes a log file, then could you point me to where it's stored?
Click to expand...

Try the Win7 Event Viewer.

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

Waterfox 34.0.1 is not installing in Windows 7 Home Premium Service Pack 1 x 64 operating system, through the update process.

It states that another copy of Firefox is currently running, where FireFox 32-Bit is no longer installed in the operating system.

2014-12-20-Waterfoxupdatefailed.jpg 385k .jpg file


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> This link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 34.01, but Firefox 34 open it.


Is the link to your logged in One Drive profile?

i cannot open your link, but I can open the One Drive main page from Waterfox 34.0.1

You might need to log out of One Drive in Firefox before you can log in with Waterfox.

Chas


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Waterfox 34.0.1 is not installing in Windows 7 Home Premium Service Pack 1 x 64 operating system, through the update process.
> 
> It states that another copy of Firefox is currently running, where FireFox 32-Bit is no longer installed in the operating system.
> 
> 2014-12-20-Waterfoxupdatefailed.jpg 385k .jpg file


I think this is a missed reference in the installer configuration. The installer can fail if either Firefox or Waterfox is running.

Another thing I have seen is that the Waterfox process can take just a few seconds too long to close and is still running when the update installer needs it to be closed. Then, when you open task manager, you find no running program or process.

In either case, the work-around is to download and install the updated version from the Waterfox Project page.
https://waterfoxproject.org/

Chas


----------



## malcomX

news on mega.co.nz fix soon anytime
massive benchmark no work http://kripken.github.io/Massive/


----------



## Pongro

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah that's interesting, I'll have a look into that.


Hey, I don't know if you should spend time on that, I think that function comes from the "Context search" add-on, not firefox itself. I don't if firefox has it too, so check for that before looking into it.
Sorry about that, I got confused.


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Try the Win7 Event Viewer.
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html


Already tried, but I have my system set to clear those out every restart, and I restart after video driver crashes to prevent performance loss. No Windows logs left.


----------



## malcomX

request tiles sponsored remove not like advertiser on tab new
Mozilla plunks ads into Firefox


----------



## kevindd992002

Is it better to turn off hardware acceleration to fix all Flash problems in Waterfox/Firefox? I've been having these problems on all my computers with many tabs in them. When I open about 10 or more Flash-heavy websites, the browser just crawls! And the RAM used by waterfox.exe reaches more than 2GB. This is just unacceptable and I've been waiting for many years now for this to be fixed but I'm only being disappointed.


----------



## malcomX

wait not longer help i ask cyberfox dev reply https://github.com/InternalError503/Waterfox/commit/ce86ce3403a0da8b60edad95ff9e6ed2254b27fb
fix now crash


----------



## amiew

Having to stop using Waterfox for now because of these problems:

Windows 8 (not 8.1); 2.4Gh processor, 4GB ram
.
1. Browser takes up to 3 minutes to load, even with no previously opened tabs. Sometimes it opens empty and I have to close it through Task Manager and reopen.
2. Extremely slow and choppy, even without too many tabs open. Yes, hardware acceleration is off.
3. Regularly freezes for long periods of time, during which I lose all computer control and have to manually shut down and reboot.
4. Javascript error problems on Amazon Mechanical Turk, where I make most of my money, and it's only a problem in WF, not FF portable (FF desktop doesn't seem to like my computer for some reason, so I run portable on the desktop) or Chrome. I've installed both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Java, so it's not compatibility that I can see.

FF portable (32 bit) is 10x as fast as WF right now. I really need the speed, so I'll keep updating and trying to see if an update fixes this problem.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> PDF X-Change claims to come in 32 and 64bit versions.


Yes there are quite a few PDF readers with 64-Bit extensions. I've used PDF X-Change before pdf.js was available and it does the job decently.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> This link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 34.01, but Firefox 34 open it.


Yes I've found the same bug, I'm looking into it. Might be a bit late!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> That is very strange that it's happening to you. Could you link me to the crash report? It should've uploaded to Mozilla.
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, it doesn't give a crash report... It crashed the video driver, and Waterfox at the same time so no report is made. If it makes a log file, then could you point me to where it's stored?
Click to expand...

Any chance you could have it so crash logs don't clear on restart? Would make finding out the issue a bit easier!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> request tiles sponsored remove not like advertiser on tab new
> Mozilla plunks ads into Firefox


Do you already see them in Waterfox? If so I'll have to backtrack quite a few bugs that Mozilla have implemented.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is it better to turn off hardware acceleration to fix all Flash problems in Waterfox/Firefox? I've been having these problems on all my computers with many tabs in them. When I open about 10 or more Flash-heavy websites, the browser just crawls! And the RAM used by waterfox.exe reaches more than 2GB. This is just unacceptable and I've been waiting for many years now for this to be fixed but I'm only being disappointed.


It depends on what provides a better experience. If it's HW off, then it won't make a difference to your experience with HW on. All it does is offload tasks from your CPU to your GPU (and any modern CPU will handle everything just fine). Also it looks like plugins are being phased out. Chrome has completely shut off NPAPI plugins now and they're only leaving the bare essentials till they're comfortable enough that it's no longer needed. Mozilla are also working on shumway, a way to natively render flash with HTML5 (like PDF.js for example) to get rid of the need of plugins.

Plugins were always a big security and performance issue so they'll be going the way of the dodo which is why not much work or focus is being put into fixing their issue anymore.

As for RAM usage, that comes with the territory on such a big 64-Bit program. (Memory pointers are now twice as big for example).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> wait not longer help i ask cyberfox dev reply https://github.com/InternalError503/Waterfox/commit/ce86ce3403a0da8b60edad95ff9e6ed2254b27fb
> fix now crash


Thanks I've now merged the fix, will issue a patch. Apologies I haven't had time to look through all the changes between 33.x -> 34 -> 35 to see what broke/then got fixed. I've got exams first two weeks of January so I've been busy revising which has noticeably reduced the time I spend developing Waterfox! I'm putting a team together for Waterfox, so hopefully soon we'll see some real development prowess come into action!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amiew*
> 
> Having to stop using Waterfox for now because of these problems:
> 
> Windows 8 (not 8.1); 2.4Gh processor, 4GB ram
> .
> 1. Browser takes up to 3 minutes to load, even with no previously opened tabs. Sometimes it opens empty and I have to close it through Task Manager and reopen.
> 2. Extremely slow and choppy, even without too many tabs open. Yes, hardware acceleration is off.
> 3. Regularly freezes for long periods of time, during which I lose all computer control and have to manually shut down and reboot.
> 4. Javascript error problems on Amazon Mechanical Turk, where I make most of my money, and it's only a problem in WF, not FF portable (FF desktop doesn't seem to like my computer for some reason, so I run portable on the desktop) or Chrome. I've installed both the 64-bit and 32-bit versions of Java, so it's not compatibility that I can see.
> 
> FF portable (32 bit) is 10x as fast as WF right now. I really need the speed, so I'll keep updating and trying to see if an update fixes this problem.


Hmm. Does FF portable have its own profile or does it use the system profile? It could possibly be a profile issue (which would explain FF desktop not working well either). Have you tried creating a blank profile to see if that fixes anything?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It depends on what provides a better experience. If it's HW off, then it won't make a difference to your experience with HW on. All it does is offload tasks from your CPU to your GPU (and any modern CPU will handle everything just fine). Also it looks like plugins are being phased out. Chrome has completely shut off NPAPI plugins now and they're only leaving the bare essentials till they're comfortable enough that it's no longer needed. Mozilla are also working on shumway, a way to natively render flash with HTML5 (like PDF.js for example) to get rid of the need of plugins.
> 
> Plugins were always a big security and performance issue so they'll be going the way of the dodo which is why not much work or focus is being put into fixing their issue anymore.
> As for RAM usage, that comes with the territory on such a big 64-Bit program. (Memory pointers are now twice as big for example).


Thanks for the insight. Does that mean that 2GB RAM usage is just normal? I mean that has still to be a memory leak, isn't?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It depends on what provides a better experience. If it's HW off, then it won't make a difference to your experience with HW on. All it does is offload tasks from your CPU to your GPU (and any modern CPU will handle everything just fine). Also it looks like plugins are being phased out. Chrome has completely shut off NPAPI plugins now and they're only leaving the bare essentials till they're comfortable enough that it's no longer needed. Mozilla are also working on shumway, a way to natively render flash with HTML5 (like PDF.js for example) to get rid of the need of plugins.
> 
> Plugins were always a big security and performance issue so they'll be going the way of the dodo which is why not much work or focus is being put into fixing their issue anymore.
> As for RAM usage, that comes with the territory on such a big 64-Bit program. (Memory pointers are now twice as big for example).
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the insight. Does that mean that 2GB RAM usage is just normal? I mean that has still to be a memory leak, isn't?
Click to expand...

Yes that's about right. Depends really, some websites will cause memory leaks that are image heavy. And it depends on the memory allocator. Switching to tcmalloc, it tries to be clever by predicting how you're going to use memory so if you use memory intensive websites a lot in one session it won't release the memory back to the system in an effort to improve performance. You can find an in-depth article about it here and of course the docs here if it interests you.


----------



## amiew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm. Does FF portable have its own profile or does it use the system profile? It could possibly be a profile issue (which would explain FF desktop not working well either). Have you tried creating a blank profile to see if that fixes anything?


I would assume it does, since when I went back to it, I had to update everything, including bookmarks and some Add-ons. It's not installed in the FF programs file, so you have to clean the history manually, whereas WF gets cleaned by CCleaner when I run it. I don't have FF desktop installed in the programs folder anymore, just WF, and CCleaner identifies it as FF.

I have tried running it in safe mode, which makes it a little faster, but haven't tried a blank profile. Since FF portable is working for me right now, I don't want to take the time to mess with WF. Once I get time, I may do a clean install and see if that fixes the problems, but I won't have time to do that for awhile, at least after the holidays.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes that's about right. Depends really, some websites will cause memory leaks that are image heavy. And it depends on the memory allocator. Switching to tcmalloc, it tries to be clever by predicting how you're going to use memory so if you use memory intensive websites a lot in one session it won't release the memory back to the system in an effort to improve performance. You can find an in-depth article about it here and of course the docs here if it interests you.


What is the reason behind it not releasing the memory back to the system when I close the tab?


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Any chance you could have it so crash logs don't clear on restart? Would make finding out the issue a bit easier!


Did, and it provided no crash log. It acts like it didn't crash at all, contrary to what my eyes witness.


----------



## RevZ

Waterfox is corrupting my folder thumbnails when I browse folders inside the Save Image dialog to save images (in this case .jpg files from i.imgur.com) to image folders containing large amounts of subfolders and files (over 75000).

I do not know in the least what is causing this, but here are some key points which I think are recurring:

The thumbnails most often do not corrupt if they're already in cache after having been generated by Windows itself;
If no thumbnail exists for a subfolder, when you browse into its parent folder WF will generate the above corrupted thumbnail image;
The image it generates is the same for every folder it generates a thumbnail for;
When clearing the thumbnail cache, if generated by Windows the thumbnails are good, but if generated by WF they're always bad now.
It started happening after version 34 at the earliest, and I think even only after the update to 34.0.1.
Here's what it generates:



EDIT: I was doing some more image saves just now, and going into a folder I hadn't visited with WF's Save Image dialog yet _until I regenerated the thumbnails via Windows first_. killed random thumbnails which were already existing in cache.. They got replaced with similar pink-ish colored noise patterns, just like the above example but not quite the same. Once this happes the change is permanent until the cache is cleared, a PC restart obviously does not help.

I saved at least fifteen of these images before this happened, so it's not consistent! But doing many manipulations via Windows Explorer in the same folders did not affect anything and neither did any thumbnails corrupt when I was doing the same image browsing/saving via IE..


----------



## Lopser

And I have.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Clear disk cache
Update Java
Tweak some network settings and cache settings.
Get CCleaner with the extra addons and clear out nearly all the firefox options (except passwords, session, site prefs, any others you want to keep).

Should run better with lots of addons after doing the above.


----------



## Levisas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Hi all, been having weird display corruption issues in Waterfox since updating to the new Cataylst Omega drivers when hardware acceleration is checked in the Waterfox options. I unchecked hardware acceleration to see if it is any better. Here is a screenshot
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Rick
> 
> System specs:
> 
> i4790K
> Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB
> 16GB DDR3 1866 ram
> XFX DD R9 270X
> Gigabyte 6870OC
> Windows 8.1 pro x64


Using Windows 8.1, R9 290 getting the same exact problem too for Firefox 34 official. HW turning off solve it of course, but I think it is enough of a problem to finally migrate to Chrome.

Edit: Wrong quote


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levisas*
> 
> Using Windows 8.1, R9 290 getting the same exact problem too for Firefox 34 official. HW turning off solve it of course, but I think it is enough of a problem to finally migrate to Chrome.


What do you mean "HW turning off"? Do you mean turning off HW acceleration?

The most important thing Chrome doesn't have is to display a fixed tab length when you're using hundreds of tabs. In Chrome, it will display all those tabs in one window length making all tabs minute and very hard to select.


----------



## Levisas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What do you mean "HW turning off"? Do you mean turning off HW acceleration?
> 
> The most important thing Chrome doesn't have is to display a fixed tab length when you're using hundreds of tabs. In Chrome, it will display all those tabs in one window length making all tabs minute and very hard to select.


Yes HW acceleration off, also I quoted the wrong post, edited original post for context. The issue is HW acceleration not working properly with Firefox and by extension Waterfox. The past couple of years, I used both Chrome and Firefox, preferred Firefox 80 percent of time, but this issue is important enough for me to switch to Chrome. Though I am not a heavy tab user, so I never personally ran into your issue.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levisas*
> 
> Yes HW acceleration off, also I quoted the wrong post, edited original post for context. The issue is HW acceleration not working properly with Firefox and by extension Waterfox. The past couple of years, I used both Chrome and Firefox, preferred Firefox 80 percent of time, but this issue is important enough for me to switch to Chrome. Though I am not a heavy tab user, so I never personally ran into your issue.


How did you know that HW acceleration is not working though?


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Do you already see them in Waterfox? If so I'll have to backtrack quite a few bugs that Mozilla have implemented


sponsored new tab tiles in waterfox https://support.mozilla.org/bg/kb/how-do-tiles-work-firefox
mega.co.nx fix build when release time wait long not hope


----------



## Levisas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> How did you know that HW acceleration is not working though?


http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-34-0-1-17-december-firefox-64-bit/6470#post_23335526


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levisas*
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-34-0-1-17-december-firefox-64-bit/6470#post_23335526


Are you referring to the display corruption issue on that post?


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

Problem when printing. uses Waterfox 34.01.

What is being printed: Belarc Advisor 8.4 Output to Power PDF Advanced 1.0 file. Only Page 1 has information printed on it The rest of the pages are blank.

Using Firefox 34.0.5 32-Bit browser as the default Browser for test.

What is being printed: Belarc Advisor 8.4 Output to Power PDF Advanced 1.0 file. All pages have information printed on them.


----------



## blackshap9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *amiew*
> 
> I would assume it does, since when I went back to it, I had to update everything, including bookmarks and some Add-ons. It's not installed in the FF programs file, so you have to clean the history manually, whereas WF gets cleaned by CCleaner when I run it. I don't have FF desktop installed in the programs folder anymore, just WF, and CCleaner identifies it as FF.
> 
> I have tried running it in safe mode, which makes it a little faster, but haven't tried a blank profile. Since FF portable is working for me right now, I don't want to take the time to mess with WF. Once I get time, I may do a clean install and see if that fixes the problems, but I won't have time to do that for awhile, at least after the holidays.


I have been having the exact same problems with WF for some time now. A blank profile fixes it but not for long. As soon as you Bookmark any websites or just from daily usage it begins to become very slow. The browser just becomes unusable.

I have tested it next to PaleMoon and FFnightly and both browser performed brilliantly while WF lagged behind. At this point I don`t know what to do... maybe give chrome a try.

I have also found that right after WF updates itself then that is when the browser even gets slower.


----------



## gijs007

@MrAlex
Since I read about the new tcmalloc memory manager in Waterfox I was wondering if you've considered using: intel tbb malloc
It's a malloc memory manager by intel which makes use of Intel® TBB(Threading Building Blocks) so it might be even faster.

I found out about its existence trough arma 2 and 3 which both have it included as memory manager.

It's source can be found here:
https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/sites/default/files/software_releases/source/tbb42_20131118oss_src.tgz

Precompiled version can be downloaded from: https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/sites/default/files/software_releases/windows/tbb43_20141204oss_win_0.zip

Newer versions can be found here under stable and development releases.:
https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/download#code-samples


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Any chance you could have it so crash logs don't clear on restart? Would make finding out the issue a bit easier!
> 
> 
> 
> Did, and it provided no crash log. It acts like it didn't crash at all, contrary to what my eyes witness.
Click to expand...

I'm really curious why it always crashes for you. So the following has been tried, please correct me if I miss anything out:


On a fresh install
Fresh profile (for Waterfox)
HW acceleration disable
No add-ons

And it happens to be randomly right?

v35 might fix some issues you'll be having. I'm attempting to build a preview release to test everything and I'll be upgrading the tools I'm using so maybe this issue will be resolved.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> And I have.


Hmm yes this isn't good, I think I know what the problem is.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Clear disk cache
> Update Java
> Tweak some network settings and cache settings.
> Get CCleaner with the extra addons and clear out nearly all the firefox options (except passwords, session, site prefs, any others you want to keep).
> 
> Should run better with lots of addons after doing the above.


Okay good to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Waterfox is corrupting my folder thumbnails when I browse folders inside the Save Image dialog to save images (in this case .jpg files from i.imgur.com) to image folders containing large amounts of subfolders and files (over 75000).
> 
> I do not know in the least what is causing this, but here are some key points which I think are recurring:
> 
> The thumbnails most often do not corrupt if they're already in cache after having been generated by Windows itself;
> If no thumbnail exists for a subfolder, when you browse into its parent folder WF will generate the above corrupted thumbnail image;
> The image it generates is the same for every folder it generates a thumbnail for;
> When clearing the thumbnail cache, if generated by Windows the thumbnails are good, but if generated by WF they're always bad now.
> It started happening after version 34 at the earliest, and I think even only after the update to 34.0.1.
> Here's what it generates:
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT: I was doing some more image saves just now, and going into a folder I hadn't visited with WF's Save Image dialog yet until I regenerated the thumbnails via Windows first. killed random thumbnails which were already existing in cache.. They got replaced with similar pink-ish colored noise patterns, just like the above example but not quite the same. Once this happes the change is permanent until the cache is cleared, a PC restart obviously does not help.
> 
> I saved at least fifteen of these images before this happened, so it's not consistent! But doing many manipulations via Windows Explorer in the same folders did not affect anything and neither did any thumbnails corrupt when I was doing the same image browsing/saving via IE..


Yes I think I know what's wrong I'll have a look 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levisas*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Hi all, been having weird display corruption issues in Waterfox since updating to the new Cataylst Omega drivers when hardware acceleration is checked in the Waterfox options. I unchecked hardware acceleration to see if it is any better. Here is a screenshot
> 
> 
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Rick
> 
> System specs:
> 
> i4790K
> Gigabyte Gaming 7 MB
> 16GB DDR3 1866 ram
> XFX DD R9 270X
> Gigabyte 6870OC
> Windows 8.1 pro x64
> 
> 
> 
> Using Windows 8.1, R9 290 getting the same exact problem too for Firefox 34 official. HW turning off solve it of course, but I think it is enough of a problem to finally migrate to Chrome.
> 
> Edit: Wrong quote
Click to expand...

Yes, HW acceleration isn't very consistent with Firefox/Waterfox unfortunately.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Levisas*
> 
> Using Windows 8.1, R9 290 getting the same exact problem too for Firefox 34 official. HW turning off solve it of course, but I think it is enough of a problem to finally migrate to Chrome.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean "HW turning off"? Do you mean turning off HW acceleration?
> 
> The most important thing Chrome doesn't have is to display a fixed tab length when you're using hundreds of tabs. In Chrome, it will display all those tabs in one window length making all tabs minute and very hard to select.
Click to expand...

Yes that's right. HW acceleration either works or causes lots of issues.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Do you already see them in Waterfox? If so I'll have to backtrack quite a few bugs that Mozilla have implemented
> 
> 
> 
> sponsored new tab tiles in waterfox https://support.mozilla.org/bg/kb/how-do-tiles-work-firefox
> mega.co.nx fix build when release time wait long not hope
Click to expand...

Haven't been aware of sponsored tabs being enabled in 3rd party builds yet. It won't be long now









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Problem when printing. uses Waterfox 34.01.
> 
> What is being printed: Belarc Advisor 8.4 Output to Power PDF Advanced 1.0 file. Only Page 1 has information printed on it The rest of the pages are blank.
> 
> Using Firefox 34.0.5 32-Bit browser as the default Browser for test.
> 
> What is being printed: Belarc Advisor 8.4 Output to Power PDF Advanced 1.0 file. All pages have information printed on them.


Hi thecreator, thanks for the info. Looks like print preview isn't working properly on some systems. If you disable hardware acceleration does this solve the issue?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *amiew*
> 
> I would assume it does, since when I went back to it, I had to update everything, including bookmarks and some Add-ons. It's not installed in the FF programs file, so you have to clean the history manually, whereas WF gets cleaned by CCleaner when I run it. I don't have FF desktop installed in the programs folder anymore, just WF, and CCleaner identifies it as FF.
> 
> I have tried running it in safe mode, which makes it a little faster, but haven't tried a blank profile. Since FF portable is working for me right now, I don't want to take the time to mess with WF. Once I get time, I may do a clean install and see if that fixes the problems, but I won't have time to do that for awhile, at least after the holidays.
> 
> 
> 
> I have been having the exact same problems with WF for some time now. A blank profile fixes it but not for long. As soon as you Bookmark any websites or just from daily usage it begins to become very slow. The browser just becomes unusable.
> 
> I have tested it next to PaleMoon and FFnightly and both browser performed brilliantly while WF lagged behind. At this point I don`t know what to do... maybe give chrome a try.
> 
> I have also found that right after WF updates itself then that is when the browser even gets slower.
Click to expand...

Hmm, that isn't good at all. I'm making a few changes in 35.0 so maybe this will solve some of the issues you've been seeing.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> @MrAlex
> Since I read about the new tcmalloc memory manager in Waterfox I was wondering if you've considered using: intel tbb malloc
> It's a malloc memory manager by intel which makes use of Intel® TBB(Threading Building Blocks) so it might be even faster.
> 
> I found out about its existence trough arma 2 and 3 which both have it included as memory manager.
> 
> It's source can be found here:
> https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/sites/default/files/software_releases/source/tbb42_20131118oss_src.tgz
> 
> Precompiled version can be downloaded from: https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/sites/default/files/software_releases/windows/tbb43_20141204oss_win_0.zip
> 
> Newer versions can be found here under stable and development releases.:
> https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/download#code-samples


Yes I've seen the TBB malloc but haven't had time to test it yet. I'll definitely look into it!


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Haven't been aware of sponsored tabs being enabled in 3rd party builds yet. It won't be long now


eyes check must i tile sponsored look do they
image see must


----------



## gijs007

@MrAlex
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes I've seen the TBB malloc but haven't had time to test it yet. I'll definitely look into it!


Cool







, can you send me a PM and post the results here so me and other people know if its useful to replace malloc in other programs as well?









One more question, or actually three.
Can you tell me which version of visual studio, Windows SDK and Intel Compiller you use?

Btw: the download link on this thread's first post doesn't work: https://waterfoxproject.org/download.php
Btw 2: Would you be interested in recompiling other programs (for a fee?) I wonder if PHP 5.6 for windows NTS could be made faster with the Intel Compiler.
Btw 3: Would you be interested in Donations or a fast dedicated or VPS server to help with compiling? (Intel® Xeon® E3 1230 v3, or a shared Intel Xeon
E5-1620v2)


----------



## kevindd992002

I've also noticed another problem with the new version of Waterfox (this does not happen in the older versions). I have a lot of tabs opened and my WF is set to "show tabs and windows from last time". I close WF and as soon as I open it, the tabs do open but the highlighted tab (from BEFORE I close WF) is always a "New tab" tab and I have to click Back on that tab to get the actual content from before I close WF. Any ideas?


----------



## malcomX

mega.co.nx fix build when release time wait long not hope sites other affect does random close desktop show like mega switch browser must use sites









many site asm.js use waterfox crash it does work it not see http://kripken.github.io/Massive/ many peoples issue same mega not use


----------



## Levisas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, HW acceleration isn't very consistent with Firefox/Waterfox unfortunately.
> 
> Yes that's right. HW acceleration either works or causes lots of issues.


So I heard, but personally it has been very consistent for me since Firefox 4 through a multitude of Nvidia and ATI/AMD chips. Anyways, I created fresh test profile to try to isolate it a while back, but it still the same thing happened. It seems to be ongoing AMD(Southern Island series of chips)/Firefox issues and by extension any recompiled builds like Waterfox.

For this specific issue, It started after Mozilla ver 33 or 32, I have also seen it in 34 stable, and 35 beta, so Mozilla did something with hardware acceleration with a version update. The ESR version based on Ver 31, which I am using for now, never experiences this issue at all. I run separate instances of the channels (esr, release, Beta, Nightly), with their own profiles so that's how I test.

It is infrequent so I guess people will probably ignore b/c it is infrequent and goes away if you scroll enough. Here is the closest bugzilla report I can find of it.
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1066839

There might be others, but I didn't want to filter through the literally hundreds of reported graphics bugs to find anything else. Most people will also probably switch hardware acceleration off and be on their merry way if it becomes enough of an annoyance. I won't b/c there are website I visit sometimes that use hardware acceleration. I will just eventually switch to Chrome if the issue isn't fixed by the time Firefox 31 esr is no long supported.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Speaking of HW Acceleration, my roomie uses Firefox and he was having problems with Skyrim bogging down occasionally. A lot of that went away when ti turned out he liked to have FF in the background while Skyrim was running, and we disabled HW acceleration on the browser.


----------



## MrAlex

Hi all, sorry for being away so long, in the midst of exam period! Here's Waterfox 34.0.2 for testing:

Download


Fixed mega.co.nz issues thanks to InternalError503
Testing tbb_malloc as tcmalloc has issues registering it's .dll with regsvr32
Implemented some patches from FX36,37 in regards to what HW acceleration gets enabled with some systems as Mozilla have been losing users due to some issues related to it.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Haven't been aware of sponsored tabs being enabled in 3rd party builds yet. It won't be long now
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> eyes check must i tile sponsored look do they
> image see must
Click to expand...

I'll look into that 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> @MrAlex
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes I've seen the TBB malloc but haven't had time to test it yet. I'll definitely look into it!
> 
> 
> 
> Cool
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> , can you send me a PM and post the results here so me and other people know if its useful to replace malloc in other programs as well?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One more question, or actually three.
> Can you tell me which version of visual studio, Windows SDK and Intel Compiller you use?
> 
> Btw: the download link on this thread's first post doesn't work: https://waterfoxproject.org/download.php
> Btw 2: Would you be interested in recompiling other programs (for a fee?) I wonder if PHP 5.6 for windows NTS could be made faster with the Intel Compiler.
> Btw 3: Would you be interested in Donations or a fast dedicated or VPS server to help with compiling? (Intel® Xeon® E3 1230 v3, or a shared Intel Xeon
> E5-1620v2)
Click to expand...

You can test above if you'd like! Currently use VS2010, 7.0A SDK and Intel C++ 13 SP 1 Update 3.

I'll fix the link thanks. And as for recompiling I could give it a test for free, no reason to charge to see if it's easily doable and then just post a guide?

I might open up donations again, but everything is ok on the VPS/compiling side thanks for the offer









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I've also noticed another problem with the new version of Waterfox (this does not happen in the older versions). I have a lot of tabs opened and my WF is set to "show tabs and windows from last time". I close WF and as soon as I open it, the tabs do open but the highlighted tab (from BEFORE I close WF) is always a "New tab" tab and I have to click Back on that tab to get the actual content from before I close WF. Any ideas?


Ooh that is strange. Don't suppose you could take some screenshots on how to reproduce?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> mega.co.nx fix build when release time wait long not hope sites other affect does random close desktop show like mega switch browser must use sites
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> many site asm.js use waterfox crash it does work it not see http://kripken.github.io/Massive/ many peoples issue same mega not use


Don't worry it is fixed in above build, if everything is okay with everyone I'll release tonight/tomorrow.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Levisas*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, HW acceleration isn't very consistent with Firefox/Waterfox unfortunately.
> 
> Yes that's right. HW acceleration either works or causes lots of issues.
> 
> 
> 
> So I heard, but personally it has been very consistent for me since Firefox 4 through a multitude of Nvidia and ATI/AMD chips. Anyways, I created fresh test profile to try to isolate it a while back, but it still the same thing happened. It seems to be ongoing AMD(Southern Island series of chips)/Firefox issues and by extension any recompiled builds like Waterfox.
> 
> For this specific issue, It started after Mozilla ver 33 or 32, I have also seen it in 34 stable, and 35 beta, so Mozilla did something with hardware acceleration with a version update. The ESR version based on Ver 31, which I am using for now, never experiences this issue at all. I run separate instances of the channels (esr, release, Beta, Nightly), with their own profiles so that's how I test.
> 
> It is infrequent so I guess people will probably ignore b/c it is infrequent and goes away if you scroll enough. Here is the closest bugzilla report I can find of it.
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1066839
> 
> There might be others, but I didn't want to filter through the literally hundreds of reported graphics bugs to find anything else. Most people will also probably switch hardware acceleration off and be on their merry way if it becomes enough of an annoyance. I won't b/c there are website I visit sometimes that use hardware acceleration. I will just eventually switch to Chrome if the issue isn't fixed by the time Firefox 31 esr is no long supported.
Click to expand...

Yes Firefox has some issues with AMD cards and so in the newer beta/alpha builds they're blacklisting them so HW acceleration is off. I think they're trying to fix it but there's no specific bug for it since it doesn't seem to be just one issue.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Speaking of HW Acceleration, my roomie uses Firefox and he was having problems with Skyrim bogging down occasionally. A lot of that went away when ti turned out he liked to have FF in the background while Skyrim was running, and we disabled HW acceleration on the browser.


Ah dear, that's a shame but hopefully it won't impact his browsing experience!


----------



## gijs007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll look into that
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can test above if you'd like! Currently use VS2010, 7.0A SDK and Intel C++ 13 SP 1 Update 3.
> 
> I'll fix the link thanks. And as for recompiling I could give it a test for free, no reason to charge to see if it's easily doable and then just post a guide?
> 
> I might open up donations again, but everything is ok on the VPS/compiling side thanks for the offer


That's cool, is there any reason you don't use the latest VS, SDK and Intel C++?
A guide would be appreciated, I'm not really a programmer but if I could learn how to recompile app's in the Intel Compiler that could be useful to see if there is a performance increase


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi thecreator, thanks for the info. Looks like print preview isn't working properly on some systems. If you disable hardware acceleration does this solve the issue?


Hi MrAlex,

With Hardware-Acceleration on and also Off, Print Preview actually works. I was able to see what I wanted to print. I printed to Nuance Power PDF Advanced and only the URL, being the Header printed. And the Footer printed showing the time it printed. But the information, itself, did not print. And I attempted to print to my physical printer and the information did not which was what I ordered.

I went to my other computer where still using Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit Service Pack 1, with 64-Bit Firefox Nightly is installed, I was able to print out the information in the Print Preview Window.

http://haband.blair.com/p/men/outerwear/heavyweight-workwear/ice-house174-insulated-parka/pc/3470/c/3486/sc/3490/93866.uts?store=18&count=500&q2=3486~Outerwear&q1=3470~Men&intl=n&q=*&q3=3490~Heavyweight+%26+Workwear&sc=N&x2=c.t2&x3=c.t3&x1=c.t1#

That is the URL of what I printed out using 64-Bit Firefox Nightly 37.0a1. And what I attempted to print from Waterfox 34.0.1 where it prints out blank, except for the header and footer information.

Just went back to the same computer where I have Waterfox 34.0.1 installed. I loaded the same page with Firefox 34.0.5 and Print Preview loaded just fine and it printed to Nuance Power PDF Advanced just fine.


----------



## kevindd992002

My WF doesn't have the "+" symbol on the upper-right hand side to add tabs. I'm not sure what happened but it was there all along until now. How do I add it back? The other computers that I have with WF also have that symbol.


----------



## Mr6686

The new version 34.0.2 doesn't display correctly this page


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> The new version 34.0.2 doesn't display correctly this page


Hi Mr6686,

That AMD page does display correctly on a Widescreen using Waterfox 34.0.1.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Just as a check, I took a look at that page on Pale Moon. Here's how it appears:


----------



## Mr6686

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi Mr6686,
> 
> That AMD page does display correctly on a Widescreen using Waterfox 34.0.1.


Yes, I know; I tested new version with my default profile. I have to test with blank profile to assure that didn't come from 1 addon.

Edit: Same bug with blank profile


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm really curious why it always crashes for you. So the following has been tried, please correct me if I miss anything out:
> 
> On a fresh install
> Fresh profile (for Waterfox)
> HW acceleration disable
> No add-ons
> And it happens to be randomly right?
> 
> v35 might fix some issues you'll be having. I'm attempting to build a preview release to test everything and I'll be upgrading the tools I'm using so maybe this issue will be resolved.


Yes, that list is correct. I certainly hope v35 fixes it since Waterfox is my favorite browser.


----------



## Lopser

Waterfox 34.02 test: now google in old (classic) interface.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi Mr. Alex and All,

I have a comparison below between Waterfox 34.0.1 and Internet Explorer latest version in Windows 7 Ultimate 64-Bit Service Pack 1

Waterfox has overwrite on this page.

Internet Explorer does not.

2015-01-08-WaterfoxDisplay.jpg 339k .jpg file


2015-01-08-InternetExplorerDisplay.jpg 304k .jpg file


----------



## kronckew

i get the same overlay in firefox 37.01a, so it's not waterfox's problem. ie and ff use subtly different HTML 'enhancements', so layouts can look off if specifically written for ie. the site builder software i use allows you to write for ie OR 'other' browsers, or more generically for both.

as you have an account there you may want to email them to let them know some pages do not display correctly in firefox based browsers.

here is a affected page link so y'all don't have to hunt all over for the page. LINK


----------



## Quantum Reality

Same issue w/ latest Pale Moon, sounds like WF is not the problem there.


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i get the same overlay in firefox 37.01a, so it's not waterfox's problem. ie and ff use subtly different HTML 'enhancements', so layouts can look off if specifically written for ie. the site builder software i use allows you to write for ie OR 'other' browsers, or more generically for both.
> 
> as you have an account there you may want to email them to let them know some pages do not display correctly in firefox based browsers.
> 
> here is a affected page link so y'all don't have to hunt all over for the page. LINK


Hi knonckew,

Just did. Firefox 37.01a is Nightly Firefox 64-Bit Browser? Can both Nightly Firefox and Waterfox exist in the same partition?


----------



## kronckew

yes, i'm sharing the same profile too so i can use the same 'USCG Officer' custom theme i've always done (for which i am the author ). i also use the addons statusbar4ever, tab mix plus classic theme restorer & classic toolbar restorer amongst others. no problems to speak of so far.

it was 'interesting' and a bit time consuming to set up the layout to work on both, had to add a toolbar, hide one, and move icons around but got there in the end. i have had the occasional run of broken nightlies where i use waterfox and the odd occasion i have a problem in waterfox, i use the nightlies. all my extensions seem to work in both, but i tweak the max version in some so they work in nightly. (the .xpi is just a .aip file i open in 7zip, edit the install.rdf, save it back in to the .xpi). sometimes i forget which flavour i'm using, hence the 'nightly tools' addon to put the version info in the titlbar.

i also keep redundant backups of the firefox program folder & profile folder justincase. (& the waterfox folder of course)


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> My WF doesn't have the "+" symbol on the upper-right hand side to add tabs. I'm not sure what happened but it was there all along until now. How do I add it back? The other computers that I have with WF also have that symbol.


BUMP!


----------



## mwarren2

kevindd992002,
I don't believe there is a way to add or delete the "new tab + sign" in Waterfox. By chance are you using Tab Mix Plus addon? if so, check in the Tab Mix Plus options on the "Tab Bar" tab that "New Tab Button" is checked and "After Last Tab" is selected.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> kevindd992002,
> I don't believe there is a way to add or delete the "new tab + sign" in Waterfox. By chance are you using Tab Mix Plus addon? if so, check in the Tab Mix Plus options on the "Tab Bar" tab that "New Tab Button" is checked and "After Last Tab" is selected.


That's what I know too but I really don't have it? No, I don't use any Tab Mi Plus addon, really. Do you have any more ideas?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mwarren2*
> 
> kevindd992002,
> I don't believe there is a way to add or delete the "new tab + sign" in Waterfox. By chance are you using Tab Mix Plus addon? if so, check in the Tab Mix Plus options on the "Tab Bar" tab that "New Tab Button" is checked and "After Last Tab" is selected.
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I know too but I really don't have it? No, I don't use any Tab Mi Plus addon, really. Do you have any more ideas?
Click to expand...

Are you using the default theme or a modified theme that doesn't quite work right with Australis?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Are you using the default theme or a modified theme that doesn't quite work right with Australis?


I'm using all defaults.


----------



## kronckew

in view-toolbars-customize, drag the new tab '+' icon onto a toollbar of your choice. or just double click the tab bar on an empty area.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> in view-toolbars-customize, drag the new tab '+' icon onto a toollbar of your choice. or just double click the tab bar on an empty area.


There you go! I knew you could do that. I'm not sure why it was removed in my WF browser in the first place.

+ REP!


----------



## kronckew

it's firefox, not mr alex & WF, the mozilla guys are forever tinkering with the user interface layout in firefox, 'australis', the new layout engine broke a lot of old favourite stuff like the plus, luckily users like the statusbar4ever, classic toolbar and classic button addon authors enabled us to painfully, fiddly, and with a bit of effort add them right back in, as in the screen shot in my post no. 6507 above.


----------



## MrAlex

Hi everyone!

Just to let you all know that my exams are now finished but I still have an assignment to do. Regardless I'll reply to you all ASAP (hopefully tomorrow). Waterfox 35.0 is scheduled to release next week as well. The beta's have been building without any issues on VS2010+ICC14.

Cheers!


----------



## milehigh

Anyone having trouble with the preview pane when uploading photos? They look like a scrambled mess. This never happened in Firefox.


----------



## kevindd992002

I noticed another problem with WF. When clicking the download button in megaupload, it crashes every single time.


----------



## gijs007

I've ran benchmarks on 34.0.2, the score is a bit lower than with 34.0.1.
Possibly due to the changes in the hardware acceleration?


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I noticed another problem with WF. When clicking the download button in megaupload, it crashes every single time.


You're able to get to Megaupload?!? I thought that was still down as it no longer had any servers? (I know, you're talking about Mega.co.nz)


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> You're able to get to Megaupload?!? I thought that was still down as it no longer had any servers? (I know, you're talking about Mega.co.nz)


Oops, yeah I thought those were the same.


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Oops, yeah I thought those were the same.


They're similar in what they are intended to do, but very different in how they do it. The new Mega is far superior due very much to it's encryption and file controls.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay everyone, here's Waterfox 35.0 Test Build 1! Could you all let me know if you have any issues? Does it solve any previous issues?

Download

Changes:


Switched to Intel TBB for memory allocation
Added some incoming patches due for Firefox 37/36 in relation to hardware acceleration into this version. Updates blacklist and the likes
Reverted back to the new preferences tab


----------



## cooperb21

Is Netflix fixed yet when you go to watch a video it would say your browser is not supported.


----------



## cooperb21

Still not working with waterfox i have silverlight installed and it will play on cyberfox 35 or firefox 35.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Still not working with waterfox i have silverlight installed and it will play on cyberfox 35 or firefox 35.


Could you take an image of the add-ons page?


----------



## cooperb21

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could you take an image of the add-ons page?


What do you mean i had no addons installed.


----------



## gijs007

I had some issues with the 34.0.2 beta, on some websites it would say javascript was disabled and it couldn't load anything.
On the hotmail website it would tell me my browser was out of date.

Just tried the 35 beta and it has the same problem.


----------



## btgbullseye

Still causing the video driver to crash. The specific site I tried to go to: http://www.accursedfarms.com/


----------



## Mr6686

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> The new version 34.0.2 doesn't display correctly this page


Same problem with new version 35.0 (default and blank profils)


----------



## cooperb21

Ok so netflix is working on 34.0.1

Not working on newest test 35. Please fix before it comes stable release.


----------



## cooperb21

Also if i go download addons they are saying Not available for Firefox Waterfox/35.0


----------



## pokeseeker

Where's Waterfox Portable 34.0? I don't see it on the downloads page. I only see Waterfox Portable 33.02.


----------



## S02

Downloading now. Firefox asked for an update, how dare it, it will now be destroyed


----------



## S02

Downloading now. Firefox asked for an update, how dare it, it will now be destroyed







Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Still causing the video driver to crash. The specific site I tried to go to: http://www.accursedfarms.com/


Hrmm, are you sure it isn't just because that site has flash?

FOR YEARS my 460's drivers were crashing in firefox from flash. I think a combo of drivers and windows updates fixed it.


----------



## Lopser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> Waterfox 35.0 Test Build 1


The problems is not fixed.

1) http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-34-0-1-17-december-firefox-64-bit/6450#post_23302232

2) http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-34-0-1-17-december-firefox-64-bit/6500#post_23378414


----------



## blackshap9

dupe post


----------



## blackshap9

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I noticed another problem with WF. When clicking the download button in megaupload, it crashes every single time.


Confirmed. I am having the same issue with version 3401


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could you take an image of the add-ons page?
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean i had no addons installed.
Click to expand...

Sorry I meant the plugin page. Also if you go to aboutlugins is Silverlight there at all?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> I had some issues with the 34.0.2 beta, on some websites it would say javascript was disabled and it couldn't load anything.
> On the hotmail website it would tell me my browser was out of date.
> 
> Just tried the 35 beta and it has the same problem.


If you go to http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ what does it say?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Still causing the video driver to crash. The specific site I tried to go to: http://www.accursedfarms.com/


Does it crash right away? And is it just on that page?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> The new version 34.0.2 doesn't display correctly this page
> 
> 
> 
> Same problem with new version 35.0 (default and blank profils)
Click to expand...

Hmm, feel like this might be a DNS issue if other browsers render the page correctly. Could you try the following guide: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-cant-load-websites-other-browsers-can#w_dns-prefetching

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Ok so netflix is working on 34.0.1
> 
> Not working on newest test 35. Please fix before it comes stable release.


I will do! If you could do the above that would greatly help 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Also if i go download addons they are saying Not available for Firefox Waterfox/35.0


Hmm might be a user agent issue for that. What does the user agent for Waterfox 35.0 show for you?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *pokeseeker*
> 
> Where's Waterfox Portable 34.0? I don't see it on the downloads page. I only see Waterfox Portable 33.02.


Waterfox Portable's next version will be 35.0! Had some issues with 34.0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S02*
> 
> Downloading now. Firefox asked for an update, how dare it, it will now be destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Still causing the video driver to crash. The specific site I tried to go to: http://www.accursedfarms.com/
> 
> 
> 
> Hrmm, are you sure it isn't just because that site has flash?
> 
> FOR YEARS my 460's drivers were crashing in firefox from flash. I think a combo of drivers and windows updates fixed it.
Click to expand...

Yes could be that, although there's no telling as Mozilla keep changing driver blacklists and the likes!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> Waterfox 35.0 Test Build 1
> 
> 
> 
> The problems is not fixed.
> 
> 1) http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-34-0-1-17-december-firefox-64-bit/6450#post_23302232
> 
> 2) http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-34-0-1-17-december-firefox-64-bit/6500#post_23378414
Click to expand...

Hmm okay thanks for the heads up I'll look into this as well.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackshap9*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I noticed another problem with WF. When clicking the download button in megaupload, it crashes every single time.
> 
> 
> 
> Confirmed. I am having the same issue with version 3401
Click to expand...

Fixed in 35.0


----------



## gijs007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> If you go to http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ what does it say?


Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; Trident/5.0)
It says javascript is enabled..
But when I go to: https://cp.elitegameservers.net/ it says javascript is disabled (on the waterfox 34.0.1 and on Firefox 35 I don't get that message.)


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> If you go to http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ what does it say?
> 
> 
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; Trident/5.0)
> It says javascript is enabled..
> But when I go to: https://cp.elitegameservers.net/ it says javascript is disabled (on the waterfox 34.0.1 and on Firefox 35 I don't get that message.)
Click to expand...

That UA doesn't look right, not if WF intends to be a 64bit build of Firefox.

Here's Pale Moon's version with the FF compatibility mode turned on:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:25.2) Gecko/20150112 Firefox/31.9 PaleMoon/25.2.0


----------



## cooperb21

Netflix still not working after that fix you got me to do.

Here is addons page not working with waterfox test.

Im using w/e is default all i did was clean install 34.0.1 and install 35 test.


----------



## malcomX

erors
IndexedDB UnknownErr: IDBDatabase.cpp:776
"JQMIGRATE: Logging is active" common-min.js:5
NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED: Component returned failure code: 0x8000ffff (NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED) [nsIPrefBranch.getIntPref] nsBrowserGlue.js:540
formatURLPref: Couldn't get pref: startup.homepage_welcome_url nsURLFormatter.js:136
GET https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/35.0/en-US/release/update.xml [HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found 6115ms]
syntax error update.xml:1

waterfox








https://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-1.0.2/sunspider-1.0.2/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-1.0.2%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B16,16,16,16,17,17,16,16,16,17%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B11,11,12,11,11,11,11,11,11,11%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B17,18,18,18,19,21,20,17,18,18%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B20,21,20,21,22,21,20,20,21,21%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B27,27,27,28,27,27,28,27,27,28%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B11,10,11,11,11,11,11,10,11,10%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B9,8,8,8,8,9,8,9,8,8%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B17,19,17,17,17,17,18,16,18,18%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B22,22,21,22,22,22,21,21,21,23%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B15,15,14,14,15,15,15,14,15,15%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B14,14,14,14,14,13,14,14,14,14%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B25,25,27,25,25,25,24,24,25,34%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B14,14,14,13,13,13,14,14,14,13%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B17,17,16,17,16,15,16,15,16,16%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B15,15,15,15,15,14,15,15,15,15%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B16,17,18,17,16,16,17,17,17,19%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B14,13,14,14,13,13,13,13,13,13%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B34,34,34,35,34,33,33,33,33,34%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B17,17,18,17,18,17,17,17,17,17%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B5,5,6,5,5,5,5,5,5,5%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B8,8,8,8,7,8,9,8,8,9%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B21,20,21,21,25,23,23,21,21,21%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B19,19,20,18,18,19,20,18,18,19%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B17,16,16,16,16,17,16,17,16,16%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B12,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,12%5D%7D

firefox
https://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-1.0.2/sunspider-1.0.2/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-1.0.2%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B7,6,7,6,6,8,6,7,7,9%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B4,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B8,7,8,9,7,8,8,9,8,7%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B4,4,4,4,6,4,5,4,4,4%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B1,2,2,2,2,1,1,2,2,2%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B2,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,3%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B4,5,4,4,5,4,5,5,5,6%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B3,3,2,3,3,3,2,3,3,2%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B5,4,4,5,6,5,5,6,5,5%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B7,6,7,7,7,7,8,7,8,7%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B2,2,1,2,1,2,2,1,2,1%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,9,6%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B5,6,5,5,5,5,5,6,5,5%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B5,4,4,4,5,4,4,4,6,4%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B6,4,5,4,4,4,4,4,6,4%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B12,12,12,11,11,11,14,12,19,11%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B15,15,15,15,16,19,18,17,16,15%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B5,5,6,6,5,8,6,5,5,6%5D%7D

whatsmyuser Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 35.0

broken browser







addon not install


----------



## Mr6686

[/quote]
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm, feel like this might be a DNS issue if other browsers render the page correctly. Could you try the following guide: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-cant-load-websites-other-browsers-can#w_dns-prefetching


Sorry to tell you that it changed nothing.


----------



## MrAlex

Here's Test Build 2. Should fix user agent issues, which should fix add-on issues: download.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> If you go to http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ what does it say?
> 
> 
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; Trident/5.0)
> It says javascript is enabled..
> But when I go to: https://cp.elitegameservers.net/ it says javascript is disabled (on the waterfox 34.0.1 and on Firefox 35 I don't get that message.)
Click to expand...

That's not Waterfox's user agent. That's what you get when you go to whatsmyuseragent.com on Waterfox?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> If you go to http://whatsmyuseragent.com/ what does it say?
> 
> 
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (compatible; MSIE 9.0; Windows NT 6.2; WOW64; Trident/5.0)
> It says javascript is enabled..
> But when I go to: https://cp.elitegameservers.net/ it says javascript is disabled (on the waterfox 34.0.1 and on Firefox 35 I don't get that message.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That UA doesn't look right, not if WF intends to be a 64bit build of Firefox.
> 
> Here's Pale Moon's version with the FF compatibility mode turned on:
> 
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:25.2) Gecko/20150112 Firefox/31.9 PaleMoon/25.2.0
Click to expand...

That's a different UA completely which is very weird.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Netflix still not working after that fix you got me to do.
> 
> Here is addons page not working with waterfox test.
> 
> Im using w/e is default all i did was clean install 34.0.1 and install 35 test.


I think I might know the issue. If you try TB2 above does it fix the issues?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> erors
> IndexedDB UnknownErr: IDBDatabase.cpp:776
> "JQMIGRATE: Logging is active" common-min.js:5
> NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED: Component returned failure code: 0x8000ffff (NS_ERROR_UNEXPECTED) [nsIPrefBranch.getIntPref] nsBrowserGlue.js:540
> formatURLPref: Couldn't get pref: startup.homepage_welcome_url nsURLFormatter.js:136
> GET https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/35.0/en-US/release/update.xml [HTTP/1.1 404 Not Found 6115ms]
> syntax error update.xml:1
> 
> waterfox
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-1.0.2/sunspider-1.0.2/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-1.0.2%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B16,16,16,16,17,17,16,16,16,17%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B11,11,12,11,11,11,11,11,11,11%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B17,18,18,18,19,21,20,17,18,18%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B20,21,20,21,22,21,20,20,21,21%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B27,27,27,28,27,27,28,27,27,28%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B11,10,11,11,11,11,11,10,11,10%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B9,8,8,8,8,9,8,9,8,8%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B17,19,17,17,17,17,18,16,18,18%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B22,22,21,22,22,22,21,21,21,23%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B15,15,14,14,15,15,15,14,15,15%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B14,14,14,14,14,13,14,14,14,14%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B25,25,27,25,25,25,24,24,25,34%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B14,14,14,13,13,13,14,14,14,13%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B17,17,16,17,16,15,16,15,16,16%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B15,15,15,15,15,14,15,15,15,15%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B16,17,18,17,16,16,17,17,17,19%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B14,13,14,14,13,13,13,13,13,13%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B34,34,34,35,34,33,33,33,33,34%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10,10%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B17,17,18,17,18,17,17,17,17,17%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B5,5,6,5,5,5,5,5,5,5%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B8,8,8,8,7,8,9,8,8,9%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B21,20,21,21,25,23,23,21,21,21%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B19,19,20,18,18,19,20,18,18,19%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B17,16,16,16,16,17,16,17,16,16%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B12,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,11,12%5D%7D
> 
> firefox
> https://www.webkit.org/perf/sunspider-1.0.2/sunspider-1.0.2/results.html?%7B%22v%22:%20%22sunspider-1.0.2%22,%20%223d-cube%22:%5B7,6,7,6,6,8,6,7,7,9%5D,%223d-morph%22:%5B4,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3,3%5D,%223d-raytrace%22:%5B8,7,8,9,7,8,8,9,8,7%5D,%22access-binary-trees%22:%5B1,1,1,1,2,2,2,2,1,1%5D,%22access-fannkuch%22:%5B4,4,4,4,6,4,5,4,4,4%5D,%22access-nbody%22:%5B2,1,2,2,2,2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22access-nsieve%22:%5B1,2,2,2,2,1,1,2,2,2%5D,%22bitops-3bit-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,0,1,1,0,1,0,0,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bits-in-byte%22:%5B1,2,2,1,1,2,1,1,1,1%5D,%22bitops-bitwise-and%22:%5B2,1,2,1,1,2,2,1,1,1%5D,%22bitops-nsieve-bits%22:%5B3,2,3,2,3,2,3,2,2,3%5D,%22controlflow-recursive%22:%5B1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1%5D,%22crypto-aes%22:%5B4,5,4,4,5,4,5,5,5,6%5D,%22crypto-md5%22:%5B3,3,2,3,3,3,2,3,3,2%5D,%22crypto-sha1%22:%5B2,2,2,3,3,2,2,2,2,2%5D,%22date-format-tofte%22:%5B5,4,4,5,6,5,5,6,5,5%5D,%22date-format-xparb%22:%5B7,6,7,7,7,7,8,7,8,7%5D,%22math-cordic%22:%5B2,2,1,2,1,2,2,1,2,1%5D,%22math-partial-sums%22:%5B6,6,6,6,6,6,6,6,9,6%5D,%22math-spectral-norm%22:%5B1,1,2,1,1,1,1,1,2,1%5D,%22regexp-dna%22:%5B5,6,5,5,5,5,5,6,5,5%5D,%22string-base64%22:%5B5,4,4,4,5,4,4,4,6,4%5D,%22string-fasta%22:%5B6,4,5,4,4,4,4,4,6,4%5D,%22string-tagcloud%22:%5B12,12,12,11,11,11,14,12,19,11%5D,%22string-unpack-code%22:%5B15,15,15,15,16,19,18,17,16,15%5D,%22string-validate-input%22:%5B5,5,6,6,5,8,6,5,5,6%5D%7D
> 
> whatsmyuser Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; Win64; x64; rv:35.0) Gecko/20100101 35.0
> 
> broken browser
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> addon not install


I've fixed the UA issue, which should fix the add-on issue. As for the 404 error I haven't set up the 35.0 update path yet because it's still a test which is why that error occurs. If you try TB2 does it fix the issues? (Except the update one).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm, feel like this might be a DNS issue if other browsers render the page correctly. Could you try the following guide: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/firefox-cant-load-websites-other-browsers-can#w_dns-prefetching


Sorry to tell you that it changed nothing.[/QUOTE]

I haven't a clue. Especially if it's just that page and nothing else.


----------



## gijs007

Woops, I forgot I have firegloves running. (extension which changes the user agent)
The new build fixed the javascript problem


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Anyone having trouble with the preview pane when uploading photos? They look like a scrambled mess. This never happened in Firefox.


Yes i'm getting that when uploading pics to facebook. If i goto the same folder in windows explorer, which shows the thumbnails correctly then back to WF it sorts itself out :s It started happening when i upgraded firefox to v35 and im running WF 34.0.1 so assumed it was that. Also since upgrading to FF35 WF34.0.1 crashes on exit when its been open for a while.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Anyone having trouble with the preview pane when uploading photos? They look like a scrambled mess. This never happened in Firefox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes i'm getting that when uploading pics to facebook. If i goto the same folder in windows explorer, which shows the thumbnails correctly then back to WF it sorts itself out :s It started happening when i upgraded firefox to v35 and im running WF 34.0.1 so assumed it was that. Also since upgrading to FF35 WF34.0.1 crashes on exit when its been open for a while.
Click to expand...

Have you tried with Waterfox 35.0? It might still persist due to the aggressive optimisation Waterfox is compiled with. If it does I'll find the source files in relation to the upload function and compile it with say, the O2 switch instead of all the switches currently used.


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried with Waterfox 35.0? It might still persist due to the aggressive optimisation Waterfox is compiled with. If it does I'll find the source files in relation to the upload function and compile it with say, the O2 switch instead of all the switches currently used.


Not yet, i will DL and try. I usually wait til you officially release the latest version, its no biggy


----------



## milehigh

I haven't tried v35 either, but it's worth a shot.


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried with Waterfox 35.0? It might still persist due to the aggressive optimisation Waterfox is compiled with. If it does I'll find the source files in relation to the upload function and compile it with say, the O2 switch instead of all the switches currently used.


ok it's installed, seems much better, thumbnail corruption gone, i was experiencing a slight bit of lag, that's gone and crash on exit gone, its all good


----------



## milehigh

Where do I get v 35?


----------



## RevZ

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried with Waterfox 35.0? It might still persist due to the aggressive optimisation Waterfox is compiled with. If it does I'll find the source files in relation to the upload function and compile it with say, the O2 switch instead of all the switches currently used.


This issue seems similar to the image thumbnail corruption issue I had! I can confirm that it is however fixed in my case, as per updating to TB2.


----------



## bIOforger

MrAlex when is V35 going to be officially released out of interest? thanks.


----------



## bIOforger

Spoke to soon, V35 is still crashing on exit, it only seems to happen when its consumed a chunk of ram 1.5-2gigs and with a few hours of uptime for me.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried with Waterfox 35.0? It might still persist due to the aggressive optimisation Waterfox is compiled with. If it does I'll find the source files in relation to the upload function and compile it with say, the O2 switch instead of all the switches currently used.
> 
> 
> 
> ok it's installed, seems much better, thumbnail corruption gone, i was experiencing a slight bit of lag, that's gone and crash on exit gone, its all good
Click to expand...

Okay so it's good to hear that the thumbnail corruption is now gone!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Where do I get v 35?


Right here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RevZ*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried with Waterfox 35.0? It might still persist due to the aggressive optimisation Waterfox is compiled with. If it does I'll find the source files in relation to the upload function and compile it with say, the O2 switch instead of all the switches currently used.
> 
> 
> 
> This issue seems similar to the image thumbnail corruption issue I had! I can confirm that it is however fixed in my case, as per updating to TB2.
Click to expand...

Great glad to hear it's gone!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> MrAlex when is V35 going to be officially released out of interest? thanks.


Tomorrow. Just finished working on the portable build and now working on the Mac build. It'll be the same TB2 build.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Spoke to soon, V35 is still crashing on exit, it only seems to happen when its consumed a chunk of ram 1.5-2gigs and with a few hours of uptime for me.


Hmm interesting. Could I have a list of specs again? And also does this occur on a blank profile (I know it might be a pain to test, maybe set up a blank profile and let it run some benchmarks for a few hours then see if the same occurs?) Does anyone else experience this issue?


----------



## milehigh

Just dl'd v35.0, thanks!


----------



## Mr6686

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's Test Build 2. Should fix user agent issues, which should fix add-on issues: download.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I haven't a clue. Especially if it's just that page and nothing else.


New version 35.0 TB2 fix my issue


----------



## cooperb21

Test build 2 working great!

1. Netflix now working silver light is playing
2. Addons now working no longer saying not compatible.

One thing is options menu is changed not like default firefox but they are changing the options menu in firefox 36 any way to the one in test build 2.


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm interesting. Could I have a list of specs again? And also does this occur on a blank profile (I know it might be a pain to test, maybe set up a blank profile and let it run some benchmarks for a few hours then see if the same occurs?) Does anyone else experience this issue?


Intel Sandy i5 o/c to 4.6ghz, 8GB RAM, Nvidia GTX750, Sammy 840pro SSD, Win7SP1 64bit.

Not tried a blank profile, as you say massive pain and can't be arsed messing about with it.

It started happening as soon as i installed FF35, no crashes at all when using FF34.xx and WF34.0.1 so i'm blaming FF.... again







The only other change i've made recently is to use HTML5 when browsing utube as i was sick of lag when it was using flash and i browse alot of facebook/flash content when the browser has been active for a while.


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *S02*
> 
> Downloading now. Firefox asked for an update, how dare it, it will now be destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hrmm, are you sure it isn't just because that site has flash?
> 
> FOR YEARS my 460's drivers were crashing in firefox from flash. I think a combo of drivers and windows updates fixed it.


I'm very sure it is not just a flash issue as Firefox works just fine with identical settings and addons.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does it crash right away? And is it just on that page?


Right away when trying to go to a page, but it's not just that page, and not always that page. Sometimes I can access the page, sometimes not. Sometimes it crashes when going to Youtube, sometimes not. Always it's when trying to access a new page.

TB2 even caused it, but nearly as quickly as TB1 did. It took going to 3-5 sites to crash TB1, and over a dozen to crash TB2. It will even crash on empty "hello world" sites.


----------



## Lopser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> Waterfox 35.0


http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-35-0-20-january-firefox-64-bit/6450#post_23302232
Not fixed








Link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 35.


----------



## safari801

So far v35 working great.







Thanks for the hard work Alex.


----------



## bIOforger

Anyone having issues in Facebook? Specifically the comments box within a post from someone else. I cant post a pic without adding text first, enter is creating a new row instead of posting a comment and peoples names are not autocompleting/linking. I know its not a facebook change as people i know who use vanilla FF aren't seeing the issue.


----------



## bIOforger

Follow up to the above, my own FF35 is fine, so the FB issues above are only present in WF35


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Just dl'd v35.0, thanks!


Great, hope you like it!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's Test Build 2. Should fix user agent issues, which should fix add-on issues: download.
> 
> [...]
> 
> I haven't a clue. Especially if it's just that page and nothing else.
> 
> 
> 
> New version 35.0 TB2 fix my issue
Click to expand...

Ah finally









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Test build 2 working great!
> 
> 1. Netflix now working silver light is playing
> 2. Addons now working no longer saying not compatible.
> 
> One thing is options menu is changed not like default firefox but they are changing the options menu in firefox 36 any way to the one in test build 2.


Ok glad it's working again! Yes I've switched back to the new incontent preferences UI as it's working again.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm interesting. Could I have a list of specs again? And also does this occur on a blank profile (I know it might be a pain to test, maybe set up a blank profile and let it run some benchmarks for a few hours then see if the same occurs?) Does anyone else experience this issue?
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Sandy i5 o/c to 4.6ghz, 8GB RAM, Nvidia GTX750, Sammy 840pro SSD, Win7SP1 64bit.
> 
> Not tried a blank profile, as you say massive pain and can't be arsed messing about with it.
> 
> It started happening as soon as i installed FF35, no crashes at all when using FF34.xx and WF34.0.1 so i'm blaming FF.... again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The only other change i've made recently is to use HTML5 when browsing utube as i was sick of lag when it was using flash and i browse alot of facebook/flash content when the browser has been active for a while.
Click to expand...

Hmm, do you have both Intel HD drivers and NVIDIA drivers installed? Do you use your NVIDIA card just for 3D content or is it always on?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *S02*
> 
> Downloading now. Firefox asked for an update, how dare it, it will now be destroyed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hrmm, are you sure it isn't just because that site has flash?
> 
> FOR YEARS my 460's drivers were crashing in firefox from flash. I think a combo of drivers and windows updates fixed it.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm very sure it is not just a flash issue as Firefox works just fine with identical settings and addons.
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does it crash right away? And is it just on that page?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Right away when trying to go to a page, but it's not just that page, and not always that page. Sometimes I can access the page, sometimes not. Sometimes it crashes when going to Youtube, sometimes not. Always it's when trying to access a new page.
> 
> TB2 even caused it, but nearly as quickly as TB1 did. It took going to 3-5 sites to crash TB1, and over a dozen to crash TB2. It will even crash on empty "hello world" sites.
Click to expand...

Hmm right I see. Same question as above, do you have multiple graphics drivers installed and if you do when is each driver used?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> Waterfox 35.0
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-35-0-20-january-firefox-64-bit/6450#post_23302232
> Not fixed
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 35.
Click to expand...

Seems to be an issue with MS. I'm contacting them to see if there is something they can do to solve it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> So far v35 working great.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the hard work Alex.


Glad to hear! No problem thanks for the support.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Anyone having issues in Facebook? Specifically the comments box within a post from someone else. I cant post a pic without adding text first, enter is creating a new row instead of posting a comment and peoples names are not autocompleting/linking. I know its not a facebook change as people i know who use vanilla FF aren't seeing the issue.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Follow up to the above, my own FF35 is fine, so the FB issues above are only present in WF35


Have you tried Waterfox in safe mode? If you go onto FB then does it alleviate the issue?


----------



## bIOforger

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Have you tried Waterfox in safe mode? If you go onto FB then does it alleviate the issue?


Yep, problem is still there. If you look at this screeny you can also see all the comment boxes are like this, there seems to be 2 rows (more white space than usual) the comment box is usually only row deep, something is not right.

http://prntscr.com/5vv7mt


----------



## bIOforger

Unless i did something wrong when i installed V35 from the zip file, i just extracted it into the existing prog files\waterfox folder, i assume thats how you usually do it?


----------



## bIOforger

Ok reinstalled it from the release .exe and all is fine again now, strange.


----------



## milehigh

Anyone have trouble saving downloads to desktop? For example, when I tried to download the latest version, the download always fails. I still get the .exe file on my dektop, but it's zero bytes. I also get a temp file. This happens a lot (but not all the time) in Firefox and Waterfox. I think there might be some weird permissions thing going in Win 7, but I can't figure it out. Very annoying. Then I get "access denied" when I try to delete the empty file off my desktop. Eventually, it just disappears.

Weird thing is, I can download to the desktop just fine using IE.


----------



## malcomX

TB2 agent fix








one drive work firefox, cyberfox ,palemoon waterfox not blank show.
flash fine work good firefox, cyberfox ,palemoon waterfox freeze lock jerk
settings search broken firefox waterfox work cyberfox aboutreferences#search
memory idle browser increase leak must be.

great work


----------



## Mr6686

In my opinion, new memory allocator take more cpu and memory than it's predecessor (noticeable with my session with hundreds of tabs which started at 2Go with WF 34, now 3.4Go).


----------



## malcomX

https://www.facebook.com/WaterfoxBrowser comments gone


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Ok reinstalled it from the release .exe and all is fine again now, strange.


Well at least it's fixed now 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Anyone have trouble saving downloads to desktop? For example, when I tried to download the latest version, the download always fails. I still get the .exe file on my dektop, but it's zero bytes. I also get a temp file. This happens a lot (but not all the time) in Firefox and Waterfox. I think there might be some weird permissions thing going in Win 7, but I can't figure it out. Very annoying. Then I get "access denied" when I try to delete the empty file off my desktop. Eventually, it just disappears.
> 
> Weird thing is, I can download to the desktop just fine using IE.


If you run the browsers as Admin does this solve the issue?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> TB2 agent fix
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> one drive work firefox, cyberfox ,palemoon waterfox not blank show.
> flash fine work good firefox, cyberfox ,palemoon waterfox freeze lock jerk
> settings search broken firefox waterfox work cyberfox aboutreferences#search
> memory idle browser increase leak must be.
> 
> great work


Thanks!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> In my opinion, new memory allocator take more cpu and memory than it's predecessor (noticeable with my session with hundreds of tabs which started at 2Go with WF 34, now 3.4Go).


Hmm I'll get some more test results and see what can be done about getting tcmalloc back.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/WaterfoxBrowser comments gone


That's an unofficial Facebook page, there isn't a Waterfox fb page unfortunately.


----------



## milehigh

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> If you run the browsers as Admin does this solve the issue?


Good tip, but no luck. I've had this problem with Firefox for a long time. It's weird that other browsers work.

On brighter news, I've been using Waterfox 35 now for a bit, and it's running great.


----------



## Screemer

I really love the speed and RAM usage of WF35.. It works so great.. It's the fastest WF/FF in a long time.

However I have a problem with this preference " network.automatic-ntlm-auth.trusted-uris " It's for NTLM auth. Meaning for example AD logon is pushed thru browser for intranet and so on.

It doesn't seem to be working in either WF35 nor in FF35
According to a friend that tried to sniff the trafic, the data sent by FF/WF is quite different from what is being sent by a working IE11.

Any chance anyone know whats wrong with v35? It worked just fine in v34.xx version.

Thank you so much for a great browser Mr.Alex.









Bugrepport created here:
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1126200


----------



## Quantum Reality

If it's not working in FF that's a Mozilla dev team issue and you should report that bug to the Mozilla folks.


----------



## ch1m1

Just made this account for 2 reasons:

1. I have to give you some huge kudos for Waterfox's development.









2. I'm having some issues with netflix not playing at all.









I finally narrowed it down to Silverlight not running.

Ive tried MS's tut to remove a damaged Silverlight installation, and then reinstalled it but had no success.









Silverlight pages just won't PLAY.

On netflix I just get a black screen instead of the Silverlight buffering GIF image.

Same thing happens on any other page running Silverlight, its just blank were the Silverlight media should be...

This wouldn't happen on version 34 up until a week ago, so I updated to 35.0 but still have the same results.

I had installed some plug-ins (FlashBlocker and Ghostery) and deleted them thinking this was the problem, but I still get the same results.

Silverlight seems to be installed correctly and will even run with no issues on both Chrome and IE.

Any help, tips, links, suggestions, and/or comments are welcomed.

If you need some type of feedback or specs just let me know please.


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-to-block-silverlight-and-java-but-not-flash/

Did you check that WF didn't block the plugin by default?


----------



## cooperb21

Why... do they realize Netflix still uses silverlight i mean crap why cant they switch to html like chrome already.


----------



## milehigh

Just out of curiosity, are there any about:config tweaks specifically for Waterfox, or is it best to just leave them as is?


----------



## Mr6686

Quote:


> Originally Posted by Mr6686
> 
> In my opinion, new memory allocator take more cpu and memory than it's predecessor (noticeable with my session with hundreds of tabs which started at 2Go with WF 34, now 3.4Go).


In fact, at start, new memory allocator climb to 12Go then it goes back down to 3.7Go.

Firefox 35.0.1 came out, will we have a new version of Waterfox?


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm right I see. Same question as above, do you have multiple graphics drivers installed and if you do when is each driver used?


Nvidia and Intel drivers installed. Forced use of Nvidia card only after explorer.exe gets loaded. (and explorer also runs Nvidia-only)


----------



## cooperb21

Firefox 35.0.1 seems fix a lot of bugs might be worth updating..


----------



## Screemer

FF35.0.1 fixed my reported NTLM bug. Just now tested FF35.0.1 and NTLM works. In WF35.0 it does not.
Would be really great if Mr.Alex would make a new build implementing the fixes in 35.0.1

What's New

Fixed

35.0.1 - With the Enhanced Steam extension, Firefox could crash (1123732) Fixed
35.0.1 - Fix a potential startup crash (1122367) Fixed
35.0.1 - Kerberos authentication did not work with alias (1108971) Fixed
35.0.1 - SVG / CSS animation had a regression causing rendering issues on websites like openstreemap.org (1083079) Fixed
35.0.1 - On Godaddy webmail, Firefox could crash (1113121) Fixed
35.0.1 - document.baseURI did not get updated to document.location after base tag was removed from DOM for site with a CSP (1121857) Fixed
35.0.1 - With a Right-to-left (RTL) version of Firefox, the text selection could be broken (1104036) Fixed
35.0.1 - CSP had a change in behavior with regard to case sensitivity resources loading (1122445) New
Firefox Hello with new rooms-based conversations model New
New search UI improved and enabled for more locales New
Access the Firefox Marketplace from the Tools menu and optional toolbar button New
Built-in support for H264 (MP4) on Mac OS X Snow Leopard (10.6) and newer through native APIs New
Improved handling of dynamic styling changes to increase responsiveness New
Use tiled rendering on OS X New
Improved high quality image resizing performance HTML5
Changed JavaScript 'let' semantics to conform better to the ES6 specification HTML5
Resource Timing API implemented HTML5
CSS filters enabled by default HTML5
Added support for the CSS Font Loading API Developer
Support for inspecting ::before and ::after pseudo elements Developer
Computed view: Nodes matching the hovered selector are now highlighted Developer
Network Monitor: New request/response headers view (more info) Developer
Added support for the EXT_blend_minmax WebGL extension Fixed
Various security fixes Fixed
Show DOM Properties context menu item in inspector Fixed
Reduced resource usage for scaled images Fixed
PDF.js updated to version 1.0.907 Fixed
Non-HTTP(S) XHR now returns correct status code

Known Issues

unresolved

WebGL games might not display some textures (see bug 1113633) unresolved
Sometimes images don't display when hovered over (see bug 1083113) unresolved
Issues affecting RTL in Hello can be found here


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> If you run the browsers as Admin does this solve the issue?
> 
> 
> 
> Good tip, but no luck. I've had this problem with Firefox for a long time. It's weird that other browsers work.
> 
> On brighter news, I've been using Waterfox 35 now for a bit, and it's running great.
Click to expand...

Mm that is very strange! But glad to hear you're liking it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> I really love the speed and RAM usage of WF35.. It works so great.. It's the fastest WF/FF in a long time.
> 
> However I have a problem with this preference " network.automatic-ntlm-auth.trusted-uris " It's for NTLM auth. Meaning for example AD logon is pushed thru browser for intranet and so on.
> 
> It doesn't seem to be working in either WF35 nor in FF35
> According to a friend that tried to sniff the trafic, the data sent by FF/WF is quite different from what is being sent by a working IE11.
> 
> Any chance anyone know whats wrong with v35? It worked just fine in v34.xx version.
> 
> Thank you so much for a great browser Mr.Alex.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bugrepport created here:
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1126200


Glad to hear you're enjoying Waterfox. Might be an Firefox issue like Quantum Reality says.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ch1m1*
> 
> Just made this account for 2 reasons:
> 
> 1. I have to give you some huge kudos for Waterfox's development.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. I'm having some issues with netflix not playing at all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I finally narrowed it down to Silverlight not running.
> 
> Ive tried MS's tut to remove a damaged Silverlight installation, and then reinstalled it but had no success.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Silverlight pages just won't PLAY.
> 
> On netflix I just get a black screen instead of the Silverlight buffering GIF image.
> 
> Same thing happens on any other page running Silverlight, its just blank were the Silverlight media should be...
> 
> This wouldn't happen on version 34 up until a week ago, so I updated to 35.0 but still have the same results.
> 
> I had installed some plug-ins (FlashBlocker and Ghostery) and deleted them thinking this was the problem, but I still get the same results.
> 
> Silverlight seems to be installed correctly and will even run with no issues on both Chrome and IE.
> 
> Any help, tips, links, suggestions, and/or comments are welcomed.
> 
> If you need some type of feedback or specs just let me know please.


Thanks, glad you're enjoying it







.

Hmm very strange, I've tested Silverlight and it works fine. So you say it worked on 34.0 but stopped working for a week?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> http://www.cnet.com/news/firefox-to-block-silverlight-and-java-but-not-flash/
> 
> Did you check that WF didn't block the plugin by default?


FF should have a message saying if you'd like to enable it though. Hmm. Thanks for all your help in the forums btw!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Why... do they realize Netflix still uses silverlight i mean crap why cant they switch to html like chrome already.


Well I suppose it's for security reasons. It's the same thing Chrome are doing, removing support for NPAPI plugins.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *milehigh*
> 
> Just out of curiosity, are there any about:config tweaks specifically for Waterfox, or is it best to just leave them as is?


Not really, the default settings are generally the best. Feel free to look around the web though! I'm sure people like to experiment with the settings.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Mr6686
> 
> In my opinion, new memory allocator take more cpu and memory than it's predecessor (noticeable with my session with hundreds of tabs which started at 2Go with WF 34, now 3.4Go).
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, at start, new memory allocator climb to 12Go then it goes back down to 3.7Go.
> 
> Firefox 35.0.1 came out, will we have a new version of Waterfox?
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Firefox 35.0.1 seems fix a lot of bugs might be worth updating..


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> FF35.0.1 fixed my reported NTLM bug. Just now tested FF35.0.1 and NTLM works. In WF35.0 it does not.
> Would be really great if Mr.Alex would make a new build implementing the fixes in 35.0.1


Updating the Waterfox codebase to 35.0.1! Should be available very soon.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm right I see. Same question as above, do you have multiple graphics drivers installed and if you do when is each driver used?
> 
> 
> 
> Nvidia and Intel drivers installed. Forced use of Nvidia card only after explorer.exe gets loaded. (and explorer also runs Nvidia-only)
Click to expand...

Is there a way to force the Intel drivers to use Waterfox instead of NVIDIA?


----------



## kevindd992002

Why is my WF34 not detecting that an upgrade is available, again? This is on three computers already.


----------



## seti

I don't know why, but after running Waterfox 35 as Administrator and going to Netflix I was able to play a movie without issue. This after trying before doing so, not as Administrator, and having no luck in viewing ANY movie, tv show, or other on Netflix. Every subsequent time after running Mozilla as Administrator, this is after closing WF from the Admin session, Netflix has run fine. No "reinstall Silverlight" and no deleting files..it has just run fine. Why would that be? I have not altered anything, file or setting, and only running WF in Administrator mode once...closed it after clearing cache...then re-opening it.

I got the idea from a college IT dept support forum. I have rebooted as well and still am able to play Netflix without issue, which is great, but why would such a thing fix it?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Updating the Waterfox codebase to 35.0.1! Should be available very soon.


Great Mr.Alex.. Looking forward to it.


----------



## mAs81

My Waterfox doesn't update..When opening the "About Waterfox" tab , it says its up to date..What's up with that ?


----------



## Lopser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> _Link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 35._
> 
> Seems to be an issue with MS. I'm contacting them to see if there is something they can do to solve it.


Is there news?


----------



## ch1m1

Thanks to to all for your replies!!!

I managed to pin it down to a mix of HTTPS Everywhere extension bug; and the FlashBlock extension somehow blocking silverlight.

After disabling both extensions on the Add-Ons menu, everything started working perfectly!!!!!

I will post again if something else breaks. (hope not...)

Mr.Alex keep up the good work!!!!!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mAs81*
> 
> My Waterfox doesn't update..When opening the "About Waterfox" tab , it says its up to date..What's up with that ?


Same thing here. It's already happening to three computers and those are all from different networks. I hope MrAlex already acknowledges this problem. It's been ongoing since the beginning of WF!


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is there a way to force the Intel drivers to use Waterfox instead of NVIDIA?


There is, but it prevents me from watching videos above 30 FPS for 480p or lower or above 20 FPS above 480P resolution. (the integrated in my chip is the bottom of the barrel, and barely works to run Win 7 without special effects)


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Same thing here. It's already happening to three computers and those are all from different networks. I hope MrAlex already acknowledges this problem. It's been ongoing since the beginning of WF!


Did MrAlex finalize the latest Waterfox build? Test builds have to be installed manually.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> Did MrAlex finalize the latest Waterfox build? Test builds have to be installed manually.


Yes, he did. Generally, when you see the title of this thread change to the newest build then that there is already a finalized build. Additionally, you can go to his official website and will noticed the 35.0 is already downloadable there. His test builds never go into that site. The WF version that I have that are not updating are still 34.0. I had to manually download it from his website and do the upgrade.

And by the way, I can't believe that WF 35.0 still has a memory leak issue. I even encountered a 4GB RAM usage yesterday while I was opening several Tweaktown articles. I'm not sure why when you close a certain tab it doesn't release the used memory?


----------



## Quantum Reality

It _should_ release the memory when you close the browser completely, though. No?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> It _should_ release the memory when you close the browser completely, though. No?


Yes, it does release it when I close the whole browser. But that isn't anything that a user would want to do every single time this happens, right? I mean, I use several tabs and this browser couldn't handle it if those tabs are mostly flash-based.


----------



## kronckew

since winXP at least, windows memory management has shifted to not releasing a programs memory until the program terminates or until another program needs it. this is in case the program needs to use the memory again, it's quicker to reuse it than to release, then reallocate it.

thus it is perfectly reasonable that wf will hang on to memory that it has required before, in case you need it again. as long as the wf memory manager does in fact reuse it rather than just add to it's allocation. 'free memory' is a red herring, free memory is memory that is not used. might as well just pull a couple of GB of memory boards & lay them on top of the PC - it'll always be free then. 'maximizing' free memory just slows down the pc.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Why is my WF34 not detecting that an upgrade is available, again? This is on three computers already.


Again? This isn't good at all. Would it be possible to get a screenshot of about:config if you filter it to app.update.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> I don't know why, but after running Waterfox 35 as Administrator and going to Netflix I was able to play a movie without issue. This after trying before doing so, not as Administrator, and having no luck in viewing ANY movie, tv show, or other on Netflix. Every subsequent time after running Mozilla as Administrator, this is after closing WF from the Admin session, Netflix has run fine. No "reinstall Silverlight" and no deleting files..it has just run fine. Why would that be? I have not altered anything, file or setting, and only running WF in Administrator mode once...closed it after clearing cache...then re-opening it.
> 
> I got the idea from a college IT dept support forum. I have rebooted as well and still am able to play Netflix without issue, which is great, but why would such a thing fix it?


That's very interesting...I wonder if it's something to do with Silverlight?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Updating the Waterfox codebase to 35.0.1! Should be available very soon.
> 
> 
> 
> Great Mr.Alex.. Looking forward to it.
Click to expand...

Just doing some internal testing. Shouldn't be long now, I'll do a quick test build.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mAs81*
> 
> My Waterfox doesn't update..When opening the "About Waterfox" tab , it says its up to date..What's up with that ?


Oh dear same issue as above. Would you mind going to about:config, typing app.update and then take a screenshot of the list of options that come up.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> Link http://1drv.ms/1vaiJpz can't be opened in Waterfox 35.
> 
> Seems to be an issue with MS. I'm contacting them to see if there is something they can do to solve it.
> 
> 
> 
> Is there news?
Click to expand...

No reply yet. Think I'll post to their forums instead.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *ch1m1*
> 
> Thanks to to all for your replies!!!
> 
> I managed to pin it down to a mix of HTTPS Everywhere extension bug; and the FlashBlock extension somehow blocking silverlight.
> 
> After disabling both extensions on the Add-Ons menu, everything started working perfectly!!!!!
> 
> I will post again if something else breaks. (hope not...)
> 
> Mr.Alex keep up the good work!!!!!


Ah great, glad you've sorted it out!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is there a way to force the Intel drivers to use Waterfox instead of NVIDIA?
> 
> 
> 
> There is, but it prevents me from watching videos above 30 FPS for 480p or lower or above 20 FPS above 480P resolution. (the integrated in my chip is the bottom of the barrel, and barely works to run Win 7 without special effects)
Click to expand...

Oh wow okay I see. Hmm another dead end. I'll look through GPU related bug reports to see what configuration options there are.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> Did MrAlex finalize the latest Waterfox build? Test builds have to be installed manually.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, he did. Generally, when you see the title of this thread change to the newest build then that there is already a finalized build. Additionally, you can go to his official website and will noticed the 35.0 is already downloadable there. His test builds never go into that site. The WF version that I have that are not updating are still 34.0. I had to manually download it from his website and do the upgrade.
> 
> And by the way, I can't believe that WF 35.0 still has a memory leak issue. I even encountered a 4GB RAM usage yesterday while I was opening several Tweaktown articles. I'm not sure why when you close a certain tab it doesn't release the used memory?
Click to expand...

Here's what I wrote about memory allocation in another support forum. I'm not an export on it as it's a huge subject, but I've tried to do my research so apologies for any mistakes and the likes:

Quote:


> There are certain trade-offs with 64-Bit programs. The main issue is that registers are now twice as big compared to 32-Bit programs (I believe 16 instead of 8) which means by default memory usage will increase due to the amount of data stored in memory. This also leads to more cache misses because the program will now have 64-bit pointers as well. [1]
> 
> In version 34, Waterfox used tcmalloc, the memory allocator that Google Chrome uses and various other applications. What Google did with the malloc is that it tries to predict your memory usage which sometimes means it doesn't release memory back to the system properly.
> 
> I switched to Intel's thread building blocks memory allocator in 35 because tcmalloc isn't supported properly for 64-Bit and the generated DLL wouldn't register with the installer meaning sometimes people would get an error message saying it couldn't be found, but the program would start anyway.
> 
> Intel's malloc also has its own issues. It's designed for scalable, multi-threaded applications which a lot of the Firefox codebase is. But there are certain parts that aren't multi-threaded, such as JavaScript DOM events. [2].
> 
> I would use jemalloc, but when compiling with Intel's C++ compiler it causes WebGL to crash and I won't use the built in allocator Mozilla use because it's been found to be vulnerable to attacks (which is why jemalloc is used now) and is very leaky.
> 
> These are the reasons I've found memory usage to be high, but it's not all dreary as this increased memory consumption also lets Waterfox has its increase in performance.


----------



## mAs81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oh dear same issue as above. Would you mind going to about:config, typing app.update and then take a screenshot of the list of options that come up.


Well,here's mine :


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Yes, he did. Generally, when you see the title of this thread change to the newest build then that there is already a finalized build. Additionally, you can go to his official website and will noticed the 35.0 is already downloadable there. His test builds never go into that site. The WF version that I have that are not updating are still 34.0. I had to manually download it from his website and do the upgrade.
> 
> And by the way, I can't believe that WF 35.0 still has a memory leak issue. I even encountered a 4GB RAM usage yesterday while I was opening several Tweaktown articles. I'm not sure why when you close a certain tab it doesn't release the used memory?


Thanks kevindd992002.

In that case my waterfox is not recognizing the update either. I am still on wf 34.0.1 and the "About" screen states I have the latest version.

Here is an image of my App Update:


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Again? This isn't good at all. Would it be possible to get a screenshot of about:config if you filter it to app.update.


Is the post from mAs81 enough for this issue?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's what I wrote about memory allocation in another support forum. I'm not an export on it as it's a huge subject, but I've tried to do my research so apologies for any mistakes and the likes:


Thanks for the explanation. I totally get that. I mean I'm all for increased memory usage IF it increased the performance of the browser. But in my case, it doesn't. As long as the memory usage starts increasing, the browser will be VERY laggy and that's what I really don't understand. As long as I open multiple flash-based tabs simultaneously then this issue starts exhibiting itself. What do you think is causing this?


----------



## mAs81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mAs81*
> 
> Well,here's mine :
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


Don't know if that matters , but I have synced through Firefox sync ,my desktop's Waterfox to my netbook's 32bit Firefox..but I've been having the same problem even before..

Waterfox won't update further than 34.0.1


----------



## MrAlex

Okay so it doesn't appear to be any of the config settings preventing the update. If anyone with the auto update issue could do the following steps it'd be greatly appreciated:


Go to *about:config*
Search for *app.update.log* and set it to *true*
Make sure you haven't got any live webpages open, preferably just have a blank tab open
Open up the browser console by pressing *Ctrl+Shift+J*
With the console open, have About Waterfox open (where you check for updates)
Let me know what the log output says either with text output or a pic like so:
Anything related to the automatic update will have the AUS prefix.



Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Again? This isn't good at all. Would it be possible to get a screenshot of about:config if you filter it to app.update.
> 
> 
> 
> Is the post from mAs81 enough for this issue?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Here's what I wrote about memory allocation in another support forum. I'm not an export on it as it's a huge subject, but I've tried to do my research so apologies for any mistakes and the likes:
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks for the explanation. I totally get that. I mean I'm all for increased memory usage IF it increased the performance of the browser. But in my case, it doesn't. As long as the memory usage starts increasing, the browser will be VERY laggy and that's what I really don't understand. As long as I open multiple flash-based tabs simultaneously then this issue starts exhibiting itself. What do you think is causing this?
Click to expand...

Hmm okay does sound like the memory allocation is out of control. I'll have a look to see what I can do!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm okay does sound like the memory allocation is out of control. I'll have a look to see what I can do!


Here's my app.update.log:

AUS:SVC Checker: checkForUpdates, force: true
AUS:SVC Checker:getUpdateURL - update URL: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/34.0.1/en-US/release/update.xml?force=1
AUS:SVC recordInHealthReport - updateCheckStart - 0
AUS:SVC Checker:checkForUpdates - sending request to: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/34.0.1/en-US/release/update.xml?force=1
syntax error update.xml:1
AUS:SVC CheckernLoad - request completed downloading document
AUS:SVC Checker:_updates get - unexpected node name!
AUS:SVC CheckernLoad - there was a problem checking for updates. Exception: Error: Unexpected node name, expected: updates, got: parsererror
AUS:SVC CheckernLoad - request.status: 404
AUS:SVC getStatusTextFromCode - transfer error: Update XML file not found (404), code: 404
AUS:SVC recordInHealthReport - updateCheckFailed - 1404

Thanks. Yes, I hope you really can fix this as this is the single problem I have with FF/WF. It's really a major one though.


----------



## mAs81

I'm at work now an can't post my update settings..I'll do it when I get home,unfortunately tomorrow..

Thanks for looking into this MrAlex..


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm okay does sound like the memory allocation is out of control. I'll have a look to see what I can do!
> 
> 
> 
> Here's my app.update.log:
> 
> AUS:SVC Checker: checkForUpdates, force: true
> AUS:SVC Checker:getUpdateURL - update URL: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/34.0.1/en-US/release/update.xml?force=1
> AUS:SVC recordInHealthReport - updateCheckStart - 0
> AUS:SVC Checker:checkForUpdates - sending request to: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/34.0.1/en-US/release/update.xml?force=1
> syntax error update.xml:1
> AUS:SVC CheckernLoad - request completed downloading document
> AUS:SVC Checker:_updates get - unexpected node name!
> AUS:SVC CheckernLoad - there was a problem checking for updates. Exception: Error: Unexpected node name, expected: updates, got: parsererror
> AUS:SVC CheckernLoad - request.status: 404
> AUS:SVC getStatusTextFromCode - transfer error: Update XML file not found (404), code: 404
> AUS:SVC recordInHealthReport - updateCheckFailed - 1404
> 
> Thanks. Yes, I hope you really can fix this as this is the single problem I have with FF/WF. It's really a major one though.
Click to expand...

Ahhh there's the error! Looks like there's been a change from en-us to en-US (note the capitals) in the request and so it's returning a 404 error. Just need to copy the directory and it'll start auto updating again


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ahhh there's the error! Looks like there's been a change from en-us to en-US (note the capitals) in the request and so it's returning a 404 error. Just need to copy the directory and it'll start auto updating again


Nice find! Let me know when you're done with the changes and I'll test


----------



## Panwaffles

Anyone else having issues with proxy settings not saving and the Reload button being greyed out at all times (in the Network settings)?


----------



## mAs81

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ahhh there's the error! Looks like there's been a change from en-us to en-US (note the capitals) in the request and so it's returning a 404 error. Just need to copy the directory and it'll start auto updating again


Here's mine too,MrAlex :


Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

Another INSANE occurrence of the issue in another computer, WF consumed 7GB of RAM! I don't think that's really normal, is it?


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox Test Build: Download

Adds all the fixes Mozilla has as well as fixes the OneDrive issue! I'll fix the settings not remembering in the final release as long as this one works as planned .

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ahhh there's the error! Looks like there's been a change from en-us to en-US (note the capitals) in the request and so it's returning a 404 error. Just need to copy the directory and it'll start auto updating again
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice find! Let me know when you're done with the changes and I'll test
Click to expand...

It's available









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Anyone else having issues with proxy settings not saving and the Reload button being greyed out at all times (in the Network settings)?


Yes sorry I'm fixing this, will be released today or tomorrow whenever the build is ready!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> Another INSANE occurrence of the issue in another computer, WF consumed 7GB of RAM! I don't think that's really normal, is it?


Wow. What's the total RAM available? Looks like Intel TBB has memory leak, but the latest version was supposed to fix it. What was being used on the computer?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Wow, not even Pale Moon 64bit gets that bad, and I've seen it hit 1 GB at times. I'm currently running Firefox 35.0.1 and it's consuming about 276 megs of RAM.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's available
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. What's the total RAM available? Looks like Intel TBB has memory leak, but the latest version was supposed to fix it. What was being used on the computer?


Thanks for the update.

It was already running 35.0 and it only had 8GB of RAM. I was amazed how it got that high also.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Wow, not even Pale Moon 64bit gets that bad, and I've seen it hit 1 GB at times. I'm currently running Firefox 35.0.1 and it's consuming about 276 megs of RAM.


Yes Pale Moon uses VC doesn't it? Ah wish ICC wasn't such a pain sometimes. Looks like all the compiler optimisations are using up so many registers. Definitely need to switch memory allocator.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's available
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wow. What's the total RAM available? Looks like Intel TBB has memory leak, but the latest version was supposed to fix it. What was being used on the computer?
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the update.
> 
> It was already running 35.0 and it only had 8GB of RAM. I was amazed how it got that high also.
Click to expand...

No worries!

Yes looks like Intel TBB is too resource intensive. Going to try and get jemalloc to work. I believe the issue might be an issue with the D3D compiler in the windows 7 SDK...wish I could find an easy way to use Windows 8 SDK with vs2010!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No worries!
> Yes looks like Intel TBB is too resource intensive. Going to try and get jemalloc to work. I believe the issue might be an issue with the D3D compiler in the windows 7 SDK...wish I could find an easy way to use Windows 8 SDK with vs2010!


Alright, that's all I need for now an acknowledgement of the problem







I know you'll be working on this and I don't have as single doubt you'll get to the bottom of it.


----------



## malcomX

me quote
Quote:


> https://waterfoxproject.org/
> ipvdevFTW johny • 3 days ago
> 
> means there is a security issue and a memory leak caused by the memory allocator unless alex knows what he is doing implementing an untested memory allocator in replace of jemalloc has a large security impact on the browser.
> 
> since its untested unlike the jemalloc firefox uses constantly being tested there are going to be huge security holes in the memory allocator he has used in waterfox possible zero days given its Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.
> 
> why not fix the issue with webgl then use jemalloc its allow safer then implementing an untested memory allocator with a security impact that puts any waterfox user in great risk of losing there personal information or there computers been farmed via remote access.


true is this ? light shed please


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> No worries!
> Yes looks like Intel TBB is too resource intensive. Going to try and get jemalloc to work. I believe the issue might be an issue with the D3D compiler in the windows 7 SDK...wish I could find an easy way to use Windows 8 SDK with vs2010!
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, that's all I need for now an acknowledgement of the problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know you'll be working on this and I don't have as single doubt you'll get to the bottom of it.
Click to expand...

Cheers, I'll be trying my best!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> me quote
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> https://waterfoxproject.org/
> ipvdevFTW johny • 3 days ago
> 
> means there is a security issue and a memory leak caused by the memory allocator unless alex knows what he is doing implementing an untested memory allocator in replace of jemalloc has a large security impact on the browser.
> 
> since its untested unlike the jemalloc firefox uses constantly being tested there are going to be huge security holes in the memory allocator he has used in waterfox possible zero days given its Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.
> 
> why not fix the issue with webgl then use jemalloc its allow safer then implementing an untested memory allocator with a security impact that puts any waterfox user in great risk of losing there personal information or there computers been farmed via remote access.
> 
> 
> 
> true is this ? light shed please
Click to expand...

I've posted above about the memory allocator situation  Intel TBB should be safe, it's endorsed by quite a large company! But it's too memory consumptive for the performance it give so I'm very keen on getting jemalloc to work!


----------



## gijs007

Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?

I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. (most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this)
Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.

Why not upgrade to visual studio 2013, and the latest Intel 2015 compiler?
If you need a license for them, send me a PM


----------



## Panwaffles

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?
> 
> I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. *(most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this*)
> Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.


This is furthest from the truth, even Steam's statistics show that most computers do not have more than 4GB RAM and that's supposed to be the more educated and more IT-invested part of the population. For example, dual core computers are in far majority still.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Cheers, I'll be trying my best!
> 
> I've posted above about the memory allocator situation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel TBB should be safe, it's endorsed by quite a large company! But it's too memory consumptive for the performance it give so I'm very keen on getting jemalloc to work!


Quote:


> Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.


intel test do they ?


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> This is furthest from the truth, even Steam's statistics show that most computers do not have more than 4GB RAM and that's supposed to be the more educated and more IT-invested part of the population. For example, dual core computers are in far majority still.


http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey

8 GB most









Less than 512 MB
0.01%
0.00%

512 Mb to 999 MB
0.21%
-0.01%

1 GB
1.99%
-0.10%

2 GB
9.97%
-0.19%

3 GB
13.82%
-0.20%

4 GB
21.63%
-0.10%

5 GB
1.36%
-0.03%

6 GB
5.94%
-0.10%

7 GB
2.44%
+0.05%

8 GB
29.39%
+0.31%

9 GB
0.07%
0.00%

10 GB
0.29%
0.00%

11 GB
0.11%
0.00%

12 GB and higher
12.75%
+0.37%


----------



## Panwaffles

Check that specific survey again (the whole thing) and you'll realize why it's completely off.

EDIT: Can't find the data from previous surveys and even if the January one wasn't corrupted, it still shows that the most expensive part of the commercial PC population (a niche market) is still barely outweighing 4GB, so overall it would still be either equal or less.


----------



## cooperb21

When is new version coming?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?
> 
> I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. (most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this)
> Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.
> 
> Why not upgrade to visual studio 2013, and the latest Intel 2015 compiler?
> If you need a license for them, send me a PM


Unfortunately not. What it does is overrides the default C memory allocation functions with its own. Yes well the problem is too much memory leads to out of memory performance issues which makes things unusable!

The latest versions don't compile well at all unfortunately! Thanks for the offer, it hasn't expired yet









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Perhaps it's possible to tune Intel TBB's memory usage?
> 
> I don't see why most people complain about memory usage, I prefer a faster browser over memory usage in most cases. *(most systems these days have more than 4GB of ram and are 64 bit so shouldn't have any problems with this*)
> Although I do agree that reducing memory usage can be a good thing, depending on how the reduction is made possible.
> 
> 
> 
> This is furthest from the truth, even Steam's statistics show that most computers do not have more than 4GB RAM and that's supposed to be the more educated and more IT-invested part of the population. For example, dual core computers are in far majority still.
Click to expand...

I believe enthusiasts and gamers will have on average about 4GB of RAM, whereas the average Joe will have 2GB. 8GB is now becoming the norm though 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Cheers, I'll be trying my best!
> 
> I've posted above about the memory allocator situation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Intel TBB should be safe, it's endorsed by quite a large company! But it's too memory consumptive for the performance it give so I'm very keen on getting jemalloc to work!
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Intel Threaded Building Blocks memory allocator has not being tested on a xul runner application for use in a web browser.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> intel test do they ?
Click to expand...

No, but it's understanding how the memory allocator works and if the application will benefit from it. It doesn't modify any code, since what is does is overrides the default memory functions with its own.


----------



## Failuyr

A Google search didn't resolve my issue, so I figured I'd come ask the people who use it everyday.

I just installed Waterfox onto a new computer, and audio will not play. It plays through Chrome however. I did the usual check the mixer step to make sure the program wasn't muted, and Waterfox isn't even listed as a program there.

How can I get Waterfox to play sound / appear on the mixer? Thanks!


----------



## themushroom

*I think I saw a little discussion above about a memory leak in 35.0 -- yeah, I'd like to confirm that.*

A special note to gijs007 : Be that as it may that most people have 4gb RAM, if a program is progressively filling that RAM to the point where the computer goes comatose, or until you use the Task Manager to kill the browser because just closing it isn't restoring functionality, there actually is a problem.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Failuyr*
> 
> A Google search didn't resolve my issue, so I figured I'd come ask the people who use it everyday.
> 
> I just installed Waterfox onto a new computer, and audio will not play. It plays through Chrome however. I did the usual check the mixer step to make sure the program wasn't muted, and Waterfox isn't even listed as a program there.
> 
> How can I get Waterfox to play sound / appear on the mixer? Thanks!


That's strange, sounds like it's not recognising Waterfox as an audio source. What content are you trying to play?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> 
> 
> *I think I saw a little discussion above about a memory leak in 35.0 -- yeah, I'd like to confirm that.*
> 
> A special note to gijs007 : Be that as it may that most people have 4gb RAM, if a program is progressively filling that RAM to the point where the computer goes comatose, or until you use the Task Manager to kill the browser because just closing it isn't restoring functionality, there actually is a problem.


Does this memory usage make Waterfox unstable? I don't think I'll be able to release a fixed version in time as 35.0.1 is already massively late and I'd like to release it tomorrow. If it's usable for now I'll seed the patch, if not I'll have to delay. Thanks for your report!


----------



## Screemer

Is this an official release from you Mr.Alex?
Setup-x64:
https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2035.0.1%20Setup.exe

Can't seem to find it anywhere on forum or website.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Is this an official release from you Mr.Alex?
> Setup-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2035.0.1%20Setup.exe
> 
> Can't seem to find it anywhere on forum or website.


Yes it is. Just waiting to make sure it's all working okay before releasing.


----------



## Screemer

Great, thanks for the swift reply..


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does this memory usage make Waterfox unstable? I don't think I'll be able to release a fixed version in time as 35.0.1 is already massively late and I'd like to release it tomorrow. If it's usable for now I'll seed the patch, if not I'll have to delay. Thanks for your report!


Not so much "unstable" in the browser or the computer, but definitely sludgy on both counts. It takes a few hours to get that full, it's not an immediate issue. The behavior when it reaches critical mass is that it spins the hard drive for several minutes (a cache swap Windows does when a computer doesn't have enough RAM?), it takes up to a minute to go between tabs, and sometimes the program will go into "not responding" mode while sometimes it doesn't. Waterfox does NOT crash the machine or lock up, happily, but the two choices when this overload happens are to either wait it out or use Task Manager to shut it down which flushes everything out (merely closing the program keeps it resident for a minute or three longer). Then when Waterfox is relaunched everything's peachy again until the next time.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Great, thanks for the swift reply..


No worries 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does this memory usage make Waterfox unstable? I don't think I'll be able to release a fixed version in time as 35.0.1 is already massively late and I'd like to release it tomorrow. If it's usable for now I'll seed the patch, if not I'll have to delay. Thanks for your report!
> 
> 
> 
> Not so much "unstable" in the browser or the computer, but definitely sludgy on both counts. It takes a few hours to get that full, it's not an immediate issue. The behavior when it reaches critical mass is that it spins the hard drive for several minutes (a cache swap Windows does when a computer doesn't have enough RAM?), it takes up to a minute to go between tabs, and sometimes the program will go into "not responding" mode while sometimes it doesn't. Waterfox does NOT crash the machine or lock up, happily, but the two choices when this overload happens are to either wait it out or use Task Manager to shut it down which flushes everything out (merely closing the program keeps it resident for a minute or three longer). Then when Waterfox is relaunched everything's peachy again until the next time.
Click to expand...

Ah right okay thanks for the info!

Could anyone please test the update for 35.0.1 for me:

Go to *about:config*, Right click anywhere *New > String*

And then name of the string: *app.update.url.override*

And the value of the string: *https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml*

Then just go to About Waterfox and apply the patch


----------



## FLCL

I tried this but I get an error:

The Update could not be installed (patch apply failed)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> I tried this but I get an error:
> 
> The Update could not be installed (patch apply failed)


Thanks! Thought there was something wrong. Time to get on this


----------



## seti

Mr. Alex,

I have nothing but respect for your ability to handle all that you must endure in this project. I just hope you know there are many more that don't post and lurk around that I am sure have a ton of appreciation for your efforts and Waterfox itself. Good Karma and Good energy to you sir!

No need to reply...a vote of confidence on my part and the voiceless others!


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

"about:config, Right click anywhere New > String
And then name the string: app.update.url.override
And the value of the string: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml
Then just go to About Waterfox and apply the patch







"

I tested the update for 35.0.1 and the patched worked for me.
Was using Ver. 34.0.1 and now have 35.0.1

THANK YOU (sorry, but I had to shout) for all your time and hard work!!!

WetLook


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Thanks! Thought there was something wrong. Time to get on this


Same result here going from 35.0 to 35.0.1, "patch apply failed".


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> I tried this but I get an error:
> 
> The Update could not be installed (patch apply failed)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Thanks! Thought there was something wrong. Time to get on this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Same result here going from 35.0 to 35.0.1, "patch apply failed".
Click to expand...

Would it be possible for you to both do it again? I've released a new test patch that'll hopefully fix the issues.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I have nothing but respect for your ability to handle all that you must endure in this project. I just hope you know there are many more that don't post and lurk around that I am sure have a ton of appreciation for your efforts and Waterfox itself. Good Karma and Good energy to you sir!
> 
> No need to reply...a vote of confidence on my part and the voiceless others!


Thank you very much, I appreciate that a lot!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> "about:config, Right click anywhere New > String
> And then name the string: app.update.url.override
> And the value of the string: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml
> Then just go to About Waterfox and apply the patch
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "
> 
> I tested the update for 35.0.1 and the patched worked for me.
> Was using Ver. 34.0.1 and now have 35.0.1
> 
> THANK YOU (sorry, but I had to shout) for all your time and hard work!!!
> 
> WetLook


Ah good to know it works for you. After you updated did it restart and install the patch okay?

Thanks for the kind comments!


----------



## themushroom

Failed again. I tried a couple times.

So thinking maybe another route would work, I downloaded the .mar file and followed some instructions online on how to install one, gathered the required DLLs alongside the .mar so the installer would go, and the status file says "applying" -- no success message. Next time I ran Waterfox, it still asks if I want to update to 35.0.1 *shrug*

*UPDATE* 2/13 8pm:
The 35.0.1 .exe on SourceForge installed without a hitch. Report coming soon as I've had a few hours of browsing to see if the memory gets filled up or not.


----------



## remixedcat

I had to manually update.. none of the fixes worked. was stuck on 34


----------



## WetLook

Quote:
Ah good to know it works for you. After you updated did it restart and install the patch okay?
Thanks for the kind comments!

Yes Mr. Alex, after WF update, Waterfox restarted and is working fine.
I have not found any problems as of now.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

The update config patch doesn't install.


----------



## FLCL

I tried it again and the error is still there.


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

After updating from Ver. 34.0.1 to 35.0.1 with no problem, I am still asked to update.

The three jpeg files I attached show what I am talking about.
.01 WF Capture with "About Waterfox" window with 35.0.1 installed and Apply Update...
.02 WF Capture with WF "Software Update" window, with update failed & link not working.
.03 WF Capture with Web Site where "Software Update" link take me.

I hope this helps you.


----------



## malcomX

http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/WaterfoxPortable_35.0.1_English.paf.exe/download

not work


----------



## Lopser

35.0.1 - This version works well.
Finally, the OneDrive short link will open correctly! Thanks!
Memory leak (v. 34-35.01) is when active flash player.


----------



## MrAlex

OK so the patch seems to fail going from 35.0 -> 35.0.1. 34.0.1 -> 35.0.1 works fine though!

The error 19 that appears is due to a certificate error in the MAR file although this is the first time this issue has every cropped up so I'm not sure what's happened in the codebase from 34->35!

I've spent the last two days trying to sign the MAR file but I keep failing as there's no documentation that I can find for it! So looks like I'll release the patch so everyone on 34 can update to 35.

Not sure what to do if the same issue occurs with the v36 MAR if everyone will have updated to 35!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Failed again. I tried a couple times.
> 
> So thinking maybe another route would work, I downloaded the .mar file and followed some instructions online on how to install one, gathered the required DLLs alongside the .mar so the installer would go, and the status file says "applying" -- no success message. Next time I ran Waterfox, it still asks if I want to update to 35.0.1 *shrug*
> 
> *UPDATE* 2/13 8pm:
> The 35.0.1 .exe on SourceForge installed without a hitch. Report coming soon as I've had a few hours of browsing to see if the memory gets filled up or not.


Yes the override setting will force an update so even if you have that update applied (or in this case since its failed) it'll say another update is available.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> I had to manually update.. none of the fixes worked. was stuck on 34


Yes they're just tests. Did you get the same patch issue on 34?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Quote:
> Ah good to know it works for you. After you updated did it restart and install the patch okay?
> Thanks for the kind comments!
> 
> Yes Mr. Alex, after WF update, Waterfox restarted and is working fine.
> I have not found any problems as of now.


Ok good to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> The update config patch doesn't install.


That's fine. Can I assume you're on WF 35.0?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> I tried it again and the error is still there.


Are you also trying this on v35.0?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> After updating from Ver. 34.0.1 to 35.0.1 with no problem, I am still asked to update.
> 
> The three jpeg files I attached show what I am talking about.
> .01 WF Capture with "About Waterfox" window with 35.0.1 installed and Apply Update...
> .02 WF Capture with WF "Software Update" window, with update failed & link not working.
> .03 WF Capture with Web Site where "Software Update" link take me.
> 
> I hope this helps you.


Thanks for the info!

1) You'll have to make the app.update.url.override setting to blank or it'll keep showing a patch is available 

2 & 3) Yes that's just a dummy link at the moment for when 35.0.1 is released

Cheers!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://sourceforge.net/projects/waterfoxproj/files/WaterfoxPortable_35.0.1_English.paf.exe/download
> 
> not work


It has been fixed, try redownloading the file 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> 35.0.1 - This version works well.
> Finally, the OneDrive short link will open correctly! Thanks!
> Memory leak (v. 34-35.01) is when active flash player.


Good to hear! And yes it appears NPAPI plugins cause tons of memory usage.


----------



## FLCL

Yes, it's Waterfox 35 which dont want to be an 35.01 Version.

By the way thank you for this waterfox project







!!!!


----------



## remixedcat

Yes I have the same patch issue


----------



## blackps

Crash on facebook when scrolling down the page
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/5e9201ea-2c4c-4075-b3a6-67ea12150215
https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/c6ca809a-27ac-4164-9d23-338272150215
Ect.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Not so much "unstable" in the browser or the computer, but definitely sludgy on both counts. It takes a few hours to get that full, it's not an immediate issue. The behavior when it reaches critical mass is that it spins the hard drive for several minutes (a cache swap Windows does when a computer doesn't have enough RAM?), it takes up to a minute to go between tabs, and sometimes the program will go into "not responding" mode while sometimes it doesn't. Waterfox does NOT crash the machine or lock up, happily, but the two choices when this overload happens are to either wait it out or use Task Manager to shut it down which flushes everything out (merely closing the program keeps it resident for a minute or three longer). Then when Waterfox is relaunched everything's peachy again until the next time.


MrAlex, I can confirm that I experience the same exact behavior. Any updates on this issue?


----------



## blackps

The version from here https://waterfox.codeplex.com/ is not crashing ,this version from here https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml is crashing


----------



## themushroom

I'm still getting the memory filling up, thus sludgy action from the 35.0.1 browser and other programs until it is closed.



I'm presuming the browser is not supposed to take up all available space and should 'forget' things after a point? Hey, is there some setting in Waterfox/FF that sets how long things stay cached, like there is in Opera?


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Whats the stable flashplayer with V35?

Should we use V17 beta, coz 16 is flaky.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay so let me fill you all in on what I've been trying to fix for the last week and a half with no avail:


Mozilla have their own file format known as a Mozilla Archive (MAR) that stores the update files and information for Firefox on what files to update etc.
Usually I'd generate a MAR as instructed here and all would be well
Something in the 35 codebase has changed as updater.exe (the appliation that checks for, applies updates etc) no longer accepts these files and throws an error 19 which is basically saying that there's an error with the certificates (i.e the MAR isn't signed).
So using the web I've found the bugs related to this: this being the most useful, then all the others here and here.
The problem is that in that first bug, on the final steps to signing the mar the following occurs:

Quote:


> ERROR: Could not initialize NSS
> ERROR: Could not init config dir:


I've tried searching through all the patches from 34->35 but the ones related to MAR and updater haven't implemented any changes relating to this. So this is where I'm at and why progress has been so slow!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> Yes, it's Waterfox 35 which dont want to be an 35.01 Version.
> 
> By the way thank you for this waterfox project
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !!!!


You're welcome, hope you enjoy it!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Yes I have the same patch issue


Thanks for the info.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackps*
> 
> Crash on facebook when scrolling down the page
> https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/5e9201ea-2c4c-4075-b3a6-67ea12150215
> https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/c6ca809a-27ac-4164-9d23-338272150215
> Ect.


I'll have a look 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Not so much "unstable" in the browser or the computer, but definitely sludgy on both counts. It takes a few hours to get that full, it's not an immediate issue. The behavior when it reaches critical mass is that it spins the hard drive for several minutes (a cache swap Windows does when a computer doesn't have enough RAM?), it takes up to a minute to go between tabs, and sometimes the program will go into "not responding" mode while sometimes it doesn't. Waterfox does NOT crash the machine or lock up, happily, but the two choices when this overload happens are to either wait it out or use Task Manager to shut it down which flushes everything out (merely closing the program keeps it resident for a minute or three longer). Then when Waterfox is relaunched everything's peachy again until the next time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MrAlex, I can confirm that I experience the same exact behavior. Any updates on this issue?
Click to expand...

Yes looks like Intel TBB malloc might be a bit leaky (although I've tried to reproduce this by running lots of benchmarks simultaneously and have yet to fill up the browsers memory, so I might have to leave it open overnight).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackps*
> 
> The version from here https://waterfox.codeplex.com/ is not crashing ,this version from here https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml is crashing


Okay thanks for the info, the test updates aren't really stable, I've just been testing different MAR types to try and get updates working for 35.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> I'm still getting the memory filling up, thus sludgy action from the 35.0.1 browser and other programs until it is closed.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm presuming the browser is not supposed to take up all available space and should 'forget' things after a point? Hey, is there some setting in Waterfox/FF that sets how long things stay cached, like there is in Opera?


Yes there's a useful guide here, although might be a bit out-dated.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes looks like Intel TBB malloc might be a bit leaky (although I've tried to reproduce this by running lots of benchmarks simultaneously and have yet to fill up the browsers memory, so I might have to leave it open overnight).


A lot, not a bit









Try this, open several articles in www.tweaktown.com and you'll notice this memory leak.


----------



## remixedcat

It was bloating up to 3GB just after approx 45 actions and 36 tabs and 2 windows


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes looks like Intel TBB malloc might be a bit leaky (although I've tried to reproduce this by running lots of benchmarks simultaneously and have yet to fill up the browsers memory, so I might have to leave it open overnight).
> 
> 
> 
> A lot, not a bit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try this, open several articles in www.tweaktown.com and you'll notice this memory leak.
Click to expand...

Okay thanks I'll have a look at that then 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> It was bloating up to 3GB just after approx 45 actions and 36 tabs and 2 windows


How much system RAM do you have?


----------



## remixedcat

16


----------



## bIOforger

Mines always used 2.5-3GB after a few hours just with two instances open using multifox and facebook open in effectively 2 tabs or 2 windows. I remember it being a lot better under V34 though. I have 8GB of RAM.


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

I'm not sure if I told you this problem already but when I re-open my WF browser (it is set to save all tabs upon exit), the last selected tab turns into a "new tab" without any information on it so I lose that tab. Simply put, when I exit WF while a specific tab is selected that tab will become a "new tab" when re-opening WF. How do I troubleshoot this?


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes looks like Intel TBB malloc might be a bit leaky (although I've tried to reproduce this by running lots of benchmarks simultaneously and have yet to fill up the browsers memory, so I might have to leave it open overnight).
> 
> Yes there's a useful guide here, although might be a bit out-dated.


I ran through the tips (and thank you for them! did answer other questions I had about FF/WF) and adjusted things to be smaller, but this isn't touching the issue. Here are the cache info screen the above link referenced and the Task Manager screen, capped a minute apart so it will be referring to the same session/quantity of data:



I saw someone a page or two ago question whether Flash is the culprit, which to me would make sense because I have done most of my browsing to get to this point on Tumblr, which is fairly heavy with things that autoplay and the fan on my GPU kicks in accordingly (Vine loops, uploaded videos, and convoluted themes invoke this). Would the Flash plugin -- and isn't that one of the rare 64-bit plugins? -- hang onto data like this? The only add-ons I have installed are Flash Video Downloader 7.1.2 and Xkit 7.4.5. I'm just making guesses how the browser can report one thing about itself but the system another.

And to concur with *bIOforger*, I don't recall seeing bloaty behavior like this in v34.


----------



## malcomX

friend ask
try --disable-verify-mar he say

Code:



Code:


# Check whether --enable-verify-mar or --disable-verify-mar was given.
if test "${enable_verify_mar+set}" = set; then
  enableval="$enable_verify_mar"
  if test "$enableval" = "yes"; then
    MOZ_VERIFY_MAR_SIGNATURE=1
  elif test "$enableval" = "no"; then
    MOZ_VERIFY_MAR_SIGNATURE= 
  else
    { echo "configure: error: Option, verify-mar, does not take an argument ($enableval)." 1>&2; echo "configure: error: Option, verify-mar, does not take an argument ($enableval)." 1>&5; exit 1; }
  fi
fi

memory leaks very bad still hope soon fix security important


----------



## Screemer

A little tip to people that have RAM probs with FF/WF.

Open about:config
search for " config.trim_on_minimize " without the hyphens.
If it doesn't exist, create it ( new, bolean ) and name it " config.trim_on_minimize " without the hyphens.
Then set it to true, if not possible just ok it and when created double click it to set it to true.

This will make FF/WF flush it's memory consumption when minimized to tray.


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> A little tip to people that have RAM probs with FF/WF.
> 
> Open about:config
> search for " config.trim_on_minimize " without the hyphens.
> If it doesn't exist, create it ( new, bolean ) and name it " config.trim_on_minimize " without the hyphens.
> Then set it to true, if not possible just ok it and when created double click it to set it to true.
> 
> This will make FF/WF flush it's memory consumption when minimized to tray.


When you say "without the hyphens", do you mean the preference should be name "config.trimonminimize"?

Mine ("trim_on_minimize") has been set to True all along and I have the consumption issues.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> 16


Okay well that usage is about reasonable but I'm working to cut it down either way 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Mines always used 2.5-3GB after a few hours just with two instances open using multifox and facebook open in effectively 2 tabs or 2 windows. I remember it being a lot better under V34 though. I have 8GB of RAM.


Yes it's due to the new memory allocator. It's definitely leaky so I'm going to replace it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> I'm not sure if I told you this problem already but when I re-open my WF browser (it is set to save all tabs upon exit), the last selected tab turns into a "new tab" without any information on it so I lose that tab. Simply put, when I exit WF while a specific tab is selected that tab will become a "new tab" when re-opening WF. How do I troubleshoot this?


Hmm you can troubleshoot this by running in safe mode or trying a blank profile.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes looks like Intel TBB malloc might be a bit leaky (although I've tried to reproduce this by running lots of benchmarks simultaneously and have yet to fill up the browsers memory, so I might have to leave it open overnight).
> 
> Yes there's a useful guide here, although might be a bit out-dated.
> 
> 
> 
> I ran through the tips (and thank you for them! did answer other questions I had about FF/WF) and adjusted things to be smaller, but this isn't touching the issue. Here are the cache info screen the above link referenced and the Task Manager screen, capped a minute apart so it will be referring to the same session/quantity of data:
> 
> 
> 
> I saw someone a page or two ago question whether Flash is the culprit, which to me would make sense because I have done most of my browsing to get to this point on Tumblr, which is fairly heavy with things that autoplay and the fan on my GPU kicks in accordingly (Vine loops, uploaded videos, and convoluted themes invoke this). Would the Flash plugin -- and isn't that one of the rare 64-bit plugins? -- hang onto data like this? The only add-ons I have installed are Flash Video Downloader 7.1.2 and Xkit 7.4.5. I'm just making guesses how the browser can report one thing about itself but the system another.
> 
> And to concur with *bIOforger*, I don't recall seeing bloaty behavior like this in v34.
Click to expand...

Glad to know it helped a little. The information that the browser is showing is correct but I don't think it's the total system memory usage.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> friend ask
> try --disable-verify-mar he say
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> # Check whether --enable-verify-mar or --disable-verify-mar was given.
> if test "${enable_verify_mar+set}" = set; then
> enableval="$enable_verify_mar"
> if test "$enableval" = "yes"; then
> MOZ_VERIFY_MAR_SIGNATURE=1
> elif test "$enableval" = "no"; then
> MOZ_VERIFY_MAR_SIGNATURE=
> else
> { echo "configure: error: Option, verify-mar, does not take an argument ($enableval)." 1>&2; echo "configure: error: Option, verify-mar, does not take an argument ($enableval)." 1>&5; exit 1; }
> fi
> fi
> 
> memory leaks very bad still hope soon fix security important


Hey malcomX, thanks I've managed to disable the need to check for MAR signatures, the problem is that users on 35.X can't update unless a MAR is signed which is bad because then they can't get the latest update when it releases


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> When you say "without the hyphens", do you mean the preference should be name "config.trimonminimize"?
> 
> Mine ("trim_on_minimize") has been set to True all along and I have the consumption issues.


Supposed to be config.trim_on_minimize
See here: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize
My FF/WF is removed from taskmanager when minimized and seem to be clenced from leaked RAM..


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm you can troubleshoot this by running in safe mode or trying a blank profile.


Will that delete all my tabs then? After trying safe mode or a blank profile, what then?


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

How about some power user tweaks just for WF ?


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes it's due to the new memory allocator. It's definitely leaky so I'm going to replace it.


You tracked down the real issue?
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Glad to know it helped a little. The information that the browser is showing is correct but I don't think it's the total system memory usage.


It doesn't solve the leak but I will admit that I think that at least one of the tricks (where the browser dumps some memory when minimised) is helping reduce its toll. Like right now Task Manager reports the size of WF is 1.9gb, which is down from 2.1 a little while ago, after using the browser for the last twelve hours. Whatever voodoo works, right?


----------



## kronckew

the mushroom,

to be clear (and a bit pedantic),

"config.trim_on_minimize" has underscores,not hyphens. this, without the quotes, is the correct name in about:config.

"config.trim-on-minimize" has hyphens, aka dashes, or minus signs, and would be incorrect, as would spaces.

in about:config, it's a boolean, clicking it's name toggles it true or false.

screemer,

i note the recommendations in the linked article you referenced include a link to a bug comment explaining why the trim may be ineffective.


----------



## Morphello

Hey Alex,

I just felt like posting my experiences with WF after reading lots of posts in regards to the memory usage.

http://i.imgur.com/AHcQhHC.png

There's dozens and dozens of posts in this thread complaining about WF having memory issues, but I'm thinking the problem lies elsewhere. That picture is 37 tabs open, many with animated gifs (which seem to still process when the tabs arent selected), I have a youtube video playing with flash player (plugin container not shown, 257mb), half of the sites listed have scripts running on them in real time.

I'm running just 2 plugins (flash and java), 10 addons including stylish and greasemonkey, and about 40 userscripts modifying just about everything I do. Several of those scripts run quite a bit of real time updates.

This is after around 45 hours of use, spread over several days as I sleep my PC. I'm running on 35.0.1 that was posted in the thread a few days back but I'm not sure what/if anything has changed since then.

My experience is that memory has largely been irrelevant, having only 8GB myself I haven't had much issue with the system/responsiveness or any lag/freezes or halts within WF.

One thing did make an amazing difference to the ram usage, swapping over from Adblock Plus to uBlock (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock).

Lots of the info on their github page shows significant gains in speed, overall performance and reduction in memory compared to all other adblocking solutions. Considering their data for how much extra memory ABP uses, and I'm going to take a wild swing and guess just about everyone here has an adblocker, I'd say maybe swap over to ublock for a bit and test memory.

That said, even comparing firefox release with WF, I can't say I see too much difference in memory. I make it a habit use the same profile where ever I go, clean it out with CCleaner + winapp2 regularly (not removing any cache), and every 6 months or so I rebuild the profile entirely from scratch.

If you want anymore info just ask. I appreciate all the hard work you've done and I'm desperate for a build of 36. FF35 fixed issues that have plagued me for a long time, but broke several features I use often, both of which are fixed for 36. I can't wait!

Thanks again Alex


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> to be clear (and a bit pedantic),
> "config.trim_on_minimize" has underscores,not hyphens. this, without the quotes, is the correct name in about:config.


Yes. Which still raises the question why the words "without the hyphens" were used when there were no hyphens in the statement.








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> There's dozens and dozens of posts in this thread complaining about WF having memory issues, but I'm thinking the problem lies elsewhere. That picture is 37 tabs open, many with animated gifs


Seems you are doing something different than others (me especially) that results in you not having the issue while others get the program bloated. 1.4gb might be reasonable if you have 37 tabs open, sure, but others have one tab open to a blank screen and still have 3+gb in use for some reason. Leaky Flash plugin or some wonky add-on performance? Plenty of variables.


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Seems you are doing something different than others (me especially) that results in you not having the issue while others get the program bloated. 1.4gb might be reasonable if you have 37 tabs open, sure, but others have one tab open to a blank screen and still have 3+gb in use for some reason. Leaky Flash plugin or some wonky add-on performance? Plenty of variables.


Good point. I've always used the latest Flash beta from the adobe labs page with WF, which as given me headaches in the past, but generally the new experimental features have outweighed the "beta" elements of the program. I originally started using the beta because of an issue I was having in FF with the stable release that had been fixed in the beta for over a month.

Just checking now, with my 3 pinned tabs and nothing else open, WF barely uses 290mb of ram.

I believe addon performance is probably a huge factor for some people, as is profile corruption over time. I use the DownloadThemAll addon. If you're going by the actual mozilla addons website, theres actually a 2+ year old copy there that only gets updated if certain bugs get found. I use the beta from the main website that gets updated more frequently (time between updates is 6+months plus), but the last update in January had a ton of performance improvements and, once again, massive memory gains.

Some of my scripts run on multiple repositories as well, a stable release and a dev build. Some of the main scripts I use haven't had a "stable" update for almost 2 years, yet great strides are being made on the dev channel. Again, despite having some issues (latest update to my youtube script broke playback entirely, had to revert, small hassle, etc), the cutting edge features always seems to treat me better than the stable route.

When I first started using WF, I noticed a moderate increase in overall memory usage, about +400mb over normal firefox for average usage. I wasn't too concerned because it was noticeably faster on my hardware. Over time, in combination with alex's work, mozilla's internal improvements and mod improvements, WF has reduced the memory footprint to far below what I originally had when I switched to WF.

TL;DR - Check for updates (inc betas) for your addons, scripts and otherwise. Clean you profiles. Try the latest Flash Beta as well. Updating to latest versions of everything does have some problems, but RAM aint one of em.


----------



## seti

These are some of the edits I have picked up through the course of reading this forum and have just kept adding them to the list of things to do with new installs of FF/WF. I am wondering if many or any are still to be used for optimal performance? or do they cause more harm than good and should be discarded? Any help is appreciated. Here they are:

Set "browser.sessionstore.interval" to "300000"
Set "network.http.spdy.enabled" to "true"
Set "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers" to "0"
Set "network.prefetch-next" to "false"
Set "layout.spellcheckDefault" to "2"
Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"
Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"
Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to "8"
Set "network.http.max-connections" to "256"
Set "network.http.max-connections-per-server" to "24"
Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" to "8"
Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" to "8"
Set "browser.cache.disk.preload_chunk_count" to "8"
Set "browser.cache.disk.metadata_memory_limit" to "1000"

Right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer or Bolean (T or F)

New->Integer "nglayout.initialpaint.delay": set "25"
New->Bolean "network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false"
New->Integer "content.notify.backoffcount": set "5"
New->Bolean "plugin.expose_full_path": set "true"
New->Integer "ui.submenuDelay": set "0"
New->Bolean "config.trim_on_minimize": set "true"
New->Bolean "network.http.pipelining.firstrequest": set "true"
New->Bolean "content.notify.ontimer": set "True"
New->Integer "content.notify.interval": set "300000"
New->Integer "content.max.tokenizing.time": set "900000" (set to 3x whatever 'content.notify.interval is set to.) Was used to fix Adobe Flash lag during playback.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> These are some of the edits I have picked up through the course of reading this forum and have just kept adding them to the list of things to do with new installs of FF/WF. I am wondering if many or any are still to be used for optimal performance? or do they cause more harm than good and should be discarded? Any help is appreciated. Here they are:
> 
> Set "browser.sessionstore.interval" to "300000"
> Set "network.http.spdy.enabled" to "true"
> Set "browser.sessionhistory.max_total_viewers" to "0"
> Set "network.prefetch-next" to "false"
> Set "layout.spellcheckDefault" to "2"
> Set "network.http.pipelining" to "true"
> Set "network.http.proxy.pipelining" to "true"
> Set "network.http.pipelining.maxrequests" to "8"
> Set "network.http.max-connections" to "256"
> Set "network.http.max-connections-per-server" to "24"
> Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-proxy" to "8"
> Set "network.http.max-persistent-connections-per-server" to "8"
> Set "browser.cache.disk.preload_chunk_count" to "8"
> Set "browser.cache.disk.metadata_memory_limit" to "1000"
> 
> Right-click anywhere and select New-> Integer or Bolean (T or F)
> 
> New->Integer "nglayout.initialpaint.delay": set "25"
> New->Bolean "network.dns.disableIPv6": set "false"
> New->Integer "content.notify.backoffcount": set "5"
> New->Bolean "plugin.expose_full_path": set "true"
> New->Integer "ui.submenuDelay": set "0"
> New->Bolean "config.trim_on_minimize": set "true"
> New->Bolean "network.http.pipelining.firstrequest": set "true"
> New->Bolean "content.notify.ontimer": set "True"
> New->Integer "content.notify.interval": set "300000"
> New->Integer "content.max.tokenizing.time": set "900000" (set to 3x whatever 'content.notify.interval is set to.) Was used to fix Adobe Flash lag during playback.


Now to test tweaks.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Is there a way to easily mass-incorporate changes like that into Firefox or its variants?


----------



## cooperb21

Is there reason waterfox takes alot longer than cyberfox to update? Its been how long and still no current version.

Cyberfox gets update the next day most of time and sometimes on day firefox updates.


----------



## safari801

Because they are done by different developers, so different release times.


----------



## kronckew

mr alex is a student, not a corporation. only him. he also has a life beyond waterfox.

he's also fighting the new compiler and memory allocation to get rid of the memory leaks some users have.

he doesn't bring out a new version till he is happy with it, rather than because mozilla did, in spite of the wolves howling at his heels.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm you can troubleshoot this by running in safe mode or trying a blank profile.
> 
> 
> 
> Will that delete all my tabs then? After trying safe mode or a blank profile, what then?
Click to expand...

Yes it will unfortunately. But after, you basically try to recreate the issue to see if it's an add-on issue or if something dodgy has happened in the profile. I'd recommend safe mode before a blank profile.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes it's due to the new memory allocator. It's definitely leaky so I'm going to replace it.
> 
> 
> 
> You tracked down the real issue?
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Glad to know it helped a little. The information that the browser is showing is correct but I don't think it's the total system memory usage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It doesn't solve the leak but I will admit that I think that at least one of the tricks (where the browser dumps some memory when minimised) is helping reduce its toll. Like right now Task Manager reports the size of WF is 1.9gb, which is down from 2.1 a little while ago, after using the browser for the last twelve hours. Whatever voodoo works, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, Intel TBB has had some reported memory leaks that have been patched but because this memory allocator is meant for HPC I think it's overusing resources which is having diminishing returns. I'm thinking some JS heavy website are causing lots of memory usage.

As for the minimize_trim it's quite dubious if it actually works. It's a very old setting that probably isn't relevant any more.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> Hey Alex,
> 
> I just felt like posting my experiences with WF after reading lots of posts in regards to the memory usage.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/AHcQhHC.png
> 
> There's dozens and dozens of posts in this thread complaining about WF having memory issues, but I'm thinking the problem lies elsewhere. That picture is 37 tabs open, many with animated gifs (which seem to still process when the tabs arent selected), I have a youtube video playing with flash player (plugin container not shown, 257mb), half of the sites listed have scripts running on them in real time.
> 
> I'm running just 2 plugins (flash and java), 10 addons including stylish and greasemonkey, and about 40 userscripts modifying just about everything I do. Several of those scripts run quite a bit of real time updates.
> 
> This is after around 45 hours of use, spread over several days as I sleep my PC. I'm running on 35.0.1 that was posted in the thread a few days back but I'm not sure what/if anything has changed since then.
> 
> My experience is that memory has largely been irrelevant, having only 8GB myself I haven't had much issue with the system/responsiveness or any lag/freezes or halts within WF.
> 
> One thing did make an amazing difference to the ram usage, swapping over from Adblock Plus to uBlock (https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock).
> 
> Lots of the info on their github page shows significant gains in speed, overall performance and reduction in memory compared to all other adblocking solutions. Considering their data for how much extra memory ABP uses, and I'm going to take a wild swing and guess just about everyone here has an adblocker, I'd say maybe swap over to ublock for a bit and test memory.
> 
> That said, even comparing firefox release with WF, I can't say I see too much difference in memory. I make it a habit use the same profile where ever I go, clean it out with CCleaner + winapp2 regularly (not removing any cache), and every 6 months or so I rebuild the profile entirely from scratch.
> 
> If you want anymore info just ask. I appreciate all the hard work you've done and I'm desperate for a build of 36. FF35 fixed issues that have plagued me for a long time, but broke several features I use often, both of which are fixed for 36. I can't wait!
> 
> Thanks again Alex


I'm glad it's working well for you! Hopefully I'll be able to solve memory issues for everyone









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Is there a way to easily mass-incorporate changes like that into Firefox or its variants?


There is, you can create a .js file with all the setting that overwrite's whatever settings you put in it. I'll try find the link again.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> Is there reason waterfox takes alot longer than cyberfox to update? Its been how long and still no current version.
> 
> Cyberfox gets update the next day most of time and sometimes on day firefox updates.


There are a few reasons, although Kudos to whomever for getting their builds out so quickly.


Waterfox has a much larger user base, and I need to do lots of testing so I can make sure that if anything goes wrong it doesn't affect everyone.
I'm also in my final year of University so I've got to make sure I'm giving enough time to my course as well as Waterfox
I've got lots of issue with Intel's C++ compiler and newer Firefox builds working because they're removing support for MSVC10 and at the moment MSVC11 builds generate a UI that freezes (but it still works because you can type and click buttons etc, you just can't see the UI updating like it should). I've tried looking through cyber's source code but I don't see anything changed in regards to these issue, so how he gets ICC+MSVC11 to work atm is a mystery to me but I'm working on it.

Also 36.0 is due out tomorrow and I'm ontop of the build to get everything working ASAP. I do realise builds are slow, so sorry about that!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> mr alex is a student, not a corporation. only him. he also has a life beyond waterfox.
> 
> he's also fighting the new compiler and memory allocation to get rid of the memory leaks some users have.
> 
> he doesn't bring out a new version till he is happy with it, rather than because mozilla did, in spite of the wolves howling at his heels.


I'm sure it wasn't meant as a malicious comment, more as wondering.


----------



## seti

Quote:


> I'm sure it wasn't meant as a malicious comment, more as wondering.


I wonder at times if the school you attend isn't a seminary with some of the "requests" that are asked for or demanded even. That is much of the problem in forums, texts, and other written communication is ones own interpretation, There are many reasons and explanations reading posts can get confused or misinterpreted. A few of those major reasons being due to the speaking in languages not native to the writer, the readers own state of mind interpreting things differently than implied, and more times than not missing those queues one would get in speaking with someone that are not relayed in type as eloquently (through punctuation, explanation, description, etc..). Anywho...keep up the good work St. Alex...many are here and ready to test when needed.


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it wasn't meant as a malicious comment, more as wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at times if the school you attend isn't a seminary with some of the "requests" that are asked for or demanded even. That is much of the problem in forums, texts, and other written communication is ones own interpretation, There are many reasons and explanations reading posts can get confused or misinterpreted. A few of those major reasons being due to the speaking in languages not native to the writer, the readers own state of mind interpreting things differently than implied, and more times than not missing those queues one would get in speaking with someone that are not relayed in type as eloquently (through punctuation, explanation, description, etc..). Anywho...keep up the good work St. Alex...many are here and ready to test when needed.
Click to expand...

yes, he is a very saintly person who, unlike many of us sinners, sees only the good in people. i see people who expect instant gratification as their entitlement, even on free software provided by someone who is a better man than we are. personally i did not think it was a malicious comment, more an ignorant one. ignorance can be cured by knowledge, which was my intent. most new waterfox users do not read the 112 pages of posts which ask frequently much the same question.

the ringing of a child's cries from the back seat of the car still ringing in my ears from years ago 'are we there yet - are we there yet?'. i do smile as now my son is 42, has children of his own who shout the same thing as they travel to disneyland in HIS car. insanity is hereditary, you get it from your kids.

p.s. - i am sure mr. alex will tell us when we are there yet.


----------



## Blze001

Oooh, a 64-bit Firefox... when I do my ritualistic Windows re-install, I may go this route instead of ye olde Firefox...


----------



## Mr6686

Quote:


> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Mr6686
> 
> In my opinion, new memory allocator take more cpu and memory than it's predecessor (noticeable with my session with hundreds of tabs which started at 2Go with WF 34, now 3.4Go).
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, at start, new memory allocator climb to 12Go then it goes back dox, to 3.4.
> 
> Firefox 35.0.1 came out, will we have a new version of Waterfox
Click to expand...

I discovered that my problem with memory at start is cause by Youtube Center addon surely in relation with new firefox 35 code.


----------



## seti

I hear ya kronckew! I usually read the same kind of expectations of Alex as many would have for that corporation with many many developers and the rest, with ne'er a word of gratitude in lieu of I want more NOW! Those get to me...and I always try to slip a supportive message to St. Alex when I truly get miffed, but I have too been known to reach out in defense of as well...right or wrong. Hehe...we can hope to change in these later years...I don't expect I am much younger than your son. I know to use Sir/Ma'am and thank you as offspring from those in your generation when respect, kindness, and virtue were things important to know and exercise daily. Now many will flame for no reason, but to hurt others, miss thank you in those endless lines of requests for more, and don't consider others for what they have going on in lieu of working on freeware. Follow Alex by example I guess...try anyway...ok, maybe try to try...at the very least think about trying to try to change.

Payback is best enjoyed as a grandparent I have always thought. The world is a much different place that even still grandparents might find frustration in that view as well. Thanks for the reply!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sure it wasn't meant as a malicious comment, more as wondering.
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder at times if the school you attend isn't a seminary with some of the "requests" that are asked for or demanded even. That is much of the problem in forums, texts, and other written communication is ones own interpretation, There are many reasons and explanations reading posts can get confused or misinterpreted. A few of those major reasons being due to the speaking in languages not native to the writer, the readers own state of mind interpreting things differently than implied, and more times than not missing those queues one would get in speaking with someone that are not relayed in type as eloquently (through punctuation, explanation, description, etc..). Anywho...keep up the good work St. Alex...many are here and ready to test when needed.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being willing to help test! The build should be ready tomorrow morning GMT assuming no issues crop up. So let's hope for the best.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blze001*
> 
> Oooh, a 64-bit Firefox... when I do my ritualistic Windows re-install, I may go this route instead of ye olde Firefox...


You should give it a try when you can!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by Mr6686
> 
> In my opinion, new memory allocator take more cpu and memory than it's predecessor (noticeable with my session with hundreds of tabs which started at 2Go with WF 34, now 3.4Go).
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, at start, new memory allocator climb to 12Go then it goes back dox, to 3.4.
> 
> Firefox 35.0.1 came out, will we have a new version of Waterfox
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I discovered that my problem with memory at start is cause by Youtube Center addon surely in relation with new firefox 35 code.
Click to expand...

Ah right I see, good to see you've found the culprit for that issue.


----------



## Quantum Reality

The fact that extensions keep causing problems unfairly blamed on Waterfox is why I feel it's even more important to do routine testing of new WF builds on clean Virtual Machines.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay everyone, here's 36.0 test build: https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/waterfox-download/test-builds/Waterfox20150224220919.7z

Does WebGL work for everyone?

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> The fact that extensions keep causing problems unfairly blamed on Waterfox is why I feel it's even more important to do routine testing of new WF builds on clean Virtual Machines.


I do that now which is why I struggle sometimes to recreate certain issues.


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does WebGL work for everyone?


Just tried WebGL under *35.0.1* on this page and it worked fine for me. Vroom vroom!
Now, under *36.0*, it _bloats like a beached whale on a summer day_ when using WebGL.

TaskManager reports Waterfox 36.0's size went from 288mb _to 3.2gb_ in the span of _one minute_, and the demo skipped around.
Happily when that tab was closed, leaving only this page here, it dropped back to 293mb.

(_Edit to add:_ Upon updating my Firefox from 34 to 36 and trying that WebGL, and getting the same bloating and lack of useful function, I guess that this issue has nothing to do with WF... looks like Mozilla frigged up the WebGL implementation. Is that why you asked, Alex?







)

_ _ _ _ _
*36.0 questions* offhand without putting it through the stress tests yet...

Issue 1: Why is clearkey.dll included in this 7zip batch since it's not part of Waterfox?
(Avast reports it as a trojan, but I know it's a permission key for certain software to run.)

Issue 2: _Huh?_ (This is a wired connection on a home computer.)

(_Edit to add:_ I got the same message after updating Firefox to 36 so it's also not WF's fault.)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does WebGL work for everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> Just tried WebGL under *35.0.1* on this page and it worked fine for me. Vroom vroom!
> Now, under *36.0*, it bloats like a beached whale on a summer day when using WebGL.
> 
> TaskManager reports Waterfox 36.0's size went from 288mb to 3.2gb in the span of one minute, and the demo skipped around.
> Happily when that tab was closed, leaving only this page here, it dropped back to 293mb.
> 
> (Edit to add: Upon updating my Firefox from 34 to 36 and trying that WebGL, and getting the same bloating and lack of useful function, I guess that this issue has nothing to do with WF... looks like Mozilla frigged up the WebGL implementation. Is that why you asked, Alex?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )
> 
> _ _ _ _ _
> *36.0 questions* offhand without putting it through the stress tests yet...
> 
> Issue 1: Why is clearkey.dll included in this 7zip batch since it's not part of Waterfox?
> (Avast reports it as a trojan, but I know it's a permission key for certain software to run.)
> 
> Issue 2: Huh? (This is a wired connection on a home computer.)
> 
> (Edit to add: I got the same message after updating Firefox to 36 so it's also not WF's fault.)
Click to expand...

Oh dear..yes Mozilla updated ANGLE in the codebase, so I was wondering what effect it had. Does this happen on a clean profile as well? Might be a profile issue (optimistic thinking here).

Clearkey is used for Mochitests. No idea why it was bundled as well! Yeah that happens a lot, unless I sign the files I always get some sort of false positive come up. Usually because the directory structure and file names are exactly the same as Firefox so they think it's a malicious program trying to mimic it.

No idea about the network one, that's a Windows feature. It COULD be because HTTP/2 has been implemented in 36.0?


----------



## FLCL

In view of http://helloracer.com/webgl WF36 dies many deaths. It's stuttering in the demo and the ram is blowing up until 7gb (8gb are in the machine).
In WF 35 (no 35.01) all is running well. The ram usage ist going up to 5xx -6xx MB. In both versions hardware accleration is enabled.

In regular surfing through the web there's no different between 35 and 36.


----------



## malcomX

waterfox 36 crash https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/sdk/tests/webgl-conformance-tests.html
http://helloracer.com/webgl waterfox mega memory leak much outbounds

waterfox 36 17gb 40 second driving shutter bad
cyberfox 36 not past 551,429k smooth

release broken very leaking memory
one fix i tell you many post back https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-18/


----------



## seti

OK..first off...I was unable to run WebGL without first going into "about:config" and enabling "webgl.force-enabled". Rebooted and webgl was running fine. I ran the HelloRacer game, nice looking...car took off to oblivion, and I didn't notice a huge explosion in memory...it was 445mb before and though it did jump to 1.2GB...I never saw numbers like 4.2GB and I have 16GB of memory. I figured I would test fate and also opened another tab to run the WebGL test link MalcolmX posted. With both running it never got above 1.3GB and never crashed with Overclock Forum in a tab, Hello Racer in one, and the test in another which I ran over and over. No crashes...no memory use above 1.3GB max...steady at 1.2GB...closed tabs and it returned to 400MB range. I will try a clean profile as well and report back later with that test info.

New Profile...yeah...new profile didn't fair well. New profile handled those previous links fine and again memory never got above 1.2GB and never crashed. I thought WebGL looked cool and wanted to see more and went here,http://davidwalsh.name/webgl-demo, and even though the memory never spiked - Waterfox did in fact crash, just totally locked up each time. I ran this site in my previous profile and same thing...no memory spike,but a crash. So, I am lost...I still managed to go to the previous set of links I tried first and still no issues...the link I found crashed still with no huge spike in memory. Kind of makes me wonder if there isn't a problem in some WebGL code or if in fact it is a graphic driver issue. I don't claim to be an expert on WebGL, but those are my results.


----------



## themushroom

Good that I'm not the only one who saw the WebGL change in 36.0 bloat and shutter anything using it.









I wanted to ask y'all if this is something easily fixed by dropping in a DLL from a previous version or if it's integrated deeply into the coding thus requires an inevitably-coming 36.x.x update to regain functionality.

Odd that they'd let it out of the can with such a huge snafu intact.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> (Edit to add: Upon updating my Firefox from 34 to 36 and trying that WebGL, and getting the same bloating and lack of useful function, I guess that this issue has nothing to do with WF... looks like Mozilla frigged up the WebGL implementation. Is that why you asked, Alex?)


Wow, good thing I didn't hit "update to 36.0" on my FF 35.0.1 install on my laptop.







MIght wait till 36.0.1 when they issue a patch for that memory usage issue.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> waterfox 36 crash https://www.khronos.org/registry/webgl/sdk/tests/webgl-conformance-tests.html
> http://helloracer.com/webgl waterfox mega memory leak much outbounds
> 
> waterfox 36 17gb 40 second driving shutter bad
> cyberfox 36 not past 551,429k smooth
> 
> release broken very leaking memory
> one fix i tell you many post back https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2015-18/


Yes thanks! I saw this and am making sure to do things right!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> In view of http://helloracer.com/webgl WF36 dies many deaths. It's stuttering in the demo and the ram is blowing up until 7gb (8gb are in the machine).
> In WF 35 (no 35.01) all is running well. The ram usage ist going up to 5xx -6xx MB. In both versions hardware accleration is enabled.
> 
> In regular surfing through the web there's no different between 35 and 36.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> OK..first off...I was unable to run WebGL without first going into "about:config" and enabling "webgl.force-enabled". Rebooted and webgl was running fine. I ran the HelloRacer game, nice looking...car took off to oblivion, and I didn't notice a huge explosion in memory...it was 445mb before and though it did jump to 1.2GB...I never saw numbers like 4.2GB and I have 16GB of memory. I figured I would test fate and also opened another tab to run the WebGL test link MalcolmX posted. With both running it never got above 1.3GB and never crashed with Overclock Forum in a tab, Hello Racer in one, and the test in another which I ran over and over. No crashes...no memory use above 1.3GB max...steady at 1.2GB...closed tabs and it returned to 400MB range. I will try a clean profile as well and report back later with that test info.
> 
> New Profile...yeah...new profile didn't fair well. New profile handled those previous links fine and again memory never got above 1.2GB and never crashed. I thought WebGL looked cool and wanted to see more and went here,http://davidwalsh.name/webgl-demo, and even though the memory never spiked - Waterfox did in fact crash, just totally locked up each time. I ran this site in my previous profile and same thing...no memory spike,but a crash. So, I am lost...I still managed to go to the previous set of links I tried first and still no issues...the link I found crashed still with no huge spike in memory. Kind of makes me wonder if there isn't a problem in some WebGL code or if in fact it is a graphic driver issue. I don't claim to be an expert on WebGL, but those are my results.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Good that I'm not the only one who saw the WebGL change in 36.0 bloat and shutter anything using it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I wanted to ask y'all if this is something easily fixed by dropping in a DLL from a previous version or if it's integrated deeply into the coding thus requires an inevitably-coming 36.x.x update to regain functionality.
> 
> Odd that they'd let it out of the can with such a huge snafu intact.


Thanks for the input guys I thought WebGL was bugged and I'm working on a new build as we speak! Should be done soon


----------



## MrAlex

Okay here's the updated build that should be working 

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/waterfox-download/test-builds/waterfox20150225213711.7z


----------



## themushroom

WebGL in *36.0b*: This is a "yes and no":

_Yes_, Alex, you fixed the sieve-leak and the car in the HelloRacer demo renders correctly without a perpetual data load.
_No_, the screen updates are very sparce (several seconds apart) rather than smooth motion, so it's still not fully functional.

For comparison, tried the DavidWalsh demos (or the ones that work with my video card, heh) and only Blossom acted the way it's supposed to, and even then it was a bit skittish and dropped frames.

FYI my processor is 2.8ghz and under 35.0.1 the HelloRacer demo was smooth (I never tried the DavidWalsh ones at that time).


----------



## FLCL

Nope nothing changes by me.

Maybe the hardware specs can help?!

CPU:i7-2600
Graphic card: Gainward gtx 780
8Gb Corsair ram
Mainboard: P8p67-le Rev.3
Win 7 Sp1

Software/Firmware is the latest version.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> WebGL in *36.0b*: This is a "yes and no":
> 
> Yes, Alex, you fixed the sieve-leak and the car in the HelloRacer demo renders correctly without a perpetual data load.
> No, the screen updates are very sparce (several seconds apart) rather than smooth motion, so it's still not fully functional.
> 
> For comparison, tried the DavidWalsh demos (or the ones that work with my video card, heh) and only Blossom acted the way it's supposed to, and even then it was a bit skittish and dropped frames.
> 
> FYI my processor is 2.8ghz and under 35.0.1 the HelloRacer demo was smooth (I never tried the DavidWalsh ones at that time).


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> Nope nothing changes by me.
> 
> Maybe the hardware specs can help?!
> 
> CPU:i7-2600
> Graphic card: Gainward gtx 780
> 8Gb Corsair ram
> Mainboard: P8p67-le Rev.3
> Win 7 Sp1
> 
> Software/Firmware is the latest version.


Hmm not good. Okay I made a build with the older version of ANGLE. Do the issue still occur?

https://s3-eu-west-1.amazonaws.com/waterfox-download/test-builds/waterfox20150226013355.7z


----------



## FLCL

Something hast changed a little bit. If I start the helloracer demo it runs better as before with wf36 but just a few seconds later it's stutterung again.
The ram problem is the same.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> Something hast changed a little bit. If I start the helloracer demo it runs better as before with wf36 but just a few seconds later it's stutterung again.
> The ram problem is the same.


Okay thanks for letting me know. I'll get in this tomorrow.


----------



## kronckew

with the ...355.7z build the racer renders fine, starts moving smoothly, but memory (i have 16gb) rises rapidly towards 100% and the system slows to a crawl, i managed to delete the tab with the racer & memory drops back to normal. webgl set to forced in config.


----------



## malcomX

711
355
bad bad memory leak
crash http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14249558005356&key=7777bc3c17029328d03146e0ed767841&libId=i6m5uyd301000kb5000DA80ya9pol&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F975626%2Fwaterfox-35-0-20-january-firefox-64-bit%2F6700&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.khronos.org%2Fregistry%2Fwebgl%2Fsdk%2Ftests%2Fwebgl-conformance-tests.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F975626%2Fwaterfox-35-0-20-january-firefox-64-bit%2F6700&title=Waterfox%2035.0%3A%2020%20January%20%5BFirefox%2064-Bit%5D%20-%20Page%20671&txt=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.khronos.org%2Fregistry%2Fwebgl%2Fsdk%2Ftests%2Fwebgl-conformance-tests.html

waterfox name change leakyfox


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> with the ...355.7z build the racer renders fine, starts moving smoothly, but memory (i have 16gb) rises rapidly towards 100% and the system slows to a crawl, i managed to delete the tab with the racer & memory drops back to normal. webgl set to forced in config.


Ah okay I might have gotten jemalloc working again and I think I've found the reason for the memory leaks too!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> 711
> 355
> bad bad memory leak
> crash http://api.viglink.com/api/click?format=go&jsonp=vglnk_14249558005356&key=7777bc3c17029328d03146e0ed767841&libId=i6m5uyd301000kb5000DA80ya9pol&loc=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F975626%2Fwaterfox-35-0-20-january-firefox-64-bit%2F6700&v=1&out=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.khronos.org%2Fregistry%2Fwebgl%2Fsdk%2Ftests%2Fwebgl-conformance-tests.html&ref=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.overclock.net%2Ft%2F975626%2Fwaterfox-35-0-20-january-firefox-64-bit%2F6700&title=Waterfox%2035.0%3A%2020%20January%20%5BFirefox%2064-Bit%5D%20-%20Page%20671&txt=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.khronos.org%2Fregistry%2Fwebgl%2Fsdk%2Ftests%2Fwebgl-conformance-tests.html
> 
> waterfox name change leakyfox


Firefox 36.0 crashes on the conformance tests as well


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah okay I might have gotten jemalloc working again and I think I've found the reason for the memory leaks too!
> 
> Firefox 36.0 crashes on the conformance tests as well


cyberfox not crash
firefox crash
palmoon crash
light crash


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah okay I might have gotten jemalloc working again and I think I've found the reason for the memory leaks too!
> 
> Firefox 36.0 crashes on the conformance tests as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cyberfox not crash
> firefox crash
> palmoon crash
> light crash
Click to expand...

Well I've implemented the bugfix for WebGL conformity crash. Also why do you keep mentioning cyberfox? Every other post you seem to mention it...

Also on the brighter side of news I've also managed to add support for Gamepad that was long overdue!

EDIT: Okay here's the latest build!

So Waterfox 36.0 should be ready for tomorrow, therefore I'm putting this test build here to make sure everything launches smoothly!

*What's New*


Gamepad support has been added!
WebGL will now render with DirectX 11 if available instead of just DX9
This build has been compiled with Windows 8 SDK

*Things to help with*

If anyone could let me know if they have any memory issues that'd be great. I monitored on an 8GB system and browsing a purported leaky website, as well as a benchmark and conformance test usage never went above ~800MB.

My main concern is now memory usage with WebGL. If you run a WebGL application memory usage is supposed to increase but not forever...if it does please let me know!


----------



## malcomX

test browsers i try help i try report issue i try








if thanks i get just bad like palmoon not mention browsers
go i will help i not








034 bad leak still


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> test browsers i try help i try report issue i try
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if thanks i get just bad like palmoon not mention browsers
> go i will help i not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 034 bad leak still


I appreciate the reporting and thanks for all of it so far! Just found it a bit odd is all.

Hmm okay so something is definitely up with the newest ANGLE build, I had to apply two forthcoming patches to get it to build with Firefox properly!


----------



## seti

Normal usage of Waterfox, latest test build, seems much like the last few builds. In that through my daily surf routine of news sites, various science related sites, Social Media sites, and various online training sites...memory NEVER got above 450MB (+/- 5MB).

I read up on WebGL in Firefox with an Intel Graphics card. Updated my drivers, went into "aboutptions", made sure that "webgl.disabled" was set to false and that "Hardware Acceleration" was active in Options->Advanced section of Firefox. I couldn't tell you one way or the other if it was the driver or that I wasn't running hardware acceleration last test, but in doing the exact same things...my memory never got above 900MB...running the same activities as earlier in the same browser in different tabs. I even went to the extent of running all the aforementioned sites in separate windows and still my memory usage never went above 900MB. Small fluctuations in one way or the other, that were negligible at best. I also never crashed on the site, David Walsh WebGL Demos, which crashed WF last test I did. So between this build and two builds back memory usage decreased by 300MB, since before when running these same tests I had usage of 1.2GB and crashed. Again, I don't use WebGL and usually have it disabled with hardware acceleration turned off. Videos on Youtube tend to run better for me in full screen when acceleration is off and I spend a lot of time with tutorials and the like that use video.

I tried to learn a bit more about WebGL, but got bored with it as it isn't something I am entirely interested in to begin with. However, it does seem that the video drivers are the most important factor here and browser settings. Albeit, there are those video cards that either aren't supported or just don't work in some browsers. These are things that I read repeatedly from a simple Google search of "WebGL issues". I encourage anyone who is interested in WebGL to read a bit on the subject. Especially if it is a deal breaker on the browser you intend to use.

As for me...well I just disabled WebGL in firefox and turned hardware acceleration back off, as it suits my needs fine. Good luck to the rest of you and I hope this was somewhat helpful in testing this latest version of WF, thanks to Alex's efforts of course.

System specs for the record, not a monster machine by a long shot. Definitely not built for gaming:

Lenovo Ideapad T420
Intel CPU 2.8Ghz/i5
16GB DDR3 1333 RAM
Intel Graphics 3000


----------



## themushroom

*waterfox20150226213034*:

Hello Racer rendering started good then was taking 10-20 seconds between refreshes.
Waterfox reaches 3.2gb in Task Manager.
There was no extra download activity (as seen in 36.0) but the hard drive was working nonstop.

So the build of a couple days ago, the first after 36.0's initial debut, had WebGL that worked better than the initial or the present release (I didn't get to try the second-to-last, was gone all day) -- though it was still problematic and skippy.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi Mr. Alex,

Waterfox 34.0.1 is showing that it is Up-to-date.

Must WaterFox be manually upgraded, since using About WaterFox is reporting that it is Up-To-Date.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Normal usage of Waterfox, latest test build, seems much like the last few builds. In that through my daily surf routine of news sites, various science related sites, Social Media sites, and various online training sites...memory NEVER got above 450MB (+/- 5MB).
> 
> I read up on WebGL in Firefox with an Intel Graphics card. Updated my drivers, went into "aboutptions", made sure that "webgl.disabled" was set to false and that "Hardware Acceleration" was active in Options->Advanced section of Firefox. I couldn't tell you one way or the other if it was the driver or that I wasn't running hardware acceleration last test, but in doing the exact same things...my memory never got above 900MB...running the same activities as earlier in the same browser in different tabs. I even went to the extent of running all the aforementioned sites in separate windows and still my memory usage never went above 900MB. Small fluctuations in one way or the other, that were negligible at best. I also never crashed on the site, David Walsh WebGL Demos, which crashed WF last test I did. So between this build and two builds back memory usage decreased by 300MB, since before when running these same tests I had usage of 1.2GB and crashed. Again, I don't use WebGL and usually have it disabled with hardware acceleration turned off. Videos on Youtube tend to run better for me in full screen when acceleration is off and I spend a lot of time with tutorials and the like that use video.
> 
> I tried to learn a bit more about WebGL, but got bored with it as it isn't something I am entirely interested in to begin with. However, it does seem that the video drivers are the most important factor here and browser settings. Albeit, there are those video cards that either aren't supported or just don't work in some browsers. These are things that I read repeatedly from a simple Google search of "WebGL issues". I encourage anyone who is interested in WebGL to read a bit on the subject. Especially if it is a deal breaker on the browser you intend to use.
> 
> As for me...well I just disabled WebGL in firefox and turned hardware acceleration back off, as it suits my needs fine. Good luck to the rest of you and I hope this was somewhat helpful in testing this latest version of WF, thanks to Alex's efforts of course.
> 
> System specs for the record, not a monster machine by a long shot. Definitely not built for gaming:
> 
> Lenovo Ideapad T420
> Intel CPU 2.8Ghz/i5
> 16GB DDR3 1333 RAM
> Intel Graphics 3000


Thanks for the fantastic write-up, helps a lot.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> *waterfox20150226213034*:
> 
> Hello Racer rendering started good then was taking 10-20 seconds between refreshes.
> Waterfox reaches 3.2gb in Task Manager.
> There was no extra download activity (as seen in 36.0) but the hard drive was working nonstop.
> 
> So the build of a couple days ago, the first after 36.0's initial debut, had WebGL that worked better than the initial or the present release (I didn't get to try the second-to-last, was gone all day) -- though it was still problematic and skippy.


Hmm okay thanks I'm patching in an upstream version of ANGLE to see if issues get resolved.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi Mr. Alex,
> 
> Waterfox 34.0.1 is showing that it is Up-to-date.
> 
> Must WaterFox be manually upgraded, since using About WaterFox is reporting that it is Up-To-Date.


Don't worry the update patch is on hold until 36.0 is released officially!


----------



## devzero

*MrAlex*

Hi. I'm posting here since I have that critical issue with memory leak(s) (no crash, but out of memory after several hours, can't use any memory consuming application) and general browser perfomance slowdown due to it.

Can you, please, update the current status of the work with memory allocator (replacement/improvement/plans) ?

*TO ALL*

You can consider using two options with the current memory leaks, which helps a lot with them:

1. Disable _Adblock Plus/Adblock/Edge_ addons and replace it with *uBlock*.
2. Use this little handy application.

Cheers.


----------



## blackps

If you have Avast installed this is the problem.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Sybex*
> 
> 
> What happened?
> got an error when updating waterfox ( auto update)
> updated twice and happened both times
> 
> Are you able to reproduce this problem consistently?
> havent tried to update again after the 2nd update
> 
> What steps did you take to reproduce this problem?
> 
> ran update aagain
> 
> What action did you expect to occur when this bug appeared?
> for it to update
> 
> Any additional information that will help us diagnose the issue:
> this is the first time waterfox has notified me an update is available, usually i have to update manually
> 
> Browser, active browser addons, and operating system:
> waterfox, win 7 64bit waterfox is my default browser
> 
> URL where the issue occurs:
> 
> dont know, window popped up and i just clicked yes to update and it happened , it seemed to update and shows the correct ver number but thought it wise for you to see the error.
> 
> i am just a user so thought best to leave it to the experts, i really don't know if its significant or not.. sorry. if i am wasting your time, but love waterfox and thought it better to say something


----------



## FLCL

waterfox20150226213034 is running well with the racer demo. Ram usage ist 4xx MB







.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay so final test build! Found a bug in ANGLE that was causing a memory leak in patched it in. There's only one test I can see now that causes a memory leak and that's WebGL Water. It'll take too long to find the patch for that leak and it seems very uncommon as I've tested the most used including HelloRacer and no more leaks there! There might be depending on what drivers and GPU configuration you have but not much I can do there unfortunately.

Build Download

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *devzero*
> 
> *MrAlex*
> 
> Hi. I'm posting here since I have that critical issue with memory leak(s) (no crash, but out of memory after several hours, can't use any memory consuming application) and general browser perfomance slowdown due to it.
> 
> Can you, please, update the current status of the work with memory allocator (replacement/improvement/plans) ?
> 
> *TO ALL*
> 
> You can consider using two options with the current memory leaks, which helps a lot with them:
> 
> 1. Disable Adblock Plus/Adblock/Edge addons and replace it with *uBlock*.
> 2. Use this little handy application.
> 
> Cheers.


Hey there devzero!

I've now reverted back to the original mozalloc as it has been improved quite a lot. It may not be as good as jemalloc, but there are quite a few issues with jemalloc+ANGLE working correctly with Intel C++. It seems tcmalloc was the best allocator though but there are still issue with it to keep it in.

My main goal is still to get jemalloc+ANGLE working though!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> waterfox20150226213034 is running well with the racer demo. Ram usage ist 4xx MB
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


Great, glad to hear!


----------



## FLCL

Glad to hear/read you'r working on this project even some bugs are penetrating your work







!
I love this one-man-show







!


----------



## themushroom

(Wonder why WF is giving me a "Secure Connection Failure" on that build now, when it was downloading (or halfway anyway) half an hour ago. Opera is downloading it fine so be right back.)

note1: Clearkey was in this build, too.









Updated and went to HelloRacer...
Program size went to 3gb, turned to sludge, bailed.

Found three DLLs in the Waterfox folder that were not part of the update -- D3DCompiler_43, gkmedias, icudt52.
Moved those to another location in case they're the issue.
Rebooted for good measure.

Try HelloRacer again...
Program size went to 3gb, turned to sludge, bailed.

Checked NVidia for driver updates to be safe and, wow, they'd put one out 4 days ago. Installed.
For further safety, disabled the video downloader and Xkit add-ons, restart WF.

Another go at HelloRacer...
Program size went to 3gb, turned to sludge, bailed.

Tried out some other WebGL demos to make sure it wasn't just HelloRacer.
Same leakage, just not as quickly because they're smaller programs but still eventually gets up to 3gb.

So I see two other people have said that they're not getting leakage anymore. I wonder what they have different or are doing differently.


----------



## kronckew

hi mr alex,

tried latest build on racer. runs fine. total pc memory use was at around 24% -719 mb for waterfox, before racer. racer ran smoothly and memory stayed in the 22-24% range for the few minutes i let it run.

edited:

ran the water webgl demo for a while, neat demo! worked great. no memory increase there either. earlier builds the mem leak was rapid within a few seconds.

most of the other demos worked well too, some had some unresponsive controls, like the earth cube where the ball won't roll when you tilt, but no memory leaks.


----------



## MrAlex

Well final build is ready and will be released tomorrow: download.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *FLCL*
> 
> Glad to hear/read you'r working on this project even some bugs are penetrating your work
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !
> I love this one-man-show
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !


Yes all sorted now hopefully haha.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> (Wonder why WF is giving me a "Secure Connection Failure" on that build now, when it was downloading (or halfway anyway) half an hour ago. Opera is downloading it fine so be right back.)
> 
> note1: Clearkey was in this build, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Updated and went to HelloRacer...
> Program size went to 3gb, turned to sludge, bailed.
> 
> Found three DLLs in the Waterfox folder that were not part of the update -- D3DCompiler_43, gkmedias, icudt52.
> Moved those to another location in case they're the issue.
> Rebooted for good measure.
> 
> Try HelloRacer again...
> Program size went to 3gb, turned to sludge, bailed.
> 
> Checked NVidia for driver updates to be safe and, wow, they'd put one out 4 days ago. Installed.
> For further safety, disabled the video downloader and Xkit add-ons, restart WF.
> 
> Another go at HelloRacer...
> Program size went to 3gb, turned to sludge, bailed.
> 
> Tried out some other WebGL demos to make sure it wasn't just HelloRacer.
> Same leakage, just not as quickly because they're smaller programs but still eventually gets up to 3gb.
> 
> So I see two other people have said that they're not getting leakage anymore. I wonder what they have different or are doing differently.


Interesting. And are there no add-ons that could be causing this issue? I can't seem to recreate it. Tried on both NVIDIA and Intel GPUs.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> hi mr alex,
> 
> tried latest build on racer. runs fine. total pc memory use was at around 24% -719 mb for waterfox, before racer. racer ran smoothly and memory stayed in the 22-24% range for the few minutes i let it run.
> 
> edited:
> 
> ran the water webgl demo for a while, neat demo! worked great. no memory increase there either. earlier builds the mem leak was rapid within a few seconds.
> 
> most of the other demos worked well too, some had some unresponsive controls, like the earth cube where the ball won't roll when you tilt, but no memory leaks.


Awesome glad that's all sorted! Yes I haven't ever managed to get that demo to work even on normal Firefox.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

scrolling on pages like youtube subscription list seems like its struggling yet other pages flow fast.


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well final build is ready and will be released tomorrow: download.


ON THE EDGE OF MY SEAT


----------



## thechas

Alex,

Is the wrong file linked from the download link above?

The file I downloaded has the file name Waterfox 35.0 Setup.

Thank you for all your work.

Chas


----------



## Lopser

The browser v.36 has become faster.
Thanks.


----------



## themushroom

*36.0 release:*

Installed over existing Waterfox.
WebGL still leaks heavily.

Uninstalled Waterfox, deleted Waterfox folder (containing 11 DLLs), reboot.
Installed Waterfox, rebooted for good measure.
WebGL still leaks heavily.

For good measure, downloaded the Firefox 36.0 stub and let that overlay-install. Reboot.
WebGL still leaks heavily here too.

I dunno what's up with this, since WebGL in 35.0 didn't leak for me.
Must be something else on my end if others are seeing this resolved.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Alex,
> 
> Is the wrong file linked from the download link above?
> 
> The file I downloaded has the file name Waterfox 35.0 Setup.
> 
> Thank you for all your work.
> 
> Chas


Haha oh dear yes, I've corrected it now!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> The browser v.36 has become faster.
> Thanks.


No problem 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> *36.0 release:*
> 
> Installed over existing Waterfox.
> WebGL still leaks heavily.
> 
> Uninstalled Waterfox, deleted Waterfox folder (containing 11 DLLs), reboot.
> Installed Waterfox, rebooted for good measure.
> WebGL still leaks heavily.
> 
> For good measure, downloaded the Firefox 36.0 stub and let that overlay-install. Reboot.
> WebGL still leaks heavily here too.
> 
> I dunno what's up with this, since WebGL in 35.0 didn't leak for me.
> Must be something else on my end if others are seeing this resolved.


Hmm really curios as to what it's happening on your system. You're not using any add-ons either are you?


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm really curios as to what it's happening on your system. You're not using any add-ons either are you?


I forgot to mention (right before the update to Firefox) I had turned off the add-ons and tried again -- disabled Flash, stopped Xkit and the theme fixer and the video downloader. Same results, the program size grew endlessly.

My video card is an Nvidia GeForce 7900GS, driver 309.08 from 2/24/15.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

V36 scrolls better in youtube subscription list now.


----------



## thechas

Downloaded and installed version 36 from the link on the Waterfox.org page yesterday and have had no issues.

I did get a squawk from Avast before I downloaded version 36 about suspicious activity from the Waterfox update agent.

Thank you again for all of your work on this project!

Chas


----------



## seti

I don't know that much of this Webgl stuff isn't more an ANGLE issue than anything. I was just at Geeks3d - MadShader article to read and to get the new MadShader and they have instruction to disable ANGLE and use native webgl in order to use it. Funny thing is...when you go to the Shadertoy website to test that you have in fact native Webgl running...you cannot load the site unless ANGLE is disabled and only Webgl is. Geeks3D also has a process to use in order to get setup to use MadShader. The beginning of the article suggests making changes in "about:config" and setting the key "webgl.prefer-native-gl" to true, but hold your shorts, since ANGLE replaces this key, they have an update mid page that says to change this key "webgl.disable-angle" to true instead as of the new releases of FF. I am sure the option of "Hardware Acceleration" should still be enabled. I hope this information helps someone. Again...go to the Shadertoy site to test if webgl is loading correctly...if not do the ANGLE key setting change...and if still no webgl...enable the key "webgl.force-enable" by setting it to true.

I still haven't had a memory leak like some have described since updating to the latest release. I would only suggest check for video card support and/or updating/reinstalling ones video driver if it is supported. Here is a wiki that tells you what drivers are black or white listed for the browsers. As always you can go to WebGL as well to read up.


----------



## cooperb21

One suggestion can the default search be changed from start page there search results are horrible compared duck duck go or google.


----------



## Handries

Just noticed today that Firefox has released a beta version in 64 bit.http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/37.0b2/win64/en-US/ does this mean that this one will eventually replace Waterfox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm really curios as to what it's happening on your system. You're not using any add-ons either are you?
> 
> 
> 
> I forgot to mention (right before the update to Firefox) I had turned off the add-ons and tried again -- disabled Flash, stopped Xkit and the theme fixer and the video downloader. Same results, the program size grew endlessly.
> 
> My video card is an Nvidia GeForce 7900GS, driver 309.08 from 2/24/15.
Click to expand...

Hmm. As seti mentioned below, does setting *webgl.disable-angle* to true still invoke memory leaks?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> V36 scrolls better in youtube subscription list now.


Great, glad to hear!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Downloaded and installed version 36 from the link on the Waterfox.org page yesterday and have had no issues.
> 
> I did get a squawk from Avast before I downloaded version 36 about suspicious activity from the Waterfox update agent.
> 
> Thank you again for all of your work on this project!
> 
> Chas


No worries! avast! doesn't seem to like Waterfox very much, and even though the necessary files are signed it still throws fits.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> I don't know that much of this Webgl stuff isn't more an ANGLE issue than anything. I was just at Geeks3d - MadShader article to read and to get the new MadShader and they have instruction to disable ANGLE and use native webgl in order to use it. Funny thing is...when you go to the Shadertoy website to test that you have in fact native Webgl running...you cannot load the site unless ANGLE is disabled and only Webgl is. Geeks3D also has a process to use in order to get setup to use MadShader. The beginning of the article suggests making changes in "about:config" and setting the key "webgl.prefer-native-gl" to true, but hold your shorts, since ANGLE replaces this key, they have an update mid page that says to change this key "webgl.disable-angle" to true instead as of the new releases of FF. I am sure the option of "Hardware Acceleration" should still be enabled. I hope this information helps someone. Again...go to the Shadertoy site to test if webgl is loading correctly...if not do the ANGLE key setting change...and if still no webgl...enable the key "webgl.force-enable" by setting it to true.
> 
> I still haven't had a memory leak like some have described since updating to the latest release. I would only suggest check for video card support and/or updating/reinstalling ones video driver if it is supported. Here is a wiki that tells you what drivers are black or white listed for the browsers. As always you can go to WebGL as well to read up.


Thanks for the post, I do think it's an ANGLE issue as well, although I did pull in the latest memory leak patches for ANGLE so if the leak doesn't occur then it might be worth reporting to Google.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *cooperb21*
> 
> One suggestion can the default search be changed from start page there search results are horrible compared duck duck go or google.


Hmm yes this will probably be changing in the near future!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Handries*
> 
> Just noticed today that Firefox has released a beta version in 64 bit.http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/37.0b2/win64/en-US/ does this mean that this one will eventually replace Waterfox?


You'll be happy to know Waterfox won't be going anywhere. Even if Mozilla do release a 64-Bit version it still won't be optimised (as much as possible anyway) to maintain as much compatibility for every system as possible.


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm. As seti mentioned below, does setting *webgl.disable-angle* to true still invoke memory leaks?


*Yes.* I did both of the config tweaks mentioned, went to the tester page to confirm ANGLE isn't in use (sizes are now 4096), closed and reopened WF for good measure, and then checked out the WebGL demo pages. And the leak continues.

Something's up on my end but what?


----------



## bIOforger

Alex,

v36 is a great release, RAM usage is back to under 1.5gigs for my setup, performance is also much snappier generally than before, probably better than it was in V34.

One tiny gripe the help/about page doesn't seem to be looking for an update, so i had to download it manually. Great work, keep it up


----------



## kevindd992002

MrAlex, isn't the updater already fixed? My v35 WF still doesn't see that there's a v36 update.


----------



## chorse

My update work. It informed me of the new V36. I downloaded it and it installed fine. No issues yet with WF36.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm. As seti mentioned below, does setting *webgl.disable-angle* to true still invoke memory leaks?
> 
> 
> 
> *Yes.* I did both of the config tweaks mentioned, went to the tester page to confirm ANGLE isn't in use (sizes are now 4096), closed and reopened WF for good measure, and then checked out the WebGL demo pages. And the leak continues.
> 
> Something's up on my end but what?
Click to expand...

Hmm I don't think any config changes will help for this. I'm going to be making a new build in a bit and I'll also post here for you to test out to see if it makes a difference for you. Also just to clarify, this happens on Firefox as well?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> MrAlex, isn't the updater already fixed? My v35 WF still doesn't see that there's a v36 update.


It is fixed but the issue is that the 35.0 updater only accepts signed MAR files (for some reason this was changed and enabled by default in 35.0!) so I've been scavenging the Mozilla docs to see how to sign the update file properly!! Old builds didn't have this on by default and I've disabled it for 36.0 but I'll make sure to find out how to sign MAR files for 35.0! Sorry about the inconvenience, I've been trying for a few weeks now to get this to work but I'm sure I'll figure it out soon.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> My update work. It informed me of the new V36. I downloaded it and it installed fine. No issues yet with WF36.


Yes only 35.0 hasn't received the update as I'm not seeding it to that version until I can sign the update files correctly. Good to hear it worked for you!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *bIOforger*
> 
> Alex,
> 
> v36 is a great release, RAM usage is back to under 1.5gigs for my setup, performance is also much snappier generally than before, probably better than it was in V34.
> 
> One tiny gripe the help/about page doesn't seem to be looking for an update, so i had to download it manually. Great work, keep it up


Great to hear! And yes sorry about that, it's the issue I've mentioned above.


----------



## Blameless

Anyone else having issues with HTML5 video not playing?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Anyone else having issues with HTML5 video not playing?


Is this for YouTube or any HTML5 video? If it's for any HTML5 video separate from YouTube, you can go to *about:config* and change *media.mediasource.youtubeonly* to *true*.

I enabled media streaming extensions for everything, because Mozilla only got it fully working for YouTube, but on most systems most of the time it works well.


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm I don't think any config changes will help for this. I'm going to be making a new build in a bit and I'll also post here for you to test out to see if it makes a difference for you. Also just to clarify, this happens on Firefox as well?


Yep, FF 36.0 as well. So it's either something in the core program or something on my computer. I haven't yet installed WF on another machine or tried out WebGL in FF 36 on another machine for comparison, which I realize I should.


----------



## Blameless

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this for YouTube or any HTML5 video? If it's for any HTML5 video separate from YouTube, you can go to *about:config* and change *media.mediasource.youtubeonly* to *true*.
> I enabled media streaming extensions for everything, because Mozilla only got it fully working for YouTube, but on most systems most of the time it works well.


YouTube, so far as I've tried, and it doesn't matter what I set "media.mediasource.youtubeonly" too.

When I look at https://www.youtube.com/html5 it shows that h.264 is not supported.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi Mr. Alex,

I waited and I was able to install the update.

However, on my Dell Laptop, with Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Service Pack 1 full patched, I can't upgrade going through the program.

I get errors that FireFox is currently running and that I should close it.

2015-03-03-UnabletoUpgradeWaterFoxthroughUpdater.jpg 249k .jpg file


Also I manually upgraded to WaterFox 36.0 and WaterFox 36.0 in now in a circle. When I open WaterFox, it detects an Update is ready to be applied and when I attempt to apply the Update, Updater shows another instance of FireFox is running.

How do I permanently fix this issue? Thank you!

2015-03-03-RestartWaterfoxtoUpdate.jpg 366k .jpg file


----------



## caenlen

i like waterfox a lot so far, just tried it for first time, kind of a slow startup, but i think its because one of my addons, not sure which one (noscript,adblock,ghostery) if anyone knows which one causes the stutter at startup let me know and i will get rid of it


----------



## themushroom

So in the pursuit of tracking down the WebGL leak...

My Acer notebook: well, it turns out it doesn't have a good enough video card to run WebGL (so the sites tell me when I try) so nevermind that comparison.









This same desktop machine I've been using, but under OpenSUSE 13.1 (I know, I haven't updated): Firefox 30.0 had no issues with the Cubemap and OpenRacer demos, updated to 36.0, still not having any issues with those two demos. I know Linux isn't the same bag as Windows, but this at least implies it's not my hardware and it's possibly not WebGL 2.0 itself since those would be the common threads.

While I was checking for the update for FF for OpenSUSE I noticed that FF for Windows has reached 36.0.1 so once back in Win7 I updated, then tried the Cubemap and OpenRacer demos...

*FireFox 36.0.1's WebGL has NO LEAK.* Task Manager says it occupies under 300mb when running those demos. Just in case some common element was 'fixed' in the FF updating, back to WF and... ugh, no, WF hit 2gb after a minute.

So it looks like something in the 36.0.1 code base resolved the WebGL issue, even if you haven't been able to identify what that thing is, so responding to something you'd said to me a day or two ago... Yes, looking forward to the next WF update based on the latest FF build.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Blameless*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this for YouTube or any HTML5 video? If it's for any HTML5 video separate from YouTube, you can go to *about:config* and change *media.mediasource.youtubeonly* to *true*.
> I enabled media streaming extensions for everything, because Mozilla only got it fully working for YouTube, but on most systems most of the time it works well.
> 
> 
> 
> YouTube, so far as I've tried, and it doesn't matter what I set "media.mediasource.youtubeonly" too.
> 
> When I look at https://www.youtube.com/html5 it shows that h.264 is not supported.
Click to expand...

Oh that's odd. Are the following values true?

Quote:


> media.mediasource.mp4.enabled
> media.fragmented-mp4.enabled


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi Mr. Alex,
> 
> I waited and I was able to install the update.
> 
> However, on my Dell Laptop, with Windows 7 Home Premium 64-Bit Service Pack 1 full patched, I can't upgrade going through the program.
> 
> I get errors that FireFox is currently running and that I should close it.
> 
> 2015-03-03-UnabletoUpgradeWaterFoxthroughUpdater.jpg 249k .jpg file
> 
> 
> Also I manually upgraded to WaterFox 36.0 and WaterFox 36.0 in now in a circle. When I open WaterFox, it detects an Update is ready to be applied and when I attempt to apply the Update, Updater shows another instance of FireFox is running.
> 
> How do I permanently fix this issue? Thank you!
> 
> 2015-03-03-RestartWaterfoxtoUpdate.jpg 366k .jpg file


Unfortunately the already running process error happens every now and then with Waterfox/Firefox. There are some threads here and here that might help with this? There are so many different system configs and variables it's hard to know what might be causing the issue so we can work through it to find it.

As for the second issue, if you go to about:config is there an entry called *app.update.url.override*? If there is just right click on it and select reset.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *caenlen*
> 
> i like waterfox a lot so far, just tried it for first time, kind of a slow startup, but i think its because one of my addons, not sure which one (noscript,adblock,ghostery) if anyone knows which one causes the stutter at startup let me know and i will get rid of it


Hmm well the easiest way is to disable them all then put them on one by one and see which one affects performance.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> So in the pursuit of tracking down the WebGL leak...
> 
> My Acer notebook: well, it turns out it doesn't have a good enough video card to run WebGL (so the sites tell me when I try) so nevermind that comparison.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This same desktop machine I've been using, but under OpenSUSE 13.1 (I know, I haven't updated): Firefox 30.0 had no issues with the Cubemap and OpenRacer demos, updated to 36.0, still not having any issues with those two demos. I know Linux isn't the same bag as Windows, but this at least implies it's not my hardware and it's possibly not WebGL 2.0 itself since those would be the common threads.
> 
> While I was checking for the update for FF for OpenSUSE I noticed that FF for Windows has reached 36.0.1 so once back in Win7 I updated, then tried the Cubemap and OpenRacer demos...
> 
> *FireFox 36.0.1's WebGL has NO LEAK.* Task Manager says it occupies under 300mb when running those demos. Just in case some common element was 'fixed' in the FF updating, back to WF and... ugh, no, WF hit 2gb after a minute.
> 
> So it looks like something in the 36.0.1 code base resolved the WebGL issue, even if you haven't been able to identify what that thing is, so responding to something you'd said to me a day or two ago... Yes, looking forward to the next WF update based on the latest FF build.


Yep looks like it was a bug in Firefox. Will release update tomorrow hopefully  Hopefully that'll sort this problem out!


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

36.0, for me, doesn't fix the memory leak. Opening around 10 tweaktown tabs easily makes the RAM usage of waterfox.exe skyrocket to 4+GB and it makes the browser TOTALLY unresponsive in which case I have to end the process in task manager and re-open the program to use it again normally. Have you replicated this issue by going to www.tweaktown.com and opening several articles from there like I've suggested a few weeks back?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> 36.0, for me, doesn't fix the memory leak. Opening around 10 tweaktown tabs easily makes the RAM usage of waterfox.exe skyrocket to 4+GB and it makes the browser TOTALLY unresponsive in which case I have to end the process in task manager and re-open the program to use it again normally. Have you replicated this issue by going to www.tweaktown.com and opening several articles from there like I've suggested a few weeks back?


Yes I have but I can't reproduce it unfortunately 

I've tried on the following systems:


Intel Core i5 3470 with iGPU
AMD 8350 with an NVIDIA GPU (can't remember model, friends computer)
The MacBook Air in my signature

Neither of them would do anything like that on tweaktown. Even tried running 3 benchmarks while having tweaktown as the main open town and memory usage wouldn't inflate.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes I have but I can't reproduce it unfortunately
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried on the following systems:
> 
> Intel Core i5 3470 with iGPU
> AMD 8350 with an NVIDIA GPU (can't remember model, friends computer)
> The MacBook Air in my signature
> Neither of them would do anything like that on tweaktown. Even tried running 3 benchmarks while having tweaktown as the main open town and memory usage wouldn't inflate.


Have you tried multiple tabs with different tweaktown articles?


----------



## tompsonn

Can't seem to repro any leaks, and v36 seems to be snappier. Which is good, I felt like v35 was a complete dog.


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Unfortunately the already running process error happens every now and then with Waterfox/Firefox. There are some threads here and here that might help with this? There are so many different system configs and variables it's hard to know what might be causing the issue so we can work through it to find it.
> 
> As for the second issue, if you go to about:config is there an entry called *app.update.url.override*? If there is just right click on it and select reset.


Hi Mr. Alex,

I did not understand : about:config when I first read it, so this is what I did.

1. Used Program and Features and removed FireFox 36.0.1, Mozilla Maintenance Service and Waterfox 36.0.
2. Used Windows Explorer and removed all Folders of Mozilla, and checked for FireFox and Waterfox.
3. Ran Disk Cleanup.
4. Found Mozilla Maintenance Service in Services so I used Regedit and removed all logical references to FireFox and WaterFox.
5. Checked Services and since there but with an error message, so I rebooted the computer.
6. On Reboot, gone.
7. Reinstalled WaterFox Version 34.0.1 and it still showed Restart to Apply Update and it still showed another instance of Firefox running, where Firefox is not installed.

8. Just now, understood : about:config. Simply typed it in the Address Bar, but I did not see or find any entry called: "app.update.url.override". I do see "app.update.url"

Composed in Waterfox, but had to switch to Internet Explorer to finish, in order to use attachments here. Times out in Waterfox.

2015-03-07-Firefoxwasuninstalled.jpg 459k .jpg file


----------



## MrAlex

Here's the 36.0.1 build that should be available tomorrow: download.


Every fix in 36.0.1
Added back support for Vista
Fixed geolocation issues - it should now work!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes I have but I can't reproduce it unfortunately
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've tried on the following systems:
> 
> Intel Core i5 3470 with iGPU
> AMD 8350 with an NVIDIA GPU (can't remember model, friends computer)
> The MacBook Air in my signature
> Neither of them would do anything like that on tweaktown. Even tried running 3 benchmarks while having tweaktown as the main open town and memory usage wouldn't inflate.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you tried multiple tabs with different tweaktown articles?
Click to expand...

Yes tried that as well. In 36.0.1 Mozilla patched a memory leak in relation to Canvas rendering. Don't suppose it makes a difference for you?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tompsonn*
> 
> Can't seem to repro any leaks, and v36 seems to be snappier. Which is good, I felt like v35 was a complete dog.


Yes 35.0 had some issues that where driving me crazy that I managed to resolve in 36.0.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Unfortunately the already running process error happens every now and then with Waterfox/Firefox. There are some threads here and here that might help with this? There are so many different system configs and variables it's hard to know what might be causing the issue so we can work through it to find it.
> 
> As for the second issue, if you go to about:config is there an entry called *app.update.url.override*? If there is just right click on it and select reset.
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Mr. Alex,
> 
> I did not understand : about:config when I first read it, so this is what I did.
> 
> 1. Used Program and Features and removed FireFox 36.0.1, Mozilla Maintenance Service and Waterfox 36.0.
> 2. Used Windows Explorer and removed all Folders of Mozilla, and checked for FireFox and Waterfox.
> 3. Ran Disk Cleanup.
> 4. Found Mozilla Maintenance Service in Services so I used Regedit and removed all logical references to FireFox and WaterFox.
> 5. Checked Services and since there but with an error message, so I rebooted the computer.
> 6. On Reboot, gone.
> 7. Reinstalled WaterFox Version 34.0.1 and it still showed Restart to Apply Update and it still showed another instance of Firefox running, where Firefox is not installed.
> 
> 8. Just now, understood : about:config. Simply typed it in the Address Bar, but I did not see or find any entry called: "app.update.url.override". I do see "app.update.url"
> 
> Composed in Waterfox, but had to switch to Internet Explorer to finish, in order to use attachments here. Times out in Waterfox.
> 
> 2015-03-07-Firefoxwasuninstalled.jpg 459k .jpg file
Click to expand...

I see! It looks like there might be an issue with your profile. If you follow this guide to find out your profile location, could you take a screenshot of what's inside the default profile directory?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes tried that as well. In 36.0.1 Mozilla patched a memory leak in relation to Canvas rendering. Don't suppose it makes a difference for you?


I'm not sure either but I'll give it a try. When you tried reproducing my problem, do you have other tabs opened? I have around 50 tabs opened (but not loaded) that are not Tweaktown-related and that's the time I try to reproduce the issue which can be reproduced every single time


----------



## seti

I don' t know that it is any secret that I use WF exclusively as my browser of choice. I am also a HUGE fan of tweaktown.com and have NEVER had issue one with that site. I do hope whoever does have an issue with that site gets it resolved quickly. My general daily surfing schedule starts with Tweaktown, DD-WRT, Waterfox, MajorGeeks, TheWindowsClub, and then free for all...that usually ends at Tweaktown to see what was updated. My two cents!


----------



## themushroom

*36.0.1:* Yes, the WebGL leak appears to be fixed, there was no bloating.

Noticed the usage did NOT drop when I closed the tab as it usually does, but minimising Waterfox and picking back up purged the space (since I have that toggle in aboutrefs to do that set).

Thank you, MrAlex!


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I see! It looks like there might be an issue with your profile. If you follow this guide to find out your profile location, could you take a screenshot of what's inside the default profile directory?


Hi Mr. Alex,

Still not working! What I did?

Everything was uninstalled, especially FireFox.

Went to that article or guide, you referenced and followed its instructions.

Found the default profile. Using File Explorer, I deleted the entire profile from the main Mozilla Folder. Ran Disk Cleanup. Reboot and went back to that article to see if it would find another profile. Nothing Found.

Reinstalled Waterfox 34.0.1 version and it found an Update to Apply and got the same error message, that Firefox was running, where no other Firefox version is installed..

Went back to that article and this time iit found the Default Profile. I did a PrtScrn Snapshot of it, in List view, because I could not get all files in Detail View. All files have a Date of 03-09-2015.

2015-03-09-DefaultProfile.jpg 189k .jpg file


Next going to reset Internet Explorer 's Internet Options and see if that has any effect.

Where does Waterfox store the Update after downloading it?


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Next going to reset Internet Explorer 's Internet Options and see if that has any effect.
> 
> Where does Waterfox store the Update after downloading it?


Hi Mr. Alex,

I removed all Mozilla Folders in ProgramData, Local and Roaming in my User ID under AppData.

Then I ran Disk Cleanup. I used Internet Options to reset Internet Explorer's Internet Options. Restarted the Computer and ran Check Now, as a Precaution.

Installed WaterFox 34.0.1 version, cause I wanted to test updating.

This time, there wasn't any Updates to be applied but found new version. I was able to Download New Version and it states "Apply Update". Restarted Waterfox.

Got the error message again. Updater could not continue because another version of Firefox was running in the background.

2015-03-09-AfterresettingInternetOptions.jpg 241k .jpg file


2015-03-09-FirefoxNotInstalled.jpg 400k .jpg file


Now going to try a new User ID and see what happens.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi Mr. Alex,

Creating a New User ID and installing from that Account, did not work. Had the same problem.

Showing Firefox running, when no version of FireFox is installed, save for Waterfox.

2015-03-09-NewUserID-Sameoldproblem.jpg 187k .jpg file


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes tried that as well. In 36.0.1 Mozilla patched a memory leak in relation to Canvas rendering. Don't suppose it makes a difference for you?
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not sure either but I'll give it a try. When you tried reproducing my problem, do you have other tabs opened? I have around 50 tabs opened (but not loaded) that are not Tweaktown-related and that's the time I try to reproduce the issue which can be reproduced every single time
Click to expand...

Yes, tried with multiple tabs as well 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> I don' t know that it is any secret that I use WF exclusively as my browser of choice. I am also a HUGE fan of tweaktown.com and have NEVER had issue one with that site. I do hope whoever does have an issue with that site gets it resolved quickly. My general daily surfing schedule starts with Tweaktown, DD-WRT, Waterfox, MajorGeeks, TheWindowsClub, and then free for all...that usually ends at Tweaktown to see what was updated. My two cents!


I wonder if it might be a driver issue?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> *36.0.1:* Yes, the WebGL leak appears to be fixed, there was no bloating.
> 
> Noticed the usage did NOT drop when I closed the tab as it usually does, but minimising Waterfox and picking back up purged the space (since I have that toggle in aboutrefs to do that set).
> 
> Thank you, MrAlex!


Excellent! Glad to hear  Update is all ready then.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi Mr. Alex,
> 
> Creating a New User ID and installing from that Account, did not work. Had the same problem.
> 
> Showing Firefox running, when no version of FireFox is installed, save for Waterfox.
> 
> 2015-03-09-NewUserID-Sameoldproblem.jpg 187k .jpg file


I feel like there's a profile update that hasn't been deleted that might keep prompting you for an update (I'll look for the directory so you can delete the file). If you use the Portable version, I'm assuming the issue doesn't occur anymore?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, tried with multiple tabs as well


Why is it that I can replicate it on at least 4 computers?


----------



## seti

Quote:


> Why is it that I can replicate it on at least 4 computers?


Did you copy the profile to each of these setups? Does each of your setups have the same extensions and other plugins? What plugins are installed (Java, Flash, etc...)? More information is always best when troubleshooting. I do hope Alex or we collectively can help out.


----------



## blackps

Options-General is empty you can't change any setting,using Waterfox 36.0.1

The problem is Ghostery.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Did you copy the profile to each of these setups? Does each of your setups have the same extensions and other plugins? What plugins are installed (Java, Flash, etc...)? More information is always best when troubleshooting. I do hope Alex or we collectively can help out.


Thanks for the help.

No, they all have different profiles. They all have java, flash, and silverlight installed as plugins. One of my setups have extensions like couchpotato, idm, and trend micro bep extension.

@MrAlex

By the way, there is a software update failure again even though I'm already at 36.0.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, tried with multiple tabs as well
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that I can replicate it on at least 4 computers?
Click to expand...

Are there any common denominators between the systems? Such as same GPU? Same driver version?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Why is it that I can replicate it on at least 4 computers?
> 
> 
> 
> Did you copy the profile to each of these setups? Does each of your setups have the same extensions and other plugins? What plugins are installed (Java, Flash, etc...)? More information is always best when troubleshooting. I do hope Alex or we collectively can help out.
Click to expand...

Yes, thanks for helping as well!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blackps*
> 
> Options-General is empty you can't change any setting,using Waterfox 36.0.1
> 
> The problem is Ghostery.


Hmm wonder if it gets reported they'll fix it for Waterfox?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Did you copy the profile to each of these setups? Does each of your setups have the same extensions and other plugins? What plugins are installed (Java, Flash, etc...)? More information is always best when troubleshooting. I do hope Alex or we collectively can help out.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for the help.
> 
> No, they all have different profiles. They all have java, flash, and silverlight installed as plugins. One of my setups have extensions like couchpotato, idm, and trend micro bep extension.
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> By the way, there is a software update failure again even though I'm already at 36.0.
Click to expand...

Yes sorry, using Amazon's Web Services (AWS) and for some reason it's messed up today!! The update files aren't appearing live on the website even though they're physically there! It's driving me mad. They were there yesterday.

Here are the URLs if you're interesed:

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/36.0/en-us/release/update.xml

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/win64/35.0.1/en-us/release/update.xml

I can't release 36.0.1 without getting this resolved. Such a pain. Sorry for the inconvenience about this!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Are there any common denominators between the systems? Such as same GPU? Same driver version?


No common denominator between the systems, they have exactly different components and a variation of Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. This makes it harder to troubleshoot but I can replicate the same exact issue when Tweaktown articles and heavy flash-based websites are opened.


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> No common denominator between the systems, they have exactly different components and a variation of Windows 7 and Windows 8.1. This makes it harder to troubleshoot but I can replicate the same exact issue when Tweaktown articles and heavy flash-based websites are opened.


Tried disabling flash/silverlight/java and just trying a full blank run? Tried running ublock? I just opened 10 tabs of tweaktown without abnormal memory usage and have been looking to see whats going on under the hood. ublock is blocking 22-28 urls per page for ad content. Something advertising related could be getting caught up on it.

Also flash is constantly being worked on and modified. I'm running the latest 64bit beta from adobe labs, march 11th as of this post (http://labsdownload.adobe.com/pub/labs/flashruntimes/flashplayer/flashplayer17_install_win_pi.exe). The older versions tend to cause a lot of trouble for me, mostly through youtube.

Additionally consider disabling Ghostery if you're running it. A lot of issues have been reported lately in regards to the last couple of updates of the addon, pages loading incorrectly, incorrect formatting, memory leaks and insane cpu usage being on the list.

EDIT: Ha. I just disabled ublock and reloaded 10 tabs in tweaktown to see if its the ads. It's the ads. http://i.imgur.com/HP0Tvwp.png It just kept loading and loading and loading non stop. Waterfox downloaded 700mb over my connection before it started to slow down, but at that stage the program was getting crazy unstable. I attempted to write a reply here but lost it when it finally crashed.

The advertising on the site is complete ****. A single page constantly refreshes each add and seemingly keeps it all in memory. I like tweaktown and all, but their advertising partner is destroying the site.

Additionally I tried it again with firefox and chrome with the same issue. Firefox acts like waterfox and seems to start panicking when all the flash players start loading in the background. Chrome handles the flash very well in terms of CPU usage (pepperflash is quite optimized compared to adobe's NPAPI plugin), however chrome's memory usage was skyrocketting as well. 5 Tabs, no addons saw 2500mb ram across all the open exes, and they were all constantly refreshing and downloading.

All in all, an interesting way to burn through 1gb of my internet quota.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> Tried disabling flash/silverlight/java and just trying a full blank run? Tried running ublock? I just opened 10 tabs of tweaktown without abnormal memory usage and have been looking to see whats going on under the hood. ublock is blocking 22-28 urls per page for ad content. Something advertising related could be getting caught up on it.
> 
> Also flash is constantly being worked on and modified. I'm running the latest 64bit beta from adobe labs, march 11th as of this post (http://labsdownload.adobe.com/pub/labs/flashruntimes/flashplayer/flashplayer17_install_win_pi.exe). The older versions tend to cause a lot of trouble for me, mostly through youtube.
> 
> Additionally consider disabling Ghostery if you're running it. A lot of issues have been reported lately in regards to the last couple of updates of the addon, pages loading incorrectly, incorrect formatting, memory leaks and insane cpu usage being on the list.


I'm sure it is Flash that's causing this but of course everyone needs that for content playback. I have the latest version of Flash, always. Haven't tried running ublock but can that be the solution to my problem?

Not using Ghostery also.


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I'm sure it is Flash that's causing this but of course everyone needs that for content playback. I have the latest version of Flash, always. Haven't tried running ublock but can that be the solution to my problem?
> 
> Not using Ghostery also.


I edited my post with more info mate. Basically it seems like the ads are killing it. Tried firefox, chrome and waterfox, same results without adblocking. Running uBlock fixes it perfectly.

Also, the HTML5 player has gotten a lot better, especially with firefox 36. 60fps youtubes are a treat. Its also MUCH lighter to run than flash. Starts faster too due to VP9


----------



## jjpjimmy

Could you change the behavior of this menu so that clicking "Activate this plugin" activates the plugin rather than having a pop up dialog by the navigation buttons to then activate it?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> I edited my post with more info mate. Basically it seems like the ads are killing it. Tried firefox, chrome and waterfox, same results without adblocking. Running uBlock fixes it perfectly.
> 
> Also, the HTML5 player has gotten a lot better, especially with firefox 36. 60fps youtubes are a treat. Its also MUCH lighter to run than flash. Starts faster too due to VP9


That's more like it, mate







At least we're on the same page now and you were able to reproduce it. I'm downloading ublock now and will let you know. Is ublock the best ad blocking plugin for FF/WF though?

Does youtube default to using HTML5 content nowadays?

@MrAlex

I just got a notification for the 36.0.1 update and told it to apply it. It downloaded and applied flawlessly but when I restarted WF, I got this error:



I checked the version after I clicked OK on this error and it stated at 36.0. How do I fix this?


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> That's more like it, mate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least we're on the same page now and you were able to reproduce it. I'm downloading ublock now and will let you know. Is ublock the best ad blocking plugin for FF/WF though?
> 
> Does youtube default to using HTML5 content nowadays?
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> I just got a notification for the 36.0.1 update and told it to apply it. It downloaded and applied flawlessly but when I restarted WF, I got this error:
> 
> 
> 
> I checked the version after I clicked OK on this error and it stated at 36.0. How do I fix this?


Youtube doesn't default. https://www.youtube.com/html5 here to switch. Fixed a lot of issues, introduced some new ones, net gain.

uBlock is the best adblocker for every browser it seems. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock I've only started using it recently, however their evidence and my own experience seems to support it is a far superior blocker in both speed and memory efficiency.


----------



## Tsyphon

I'm trying to update to 36.0.1 of waterfox, which as stated in the development log supports Vista 64 bit. WF 36.0 gives an error message that I require Windows 7 x64 or higher to install, so I went with 36.0.1.

The error message when trying to install after extracting is "Sorry, Waterfox can't be installed. This version of Waterfox requires Microsoft Windows XP x64 RTM or newer."

I am running Windows Vista x64 Ultimate.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> Youtube doesn't default. https://www.youtube.com/html5 here to switch. Fixed a lot of issues, introduced some new ones, net gain.
> 
> uBlock is the best adblocker for every browser it seems. https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock I've only started using it recently, however their evidence and my own experience seems to support it is a far superior blocker in both speed and memory efficiency.


Great. I haven't installed it yet because of the busy schedule but will do after a few hours. Thanks again.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjpjimmy*
> 
> Could you change the behavior of this menu so that clicking "Activate this plugin" activates the plugin rather than having a pop up dialog by the navigation buttons to then activate it?


I could do, depends how complicated of a task it'll be. The reason a dialogue pops up is to ask whether to remember your selection temporarily or not.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> I edited my post with more info mate. Basically it seems like the ads are killing it. Tried firefox, chrome and waterfox, same results without adblocking. Running uBlock fixes it perfectly.
> 
> Also, the HTML5 player has gotten a lot better, especially with firefox 36. 60fps youtubes are a treat. Its also MUCH lighter to run than flash. Starts faster too due to VP9
> 
> 
> 
> That's more like it, mate
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At least we're on the same page now and you were able to reproduce it. I'm downloading ublock now and will let you know. Is ublock the best ad blocking plugin for FF/WF though?
> 
> Does youtube default to using HTML5 content nowadays?
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> I just got a notification for the 36.0.1 update and told it to apply it. It downloaded and applied flawlessly but when I restarted WF, I got this error:
> 
> 
> 
> I checked the version after I clicked OK on this error and it stated at 36.0. How do I fix this?
Click to expand...

Is this error still occurring? I've just checked the update file and all the necessary files are there. Could an AV program be blocking it by any chance?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> I'm trying to update to 36.0.1 of waterfox, which as stated in the development log supports Vista 64 bit. WF 36.0 gives an error message that I require Windows 7 x64 or higher to install, so I went with 36.0.1.
> 
> The error message when trying to install after extracting is "Sorry, Waterfox can't be installed. This version of Waterfox requires Microsoft Windows XP x64 RTM or newer."
> 
> I am running Windows Vista x64 Ultimate.


Hmm looks like the installer is still blocking Vista! What a pain! Does the portable version run for you though?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this error still occurring? I've just checked the update file and all the necessary files are there. Could an AV program be blocking it by any chance?


I tried re-running the update and it worked the second time around. I guess it was just a hiccup.

@Morphello

By the way, are the default setting of ublock pretty much good settings already?


----------



## thechas

Observation on Flash Streaming Issues.

Seeing the number of Flash and streaming issues being posted, I thought I should share this as it might assist in a final fix for the issues.

I had to disable hardware acceleration for Flash on one of my computers today to get videos to stream.

I suspect that one of the Windows updates from the March 10th patch Tuesday changed a file or registry setting that impacted Flash.

The computer with the problem is running Windows 7 Home Premium.
My other computers are running Windows 7 Professional.

Thanks again for your time and efforts.

Chas


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Observation on Flash Streaming Issues.
> 
> Seeing the number of Flash and streaming issues being posted, I thought I should share this as it might assist in a final fix for the issues.
> 
> I had to disable hardware acceleration for Flash on one of my computers today to get videos to stream.
> 
> I suspect that one of the Windows updates from the March 10th patch Tuesday changed a file or registry setting that impacted Flash.
> 
> The computer with the problem is running Windows 7 Home Premium.
> My other computers are running Windows 7 Professional.
> 
> Thanks again for your time and efforts.
> 
> Chas


This "fix" has been posted on several other websites multiple times. It seems to be a fix for some and does nothing for others.


----------



## thechas

Yes, I understand that the fix has been posted.

My point is that streaming was working fine until the March Patch Tuesday Windows Updates.
One of the 27 updates broke streaming on one of our computers but not others.

My hope is that this additional data point may help resolve the streaming problems.

Chas


----------



## btgbullseye

I have a similar issue to what was happening to me in the 35.x versions, in that it's causing a GPU driver crash, but at least now it's only crashing occasionally, and only on exit so far.

That means I can actually use the browser, but it'll hate me stopping. lol


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Yes, I understand that the fix has been posted.
> 
> My point is that streaming was working fine until the March Patch Tuesday Windows Updates.
> One of the 27 updates broke streaming on one of our computers but not others.
> 
> My hope is that this additional data point may help resolve the streaming problems.
> 
> Chas


It's amazing and frustrating how "Security" updates seem to break a lot of unrelated things. I recently found out a Vista security update makes some fonts look seriously super ugly in some games. I think it may even be affecting Windows 7's fonts too.


----------



## remixedcat

why does it need to reboot my computer after an upgrade to 36... booo! I can't reboot since this is running some server stuff and also other stuff... how do you get around that?


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @Morphello
> 
> By the way, are the default setting of ublock pretty much good settings already?


Yeah they are. The automatic lists seem to block the majority of nasty content of the web. I haven't had to manually block anything or find a separate list yet. I find the default adblock plus and other derivative settings tend to screw up a lot of websites for me, most notably HardOCP (just the banner for some reason).

The only issue with ublock is that to get the latest, you have to manually update from their github. I'm not sure if there is some way to automate it to take the latest xpi from the page. The reason for this is the mozilla addon approval process is really slow, and the updates come hard and fast for ublock.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> Yeah they are. The automatic lists seem to block the majority of nasty content of the web. I haven't had to manually block anything or find a separate list yet. I find the default adblock plus and other derivative settings tend to screw up a lot of websites for me, most notably HardOCP (just the banner for some reason).
> 
> The only issue with ublock is that to get the latest, you have to manually update from their github. I'm not sure if there is some way to automate it to take the latest xpi from the page. The reason for this is the mozilla addon approval process is really slow, and the updates come hard and fast for ublock.


Did you ever have to use the advanced mode?

Thanks for the tip. I didn't realize that I might've downloaded an older version from mozilla's add-on website.


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry for the late replies everyone, was away for the weekend.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Is this error still occurring? I've just checked the update file and all the necessary files are there. Could an AV program be blocking it by any chance?
> 
> 
> 
> I tried re-running the update and it worked the second time around. I guess it was just a hiccup.
> 
> @Morphello
> 
> By the way, are the default setting of ublock pretty much good settings already?
Click to expand...

Ah yes seems like it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Observation on Flash Streaming Issues.
> 
> Seeing the number of Flash and streaming issues being posted, I thought I should share this as it might assist in a final fix for the issues.
> 
> I had to disable hardware acceleration for Flash on one of my computers today to get videos to stream.
> 
> I suspect that one of the Windows updates from the March 10th patch Tuesday changed a file or registry setting that impacted Flash.
> 
> The computer with the problem is running Windows 7 Home Premium.
> My other computers are running Windows 7 Professional.
> 
> Thanks again for your time and efforts.
> 
> Chas


Interesting that it only affected Home Premium. Wonder if a Flash update will be coming to fix it? Also I'm not sure if you guys and gals have heard about it but Shumway may be a good alternative to Flash if you're wanting to test something new.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Observation on Flash Streaming Issues.
> 
> Seeing the number of Flash and streaming issues being posted, I thought I should share this as it might assist in a final fix for the issues.
> 
> I had to disable hardware acceleration for Flash on one of my computers today to get videos to stream.
> 
> I suspect that one of the Windows updates from the March 10th patch Tuesday changed a file or registry setting that impacted Flash.
> 
> The computer with the problem is running Windows 7 Home Premium.
> My other computers are running Windows 7 Professional.
> 
> Thanks again for your time and efforts.
> 
> Chas
> 
> 
> 
> This "fix" has been posted on several other websites multiple times. It seems to be a fix for some and does nothing for others.
Click to expand...

It really does seem to depend on hardware configurations/driver versions.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> I have a similar issue to what was happening to me in the 35.x versions, in that it's causing a GPU driver crash, but at least now it's only crashing occasionally, and only on exit so far.
> 
> That means I can actually use the browser, but it'll hate me stopping. lol


Haha oh dear. Hopefully with newer versions of ANGLE and various Canvas updates, crashing will be less temperamental.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Yes, I understand that the fix has been posted.
> 
> My point is that streaming was working fine until the March Patch Tuesday Windows Updates.
> One of the 27 updates broke streaming on one of our computers but not others.
> 
> My hope is that this additional data point may help resolve the streaming problems.
> 
> Chas
> 
> 
> 
> It's amazing and frustrating how "Security" updates seem to break a lot of unrelated things. I recently found out a Vista security update makes some fonts look seriously super ugly in some games. I think it may even be affecting Windows 7's fonts too.
Click to expand...

It must be hard managing such a large codebase for MS. I can imagine organisational issues letting bugs like this slip through.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> why does it need to reboot my computer after an upgrade to 36... booo! I can't reboot since this is running some server stuff and also other stuff... how do you get around that?


This has happened various times but I don't seem to understand the criteria for what causes this message. This article may be of help (just change the directory/names to match Waterfox instead of Firefox).


----------



## kevindd992002

I still can't believe how big of an improvement ublock has given me. No more exorbitant memory usage when browsing the tweaktown website!

@MrAlex, did you have any ad blocker installed when you were trying to replicate my issue?


----------



## remixedcat

so really it's just a stupid message? why do they even bother???


----------



## Morphello

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I still can't believe how big of an improvement ublock has given me. No more exorbitant memory usage when browsing the tweaktown website!
> 
> @MrAlex, did you have any ad blocker installed when you were trying to replicate my issue?


No I haven't needed to use the advanced mode. Normally I'm the kind of guy who has to read and re-read every setting and tweak everything first before I'm satisfied with it. uBlock was refreshingly straight forward and caught everything I threw at it. Some people might want to go in and block specifics, like the Disqus plugin or other specifics, but not me. For reducing the ads and bloat from the web, uBlock is great out the door.

Tweaktown I believe is mostly at fault there. There might be some issue with the way firefox implements flash and hardware rendering and the like, but frankly the site is so poorly coded, and they let their advertisers run everything. At one stage they made it so that if you used an adblocker, it would come up with a fullscreen ad asking to disable it. That of course, was quickly blocked, but it remains to be seen that they just want to shove as much as possible down your throat.

It's nice that you're enjoying a faster experience.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> No I haven't needed to use the advanced mode. Normally I'm the kind of guy who has to read and re-read every setting and tweak everything first before I'm satisfied with it. uBlock was refreshingly straight forward and caught everything I threw at it. Some people might want to go in and block specifics, like the Disqus plugin or other specifics, but not me. For reducing the ads and bloat from the web, uBlock is great out the door.
> 
> Tweaktown I believe is mostly at fault there. There might be some issue with the way firefox implements flash and hardware rendering and the like, but frankly the site is so poorly coded, and they let their advertisers run everything. At one stage they made it so that if you used an adblocker, it would come up with a fullscreen ad asking to disable it. That of course, was quickly blocked, but it remains to be seen that they just want to shove as much as possible down your throat.
> 
> It's nice that you're enjoying a faster experience.


Understood!

Thanks for the help man. I just wished that this could've been fixed sooner. I've been running with this slowdown problem for many years now.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I still can't believe how big of an improvement ublock has given me. No more exorbitant memory usage when browsing the tweaktown website!
> 
> @MrAlex, did you have any ad blocker installed when you were trying to replicate my issue?


I don't think so, ran on most of the systems fresh. Some had adblock though. Glad to know it's all fixed for you though finally!!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> so really it's just a stupid message? why do they even bother???


I'm not sure...there might have been a reason at one point in time. Probably still is.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Can someone post a link to the offending TweakTown site? I'd like to give it a test in Pale Moon and Firefox and see if the latest versions of those browsers also bog down something fierce.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Can someone post a link to the offending TweakTown site? I'd like to give it a test in Pale Moon and Firefox and see if the latest versions of those browsers also bog down something fierce.


It should be this one: http://www.tweaktown.com/


----------



## Mr6686

Will we be entitled to version 36.0.4?


----------



## malcomX

when waterfox security fix ?

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/#firefox36.0.3
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/#firefox36.0.4


----------



## Mingser

Not sure if this has been answered before but, does waterfox support 5.1 surround sound? The only reason why I still use firefox over waterfox is because I can't get 5.1 surround sound working in waterfox.

Probably me not doing something I should've done to get it work but, I didn't really do anything for firefox to get that working..


----------



## chorse

It might have to do with 32bit vs 64bit sound drivers.


----------



## Mingser

I currently have this driver: http://www.asus.com/uk/Sound_Cards_and_DigitaltoAnalog_Converters/Xonar_D2X/HelpDesk_Download/
>windows 8.1 64 bit > audio

Should be working with waterfox if it allows 5.1 ( not an expert here thought )


----------



## Mingser

Nevermind me, sorry folks!

Apparently soundcloud.com didn't play 5.1 on neither firefox or waterfox. Youtube plays 5.1 fine on waterfox.. Any reasons why soundcloud doesn't work? This has nothing to do with waterfox though.


----------



## btgbullseye

Just had a BSoD on opening Waterfox... It rebooted before I could get a look at the error code.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Just had a BSoD on opening Waterfox... It rebooted before I could get a look at the error code.


Any chance you can pull the info from the Windows Event Log?

http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html


----------



## Panwaffles

Am I the only one that is noticing RAM usage going up to 4GB when the browser is "idling" with just one flash window opened? Namely Twitch streams. If I keep it open like that for a while, it almost always goes sky-high with RAM usage. Even installed the latest Flash beta today, in case it's something specific with it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Will we be entitled to version 36.0.4?


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when waterfox security fix ?
> 
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/#firefox36.0.3
> https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/known-vulnerabilities/firefox/#firefox36.0.4


Doing final tests on the build as we speak! Had to move to a new build system as the old one was taking SO long to compile.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mingser*
> 
> Nevermind me, sorry folks!
> 
> Apparently soundcloud.com didn't play 5.1 on neither firefox or waterfox. Youtube plays 5.1 fine on waterfox.. Any reasons why soundcloud doesn't work? This has nothing to do with waterfox though.


Hmm, do other browsers play out of all your speakers on SoundCloud? I'm not familiar with what type of player SoundCloud has or what media type it uses. It could be a media type that Firefox/Waterfox doesn't have 5.1 support for?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Just had a BSoD on opening Waterfox... It rebooted before I could get a look at the error code.
> 
> 
> 
> Any chance you can pull the info from the Windows Event Log?
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html
Click to expand...

Yep, that'd be the best way to start sorting things out 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Am I the only one that is noticing RAM usage going up to 4GB when the browser is "idling" with just one flash window opened? Namely Twitch streams. If I keep it open like that for a while, it almost always goes sky-high with RAM usage. Even installed the latest Flash beta today, in case it's something specific with it.


It seems to depend on the Flash application and system, but yes it can occur sometimes. Don't worry though I'm aiming to get jemalloc to work properly with Waterfox.


----------



## yowanvista

Those experiencing GPU driver crashes/WebGL issues might want to disable ANGLE via the "webgl.disable-angle" flag in about:config. Native WebGL GPU rendering is always faster than this nonsensical GLSL>HLSL wrapper provided you've got a graphics card with decent OpenGL/GL ES support. The WebGL renderer used is displayed in 'about:support' under the graphics section, with ANGLE disabled it should list the primary GPU.



Native OpenGL can also be used instead of D3D with by setting 'layers.prefer-opengl' to true but this can cause graphical glitches with GPUs which don't properly support modern OpenGL.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay so here are the builds for 36.0.4:

Portable

Installer

Everything should be working as normal, they took a bit longer to compile than I was hoping! Update will seed tomorrow, including for 35.X users.

Let me know if you guys run into any issues before I list them on the website 

Cheers!


----------



## Taburetkin

hi
i have problem
after some time some pictures in opened tabs have very strange distortion

Untitled5.png 90k .png file


Untitled6.png 11k .png file


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taburetkin*
> 
> hi
> i have problem
> after some time some pictures in opened tabs have very strange distortion
> 
> Untitled5.png 90k .png file
> 
> 
> Untitled6.png 11k .png file


What version is that on?


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

My 36.0.1 WF doesn't detect that there's an update again?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> My 36.0.1 WF doesn't detect that there's an update again?


The update hasn't been released yet, still waiting for feedback. I'm just finishing testing on some systems and then I'll release tonight.Don't want to botch anything up.


----------



## Taburetkin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What version is that on?


36.0.4 and 36.0.1


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The update hasn't been released yet, still waiting for feedback. I'm just finishing testing on some systems and then I'll release tonight.Don't want to botch anything up.


Gotcha. Does that include any memory usage related fixes?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taburetkin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> What version is that on?
> 
> 
> 
> 36.0.4 and 36.0.1
Click to expand...

Could you post a link to the images?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> The update hasn't been released yet, still waiting for feedback. I'm just finishing testing on some systems and then I'll release tonight.Don't want to botch anything up.
> 
> 
> 
> Gotcha. Does that include any memory usage related fixes?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately not, just security fixes.


----------



## Taburetkin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could you post a link to the images?


http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/839219/


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taburetkin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could you post a link to the images?
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.kinopoisk.ru/film/839219/
Click to expand...

It loads as a video for me. Is it the video specifically that distorts or an image thumbnail? I can't seem to find an image file for the video specifically.


----------



## Taburetkin

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It loads as a video for me. Is it the video specifically that distorts or an image thumbnail? I can't seem to find an image file for the video specifically.


image thumbnail
see PM


----------



## remixedcat

Ok, loading anything with silverlight on the following system:

RemixedBeast Intel i53570K/16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 RAM/Nvidia Geforce 650Ti/Samsung 840 120GB SSD/Windows Server 2012 Standard/Realtek GBE NIC

will make the GPU driver corrupt itself. after I load anything with silverlight, for example Bing streetside, I will have some parts of my windows GUI flip out like little chunks of the windows missing, some media player buttons on jriver won't be shown, there are parts of windows that get screwy like task mgr taking a long time to load, etc

only fix is to reboot.

This is getting annoying. This only seems to happen with silverlight content and firefox/waterfox. Yes it does it in BOTH browsers.


----------



## seti

I too had the update notification pop up twice once a day for 2 days. The update notification indicated it was the same build during each, but all seems fine now. I usually run through a few different sites and test as many plug-ins as I can during each upgrade through demos and other tools specific to any plug-in I have. I didn't see anything that seemed troublesome or had issues. I read about the problem with Bing Streetside and wanted to see if I had any issues, but I couldn't replicate anything based on the description given. I had no blocks or missing parts, whether in full screen or not, at least nothing that I noticed or required me to reboot. I did like the site though and appreciate the share if nothing else. Thanks again Alex!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Taburetkin*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It loads as a video for me. Is it the video specifically that distorts or an image thumbnail? I can't seem to find an image file for the video specifically.
> 
> 
> 
> image thumbnail
> see PM
Click to expand...

I'll err, have a look into it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *remixedcat*
> 
> Ok, loading anything with silverlight on the following system:
> 
> RemixedBeast Intel i53570K/16GB Corsair XMS3 DDR3 1600 RAM/Nvidia Geforce 650Ti/Samsung 840 120GB SSD/Windows Server 2012 Standard/Realtek GBE NIC
> 
> will make the GPU driver corrupt itself. after I load anything with silverlight, for example Bing streetside, I will have some parts of my windows GUI flip out like little chunks of the windows missing, some media player buttons on jriver won't be shown, there are parts of windows that get screwy like task mgr taking a long time to load, etc
> 
> only fix is to reboot.
> 
> This is getting annoying. This only seems to happen with silverlight content and firefox/waterfox. Yes it does it in BOTH browsers.


If you can reproduce it in Firefox, maybe it'd be good to submit a bug report to Mozilla directly.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> I too had the update notification pop up twice once a day for 2 days. The update notification indicated it was the same build during each, but all seems fine now. I usually run through a few different sites and test as many plug-ins as I can during each upgrade through demos and other tools specific to any plug-in I have. I didn't see anything that seemed troublesome or had issues. I read about the problem with Bing Streetside and wanted to see if I had any issues, but I couldn't replicate anything based on the description given. I had no blocks or missing parts, whether in full screen or not, at least nothing that I noticed or required me to reboot. I did like the site though and appreciate the share if nothing else. Thanks again Alex!


Interesting. I don't suppose you've got app.update.url.override set in your config settings?

Either way issues seem to be sporadic. I'm working hard to make sure aggressive optimisations aren't made on code that needs to be very stable or precise.


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Any chance you can pull the info from the Windows Event Log?
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html


I think I mentioned earlier, I have event viewer logs disabled... Was having security issues related to them, and that's all the more I can say about it without compromising my security measures again.

I will give the newest version a try since it's using a different compiling method, and Firefox never gave the issues Waterfox did, so I'm assuming the issues are caused by the compiling method.

[EDIT] Still causing visual crashes after it freezes, but now it's not taking the driver down, or crashing the system.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *btgbullseye*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Any chance you can pull the info from the Windows Event Log?
> 
> http://www.sevenforums.com/tutorials/226084-event-viewer-open-use-windows-7-a.html
> 
> 
> 
> I think I mentioned earlier, I have event viewer logs disabled... Was having security issues related to them, and that's all the more I can say about it without compromising my security measures again.
> 
> I will give the newest version a try since it's using a different compiling method, and Firefox never gave the issues Waterfox did, so I'm assuming the issues are caused by the compiling method.
> 
> [EDIT] Still causing visual crashes after it freezes, but now it's not taking the driver down, or crashing the system.
Click to expand...

It's definitely a driver conflict issue. For some reason Waterfox freaks out when there are multiple GPUs in a system. I feel like this will be an issue until Mozilla update to a better backend. But for now I'm going to see where the crashes occur and see what compilation option affects it.


----------



## jjpjimmy

Silverlight doesn't like a refresh rate that isn't 60/120hz. If you are running a 144hz monitor you may want to lower your desktop refresh rate to 120hz.


----------



## btgbullseye

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It's definitely a driver conflict issue. For some reason Waterfox freaks out when there are multiple GPUs in a system. I feel like this will be an issue until Mozilla update to a better backend. But for now I'm going to see where the crashes occur and see what compilation option affects it.


Sounds good.


----------



## malcomX

As per Mozilla's classification, a critical flaw can be exploited to allow an attacker to run arbitrary code on the systems without any interaction from the user.
Glitches are potentially exploitable to run arbitrary code

Among the major fixes included in Firefox 37 there are two (CVE-2015-0803 and CVE-2015-0804) touching on type confusion, both credited to security researcher Nils, which could lead to use-after-free errors that generate potentially exploitable crashes of the web browser.

Abhishek Arya of Google Chrome Security Team reported two memory corruption crashes (CVE-2015-0805 and CVE-2015-0806) when the browser rendered 2D graphics. According to the security advisory, the trouble lies in the Off Main Thread Compositing platform.

Another user-after-free error (CVE-2015-0813) that could be leveraged to gain access to the system was reported by Aki Helin, who discovered it while playing certain MP3 audio files with the Fluendo MP3 plugin for GStreamer on Linux.

The issue resides in failure of the plug-in to properly handle some MP3 files and its interaction with code in Firefox.

Last on the list of critical vulnerabilities are memory safety hazards, which are constantly detected and repaired in Firefox revisions and are usually attributed to Mozilla developers.

Some of these issues could be exploited to attain memory corruption and Mozilla believes that a determined attacker could manage to create an exploit and run arbitrary code on the machine.


----------



## MrAlex

Okay everyone, so a big announcement for Waterfox. Before I post it over at reddit, twitter, on the website, etc. I thought I'd share it with you all first, since OCN is a special place to me!

Please let me have your honest opinions, what you think, if it is bad/good etc, and any concerns that you might have and I can address and the likes!

Quote:


> *Waterfox 4 Year Anniversary: Giving back to Charity!*
> 
> Hello everyone! I'm the developer of Waterfox, Alex. 4 Years ago on the 27th of March I released the very first build of Waterfox for everyone to try out. It was posted over at the lovely community of Overclock.net and since then Waterfox has become known around the world.
> 
> I never expected it to become what it has and I've embraced every success that it has made. I am proud to be part of the global Waterfox Community and the wonderful people that make it up. I really appreciate the kind messages and posts I see about Waterfox on the Overclock.net and Waterfox subreddit and I am so happy that even 4 years on, Waterfox is growing and making a positive impact on the web.
> 
> I'm very happy to announce a new idea for Waterfox: *Charitable Giving*!
> 
> *What exactly is this?*
> 
> Back in March 2014, I was invited to an event called [email protected], hosted in London. Various technology startups showcased their ideas and it was a great opportunity to collaborate with each other. I met some super people who had a great idea: Give the users of Waterfox the ability to donate to charities without them having to give anything directly. It means Waterfox could carry on expanding and everyone gets to contribute to a good cause! Initially I'll select the Electronic Frontier Foundation as the charity of the first month of release. In future releases I will be building functionality that will allow you to choose a charity of your own.
> 
> *So how is this going to work?*
> 
> We've created our own search engine called Waterfox Search that you'll be able to beta test in the coming weeks. The idea is simple; carry on doing what you always do! Search using the Waterfox Search as you normally do with any other search engine and when you do your shopping online and purchase something by searching for it via Waterfox search, various retailers have chosen to donate a certain amount of your basket to charity at no cost to you!
> 
> *Does Waterfox get anything?*
> 
> That depends on the charity! We've spoken to a lot of them and each one of them decides how much Waterfox gets.
> 
> *How can we be certain the money will go to Charity?*
> 
> The whole process is going to be transparent. It means that Waterfox has set up its own company, Waterfox Ltd. The payments to charity will be managed through an independent bank that holds the money in ESCROW, meaning that the charity will always be paid and no foul play occurs.
> 
> *How can we trust the search engine?*
> 
> None of your personal information is kept (everything is anonymous). In fact, we don't even ask for any (and none of your searches are stored anywhere)! The only thing that happens is that a cookie will be stored, which will hold the data for the charitable donation to be managed. That's it!
> 
> *That's awesome! Where do I sign up?*
> 
> In the next few weeks or so, Waterfox's website will be going through a massive overhaul. When it is all done, you'll be able to access a beta website to test out the search functionality and let us know what you think!
> 
> *Does this mean Waterfox is turning into the big company?*
> 
> Not at all! I will still be the only person developing Waterfox, giving support and just generally hanging about the Waterfox subreddit and support thread over at Overclock.net. I've just gotten some extra help from a good company with noble intentions to help get this off the ground.


As you know, Waterfox has gotten quite big and costs to run it are quite high and I've been struggling to pay out of pocket so I thought it's a great way to raise money for Waterfox without exploiting the community. Plus it's opt out, meaning you're not forced to use it and can carry on using whichever search engine you like.

I thought it's a much better way to approach things, than say the way Mozilla are introducing sponsored tiles and the likes. Please let me know what you think!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *jjpjimmy*
> 
> Silverlight doesn't like a refresh rate that isn't 60/120hz. If you are running a 144hz monitor you may want to lower your desktop refresh rate to 120hz.


Haven't managed to test any exotic refresh rates such as those. What exactly happens?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> As per Mozilla's classification, a critical flaw can be exploited to allow an attacker to run arbitrary code on the systems without any interaction from the user.
> Glitches are potentially exploitable to run arbitrary code
> 
> Among the major fixes included in Firefox 37 there are two (CVE-2015-0803 and CVE-2015-0804) touching on type confusion, both credited to security researcher Nils, which could lead to use-after-free errors that generate potentially exploitable crashes of the web browser.
> 
> Abhishek Arya of Google Chrome Security Team reported two memory corruption crashes (CVE-2015-0805 and CVE-2015-0806) when the browser rendered 2D graphics. According to the security advisory, the trouble lies in the Off Main Thread Compositing platform.
> 
> Another user-after-free error (CVE-2015-0813) that could be leveraged to gain access to the system was reported by Aki Helin, who discovered it while playing certain MP3 audio files with the Fluendo MP3 plugin for GStreamer on Linux.
> 
> The issue resides in failure of the plug-in to properly handle some MP3 files and its interaction with code in Firefox.
> 
> Last on the list of critical vulnerabilities are memory safety hazards, which are constantly detected and repaired in Firefox revisions and are usually attributed to Mozilla developers.
> 
> Some of these issues could be exploited to attain memory corruption and Mozilla believes that a determined attacker could manage to create an exploit and run arbitrary code on the machine.


Don't worry 37 is on it's way! Mozilla have made an overhaul to the build system again and it's taking a while to get it compiling properly again .


----------



## Mr6686

Quote:


> to donate to charities


and
Quote:


> to raise money for Waterfox


give me a sense of contradiction.

Is that a percentage is given to charities and the rest to Waterfox?

Edit:
Quote:


> The charities are the ones that select the % of the donation that goes to Waterfox.


Ok, sorry I jumped a paragraph when reading.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> to donate to charities
> 
> 
> 
> and
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> to raise money for Waterfox
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> give me a sense of contradiction.
> 
> Is that a percentage is given to charities and the rest to Waterfox?
Click to expand...

The charities are the ones that select the % of the donation that goes to Waterfox.


----------



## jjpjimmy

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Haven't managed to test any exotic refresh rates such as those. What exactly happens?


I don't have a video/image of this since I don't have anything to use silverlight at the moment but these video show a similar effect (albeit on Google Chrome, but the behavior is same for firefox)... The entire screen (one playing the video) goes into full screen static. Closing plugin container via task manager closes the full screen static.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll err, have a look into it.
> 
> If you can reproduce it in Firefox, maybe it'd be good to submit a bug report to Mozilla directly.
> Interesting. I don't suppose you've got app.update.url.override set in your config settings?
> Either way issues seem to be sporadic. I'm working hard to make sure aggressive optimisations aren't made on code that needs to be very stable or precise.


search data charities sold too
search data to companies charities sold too
money to waterfox charities give ?

why data sell ? violated feel by this









happy not change patience was waterfox not use again change come waterfox security important not waterfox update slow.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jjpjimmy*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Haven't managed to test any exotic refresh rates such as those. What exactly happens?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't have a video/image of this since I don't have anything to use silverlight at the moment but these video show a similar effect (albeit on Google Chrome, but the behavior is same for firefox)... The entire screen (one playing the video) goes into full screen static. Closing plugin container via task manager closes the full screen static.
Click to expand...

Oh right I see, very strange!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'll err, have a look into it.
> 
> If you can reproduce it in Firefox, maybe it'd be good to submit a bug report to Mozilla directly.
> Interesting. I don't suppose you've got app.update.url.override set in your config settings?
> Either way issues seem to be sporadic. I'm working hard to make sure aggressive optimisations aren't made on code that needs to be very stable or precise.
> 
> 
> 
> search data charities sold too
> search data to companies charities sold too
> money to waterfox charities give ?
> 
> why data sell ? violated feel by this
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> happy not change patience was waterfox not use again change come waterfox security important not waterfox update slow.
Click to expand...

I don't understand? No data is collected? At all? It's going to be similar to StartPage or DuckDuckGo, but instead of the money going to them, it'll mostly be going to charity and a bit to Waterfox?

Also you're not even being forced to use it? This is a chance to actually make some good on the web.

Also I've been working 3 days straight on the latest update, but Mozilla have changed a lot and I'm working my best to get the build out.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oh right I see, very strange!
> 
> I don't understand? No data is collected? At all? It's going to be similar to StartPage or DuckDuckGo, but instead of the money going to them, it'll mostly be going to charity and a bit to Waterfox?
> Also you're not even being forced to use it? This is a chance to actually make some good on the web.
> 
> Also I've been working 3 days straight on the latest update, but Mozilla have changed a lot and I'm working my best to get the build out.


data collected below see

*What is a tracking cookie?*

Like every type of program out there, there are versions of cookies that present a risk to the safety of information you enter online. These are known as tracking cookies - specialized versions of cookies that record your entries and report them back to wherever the cookies' designer wants your data to go.

*How do cookies work?*

A regular cookie is essentially a small text file, sometimes only a few kilobytes in size, which contains options the page will load for you upon subsequent visits.

For example, if you turn the SafeSearch option to "high" or "off" in Google, your Web browser would edit the cookie for google.com with a bit of text that tells the Google website to set the SafeSearch option to your setting. However, instead of being held on Google's servers, the cookies are stored on your computer.

That's because servers that host websites already contain massive amounts of data. If the settings for every user who came to each website were stored on Web servers, many site servers would quickly run out of storage space. This is why the load is spread out among individual visitors.

*What do tracking cookies do differently?*

A tracking cookie takes the regular cookie process one step further and sends a log of your online activities, usually tied to your Internet Protocol (IP) address, to a remote database for analysis. Many tracking cookies are benign and want only to use your information, along with the data of millions of other anonymous users, for marketing analysis.

However, some cookies are designed by programmers to send specific user information, which can include names and addresses, out to the tracker host.

If the host recognizes a cookie on the browser whenever an ad or page is loaded, it can send the record of your visit to the logs and more precisely target you with ads geared to your next visit. Some ads will even address you by name and mention your location.

To many Web users, such practices are an invasion of privacy, and naturally lead to concerns about whom the ad companies are sharing personal data with.

The federal government is moving forward with a "Do Not Track" proposal that would let people control exactly what they divulge online. Most Web browsers have made Do Not Track an optional feature that users can switch on, but most websites don't honor it.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Oh right I see, very strange!
> 
> I don't understand? No data is collected? At all? It's going to be similar to StartPage or DuckDuckGo, but instead of the money going to them, it'll mostly be going to charity and a bit to Waterfox?
> Also you're not even being forced to use it? This is a chance to actually make some good on the web.
> 
> Also I've been working 3 days straight on the latest update, but Mozilla have changed a lot and I'm working my best to get the build out.
> 
> 
> 
> data collected below see
> 
> *What is a tracking cookie?*
> 
> Like every type of program out there, there are versions of cookies that present a risk to the safety of information you enter online. These are known as tracking cookies - specialized versions of cookies that record your entries and report them back to wherever the cookies' designer wants your data to go.
> 
> *How do cookies work?*
> 
> A regular cookie is essentially a small text file, sometimes only a few kilobytes in size, which contains options the page will load for you upon subsequent visits.
> 
> For example, if you turn the SafeSearch option to "high" or "off" in Google, your Web browser would edit the cookie for google.com with a bit of text that tells the Google website to set the SafeSearch option to your setting. However, instead of being held on Google's servers, the cookies are stored on your computer.
> 
> That's because servers that host websites already contain massive amounts of data. If the settings for every user who came to each website were stored on Web servers, many site servers would quickly run out of storage space. This is why the load is spread out among individual visitors.
> 
> *What do tracking cookies do differently?*
> 
> A tracking cookie takes the regular cookie process one step further and sends a log of your online activities, usually tied to your Internet Protocol (IP) address, to a remote database for analysis. Many tracking cookies are benign and want only to use your information, along with the data of millions of other anonymous users, for marketing analysis.
> 
> However, some cookies are designed by programmers to send specific user information, which can include names and addresses, out to the tracker host.
> 
> If the host recognizes a cookie on the browser whenever an ad or page is loaded, it can send the record of your visit to the logs and more precisely target you with ads geared to your next visit. Some ads will even address you by name and mention your location.
> 
> To many Web users, such practices are an invasion of privacy, and naturally lead to concerns about whom the ad companies are sharing personal data with.
> 
> The federal government is moving forward with a "Do Not Track" proposal that would let people control exactly what they divulge online. Most Web browsers have made Do Not Track an optional feature that users can switch on, but most websites don't honor it.
Click to expand...

I think you should consider the rest of the article. Nowhere did I state we'd be using tracking cookies. Also don't forget we're in the EU and there are cookie laws we MUST adhere to. Read more here and here. Basically because we'll be a legal entity in the UK, we have to describe exactly how the cookie (just one) is used and the user has to accept before they can use the search engine. It's as simple as that. This was done to prevent things such as the immoral tracking cookies.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> *How can we trust the search engine?*
> 
> None of your personal information is kept (everything is anonymous). In fact, we don't even ask for any (and none of your searches are stored anywhere)! The only thing that happens is that a cookie will be stored, which will hold the data for the charitable donation to be managed. That's it!


that cookie tracking
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I think you should consider the rest of the article. Nowhere did I state we'd be using tracking cookies. Also don't forget we're in the EU and there are cookie laws we MUST adhere to. Read more here and here. Basically because we'll be a legal entity in the UK, we have to describe exactly how the cookie (just one) is used and the user has to accept before they can use the search engine. It's as simple as that. This was done to prevent things such as the immoral tracking cookies.


ok uk not world policy different still tracking cookie
why not patreon kickstarter
not sell data


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *malcomX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> *How can we trust the search engine?*
> 
> None of your personal information is kept (everything is anonymous). In fact, we don't even ask for any (and none of your searches are stored anywhere)! The only thing that happens is that a cookie will be stored, which will hold the data for the charitable donation to be managed. That's it!
> 
> 
> 
> that cookie tracking
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I think you should consider the rest of the article. Nowhere did I state we'd be using tracking cookies. Also don't forget we're in the EU and there are cookie laws we MUST adhere to. Read more here and here. Basically because we'll be a legal entity in the UK, we have to describe exactly how the cookie (just one) is used and the user has to accept before they can use the search engine. It's as simple as that. This was done to prevent things such as the immoral tracking cookies.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> ok uk not world policy different still tracking cookie
> why not patreon kickstarter
> not sell data
Click to expand...

The cookie will hold what charity the donation goes to. That's it. And yes that's true except because we're in the UK we'll follow UK law.

I don't get what's hard to understand?


----------



## chorse

I'm ok with the Charity concept. It appears to be an elegant solution to help Waterfox out. I'm not to concerned about the Waterfox cookie, It's the cookies that almost every other website that's out there use that I would be focusing on.

Good luck with your new initiative.


----------



## MrAlex

Hi everyone so here is a 37.0.1 test build.

Sorry for being a few days late with this build, Mozilla disabled support for Visual Studio 2010 and introduced many C++11 features which broke the old build system I was using, so it took me a while to fix all the issues!

This includes all the changes and security features in Firefox 37.0 and 37.0.1 as well as all the general Waterfox improvements 

If there are any XP and Vista 64-bit users would be great to know how Waterfox runs on your systems.

As always please let me know of any issues you have!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> I'm ok with the Charity concept. It appears to be an elegant solution to help Waterfox out. I'm not to concerned about the Waterfox cookie, It's the cookies that almost every other website that's out there use that I would be focusing on.
> 
> Good luck with your new initiative.


Thanks for your feedback! I appreciate it.


----------



## Mr6686

Exashare videoplayer freezes (video freezes after some minutes, audio ok) with version 37.0.1, no problem with version 36.0.4.
Video 1 and Video 2 if you want testing with same urls that shows me the problem for now.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Installed an addon called

HTML5 Video Everywhere!

DO IT!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> Exashare videoplayer freezes (video freezes after some minutes, audio ok) with version 37.0.1, no problem with version 36.0.4.
> Video 1 and Video 2 if you want testing with same urls that shows me the problem for now.


Found the issue, you need to disable Adblock for it to work.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Installed an addon called
> 
> HTML5 Video Everywhere!
> 
> DO IT!


Good add-on!


----------



## seti

Things seem pretty good by me...well done Alex, thanks!


----------



## kevindd992002

I'm at 36.0.4 and was notified that there's a new build and so I updated. During the update, my Internet connection went haywire and I had to cancel the download of the upgrade. After I fix my Internet connection, I went to Help -> About and noticed that it does not detect the new update again. Why so?


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Found the issue, you need to disable Adblock for it to work.
> 
> Good add-on!


I've had it with flashplayer crashes. Gone for good. YAY!


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *seti*
> 
> Things seem pretty good by me...well done Alex, thanks!


Excellent, you're welcome 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I'm at 36.0.4 and was notified that there's a new build and so I updated. During the update, my Internet connection went haywire and I had to cancel the download of the upgrade. After I fix my Internet connection, I went to Help -> About and noticed that it does not detect the new update again. Why so?


It probably thinks you don't want the update. There's a setting in about:config, can't remember what it's called but if you search for 36.0.4 there should be a bold entry called something like dontupdate.36.0.4 etc. Or force the update via making a setting called *app.update.url.override* with the value of *app.update.url*.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Found the issue, you need to disable Adblock for it to work.
> 
> Good add-on!
> 
> 
> 
> I've had it with flashplayer crashes. Gone for good. YAY!
Click to expand...

Yes that is convenient!


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Does anyone else get choppy video playback using any browser Firefox based? Any form of video, be it Youtube, twitch, Hulu, all have somewhat choppy video playback. Chrome is nice and smooth. It doesn't matter if I choose HTML5 or Flash.


----------



## seti

In the past I always had to turn off hardware acceleration to get smooth video, especially on youtube. In recent builds it stay off and I don't have that issue any longer.

I read the above post and thought I needed to be clearer when I said turn off hardware acceleration. It would be off in Waterfox, but if I right click a Flash video, go to settings, and I had to turn off or uncheck the hardware acceleration option. It still holds true that in recent builds it is always off when I check by the right click->Settings process.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

The latest version isn't as bad as it used to be, but it's still a little off. For the most part it's not a big deal, but it's noticable on 60fps videos played in full screen.


----------



## chorse

I don't see any issues playing video in WF. I did get the bad script freeze on you tube, but otherwise videos play fine.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

the html 5 everywhere plugin works much better than the flashplayer plugin for video playback.


----------



## seti

Thanks GunnzAkimbo, I am totally diggin' the HTML5 Video Everywhere FF plugin. It works wonders.


----------



## Gloucesterkiwi

Hi, I'm new to the forum and Waterfox also, so please bear with me.

I have Waterfox pinned to my Win 7 taskbar and have some links (9) pinned to the icon- by dragging the url from the browser address bar to the icon.

Recently I've not been able to pin any more links.

Is 9 links, the limit?

I recall that previously I've had more than 9 links on the icon, so is there a setting that I need to change to get back to the previous behavior?

Would appreciate some advice on this.

Thanks.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gloucesterkiwi*
> 
> Hi, I'm new to the forum and Waterfox also, so please bear with me.
> 
> I have Waterfox pinned to my Win 7 taskbar and have some links (9) pinned to the icon- by dragging the url from the browser address bar to the icon.
> 
> Recently I've not been able to pin any more links.
> 
> Is 9 links, the limit?
> 
> I recall that previously I've had more than 9 links on the icon, so is there a setting that I need to change to get back to the previous behavior?
> 
> Would appreciate some advice on this.
> 
> Thanks.


Could you show a screenshot of the limitation? Will help seeing what's exactly wrong


----------



## Gloucesterkiwi

Screenshot attached - hope you can help

ScreenShotPinned.jpg 32k .jpg file


----------



## safari801

So Sourceforge has version 38. I downloaded and installed it and so far: great


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Gloucesterkiwi*
> 
> Screenshot attached - hope you can help
> 
> ScreenShotPinned.jpg 32k .jpg file


Ah I see. I do belive 9 is the limit, but I can't confirm that. Here's the relevant code, but can't seem to see it being referenced anywhere else.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> So Sourceforge has version 38. I downloaded and installed it and so far: great


Excellent! Glad you're enjoying it.


----------



## thechas

Thank you Alex!

Version 38 installed and running with no issues so far.


----------



## themushroom

Version 38 will be browsing along well for awhile, then eventually at some random point when trying to click a tab closed it won't close -- and after a minute, an error saying there was a script problem comes up. No matter which button is pressed (keep trying or quit) that tab and every tab created after the error cannot be closed. The tabs are useable but not closeable.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Version 38 will be browsing along well for awhile, then eventually at some random point when trying to click a tab closed it won't close -- and after a minute, an error saying there was a script problem comes up. No matter which button is pressed (keep trying or quit) that tab and every tab created after the error cannot be closed. The tabs are useable but not closeable.


Which extensions do you have installed?


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Which extensions do you have installed?


Classic Theme Restorer, Xkit, and Flash Video Downloader -- nothing new.


----------



## Tsyphon

Waterfox 38 is "Not a valid Win32 application" upon trying to open Waterfox.exe after upgrade. Vista 64bit. I assume it's do to issues with Vista since I have only been able to run version 35.xxx. Everything after that either causes weird text graphical issues or just won't start


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Is there a plugin that can disable embedded Youtube videos unless I click them? The problem I'm having is if I view a thread that has a lot of Youtube videos, the page will freeze until every video is loaded. This is not just on OCN, it's every forum.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxpenguinxx*
> 
> Is there a plugin that can disable embedded Youtube videos unless I click them? The problem I'm having is if I view a thread that has a lot of Youtube videos, the page will freeze until every video is loaded. This is not just on OCN, it's every forum.


Try Flashblock!









https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/flashblock/

"Note: Flashblock does not work with Javascript disabled or with NoScript installed." <-- Not strictly true, it's just that NoScript will block any JS invoking flash, so NoScript will take priority. For any NoScript-_whitelisted_ sites Flashblock should behave normally.

Also, to force Youtube to use Flash, do this: Type about:config in your addres bar, and in the search box (accept the warning), type *foundation* and look for "media.windows-media-foundation.enabled". Toggle that to "false" if it isn't already set.

Aside: The above should work for Pale Moon users, as well.


----------



## tsm106

Has anyone noticed this strange context menu issue where upon right clicking there is no option to refresh the page until you click another tab or open another tab? Instead I only get the option of stop loading. It happens a lot browsing ocn and its annoying as heck.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> Waterfox 38 is "Not a valid Win32 application" upon trying to open Waterfox.exe after upgrade. Vista 64bit. I assume it's do to issues with Vista since I have only been able to run version 35.xxx. Everything after that either causes weird text graphical issues or just won't start


Yes, Since Waterfox is a 64 bit application, it will come up as not being a valid Win32 application.
Most likely, Windows did not register Waterfox as a 64 bit application when the update installed.

You can usually fix this by downloading and running the full installer rather than the update.

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/

I think once I had to uninstall the old version of Waterfox manually to get the new version to register properly as a 64 bit application.

Chas


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Try Flashblock!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/flashblock/
> 
> "Note: Flashblock does not work with Javascript disabled or with NoScript installed." <-- Not strictly true, it's just that NoScript will block any JS invoking flash, so NoScript will take priority. For any NoScript-_whitelisted_ sites Flashblock should behave normally.
> 
> Also, to force Youtube to use Flash, do this: Type about:config in your addres bar, and in the search box (accept the warning), type *foundation* and look for "media.windows-media-foundation.enabled". Toggle that to "false" if it isn't already set.
> 
> Aside: The above should work for Pale Moon users, as well.


It claims it blocks HTML5, but sadly it does not, or I'm not setting it right. Forcing youtube to use flash kind of defeats the purpose of using Waterfox.


----------



## rainn

Why does Waterfox 38.0 run the GPU at the low-3D power state (1177mhz) continuously?

I tried out Firefox Beta for a bit and saw that it downclocks the GPU as it should to 135mhz, but in Waterfox it's stuck at 1177mhz constantly.
Memory clock runs at an increased speed as well, from about 305mhz to 3500mhz.
When the 38.0 update came out, I went back to Waterfox to see if the issue was fixed and it appeared to be the same as the 38.0 Firefox Beta for a bit, but now I have the same problem after installing the new Nvidia driver.

Already tried uninstalling and reinstalling Firefox, Waterfox, and Nvidia drivers, nothing seems to change when I use Waterfox.









Please look into this Alex, I'd love to keep using Waterfox!

Ok, figured out what was causing it. If you have [Prefer maximum performance] in Nvidia 3D settings in the Nvidia Control Panel as a global setting, a separate profile has to be made for Waterfox where Adaptive is selected for the Power Management Mode.
I think Firefox does this when it is installed, whereas Waterfox doesn't.


----------



## Quantum Reality

The reason why forcing flash is suggested is that I don't otherwise know how to block automatic HTML5 playing.


----------



## mauritos

this is the most unstable version,crashing few times per day???laste version was working perfectly.


----------



## mauritos

found the problem but not the solution yet,every time i open youtube.com waterfox crash,instaled 37.0.1 and it is not crashing.

bp-9c2018dc-226e-4f92-9e07-871f82150519
19.5.2015. 19:11
bp-3f0a5af5-1048-472e-bd99-f21a22150519
19.5.2015. 19:04
bp-02976a76-86cd-4535-98f8-ff2f32150519
19.5.2015. 19:04
bp-2f0c8361-3c68-4b8b-af50-583da2150519
19.5.2015. 19:02
bp-5afb02ad-5227-46c7-8115-2b9312150519
19.5.2015. 19:02
bp-ae26cadf-ec41-4d11-8499-6b0332150519
19.5.2015. 18:59
bp-281762ab-81f6-4508-9199-002d32150519
19.5.2015. 18:56
bp-e77c10ed-6bd8-4756-be6f-06ca92150519
19.5.2015. 18:55
bp-e1f166b2-7682-4eae-96b7-094842150519
19.5.2015. 18:54
bp-6520094d-89ee-4db8-a498-7b30e2150519
19.5.2015. 17:51
bp-202fe743-8148-4f03-be4d-855012150518
18.5.2015. 22:13
bp-6a1efa99-6869-4595-a9b0-6691b2150518
18.5.2015. 22:13
bp-d42de440-cca1-4bab-8953-ab0342150518
18.5.2015. 22:13
bp-c6daae7d-80cd-447d-919b-e237d2150517
17.5.2015. 20:55
bp-993dcd1a-ce41-4988-ba71-f61592150517
17.5.2015. 18:57
bp-d22304d7-ca99-459f-8c4a-8953b2150517
17.5.2015. 18:55
bp-c5aebe5f-2f49-4058-8337-5e5092150503
3.5.2015. 17:29

http://www.pohrani.com/f/1b/Ui/unmDMkf/screenhunter483-may-19-1.jpg

http://www.pohrani.com/f/2m/bH/2UO31EFe/screenhunter484-may-19-1.jpg


----------



## Tsyphon

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Yes, Since Waterfox is a 64 bit application, it will come up as not being a valid Win32 application.
> Most likely, Windows did not register Waterfox as a 64 bit application when the update installed.
> 
> You can usually fix this by downloading and running the full installer rather than the update.
> 
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
> 
> I think once I had to uninstall the old version of Waterfox manually to get the new version to register properly as a 64 bit application.
> 
> Chas


Still didn't work. I tried extracting and copy-pasting into my Waterfox folder and installing from a downloaded full file from the site. I also uninstalled then reinstalled Waterfox.

Trying to use 37.0.1 from a setup file I still have (since I can't find this version on the Older Versions link on the official page), I can install only by manually copying the files into my Waterfox folder, as Alex has told me that the installer is incompatible with Vista. This method works to install, however, with any update after 35.xxxr the end result is an unusable program. Such as v38 saying it "Isn't a valid Win32 application" or v36 / 37 (all versions) returning the following graphical bug:


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> Still didn't work. I tried extracting and copy-pasting into my Waterfox folder and installing from a downloaded full file from the site. I also uninstalled then reinstalled Waterfox.
> 
> Trying to use 37.0.1 from a setup file I still have (since I can't find this version on the Older Versions link on the official page), I can install only by manually copying the files into my Waterfox folder, as Alex has told me that the installer is incompatible with Vista. This method works to install, however, with any update after 35.xxxr the end result is an unusable program. Such as v38 saying it "Isn't a valid Win32 application" or v36 / 37 (all versions) returning the following graphical bug:


Hello, I understand your issue better now.

This is the key: "Alex has told me that the installer is incompatible with Vista."!

By just extracting and copying files over, they are not getting registered properly by Windows.

I just spent some time searching through my registry and there are a lot of entries for Waterfox. This includes a number of .DLL files in the Waterfox folder that have their own registry keys.

Without being able to run the installer and register the modules, and replace files in other folders that might have been updated, your options are limited.

The best fix would be if the Waterfox code could be packaged in a Vista compatible installer.

The only other option that comes to mind would be to install Waterfox on a Windows 7 system with a verbose system monitor program running that captures and reports all of the changes that the installer makes.

Chas


----------



## Tsyphon

That explains the issues with v36 and v37, ask those are the ones where the installer doesn't work. The v38 installer, however, does run to completion, and it is the one returning the "Not a valid Win32" error. Perhaps although it runs fully, the installer for it, too, is incompatible with Vista?

I wouldn't mind running on v35 except that I get pretty big memory leaks leading to 2.5m and 3m memory usage after awhile.


----------



## themushroom

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> I wouldn't mind running on v35 except that I get pretty big memory leaks leading to 2.5m and 3m memory usage after awhile.


Which is why a newer version had to come out, we were going crazy about that issue for awhile.

As for a Vista-compatable installer... I have to ask, what's the hitch on that? What makes it not Vista-compatable?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> Waterfox 38 is "Not a valid Win32 application" upon trying to open Waterfox.exe after upgrade. Vista 64bit. I assume it's do to issues with Vista since I have only been able to run version 35.xxx. Everything after that either causes weird text graphical issues or just won't start


That's my fault! Mozilla removed support for Vista builds and I forgot to revert the patch back in the latest build. 38.0.1 fixes this 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tsm106*
> 
> Has anyone noticed this strange context menu issue where upon right clicking there is no option to refresh the page until you click another tab or open another tab? Instead I only get the option of stop loading. It happens a lot browsing ocn and its annoying as heck.


Are you able to take a recording of the issue at all?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rainn*
> 
> Why does Waterfox 38.0 run the GPU at the low-3D power state (1177mhz) continuously?
> 
> I tried out Firefox Beta for a bit and saw that it downclocks the GPU as it should to 135mhz, but in Waterfox it's stuck at 1177mhz constantly.
> Memory clock runs at an increased speed as well, from about 305mhz to 3500mhz.
> When the 38.0 update came out, I went back to Waterfox to see if the issue was fixed and it appeared to be the same as the 38.0 Firefox Beta for a bit, but now I have the same problem after installing the new Nvidia driver.
> 
> Already tried uninstalling and reinstalling Firefox, Waterfox, and Nvidia drivers, nothing seems to change when I use Waterfox.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please look into this Alex, I'd love to keep using Waterfox!
> 
> Ok, figured out what was causing it. If you have [Prefer maximum performance] in Nvidia 3D settings in the Nvidia Control Panel as a global setting, a separate profile has to be made for Waterfox where Adaptive is selected for the Power Management Mode.
> I think Firefox does this when it is installed, whereas Waterfox doesn't.


I think that's a Firefox bug that they fixed in 38.0.1. Could it be related to this?


Systems with first generation NVidia Optimus graphics cards may crash on start-up

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mauritos*
> 
> this is the most unstable version,crashing few times per day???laste version was working perfectly.


I'll have a look into your crashes. Could I get your system specifications??

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *themushroom*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> I wouldn't mind running on v35 except that I get pretty big memory leaks leading to 2.5m and 3m memory usage after awhile.
> 
> 
> 
> Which is why a newer version had to come out, we were going crazy about that issue for awhile.
> 
> As for a Vista-compatable installer... I have to ask, what's the hitch on that? What makes it not Vista-compatable?
Click to expand...

Basically the installer has a check {AtLeastWin7}. It used to be Vista before, but I've made it {AtLeastWinXP} so 64-Bit XP users don't get left behind. Unfortunately I used the incorrect build SUBSYSTEM set to 7 instead of XP. 38.0.1 should HOPEFULLY work!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> That explains the issues with v36 and v37, ask those are the ones where the installer doesn't work. The v38 installer, however, does run to completion, and it is the one returning the "Not a valid Win32" error. Perhaps although it runs fully, the installer for it, too, is incompatible with Vista?
> 
> I wouldn't mind running on v35 except that I get pretty big memory leaks leading to 2.5m and 3m memory usage after awhile.


See the responses above


----------



## safari801

Have had a lot of issues with flash lately. Crashing, stuttering playback, etc. Disabled flash and problem goes away. Tried cyberfox and pale moon and same problem. At work, there's been a lot of flash crashes too on machines running firefox. Checked my version of flash and it's 64 bit, so I disabled flash and most sites default to HTML5 video with no problems. I hope we can get rid of flash soon anyway and I uninstalled JAVA a while back and haven't missed it either.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Dont use flash, use an addon called HTML5 Video everywhere!


----------



## safari801

I've already installed that but some sites will only work on flash. Where I work has had the same problem and IT won't let us install HTML5 video everywhere until they test it. It's not a big deal on my machine as HTML5 works very well.


----------



## LelouchLamperou

For some reason, my Waterfox keeps crashing every single time after I updated from 35.0 to 38.0. The only thing I did after the update is updating IDM. I uninstalled IDM but the crashes still persists.


----------



## Lopser

I am testing the browser in peacekeeper:
http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/

32 bit Firefox 35 - 4120
Waterfox 35 - 4930
.......
32 bit Firefox 38 - 4527
Waterfox 38 - 4574

Why a new Waterfox is slower?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Have had a lot of issues with flash lately. Crashing, stuttering playback, etc. Disabled flash and problem goes away. Tried cyberfox and pale moon and same problem. At work, there's been a lot of flash crashes too on machines running firefox. Checked my version of flash and it's 64 bit, so I disabled flash and most sites default to HTML5 video with no problems. I hope we can get rid of flash soon anyway and I uninstalled JAVA a while back and haven't missed it either.


Yes add ons seem to be getting phased out and Mozilla have made good way with Shumway.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Dont use flash, use an addon called HTML5 Video everywhere!


Yep!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> I've already installed that but some sites will only work on flash. Where I work has had the same problem and IT won't let us install HTML5 video everywhere until they test it. It's not a big deal on my machine as HTML5 works very well.


Have you tried using Shumway for certain flash apps?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *LelouchLamperou*
> 
> For some reason, my Waterfox keeps crashing every single time after I updated from 35.0 to 38.0. The only thing I did after the update is updating IDM. I uninstalled IDM but the crashes still persists.


Might be a Waterfox issue. Do you have any system specs?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> I am testing the browser in peacekeeper:
> http://peacekeeper.futuremark.com/
> 
> 32 bit Firefox 35 - 4120
> Waterfox 35 - 4930
> .......
> 32 bit Firefox 38 - 4527
> Waterfox 38 - 4574
> 
> Why a new Waterfox is slower?


Hmmm not sure. Might be a performance regression somewhere, will have to see what causes that. Could I have your system specifications?


----------



## Lopser

Quote:


> Could I have your system specifications?


Windows 7 SP1, Intel i5 3330, Intel HD 2500, HDD 7200 prm, 12 GB Ram 1600mhz, Waterfox with a clean profile.

Maybe it's _disable-jemalloc_ ?


----------



## safari801

Tried shumway and so far working better than flash, so completely removed flash and no video problems whatsoever. I've also got HTML5 video everywhere installed .


----------



## safari801

Just browsing on Techspot and lo and behold I see Waterfox 38.0.1 vailable for download.


----------



## Panwaffles

With no previous update from MrAlex here or on the official website?


----------



## safari801

Yeah, go to techspot and see. I found it by accident. Click on "downloads" go to "internet tool" and "browsing."


----------



## Panwaffles

Yeah, I saw it, but there's no way I'm downloading that before previous confirmation from MrAlex.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Panwaffles*
> 
> Yeah, I saw it, but there's no way I'm downloading that before previous confirmation from MrAlex.


Wise idea. Anyone could compile Firefox and claim it's Waterfox, and inject malicious code into it.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Incidentally, FF 38.0.5 came out; when can we get a working WF 38.0.5 build?


----------



## Pholostan

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Yeah, go to techspot and see. I found it by accident. Click on "downloads" go to "internet tool" and "browsing."


Sounds like the test build that Alex did some days ago:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/38ulf2/download_waterfox_3810_test_build/


----------



## safari801

Yeah that's probably it. Funny it would be on techspot first though. I did a scan with malewarebytes and norton and it came up clean so I went ahead and installed it. So far so good.


----------



## Schmuckley

I'm having problems adding my profile to Waterfox portable.
I really would like to make it happen.


----------



## Morphello

Just noticed that my PC was acting really sluggish, so I quickly checked my task manager only to notice Waterfox taking 5gig of ram.

http://i.imgur.com/osM3L4X.png

I was going through a reddit thread, "your favourite video on the internet that is less than 10 seconds in length" or some such, watching the funny videos. Each video was quick, so i was constantly opening videos and closing the tabs. About 30 videos in, I notice large freezes in waterfox and my whole pc struggling.

Tried to do a memory report, which I've attached below. It seems as if there was 1.5gig of js and 3.5 of other stuff.

memory-report.zip 520k .zip file


I'm using the following addons plus a css style for youtube and the latest developer version of YoutubeCenter.

I'm not entirely sure where the leak is coming from. Running "minimize memory usage" from about:memory causes a 100mb INCREASE in memory usage every time I run it.

If anyone wants to have a look at the memory report json file, or point me in the right direction to some tools that can break it down and help me identify issues with it, please do so. Just trying to provide as much info as possible to diagnose what could potentially be an issue with waterfox (as my partner uses firefox beta release and didn't have nearly as much memory usage after watching the same videos in the same way with the same addons).


----------



## safari801

Waterfox 38.1.0 is out on https://www.waterfoxproject.org/


----------



## genius5000

Hello all,

I am having an issue since the version 38.0.0 came out.
Any website has any link which opens in a new window it ends up opening in a popup window, ie, no scroll bars, no bookmarks toolbar, so on ...

Is there anything I should do in the configuration in order to solve this problem?

Attached a screenshot.

Thanks

popup.jpg 368k .jpg file


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Tried shumway and so far working better than flash, so completely removed flash and no video problems whatsoever. I've also got HTML5 video everywhere installed .


Yes Shumway is really good! Very impressed with what Mozilla have done so far.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Could I have your system specifications?
> 
> 
> 
> Windows 7 SP1, Intel i5 3330, Intel HD 2500, HDD 7200 prm, 12 GB Ram 1600mhz, Waterfox with a clean profile.
> 
> Maybe it's disable-jemalloc ?
Click to expand...

Hmm strange. Could be, working hard to get jemalloc to work but it seems impossible at times! I'll get there eventually I hope.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Incidentally, FF 38.0.5 came out; when can we get a working WF 38.0.5 build?


Sorry I forgot to post the test build over here! I'll be sure to post the next one .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Pholostan*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Yeah, go to techspot and see. I found it by accident. Click on "downloads" go to "internet tool" and "browsing."
> 
> 
> 
> Sounds like the test build that Alex did some days ago:
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/38ulf2/download_waterfox_3810_test_build/%5B/URL
> 
> I'm having problems adding my profile to Waterfox portable.
> I really would like to make it happen.
Click to expand...

Have you tried using Firefox Sync? Makes it much easier! Also if you follow these instructions, just copy the data inside of the folder and paste it in the relevant portable directory, does it not work?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Morphello*
> 
> Just noticed that my PC was acting really sluggish, so I quickly checked my task manager only to notice Waterfox taking 5gig of ram.
> 
> http://i.imgur.com/osM3L4X.png
> 
> I was going through a reddit thread, "your favourite video on the internet that is less than 10 seconds in length" or some such, watching the funny videos. Each video was quick, so i was constantly opening videos and closing the tabs. About 30 videos in, I notice large freezes in waterfox and my whole pc struggling.
> 
> Tried to do a memory report, which I've attached below. It seems as if there was 1.5gig of js and 3.5 of other stuff.
> 
> memory-report.zip 520k .zip file
> 
> 
> I'm using the following addons plus a css style for youtube and the latest developer version of YoutubeCenter.
> 
> I'm not entirely sure where the leak is coming from. Running "minimize memory usage" from about:memory causes a 100mb INCREASE in memory usage every time I run it.
> 
> If anyone wants to have a look at the memory report json file, or point me in the right direction to some tools that can break it down and help me identify issues with it, please do so. Just trying to provide as much info as possible to diagnose what could potentially be an issue with waterfox (as my partner uses firefox beta release and didn't have nearly as much memory usage after watching the same videos in the same way with the same addons).


Possibility in an add-on making it worse (you can try using safe mode to disable add-ons to see if it makes any difference).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *genius5000*
> 
> Hello all,
> 
> I am having an issue since the version 38.0.0 came out.
> Any website has any link which opens in a new window it ends up opening in a popup window, ie, no scroll bars, no bookmarks toolbar, so on ...
> 
> Is there anything I should do in the configuration in order to solve this problem?
> 
> Attached a screenshot.
> 
> Thanks
> 
> popup.jpg 368k .jpg file


That's strange. Does this occur in safe mode or on a new profile?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Waterfox 38.1.0 is out on https://www.waterfoxproject.org/


Yep


----------



## genius5000

Quote:


> That's strange. Does this occur in safe mode or on a new profile?


Sorry, I wouldnt really know. I'm kind of new at it.
How do I find it out anyway?

Thank you


----------



## 4LC4PON3

im not sure whats going on with my waterfox but its been running slow. typing seems to drag behind and places like amazon scrolling is chuggy. im not sure if its flash or adblock that could be causing it but im slowly starting to dislike waterfox.

the one thing im noticing is High ram usage. anywhere betweeb 2gb to 5gb when it gets chuggy which is pretty often. I am not running any addons except adblock. switching to chrome seems to fix all of my issues that im having. no chugging at all


----------



## Tsyphon

Continuing from my issue mentioned on Page 687 and 688,

Unfortunately 38.1 still returns the error that it is not a valid Win32 program. I have tried uninstalling (via the Control Panel > Programs and Features) then reinstalling to no avail. If I am to manually full uninstall, is there a way to back up my profiles and addon and such. Also note I have been keeping FF up to date since Waterfox hasn't been working for the past month or two for me, if that causes any conflicts.


----------



## msuguy71

Since upgrading to 38 and now 38.01, I keep getting BSOD, usually while watching YouTube videos. I used to get crashes a lot when using Flash with YouTube, but now I use HTML5 exclusively. Would the crash.dmp file help?


----------



## kevindd992002

What's the difference between HTML5 Video Everywhere and Shumway?


----------



## genius5000

Unfortunately I could not get any help here to my issue on page 690/#6897
(http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-38-0-14-may-firefox-64-bit/6890#post_24043838)

So I went back to version 37.0.1


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What's the difference between HTML5 Video Everywhere and Shumway?


HTML5 video everywhere only support Youtube, Facebook, Vimeo, Dailymotion, Break, Metacafe.

Not really everywhere...

Not sure about shumway but it should replace any video sites.


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What's the difference between HTML5 Video Everywhere and Shumway?


Shumway replaces flash in most cases. I uninstalled java months ago and flash last week. There's another security up date for flash today, by the way


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Shumway replaces flash in most cases. I uninstalled java months ago and flash last week. There's another security up date for flash today, by the way


Ok. And how about places that require java?


----------



## safari801

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok. And how about places that require java?


I uninstalled java 4 months ago, and haven't had any need for it. No website has asked for java. Plus it's too much of a security risk.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Been playing with nightly 41 and i like the multi process feature.

And its a fast browser.


----------



## WetLook

I am having a problem accessing this web site: https://www.sonicdrivein.com/
When I try to go to the web site, Waterfox 38.1.0 freezes.

I then have to close the Waterfox program.
I included a screen shot showing the error.

What might be causing this problem?
I can access this web site using Internet Explorer 11.


I am using Windows 7 Professional (64Bit) SP1


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I am having a problem accessing this web site: https://www.sonicdrivein.com/
> When I try to go to the web site, Waterfox 38.1.0 freezes.
> 
> I then have to close the Waterfox program.
> I included a screen shot showing the error.
> 
> What might be causing this problem?
> I can access this web site using Internet Explorer 11.
> 
> 
> I am using Windows 7 Professional (64Bit) SP1


I get the same error, I just went ahead and tried clicking that website.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

It's an issue with the site itself. One of the scripts is broken. It doesn't crash if you have no script, but the site does not load at all. I wish java script would die already.


----------



## WetLook

Are you having the same problem with this web site as kevindd992002 and myself.
Is Waterfox also freezing/locking up on you.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

If I allow scripts it does the same thing, it crashes and i'm forced to start Waterfox in safe mode to prevent it from reopening the webpage, or else it's an infinite crash loop...


----------



## GrumpyOne

Not sure if it's been asked already but I get a ton of screen tearing when watching Youtube vids, esp 1080 60.


----------



## GrumpyOne

To add to the above, I can't play anything higher than 1080p on youtube, not buffering fast enough. It's not my connection, works fine in Chrome.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey everyone on OCN! Sorry its been so long since I've replied, just moved countries after uni! Anyway here's a little post about what's happened to Waterfo so fare:

---

So it has been a while since I've made a post due to a lot happening in the background. As always your feedback is really important in shaping how these things go. There's now a small group of people who help develop the mobile apps and search engine separately from Waterfox.

I'd recommend reading

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/31vuqu/waterfox_4_year_anniversary_giving_back_to_charity/
[1] post about the search engine and what it's about.

*Waterfox Search*

The Waterfox search engine is now live at https://search.waterfoxproject.org[2] or from the browser since 38.1, just select it as your search engine to test it out! 39 will have it as the default search for new users. This search engine helps raise money for charity when you shop online, by taking commissions from retailers when you buy from their site. The websites who are part of the program will have a "GIVE" icon shown next to their link on the search results page. By choosing to shop on these sites, you will be generating funds for good causes.

*Anonymity and Privacy*

This has been a strong point for Waterfox and you don't have to worry about any of your information here - we don't collect any and the advertisers have NO clue who you are (we hide any information that could potentially identify you, similar to the way StartPage do it).

There is an issue though with generating revenue at checkouts for various stores such as Amazon in that the affiliate networks that generate money for the charities need to store a cookie to tell when you've completed a purchase. To counteract this, we take this cookie first and remove any of its abilities to know how you are, essentially making you anonymous to the affiliates.

I know Waterfox users are very tech savvy, so if you aren't comfortable by this or think this is a bad idea, please let me know. It's hard to find a way to get around this, as the affiliate needs to know when you make a purchase from one of the retailers. If you'd like diagrams or something similar to show the process, maybe that might help as well? Any idea for this would be greatly appreciated.

*Mobile Apps*

The mobile apps are developed in-house, which I hope you'll enjoy some originality! They're available to test at this current point in time for 



[3] and Android[4] , still waiting for approval on Windows Phone and BlackBerry. As always, please leave any feedback 

*Waterfox 39*

Preview Download[5]

Sorry for the delay on this, I had initially planned to switch over to Clang to build Waterfox and managed to get it working! The problem is that performance is abysmal compared to an Intel C++ build. So I'd wasted about 2 weeks of development time and had to quickly revert back to ICL. Changelog isn't very exciting this release, nothing has really changed here. Hopefully the mobile apps and search will be good enough .

I hope everyone is as happy and excited about all these releases as I am - this is a great opportunity to do some real good on the web and with your feedback, we'll be able to make the search experience as you want it. At the moment the it may seem slightly UK focused, but US users have access as well to retailers raising money for charity. We'll be choosing a US based charity fairly soon.

*Feedback*

*Please post your feedback in this thread, tell me exactly how you'd imagine your perfect search experience and what you like/don't like about the search. Everything, down to the privacy policy or the colour of a link you don't like. After 4 years, it's about time Waterfox started to make some waves.*

*Initial Charity*

The first Charity which money will be given to is WellChild. There are thousands of children and young people in the UK living with a long-term or complex health conditions. WellChild is the national charity working to ensure the best possible care and support for all these children and their families wherever they are and whenever they need it.

*Side Note*

Here's some press about all this as well, you even get to see my face and learn a little about who I am 

The Telegraph - New search engine from Waterfox founder aims to take a punch at Google[6]

The University of York - Outfoxing the internet giants - York student aims high with his ethical browser[7]

The University of York - University of York student awarded Duke of York Young Entrepreneur Award[8]

Trusted Reviews - From bedroom coder to building a Google search engine rival[9]

These are all from interviewers who spoke to me directly! Also like I keep repeating don't forget to leave feedback, good or bad 

*Smaller Side Note*

Just to let you know there's also an unbranded version for users who don't use Waterfox called Storm and a new registered company called Storm Technologies (don't worry, just to handle giving to charity as it's highly regulated by the government and so a company needed to be set up for this). Only reason for this is that we couldn't use the name Waterfox to raise money for charities due to possible legal issues with the name.

-----

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *4LC4PON3*
> 
> im not sure whats going on with my waterfox but its been running slow. typing seems to drag behind and places like amazon scrolling is chuggy. im not sure if its flash or adblock that could be causing it but im slowly starting to dislike waterfox.
> 
> the one thing im noticing is High ram usage. anywhere betweeb 2gb to 5gb when it gets chuggy which is pretty often. I am not running any addons except adblock. switching to chrome seems to fix all of my issues that im having. no chugging at all


That doesn't seem right. Does v39 linked above cause the same issues?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Tsyphon*
> 
> Continuing from my issue mentioned on Page 687 and 688,
> 
> Unfortunately 38.1 still returns the error that it is not a valid Win32 program. I have tried uninstalling (via the Control Panel > Programs and Features) then reinstalling to no avail. If I am to manually full uninstall, is there a way to back up my profiles and addon and such. Also note I have been keeping FF up to date since Waterfox hasn't been working for the past month or two for me, if that causes any conflicts.


Its due to an issue on my part, v39 should fix it. Basically I wasn't telling the compiler to target XP systems as well!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> Since upgrading to 38 and now 38.01, I keep getting BSOD, usually while watching YouTube videos. I used to get crashes a lot when using Flash with YouTube, but now I use HTML5 exclusively. Would the crash.dmp file help?


Yes it would if you still have it 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What's the difference between HTML5 Video Everywhere and Shumway?


 HTML5 everywhere basically forces the source of the video to play in a HTML5 player. Shumway renders Flash applications (so not just video) natively in HTML5. So any old flash games you used to play for example would be translated to run natively in HTML5.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Been playing with nightly 41 and i like the multi process feature.
> 
> And its a fast browser.


I would enable Electrolysis but its still quite unstable and doesn't work on quite a few sites so I'd say its best to wait a few more releases before adding it to Waterfox.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> To add to the above, I can't play anything higher than 1080p on youtube, not buffering fast enough. It's not my connection, works fine in Chrome.


Does hardware acceleration make any difference?


----------



## safari801

As always Alex, thanks for your hard work.


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does hardware acceleration make any difference?


No, unfortunately.


----------



## kronckew

how can i add storm search to my firefox browsers searches?

i do NOT want to bookmark it or make it my home page.

edited:

i used FEBE to backup my firefox profile items, then restored the searchs back into waterfox 39.

works in both now


----------



## kronckew

on a seperate note:

when will we see e10s (multi-process) as an option in waterfox?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> As always Alex, thanks for your hard work.


No worries!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Does hardware acceleration make any difference?
> 
> 
> 
> No, unfortunately.
Click to expand...

Hmm that's strange.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> how can i add storm search to my firefox browsers searches?
> 
> i do NOT want to bookmark it or make it my home page.
> 
> edited:
> 
> i used FEBE to backup my firefox profile items, then restored the searchs back into waterfox 39.
> 
> works in both now


Have you managed to get it to work? You can go to C:/Program Files/Waterfox/searchplugins or C:/Program Files/Waterfox/browser/searchplugins and waterfoxsearch.xml should be there. You can then paste that XML in the same directory structure for your other Firefox browsers and it should appear in the search engine list.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> on a seperate note:
> 
> when will we see e10s (multi-process) as an option in waterfox?


I can have it enabled if you'd like, (but not on by default) in the next build?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Welp, after a long time away from Waterfox I decided to give it a go once more on my Win7 HTPC.









38.1.0 includes the Firefox change that effectively disables "Switch to Tab", which is nice!

The icon is a little bit too dark blue for my liking, but we can't all get what we want.









Self-Destructing Cookies "took" fine on it, and while Avira's Safe Browsing add-on seemed to integrate fine into WF, I decided to disable it anyway because it had some crashing issues on Firefox on my laptop.

HTML5 in youtube works well, albeit with what seems to be a slight delay in the autio.


----------



## kronckew

mr alex, optional e10s (code name 'electrolysis') would be nice. it's working reasonably well in the firefox nightlys (FF42.01A) tho it does crash tabs occasionally so caveat emptor. waterfox 42 & it's bug fixes will be a while yet i presume


----------



## Prime2515102

I don't know if anybody mentioned this (this thread is getting really long) but in Waterfox 38.1 (I'm not sure about previous versions) in Options, Advanced, Network, it shows that Waterfox is using "0 bytes" of disk space for the cache.

I have the cache set to 50MB and "browser.cache.disk.parent_directory" set to "H:\"

I deleted everything from H:\ (a dedicated drive for the cache) and opened Waterfox and went to a few sites and it adds a loaded cache folder, so I assume the cache is working, but it's not reporting the correct value.

No idea if this is specific to Waterfox or if it's a Firefox problem in general.

I am using Windows 7 x64.

P.S. When I click "clear now" nothing happens (the data on H:\ isn't reduced at all).


----------



## jdstock76

Just downloaded this and I really like it so far. Takes a little getting used to but I like it.


----------



## MonarchX

Does it work with MEGA links? Firefox does not...


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Welp, after a long time away from Waterfox I decided to give it a go once more on my Win7 HTPC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 38.1.0 includes the Firefox change that effectively disables "Switch to Tab", which is nice!
> 
> The icon is a little bit too dark blue for my liking, but we can't all get what we want.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Self-Destructing Cookies "took" fine on it, and while Avira's Safe Browsing add-on seemed to integrate fine into WF, I decided to disable it anyway because it had some crashing issues on Firefox on my laptop.
> 
> HTML5 in youtube works well, albeit with what seems to be a slight delay in the autio.


Awesome. The new icon (if everyone likes it) will come with 40.0 and it's in my avatar.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> mr alex, optional e10s (code name 'electrolysis') would be nice. it's working reasonably well in the firefox nightlys (FF42.01A) tho it does crash tabs occasionally so caveat emptor. waterfox 42 & it's bug fixes will be a while yet i presume


Sure, I'll add it in the next build 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I don't know if anybody mentioned this (this thread is getting really long) but in Waterfox 38.1 (I'm not sure about previous versions) in Options, Advanced, Network, it shows that Waterfox is using "0 bytes" of disk space for the cache.
> 
> I have the cache set to 50MB and "browser.cache.disk.parent_directory" set to "H:\"
> 
> I deleted everything from H:\ (a dedicated drive for the cache) and opened Waterfox and went to a few sites and it adds a loaded cache folder, so I assume the cache is working, but it's not reporting the correct value.
> 
> No idea if this is specific to Waterfox or if it's a Firefox problem in general.
> 
> I am using Windows 7 x64.
> 
> P.S. When I click "clear now" nothing happens (the data on H:\ isn't reduced at all).


I'll look into this, does the same for me.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *jdstock76*
> 
> Just downloaded this and I really like it so far. Takes a little getting used to but I like it.


Glad you think so!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MonarchX*
> 
> Does it work with MEGA links? Firefox does not...


It should do, I haven't had any issues bar in a previous version where it'd crash. Has been patched though.


----------



## MonarchX

Is this a good replacement for Firefox? Is it just as stable and allows account linking (to restore my favorites, settings, etc.). I like having a single stable browser on my OS that works with most sites. Chrome does not work for certain sites, like CDPR forums and several tech support chatrooms. I also have only 700KB/sec connection - would I even experience improved performance with that if I go from Firefox to Waterfox?


----------



## rtikphox

but can it run flash?


----------



## MonarchX

Wow, I do see speed improvement. So does it not run flash???

EDIT: OK, AdBlock Plus is not working well - I see too many ads! That's a big NO-NO for me... Will this be fixed?


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Adblock plus works fine. Are your subscriptions setup correctly? Also make sure you uncheck "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" and see if that helps.


----------



## MonarchX

I researched and some people said that disabling plugins/extensions, restarting, then re-enabling plugins/extensions should fix the problem. It did not fix the problem for me. My subscriptions are installed correctly and I do have "Allow some non-intrusive advertising" unchecked.

I don't know what to do now....


----------



## MonarchX

I removed all plugins/extensions, restarted Waterfox, then re-downloaded and installed AdBlock Plus, updated filters, restarted Waterfox again, and loaded OCN. Ads galore here! AdBlock Plus is NOT working with Waterfox.

Could this be because I had Firefox installed? I installed Waterfox and then uninstalled Firefox. Maybe there was some overlap somewhere?


----------



## MonarchX

I fixed it! I simply deleted all Mozilla folders, which deleted my profile (I think), and Waterfox loaded with pure defaults. I synced with my account, installed AdBlock Plus and this time it works! Yey! I really like Waterfox thus far!


----------



## kronckew

waterfox 39 is working fine, flash & html5 vids as well.

thanks, mr alex. looking forward to wf40


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

Does anyone know, if Waterfox 39.0 will be released through Waterfox's Update Channel, or simple grab it off the Front Page?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi All,
> 
> Does anyone know, if Waterfox 39.0 will be released through Waterfox's Update Channel, or simple grab it off the Front Page?


Sorry the update didn't get uploaded, doing it now you should receive notification soon!


----------



## MonarchX

So far I came across only a single problem - inability to install Battlefield 4 Battle Web Plugin. I disabled AdBlock Plus, but that did not help. Is there a work-around? I installed an older version of BF4 Plugin that I saved on my PC because Waterfox does not provide me with a way/link to download the latest plugin. It would suck having to go back to Firefox or Chrome just for that plugin, but I play BF4 and need it to work...

EDIT: Oh wait... I don't think Battlelog works in 64bit.., but it does work in Chrome, which is 64bit, isn't it?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MonarchX*
> 
> So far I came across only a single problem - inability to install Battlefield 4 Battle Web Plugin. I disabled AdBlock Plus, but that did not help. Is there a work-around? I installed an older version of BF4 Plugin that I saved on my PC because Waterfox does not provide me with a way/link to download the latest plugin. It would suck having to go back to Firefox or Chrome just for that plugin, but I play BF4 and need it to work...
> 
> EDIT: Oh wait... I don't think Battlelog works in 64bit.., but it does work in Chrome, which is 64bit, isn't it?


I don't have experience with BF4 unfortunately, maybe someone else could give better info.


----------



## MonarchX

I looked it up - BF4 plugins are not supported by 64bit Firefox/Waterfox, BUT its not an issue because every Windows OS comes with IE, which is what I'm going to use to launch BF4. Its no biggie really.


----------



## malcomX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MonarchX*
> 
> I looked it up - BF4 plugins are not supported by 64bit Firefox/Waterfox, BUT its not an issue because every Windows OS comes with IE, which is what I'm going to use to launch BF4. Its no biggie really.


i have BF4 blog x64bit in cyberfox i used the info at the bottom https://8pecxstudios.com/Forums/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=9

no idea how to do it in waterfox might need an addon


----------



## GrumpyOne

Anyone else having issues playing Youtube videos in anything higher than 1080p?


----------



## gijs007

No waterfox change log for the 39 build? Does that mean that there are no new changes or that they are not documented?


----------



## Lopser

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Anyone else having issues playing Youtube videos in anything higher than 1080p?


Yes. In html 5 YouTube player 4K video is freeze. But YouTube Flash Player work fine!
Install this addon:
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-flash-player/


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Lopser*
> 
> Yes. In html 5 YouTube player 4K video is freeze. But YouTube Flash Player work fine!
> Install this addon:
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-flash-player/


Seems to disable the 60 frames option.


----------



## mauritos

mhmh, i must report the same problem as on waterfox 38,every time i open youtube.com waterfox crash,installed version 37.0.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Is there a plugin that can replace one font on a website with another? I'm sick of all these sites that make I and l look the same.


----------



## mauritos

the good news is that waterfox 39.0 when i open youtube is working normaly on win 10 x64 enterprise,on my virtual machine.


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I don't know if anybody mentioned this (this thread is getting really long) but in Waterfox 38.1 (I'm not sure about previous versions) in Options, Advanced, Network, it shows that Waterfox is using "0 bytes" of disk space for the cache.
> 
> I have the cache set to 50MB and "browser.cache.disk.parent_directory" set to "H:\"
> 
> I deleted everything from H:\ (a dedicated drive for the cache) and opened Waterfox and went to a few sites and it adds a loaded cache folder, so I assume the cache is working, but it's not reporting the correct value.
> 
> No idea if this is specific to Waterfox or if it's a Firefox problem in general.
> 
> I am using Windows 7 x64.
> 
> P.S. When I click "clear now" nothing happens (the data on H:\ isn't reduced at all).


The problem no longer exists in Waterfox 39.


----------



## MonarchX

I wonder whether Firefox 40.0 release will bring some uber performance improvements to regular Firefox and some uber-uber performance improvements in Waterfox!


----------



## TK421

actually ver 39 fixed the memory leak on waterfox lol


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Anyone else having issues playing Youtube videos in anything higher than 1080p?


Hmm I haven't had any issues on My Mac/ a PC with a 2nd Generation i5 and an NVIDIA Quadro K600. What kind of issues?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> No waterfox change log for the 39 build? Does that mean that there are no new changes or that they are not documented?


Haha it just means that nothing Waterfox specific in the change from 38 -> 39 bar adding the search.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mauritos*
> 
> mhmh, i must report the same problem as on waterfox 38,every time i open youtube.com waterfox crash,installed version 37.0.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mauritos*
> 
> the good news is that waterfox 39.0 when i open youtube is working normaly on win 10 x64 enterprise,on my virtual machine.


Hmm sounds like it might be a driver issue? Could I get system specs?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I don't know if anybody mentioned this (this thread is getting really long) but in Waterfox 38.1 (I'm not sure about previous versions) in Options, Advanced, Network, it shows that Waterfox is using "0 bytes" of disk space for the cache.
> 
> I have the cache set to 50MB and "browser.cache.disk.parent_directory" set to "H:\"
> 
> I deleted everything from H:\ (a dedicated drive for the cache) and opened Waterfox and went to a few sites and it adds a loaded cache folder, so I assume the cache is working, but it's not reporting the correct value.
> 
> No idea if this is specific to Waterfox or if it's a Firefox problem in general.
> 
> I am using Windows 7 x64.
> 
> P.S. When I click "clear now" nothing happens (the data on H:\ isn't reduced at all).
> 
> 
> 
> The problem no longer exists in Waterfox 39.
Click to expand...

That's good!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MonarchX*
> 
> I wonder whether Firefox 40.0 release will bring some uber performance improvements to regular Firefox and some uber-uber performance improvements in Waterfox!


I hope so - I might have found the fix for jemalloc to work again which will bring performance improvements and stability .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *TK421*
> 
> actually ver 39 fixed the memory leak on waterfox lol


Mozilla must've update mozalloc then!


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm I haven't had any issues on My Mac/ a PC with a 2nd Generation i5 and an NVIDIA Quadro K600. What kind of issues?


It's the same thing I've mentioned before, if I select anything higher than 1080p the video gets choppy and freezes, like it's buffering, thing is that it works fine in chrome which I hate using btw.

3570k and a GTX780 here.

Besides this everything else is perfect.


----------



## MonarchX

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I hope so - *I might have found the fix for jemalloc to work again* which will bring performance improvements and stability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Mozilla must've update mozalloc then!


Awesome, I hope you did find a proper fix for that! I am more than willing to test that performance increase or overall updated Waterfox if you're looking for beta testers or just whatever testers!


----------



## mauritos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm sounds like it might be a driver issue? Could I get system specs?


driver of what??

win 7 x64
i5 4670k
gtx 760
biostar z87x 3d
2x 4gb gskill 1866mhz.
intel ssd 240 gb


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Just installed flashplayer 19 beta, and it uses an html5 player?

Can others verify.


----------



## Prime2515102

Will there be a Waterfox 39.0.3? This seems like a pretty serious issue...

https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox-exploit-found-in-the-wild/


----------



## Quantum Reality

So, on my HTPC I initiated the WF upgrade, and it kept the old darker icon. But at least the upgrade went smooth as buttah.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Just curious: why are Waterfox files always xx.0? Why are there never versions that are xx.1 or xx.7? Is it a time issue, or are the differences between Firefox xx.1 versions and Waterfox xx.0 versions not big enough to matter?


----------



## Prime2515102

I'm having performance issues in Windows 10 x64 with Waterfox 39.0. Particularly on amazon.com. I'll get random freezes when scrolling and when the mouse over zoom is first used. It smooths out after a few seconds, but it's kind of annoying. This is the only version I have used with Win10 so I can't say if it is specific to v39.

In all honesty though, going by some benchmark results, I think Microsoft has sabotaged third-party browser performance. There is no way Edge is that much faster. lol


----------



## safari801

I just installed win 10 (64 bit) Saturday and so far waterfox working great. Did you try to delete and re install?


----------



## Mr6686

MrAlex it would be great if you could patch version 40 of Waterfox with fix from BUG 1171966 .


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> I just installed win 10 (64 bit) Saturday and so far waterfox working great. Did you try to delete and re install?


Ya know, I think I need to reinstall Win10 from scratch. It was an upgrade over a two year-old Win7 install. Waterfox was fine before the upgrade though, so it's probably Win10's fault. It's probably time to start with a fresh Waterfox profile anyway.


----------



## Screemer

Hey Mr.Alex.

Any information on when WF 40.0 or v40.0.2 will be ready?
FF v40.0.2 is already out..

New
Enabled API allowing Windows 10 users to open settings dialog
Fixed

mozalloc.lib was missing from the xulrunner package (1168291)
Fixed

Fix a startup crash with some combination of hardware and drivers (1160295)


----------



## bobsleigh

Is anyone else having issues with the Web of Trust WOT add-on? The little circle icon it places in Waterfox is greyed out with a paused symbol, and hovering over it brings up a balloon saying "You have disabled the add-on". Needless to say the add-on has not been disabled.

I'm not sure how long it hasn't been working as I only just noticed it (running Waterfox 39.0). It works fine in my Firefox, I have tried uninstalling and reinstalling but the issue remains.

Edit: nvm, right-clicking on the circle brings up a menu allowing it to be enabled from there.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey everyone! Sorry for not replying, I've been on holiday for the last two weeks and will be back on the 17th, and I'll get v40 out ASAP!

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm I haven't had any issues on My Mac/ a PC with a 2nd Generation i5 and an NVIDIA Quadro K600. What kind of issues?
> 
> 
> 
> It's the same thing I've mentioned before, if I select anything higher than 1080p the video gets choppy and freezes, like it's buffering, thing is that it works fine in chrome which I hate using btw.
> 
> 3570k and a GTX780 here.
> 
> Besides this everything else is perfect.
Click to expand...

I've got some other systems about that I can test with - I'll see if I can reproduce it on a similar specced machine.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MonarchX*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I hope so - *I might have found the fix for jemalloc to work again* which will bring performance improvements and stability
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
> 
> Mozilla must've update mozalloc then!
> 
> 
> 
> Awesome, I hope you did find a proper fix for that! I am more than willing to test that performance increase or overall updated Waterfox if you're looking for beta testers or just whatever testers!
Click to expand...

Cheers! Basically building without any optimisation flags and everything works - Intel's compiler is generating incorrect code in a certain file (which I'm trying to find), compiling the affected files without aggressive optimisation flags should fix the crashes 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mauritos*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hmm sounds like it might be a driver issue? Could I get system specs?
> 
> 
> 
> driver of what??
> 
> win 7 x64
> i5 4670k
> gtx 760
> biostar z87x 3d
> 2x 4gb gskill 1866mhz.
> intel ssd 240 gb
Click to expand...

Could be an Intel+NVIDIA gpu clash if you've got both drivers installed?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Just installed flashplayer 19 beta, and it uses an html5 player?
> 
> Can others verify.


On YouTube? I think they force HTML5 if your browser is capable, don't they?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Will there be a Waterfox 39.0.3? This seems like a pretty serious issue...
> 
> https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2015/08/06/firefox-exploit-found-in-the-wild/


Sorry, 40 will be the next version as I don't have access to a computer until 40 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> So, on my HTPC I initiated the WF upgrade, and it kept the old darker icon. But at least the upgrade went smooth as buttah.


That's good! New icon in the next release 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> Just curious: why are Waterfox files always xx.0? Why are there never versions that are xx.1 or xx.7? Is it a time issue, or are the differences between Firefox xx.1 versions and Waterfox xx.0 versions not big enough to matter?


Do you mean 38.0, 39.0 etc? Just so happens to be the release numbers I use. I preferred the lower versions numbers before the rapid release cycle, but I try to keep it the same as Mozilla's.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I'm having performance issues in Windows 10 x64 with Waterfox 39.0. Particularly on amazon.com. I'll get random freezes when scrolling and when the mouse over zoom is first used. It smooths out after a few seconds, but it's kind of annoying. This is the only version I have used with Win10 so I can't say if it is specific to v39.
> 
> In all honesty though, going by some benchmark results, I think Microsoft has sabotaged third-party browser performance. There is no way Edge is that much faster. lol


I think v40 will fix a lot of issues as Mozilla made the source code more 'compatible'.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Mr6686*
> 
> MrAlex it would be great if you could patch version 40 of Waterfox with fix from BUG 1171966 .


I'll include that in the release 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hey Mr.Alex.
> 
> Any information on when WF 40.0 or v40.0.2 will be ready?
> FF v40.0.2 is already out..
> 
> New
> Enabled API allowing Windows 10 users to open settings dialog
> Fixed
> 
> mozalloc.lib was missing from the xulrunner package (1168291)
> Fixed
> 
> Fix a startup crash with some combination of hardware and drivers (1160295)


Next week!


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I'm having performance issues in Windows 10 x64 with Waterfox 39.0. Particularly on amazon.com. I'll get random freezes when scrolling and when the mouse over zoom is first used. It smooths out after a few seconds, but it's kind of annoying. This is the only version I have used with Win10 so I can't say if it is specific to v39.
> 
> In all honesty though, going by some benchmark results, I think Microsoft has sabotaged third-party browser performance. There is no way Edge is that much faster. lol


Ok, a did a clean install of Win10 and started with a new profile. The performance issues are resolved.

However, Silverlight isn't working now. It works in IE but not Waterfox (Edge either doesn't work, or doesn't support it-on Amazon Instant Video it asks to install flash player even though I have Amazon set to use Silverlight). I have no clue what to do about it-I've used every Silverlight troubleshooting method I could fine on the internet to no avail.


----------



## Quantum Reality

What about installing it from MS's site?

http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> What about installing it from MS's site?
> 
> http://www.microsoft.com/silverlight/


I did that several times. I even ran the cleanup described at https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/2608523 to no avail.

I'll figure it out eventually.

EDIT: I went through all those registry keys from that article manually and it turns out that one of the keys wasn't being removed for some reason. I deleted it and all is well now. Sheesh...


----------



## mauritos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could be an Intel+NVIDIA gpu clash if you've got both drivers installed?


as i remember i didnt installed any driver for integrated graphics,only have nvidia adrivers for gtx 760,version 37.0.1 is working normaly 38.0.1 and 39.0 are crashing when i open youtube,where i can see if drivers for integrated graphic are installed??in programs-uninstall program i dont see them.


----------



## MonarchX

For some reason Waterfox does not remember many forms info. For example, I am applying to many jobs right now and I recall Firefox remember my name, address, other info, so I didn't have to spend time filling out those parts of forms. Waterfox does not do that and I am not using any incognito modes, not erasing cookies or cache, and not erasing Site Preferences, Saved Passwords, and Saved Form Information during clean up. In fact, no clean up at all also results in Waterfox not auto-filling those forms automatically... It does save forums' usernames and passwords though...


----------



## MonarchX

Just tried Cyberfox and found it to be slower than Waterfox, but I do see Cyberfox has specific optimizations for Intel and AMD CPU's - could this be introduced into Waterfox to make it even faster???


----------



## Quantum Reality

My understandng is that WF is compiled with the Intel compiler, which may likely be designed with an eye to running on Intel-specific CPUs. If so, then MrAlex would need to play with the compiler flags and maybe run some tests to see which one(s) work best.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Whats the max memory cache? Prefer to use that, but its a certain value and it's limited as well.


----------



## kronckew

mine is set at 1024 mb (1gb), it won't let me go higher.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> mine is set at 1024 mb (1gb), it won't let me go higher.


Sure thats not sneaking some onto Drive cache?


----------



## kronckew

yes, but the disk cache is 'smart' & if i set it to 1GB, it resets itself. i could turn this off if desired, but i don't bother. tools-options-advanced lets you override the disk cache max, but again limits it to 1GB.

i can set the memory cache to 1GB & that sticks. if i set that to auto with a -1 entry, it get set to a minuscule value.

1GB is probably too large anyway as it never seems to get close to that. i can actually set it higher, the variable in about:config can be set to any integer, but more than 1 GB appears to be overkill.

i use both, ff seems to move stuff from the recent mem cache to disk cache after a while, so it's still there after i reboot or restart ff.

(same in ff and waterfox)



bout:config variables:

browser.cache.disk.capacity

browser.cache.memory.capacity

browser.cache.disk.enable

browser.cache.memory.enable

and others starting with browser.cache.

Ref: http://www.tweakguides.com/Firefox_10.html



> browser.cache.check_doc_frequency [Integer] - This setting determines how often Firefox checks the page you're viewing against the cached version it holds. By default (a value of 3), Firefox automatically checks and only reloads the page if it seems outdated; a value of 2 will never check and always load the cached version (not recommended); a value of 1 will always check for a newer version of the page and reload; a value of 0 only checks once per session. In most cases the default of 3 is fine, but you may wish to set this to 1 if you want to ensure that Firefox always checks for and loads up the latest version of a page, though it may reduce browsing speed.
> 
> browser.cache.compression_level [Integer] - This setting determines whether Firefox compresses the data in the disk cache, reducing the size of it. The default value is 0, which means compression is disabled. A value of 1 to 9 enables compression, with the higher the value, the greater the data is compressed, but the potentially slower browsing may become.
> 
> browser.cache.disk_cache_ssl [Boolean] - When set to True, which is the default, this setting allows the caching of secure web pages in your browser disk cache. This speeds up loading of commonly-visited secure pages, but is a security risk and for that reason you may wish to set this to False.
> 
> browser.cache.disk.parent_directory [String] *Create - Determines the path to the parent directory for the Firefox cache, usually held under your profiles directory (i.e. under "%APPDATA%\Mozilla\"). By specifying a new full path here (e.g. "D:\Users\User1\Documents") you can move the cache to another drive or partition, which may improve performance or enhance privacy. Note that if this value is being set directly in the Prefs.js or User.js file, the path requires double backslashes for every backslash instead of single ones (e.g. D:\\Users\\User1\\Documents).
> 
> browser.cache.memory.enable [Boolean] - If this preference is set to True, Firefox will use system RAM to cache certain data, such as images, improving performance. If set to False, Firefox will not use any RAM to cache, resulting in a performance drop. I recommend leaving this setting at its default of True unless troubleshooting a potential memory-related problem in Firefox for example.
> 
> browser.cache.memory.capacity [Integer] *Create - If the browser.cache.memory.enable preference above is set to True, this setting allows you to specify the amount of memory to use for caching data. A value of 0 turns off caching into RAM, which is not recommended as it can slow down browsing. The default value of -1 tells Firefox to automatically determine the size of the cache based on your physical RAM. Systems with 512MB of RAM will result in a 14MB cache, 1GB RAM = 18MB cache, 2GB RAM = 24MB of cache, and 4GB RAM or more = 32MB of cache. You can check the actual amount of RAM allocated for this feature on your system by typing about:cache?device=memory into the Address Bar and pressing Enter, then checking the value in the 'Maximum storage size' field. The default of -1 should be fine for all people, but if you want to set a specific amount of RAM to use for the memory cache, enter a value in KB (e.g. a value of 18432 = 18MB).
> 
> browser.cache.offline.capacity [Integer] - Web applications can be stored locally for offline use, as covered by the 'Offline Web Content and User Data' setting in the Firefox Options. This setting determines the maximum amount of space they can take up in the offline cache. The default value of 512000 in kilobytes corresponds to 500MB. In general there's no need to alter this as it will only be used if you install an offline web application, and is not to be confused with the Firefox disk cache for normal web content. If you wish to turn off the offline cache altogether, set the browser.cache.offline.enable setting to False.
> 
> browser.cache.use_new_backend [Integer] - If set to 1, this setting enables a newer form of the caching system in Firefox, designed to provide improved performance and be more crash proof. I recommend enabling this option (1), and only disabling it (0) if you experience problems. Note that using the new caching system will mean your cached files will be stored under a different directory from the regular cache, namely \Users\[username]\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\[profilename]\cache2. The maximum size of this cache is determined by the browser.cache.disk.capacity preference. Note that as of Firefox 32.0, the new caching system has been enabled by default. However it appears that a browser.cache.use_new_backend_temp preference has been added and enabled instead to implement the new caching system.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Im testing mem cache now.

Cant see any small drive accesses in the drive monitor (disk pulse).

The older releases would max out at 192MB.

Might have been improved since then.

*Still haven't seen any files sneaking onto storage, except the firefox profile data.


----------



## Lopser

When Waterfox 40.0 or 40.0.2 will be ready? Thank you.


----------



## coldroll

So how's the next version of Water fox coming along?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mauritos*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Could be an Intel+NVIDIA gpu clash if you've got both drivers installed?
> 
> 
> 
> as i remember i didnt installed any driver for integrated graphics,only have nvidia adrivers for gtx 760,version 37.0.1 is working normaly 38.0.1 and 39.0 are crashing when i open youtube,where i can see if drivers for integrated graphic are installed??in programs-uninstall program i dont see them.
Click to expand...

You could try the

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/3huuc6/waterfox_4002_test_build/
, final build either today or tomorrow

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *coldroll*
> 
> So how's the next version of Water fox coming along?


See above


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> I've made sure to not use any flags that put AMD users at a disadvantage  in fact AMD users should benefit from all the flags I've used.


If you think it's worth it, I could run a Phenom II X4 945 head to head with a Core 2 Quad Q6700 and see if WF behaves noticeably differently on them. Be a bit of a weekend project though


----------



## fullmoon

you can't change the memory cache now. You can put the disk cache in a ramdisk (imdisk is the best, setting allocation dynamic and 1Go) for the best improvement.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Based on Wikipedia's entry on browser benchmarking, I decided on the following tests:

Futuremark Peacekeeper
Octane 2.0
Speedbattle
Wirple
First test system using Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit with updates slipstreamed in. I didn't tweak very much, and only installed Waterfox 40.0.2 on it. I set the browser to auto-clear cache, cookies, etc on exit so there wouldn't be any "browser cruft" slipping in when I would rerun the browser on each test.

Phenom II X4 945 at stock 3.0 GHz speed
4 gigs DDR2-800
Samsung 931BF monitor (native resolution 1280x1024)
eVGA Geforce 9800GT, full specs below from the nVidia System Information section:



Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!



Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate, 64-bit (Service Pack 1)
DirectX version: 11.0
GPU processor: GeForce 9800 GT
Driver version: 341.81
Direct3D API version: 10
CUDA Cores: 112
Core clock: 600 MHz
Shader clock: 1500 MHz
Memory data rate: 1800 MHz
Memory interface: 256-bit
Total available graphics memory: 2303 MB
Dedicated video memory: 512 MB GDDR3
System video memory: 0 MB
Shared system memory: 1791 MB
Video BIOS version: 62.92.69.00.30



What I found was that the nVidia-supplied video driver _is_ absolutely needed to run WebGL (Windows 7's built-in WDDM driver is insufficient), and it _does_ improve HTML5 benchmark results.

Image-heavy segment follows - first batch is with the *Windows 7 WDDM driver* as of 2009:




Second batch is with the most recent released *Geforce driver 341.81*:




Next set of test results will be with a Core 2 Quad Q6700 after I transplant the GPU into it and get 4 gigs into that as well.


----------



## mirkoj

anyone else having issues with playing 4k video on youtube with waterfox? all versions including last one 40?
when I open 4k video on edge for example, win10 it plays smooth.
but within waterfox is chopy and freezing all the time.
any idea?


----------



## Redzo

Waterfox is horribly slow for me on Facebook. i basically have to use Chromium for Facebook and WF for everything else.


----------



## thechas

Thank you MrAlex. Waterfox 40.0.2 is working well on the 2 computers I have installed it on.
One was from the downloaded installer and the other I ran the update.
No issues so far.

Chas


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> anyone else having issues with playing 4k video on youtube with waterfox? all versions including last one 40?
> when I open 4k video on edge for example, win10 it plays smooth.
> but within waterfox is chopy and freezing all the time.
> any idea?


Glad I'm not the only one, I've mentioned it before, it really ticks me off since I have to switch to Chrome which I hate using.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Yes, MrAlex, that's what I meant. Thank you.


----------



## agawthrop

Downloaded this last night and so far it's worked well for everything. Appears considerably faster compared to chrome with the sites that I browse.


----------



## GrumpyOne

Could anyone else please try streaming 4k content on Youtube and tell me and Mirkoj if you're having any issues getting it to play smoothly? I know it's not my provider nor my hardware, just trying to get to the bottom of this.


----------



## mirkoj

As mentioned, 4k doesn't work fine at all. It freezes non stop, no smooth play what so ever.
On the other hand on Edge (win10) it is perfectly smooth.
Got an 5960x, 32fb ram, 4xTitan X and 200 Mbps download speed so definitely not an hardware or network issue.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Could anyone else please try streaming 4k content on Youtube and tell me and Mirkoj if you're having any issues getting it to play smoothly? I know it's not my provider nor my hardware, just trying to get to the bottom of this.


Okay, I played this video 



and it does sputter and buffer a LOT with Waterfox. Same system, the video plays fine with SeaMonkey or IE11.

When I drop the resolution from 2160 to 1440, the sputtering stops, but the video still buffers and pauses a lot with Waterfox.

From what I see, it looks like Waterfox is having issues with prefetching the buffered data. One big thing I noticed was at 2160, Waterfox did not have as much of the video buffered as the other two browsers did. At 2160, Waterfox was just barely buffering data ahead of the video, where SeaMonkey and IE both showed much larger amounts of prefetched video in the progress bar.

Hope this helps point to a cause.

Chas


----------



## xxpenguinxx

The new icon reminds me of IE and Edge. It's so ugly.


----------



## Screemer

For some reason when I start a download and chose a save location, if I just save there all is fine but if I chose to create a new directory WF crashes on me..
This happens every time on 2 different machines with Win 10 x64 Enterprise and 1 machine with Win 8 x64 Enterprise.
It didn't happen on the previous release of WF.. I can't really swear that it is only WF since I might have installed something else without remembering but thought I'd post it here to see if anyone else have the same problem..








Other than that I really love the 40.0.2 release..


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> I've made sure to not use any flags that put AMD users at a disadvantage  in fact AMD users should benefit from all the flags I've used.
> 
> 
> 
> If you think it's worth it, I could run a Phenom II X4 945 head to head with a Core 2 Quad Q6700 and see if WF behaves noticeably differently on them. Be a bit of a weekend project though
Click to expand...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Based on Wikipedia's entry on browser benchmarking, I decided on the following tests:
> 
> Futuremark Peacekeeper
> Octane 2.0
> Speedbattle
> Wirple
> First test system using Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit with updates slipstreamed in. I didn't tweak very much, and only installed Waterfox 40.0.2 on it. I set the browser to auto-clear cache, cookies, etc on exit so there wouldn't be any "browser cruft" slipping in when I would rerun the browser on each test.
> 
> Phenom II X4 945 at stock 3.0 GHz speed
> 4 gigs DDR2-800
> Samsung 931BF monitor (native resolution 1280x1024)
> eVGA Geforce 9800GT, full specs below from the nVidia System Information section:
> 
> 
> 
> Spoiler: Warning: Spoiler!
> 
> 
> 
> Operating System: Windows 7 Ultimate, 64-bit (Service Pack 1)
> DirectX version: 11.0
> GPU processor: GeForce 9800 GT
> Driver version: 341.81
> Direct3D API version: 10
> CUDA Cores: 112
> Core clock: 600 MHz
> Shader clock: 1500 MHz
> Memory data rate: 1800 MHz
> Memory interface: 256-bit
> Total available graphics memory: 2303 MB
> Dedicated video memory: 512 MB GDDR3
> System video memory: 0 MB
> Shared system memory: 1791 MB
> Video BIOS version: 62.92.69.00.30
> 
> 
> 
> What I found was that the nVidia-supplied video driver is absolutely needed to run WebGL (Windows 7's built-in WDDM driver is insufficient), and it does improve HTML5 benchmark results.
> 
> Image-heavy segment follows - first batch is with the *Windows 7 WDDM driver* as of 2009:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Second batch is with the most recent released *Geforce driver 341.81*:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Next set of test results will be with a Core 2 Quad Q6700 after I transplant the GPU into it and get 4 gigs into that as well.


Thanks! Nice to have some AMD benchmarks as I haven't ever had a system to test it on before.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> anyone else having issues with playing 4k video on youtube with waterfox? all versions including last one 40?
> when I open 4k video on edge for example, win10 it plays smooth.
> but within waterfox is chopy and freezing all the time.
> any idea?


Hmm I'll test 4K content on tuesday when I get access to my Windows PC again. My laptop is currently out of service and I'm lazy to install Windows on it haha.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redzo*
> 
> Waterfox is horribly slow for me on Facebook. i basically have to use Chromium for Facebook and WF for everything else.


Hmm that's not good. Are you using any add-ons that could potentially be causing the issue?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Thank you MrAlex. Waterfox 40.0.2 is working well on the 2 computers I have installed it on.
> One was from the downloaded installer and the other I ran the update.
> No issues so far.
> 
> Chas


Ah awesome, glad it's all working fine!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> anyone else having issues with playing 4k video on youtube with waterfox? all versions including last one 40?
> when I open 4k video on edge for example, win10 it plays smooth.
> but within waterfox is chopy and freezing all the time.
> any idea?
> 
> 
> 
> Glad I'm not the only one, I've mentioned it before, it really ticks me off since I have to switch to Chrome which I hate using.
Click to expand...

I'll try see what's causing it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *agawthrop*
> 
> Downloaded this last night and so far it's worked well for everything. Appears considerably faster compared to chrome with the sites that I browse.


Great, glad it works well!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Could anyone else please try streaming 4k content on Youtube and tell me and Mirkoj if you're having any issues getting it to play smoothly? I know it's not my provider nor my hardware, just trying to get to the bottom of this.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> As mentioned, 4k doesn't work fine at all. It freezes non stop, no smooth play what so ever.
> On the other hand on Edge (win10) it is perfectly smooth.
> Got an 5960x, 32fb ram, 4xTitan X and 200 Mbps download speed so definitely not an hardware or network issue.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Could anyone else please try streaming 4k content on Youtube and tell me and Mirkoj if you're having any issues getting it to play smoothly? I know it's not my provider nor my hardware, just trying to get to the bottom of this.
> 
> 
> 
> Okay, I played this video
> 
> 
> 
> and it does sputter and buffer a LOT with Waterfox. Same system, the video plays fine with SeaMonkey or IE11.
> 
> When I drop the resolution from 2160 to 1440, the sputtering stops, but the video still buffers and pauses a lot with Waterfox.
> 
> From what I see, it looks like Waterfox is having issues with prefetching the buffered data. One big thing I noticed was at 2160, Waterfox did not have as much of the video buffered as the other two browsers did. At 2160, Waterfox was just barely buffering data ahead of the video, where SeaMonkey and IE both showed much larger amounts of prefetched video in the progress bar.
> 
> Hope this helps point to a cause.
> 
> Chas
Click to expand...

By the way, have you guys tried disabling hardware acceleration? Any difference? There's a bug here which might fix the issue.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxpenguinxx*
> 
> The new icon reminds me of IE and Edge. It's so ugly.


Ah shame you don't like it! I wanted something new as the old logo looked really out dated.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> For some reason when I start a download and chose a save location, if I just save there all is fine but if I chose to create a new directory WF crashes on me..
> This happens every time on 2 different machines with Win 10 x64 Enterprise and 1 machine with Win 8 x64 Enterprise.
> It didn't happen on the previous release of WF.. I can't really swear that it is only WF since I might have installed something else without remembering but thought I'd post it here to see if anyone else have the same problem..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Other than that I really love the 40.0.2 release..


Ooh, strange issue! So to reproduce this, I just have to create a new directory with the file dialog open in Waterfox?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah shame you don't like it! I wanted something new as the old logo looked really out dated.
> I like the new icon, however wouldn't it be possible to have both? Allowing ppl to chose in installation.
> 
> Ooh, strange issue! So to reproduce this, I just have to create a new directory with the file dialog open in Waterfox?
> Yepp, all I do is click a download link and in the file dialog I either right click and chose new folder or click on the new folder button. Crashes every time.


Found out what was causing it.. Not WF at all. I had tested to install CFI Shelltoys v.7.5 and that made explorer to crash when creating folders in download dialog.. After all it's an old Win XP software.. Sorry about me shouting MrAlex...


----------



## kronckew

i like the new watery foxie!



you should update the 'old' logo in post no. 1 with it.


----------



## Quantum Reality

You could always embed both icons in the exe so people who want the old one can change it back?


----------



## kronckew

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> You could always embed both icons in the exe so people who want the old one can change it back?


you can always google waterfox, select google images, pick the one you like, save it,use irfanview to resize/save as icon, right click the desktop icon, select 'change icon' button & select the one you just saved. that's what i do for firefox nightly to get rid of the horrid blue blob. the teeny icon in the titlebar is too small for me to worry about messing with replacing the one embedded in the exe file.

there is an addon called 'rebrand' you can use to change the icons. it produces an unsigned .xpi addon file that you add manually, so if used in the latest nightly/aurora builds you may need to set about:config variable xpinstall.signatures.required to false.

here's the old waterfox 64x64 pixel icon: had to convert it to a .png, but you can save & convert it back to a .ico


----------



## blackps

..


----------



## Baldone

For me the issue with the new logo icon is my eyes being drawn to the black center instead of the "fox." I wish the black was more subdued so that fox wouldn't be so dominated.

On the 4k youtube thing.... I'm finding no issues with Firefox 40 but sputtering like crazy with Waterfox 40.0.2

Running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> For me the issue with the new logo icon is my eyes being drawn to the black center instead of the "fox." I wish the black was more subdued so that fox wouldn't be so dominated.
> 
> On the 4k youtube thing.... I'm finding no issues with Firefox 40 but sputtering like crazy with Waterfox 40.0.2


link the 4k vid, i wanna give it a shot.


----------



## Baldone

See post 6994 on the previous page


----------



## tomv

No problem with the 4k vid thing. I've had 40.0.2 for a week and no problems at all. It works really well. Thanks MrAlex, job well done.


----------



## chorse

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> For me the issue with the new logo icon is my eyes being drawn to the black center instead of the "fox." I wish the black was more subdued so that fox wouldn't be so dominated.


Exactly the same for me. It took me a long time to get my eyes focused off the black abyss and locate the blue fox. Something needs to be done to focus on the fox. Perhaps turning the foxes head towards us & adding a small black dot for an eye.

Although, I like the new modern style better.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Ah shame you don't like it! I wanted something new as the old logo looked really out dated.
> I like the new icon, however wouldn't it be possible to have both? Allowing ppl to chose in installation.
> 
> Ooh, strange issue! So to reproduce this, I just have to create a new directory with the file dialog open in Waterfox?
> Yepp, all I do is click a download link and in the file dialog I either right click and chose new folder or click on the new folder button. Crashes every time.
> 
> 
> 
> Found out what was causing it.. Not WF at all. I had tested to install CFI Shelltoys v.7.5 and that made explorer to crash when creating folders in download dialog.. After all it's an old Win XP software.. Sorry about me shouting MrAlex...
Click to expand...

No worries, glad you've found the issue 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> i like the new watery foxie!
> 
> 
> 
> you should update the 'old' logo in post no. 1 with it.


Thanks! I really like it to and it's generally got a positive reception.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> You could always embed both icons in the exe so people who want the old one can change it back?


Could do, but how would I let people choose the icon? Via the installer?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> For me the issue with the new logo icon is my eyes being drawn to the black center instead of the "fox." I wish the black was more subdued so that fox wouldn't be so dominated.
> 
> On the 4k youtube thing.... I'm finding no issues with Firefox 40 but sputtering like crazy with Waterfox 40.0.2
> 
> Running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit SP1


Hmm fair enough, I'll see if I can make the centre a bit lighter.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> See post 6994 on the previous page


Also, could I have your system specs?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> No problem with the 4k vid thing. I've had 40.0.2 for a week and no problems at all. It works really well. Thanks MrAlex, job well done.


I'm struggling to reproduce this as well. Gets difficult with so many different system configs! I'll try a few other systems hopefully I can see what's happening! And thanks, glad it's working well for you .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *chorse*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> For me the issue with the new logo icon is my eyes being drawn to the black center instead of the "fox." I wish the black was more subdued so that fox wouldn't be so dominated.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly the same for me. It took me a long time to get my eyes focused off the black abyss and locate the blue fox. Something needs to be done to focus on the fox. Perhaps turning the foxes head towards us & adding a small black dot for an eye.
> 
> Although, I like the new modern style better.
Click to expand...

Yeah I'll try lighten it up a bit


----------



## Quantum Reality

"*Change the icon of any Application Shortcut*" here:

http://www.howtogeek.com/howto/13631/customize-your-icons-in-windows-7-and-vista/?PageSpeed=noscript

I suggest tweaking the new icon for the next WF release, but embedding the old one so that method linked above can quickly be used to change back at user preference.


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Also, could I have your system specs?


As requested:


----------



## Screemer

Found these links on another forum..

Waterfox v40.0.3

Setup-x64:
https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2040.0.3%20Setup.exe

Portable-x64:
https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/portable/WaterfoxPortable_40.0.3_English.paf.exe

I hope they are official since I've installed them.








They are not linked on waterfox site or here from what I've found.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I wouldn't trust them without an official announcement from MrAlex.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Found these links on another forum..
> 
> Waterfox v40.0.3
> 
> Setup-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2040.0.3%20Setup.exe
> 
> Portable-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/portable/WaterfoxPortable_40.0.3_English.paf.exe
> 
> I hope they are official since I've installed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not linked on waterfox site or here from what I've found.


I recommend that you look at the Google page report for cloudfront.

http://www.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?site=cloudfront.net/

At the same time, Amazon has a content deliver service named Cloud Front.

Also note that independent developers like MrAlex have been searching for good hosting solutions after SourceForge started forcing them to bundle adware and other code with distributions.

MrAlex had been using Codeplex. However, the page there looks to be a bit out of date.

https://waterfox.codeplex.com/releases/view/616406

Chas


----------



## blaze0079

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Found these links on another forum..
> 
> Waterfox v40.0.3
> 
> Setup-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2040.0.3%20Setup.exe
> 
> Portable-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/portable/WaterfoxPortable_40.0.3_English.paf.exe
> 
> I hope they are official since I've installed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not linked on waterfox site or here from what I've found.


he release test builds on reddit so thats prolly where those links came from.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Doing some tweaks.

This page is good;

https://theblogpirate.wordpress.com/2015/04/10/firefox-tweaks-that-will-enhance-your-privacy-on-internet/

installed addons;

HTTPS everywhere

Speedy Tweaks

uBlock Origin

Working great!


----------



## safari801

40.0.3 is on https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ now.


----------



## Prime2515102

http://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-gets-built-in-firebox-advertising-rolling/

Is this included in Waterfox? If so, can it be disabled? Will it be removed my Mr. Alex?

If the answer to the second two questions are both no, I'm going to have to quit using Firefox/Waterfox. Unbelievable. It's like Mozilla is _trying_ to get people to stop using Firefox.


----------



## Quantum Reality

http://www.thewindowsclub.com/disable-remove-ad-tiles-from-firefox

Try that maybe?

Also, MrAlex, if the ads can't be taken out of the WF code, i suggest forking WF from the last toggleable version of FF and backporting the security patches, a la Pale Moon.


----------



## safari801

Haven't seen any ads in 40.0.3 although I use disconnect.


----------



## Screemer

I have just today noticed something strange.
I run WF at work against a silverlight site that require AD logon. I use the addon " Integrated Authentication for Firefox " and have been doing that for ages in WF.
I have been connecting to this site for well over a year without any problems but now I can't any more.
It connects and starts loading then it just hangs.

Anyone else having problems with silverlight sites?

If I open the site in FF v40.0.3 it works without any problems but in WF40.0.3 it just hangs.

MrAlex got any clue?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Also, could I have your system specs?
> 
> 
> 
> As requested:
Click to expand...

Thanks, still haven't found anything useful yet.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *blaze0079*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Found these links on another forum..
> 
> Waterfox v40.0.3
> 
> Setup-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/installer/Waterfox%2040.0.3%20Setup.exe
> 
> Portable-x64:
> https://d1th2p59px32bw.cloudfront.net/releases/win64/portable/WaterfoxPortable_40.0.3_English.paf.exe
> 
> I hope they are official since I've installed them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not linked on waterfox site or here from what I've found.
> 
> 
> 
> he release test builds on reddit so thats prolly where those links came from.
Click to expand...

That's right 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> http://www.zdnet.com/article/mozilla-gets-built-in-firebox-advertising-rolling/
> 
> Is this included in Waterfox? If so, can it be disabled? Will it be removed my Mr. Alex?
> 
> If the answer to the second two questions are both no, I'm going to have to quit using Firefox/Waterfox. Unbelievable. It's like Mozilla is trying to get people to stop using Firefox.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> http://www.thewindowsclub.com/disable-remove-ad-tiles-from-firefox
> 
> Try that maybe?
> 
> Also, MrAlex, if the ads can't be taken out of the WF code, i suggest forking WF from the last toggleable version of FF and backporting the security patches, a la Pale Moon.


It isn't included in Waterfox, as I've disabled what I thought to be the relevant preferences, but like snippets it appears that Mozilla is overwriting the default preferences. I'll have to remove the relevant code completely (and hope it doesn't do any damage).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> I have just today noticed something strange.
> I run WF at work against a silverlight site that require AD logon. I use the addon " Integrated Authentication for Firefox " and have been doing that for ages in WF.
> I have been connecting to this site for well over a year without any problems but now I can't any more.
> It connects and starts loading then it just hangs.
> 
> Anyone else having problems with silverlight sites?
> 
> If I open the site in FF v40.0.3 it works without any problems but in WF40.0.3 it just hangs.
> 
> MrAlex got any clue?


Strange, nothing has changed in regards to NTLM as far as I'm aware. Could it be an add-on update or maybe a sysadmin change?


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Strange, nothing has changed in regards to NTLM as far as I'm aware. Could it be an add-on update or maybe a sysadmin change?


Thanks for responding MrAlex. Nothing has changed at the site it self. According to the administrator that is. And I have a FF41 and WF40.0.3 installation using same profile. In FF41 it works but in WF it doesn't. I will continue to try and find a solution.. Strange problem tho..


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi Mr. Alex,

Waterfox 40.0.3 isn't showing up as an Update.


----------



## rgirish

Guys,

I just joined in to take a part in this discussion.

I am using Waterfox 43.0.3 and extremely slow and patchy. It stutters while scrolling , any idea? what is the most stable version?

here are my system specs.


----------



## Prime2515102

Silverlight worked for me when I first installed 40.0.3, but now it doesn't (on amazon anyway). It still works in IE though (this is on Win10 x64).


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rgirish*
> 
> Guys,
> 
> I just joined in to take a part in this discussion.
> 
> I am using Waterfox 43.0.3 and extremely slow and patchy. It stutters while scrolling , any idea? what is the most stable version?
> 
> here are my system specs.


Try Speedy Tweaks addon

also

ublock origin (uninstall all other ad blocking addons)


----------



## rgirish

I tried both of these and uninstalled adblock plus, doesnt seems to improve anything. Its still slow








Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Try Speedy Tweaks addon
> also
> ublock origin (uninstall all other ad blocking addons)


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *rgirish*
> 
> I tried both of these and uninstalled adblock plus, doesnt seems to improve anything. Its still slow


how about disabling disk cache and using memory cache only?

I have 12 windows and 179 tabs running from memory cache only.

My addons;


----------



## Whudunit

I've been using WaterFox for years. Like most of my programs I have automatic updates enables, and use File Hippo updater, Heimdal and CCleaner to advise me of other program updates.

This just occurred for the first time yesterday (2015-09-29) only 12 hours after using it all day with zero issues. I cannot find any answers pertaining to Win10 Pro 64. Some articles suggested spyware or virus, so I have used Panda Free Antivirus with one PuP and erased it, I have Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Home Premium running all the time and scan no less then every three days, plus I used Trend Micro Housecall online scan and nothing. I regularly also use CCleaner Free and Spybot 1.6. I have scanned all drives with all programs.

I also got the same result when trying to open Speccy yesterday, it did open, but it said Java.exe .... same as above, plus when I tried to download Trendmicro Housecall from their site and load it onto my machine, same thing happened when I double clicked to start the program. I had an older version of Housecall on my RAID HDD and used that, it updated itself. I used Ad Block Plus and Privacy Badger. Firefox does work, but PaleMoon 64 did not.

Any suggestions? I cannot find where I left my Hijack This exe, so I have not run that.

WIN10 Pro 64

AMD 8150

16GB RAM

2x EVGA GTX 980Ti ACX 2.0

The only "grey" market anything I have is AnyDVD, but it is not installed anywhere, and I picked it up directly from their website.

I blame WIN10 NOT WaterFox, but their assistance so far, has been underwhelming.

SnapShotSpeccy.txt 133k .txt file


I appreciate everyone's assistance in advance.

Thank You.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I definitely think Win10's telemetry stuff and aggressive default autoupdate options may have done something. If you can roll back to 8.1 or earlier, that would the best option, or if you can possibly get Win10 locked down to stop all the phoning home and autoupdating that is your next best option.


----------



## mirkoj

hey guys.. not sure if it is only me or what but all videos on you tube when played full screen are choppy as hell...
edge plays all smoothly but waterfox no way...


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> hey guys.. not sure if it is only me or what but all videos on you tube when played full screen are choppy as hell...
> edge plays all smoothly but waterfox no way...


Is it playing as an HTML5 video or flash player video?


----------



## mirkoj

youtube is on html5 right now so.. html5


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> hey guys.. not sure if it is only me or what but all videos on you tube when played full screen are choppy as hell...
> edge plays all smoothly but waterfox no way...


A few of us had this issue for ages...


----------



## rgirish

You mean the paging? Its set to automatically manage. Let me disable and try.


----------



## WetLook

Waterfox 40.0.3 isn't showing up as an Update for me either.
Is it supposed to?


----------



## Screemer

Not to be bothersome, but WF41.01?
When?


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Waterfox 40.0.3 isn't showing up as an Update for me either.
> Is it supposed to?


Same for me. It's not even listed on their site.


----------



## safari801

Go to https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ and there is 40.03.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

The blog only has 40.0.2 so I don't know what's been changed.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Try some things like disabling nvidia streaming engine and 3D sterescopic driver.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

I think I've asked before, but I don't remember the answer so here goes again. I've always had Firefox on the computer while I've had Waterfox installed. Do I need Waterfox? Is it a mod or its own thing? Sorry for the dumb question.


----------



## Redzo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> I think I've asked before, but I don't remember the answer so here goes again. I've always had Firefox on the computer while I've had Waterfox installed. Do I need Waterfox? Is it a mod or its own thing? Sorry for the dumb question.


It's its own thing, a 64bit fork of Firefox. Separate browser all together. But based on Firefox.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Redzo*
> 
> It's its own thing, a 64bit fork of Firefox. Separate browser all together. But based on Firefox.


Thanks. I remember the first reply to OP in this thread it said "modified browser" and I never really asked after that. I just had Firefox and Waterfox downloaded together.


----------



## thechas

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> Thanks. I remember the first reply to OP in this thread it said "modified browser" and I never really asked after that. I just had Firefox and Waterfox downloaded together.


Do note that Firefox and Waterfox share the same user profile by default.

If you uninstall either browser make sure to NOT delete your profile or you will loose all of your bookmarks and extensions.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Do note that Firefox and Waterfox share the same user profile by default.
> 
> If you uninstall either browser make sure to NOY delete your profile or you will loose all of your bookmarks and extensions.


Yes. Thank you.









*Lose


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Whudunit*
> 
> I've been using WaterFox for years. Like most of my programs I have automatic updates enables, and use File Hippo updater, Heimdal and CCleaner to advise me of other program updates.
> 
> This just occurred for the first time yesterday (2015-09-29) only 12 hours after using it all day with zero issues. I cannot find any answers pertaining to Win10 Pro 64. Some articles suggested spyware or virus, so I have used Panda Free Antivirus with one PuP and erased it, I have Malwarebytes Anti-Malware Home Premium running all the time and scan no less then every three days, plus I used Trend Micro Housecall online scan and nothing. I regularly also use CCleaner Free and Spybot 1.6. I have scanned all drives with all programs.
> 
> I also got the same result when trying to open Speccy yesterday, it did open, but it said Java.exe .... same as above, plus when I tried to download Trendmicro Housecall from their site and load it onto my machine, same thing happened when I double clicked to start the program. I had an older version of Housecall on my RAID HDD and used that, it updated itself. I used Ad Block Plus and Privacy Badger. Firefox does work, but PaleMoon 64 did not.
> 
> Any suggestions? I cannot find where I left my Hijack This exe, so I have not run that.
> 
> WIN10 Pro 64
> 
> AMD 8150
> 
> 16GB RAM
> 
> 2x EVGA GTX 980Ti ACX 2.0
> 
> The only "grey" market anything I have is AnyDVD, but it is not installed anywhere, and I picked it up directly from their website.
> 
> I blame WIN10 NOT WaterFox, but their assistance so far, has been underwhelming.
> 
> SnapShotSpeccy.txt 133k .txt file
> 
> 
> I appreciate everyone's assistance in advance.
> 
> Thank You.


Sorry I must've overlooked it, but what's the issue that's happening exactly?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *mirkoj*
> 
> hey guys.. not sure if it is only me or what but all videos on you tube when played full screen are choppy as hell...
> edge plays all smoothly but waterfox no way...
> 
> 
> 
> A few of us had this issue for ages...
Click to expand...

Yes sorry about that, I've been looking into it and think I might have a fix.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Waterfox 40.0.3 isn't showing up as an Update for me either.
> Is it supposed to?


Oops that's my fault, the update file didn't get updated on the website! I'll sort that out 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Not to be bothersome, but WF41.01?
> When?


Sorry about that, there's a

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/3nk8l5/waterfox_41_delayed_due_to_compiler_bug/
 stopping 41 from compiling, so in the meanwhile I'll be releasing another patch (40.0.4) to fix various issues.


----------



## Whudunit

I just did a system restore, because the help from MS was not helpful, and it didn't work. Back to normal WF wise. Thank You


----------



## Quantum Reality

Thanks for backporting the security patches until you can get the compiler issue fixed


----------



## Baldone

Well this is a first. Since the "About Waterfox" tab still shows my Waterfox 40.0.2 as being up to date I went to the website (https://www.waterfoxproject.org/) and downloaded the 40.0.3 setup file. Running that file totally locked up my computer







Power button wouldn't even work. Had to unplug the damn thing and let it sit for a bit. Started up into the prompt screen asking if I wanted to open windows normally or run it in safe mode, etc. Gesh









Never again . I'll simply wait for the "About Waterfox" to show an update is available.


----------



## Screemer

Looking forward to getting 40.0.4
And even more for 41 since I use both FF and WF it's a bit messy to keep getting the addon check thingy every time I change browser.








But really happy to hear you'll release a patched 40.0.4 with security and other fixes..


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Chromium gets a huge jetstream score, but waterfox lags behind about 50 points region.

Trying to do some java tweaks / speedups.

1 option to change is

dom.ipc.plugins.java.enabled true

just cant use chromium, the extensions are amateur.

Chromium 48 and firefox 41 below.


----------



## Emissary of Pain

Hey all,

Maybe I am just a noob, ok, I am just a noob, but I have a question none the less.

If I am on a form (mostly happens on a local South African forum) and I upload a picture into the thread, it shows like this :
View attachment 306536


But if I view the thread using IE or Chrome, etc, it shows the image that I uploaded and not just the text that I must then open in a separate tab.

What could be causing this (never used to do this before)


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

highest score in HTML5test i can get is 503 points.


----------



## Quantum Reality

*pokes MrAlex* FF made another update, how are we on the WF variant?


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

i just cannot use chromium as a main browser, mozilla is far more comfortable to use with the addons and tweaks, but desperately need Java improvement.


----------



## Baldone

Mr Alex has posted Waterfox 40.1.0 Test Build 1 on redditt here:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/3py5yr/waterfox_4010_test_build_1/

"Hi everyone! New update for you all.
Patched

Any security vulnerabilities
that were fixed from v40->v41.

MFSA 2015-96 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards
MFSA 2015-97 Memory leak in mozTCPSocket to servers
MFSA 2015-98 Out of bounds read in QCMS library with ICC V4 profile attributes
MFSA 2015-101 Buffer overflow in libvpx while parsing vp9 format video
MFSA 2015-102 Crash when using debugger with SavedStacks in JavaScript
MFSA 2015-103 URL spoofing in reader mode
MFSA 2015-104 Use-after-free with shared workers and IndexedDB
MFSA 2015-105 Buffer overflow while decoding WebM video
MFSA 2015-108 Scripted proxies can access inner window
MFSA 2015-109 JavaScript immutable property enforcement can be bypassed
MFSA 2015-110 Dragging and dropping images exposes final URL after redirects
MFSA 2015-111 Errors in the handling of CORS preflight request headers
MFSA 2015-112 Vulnerabilities found through code inspection
MFSA 2015-113 Memory safety errors in libGLES in the ANGLE graphics library
MFSA 2015-114 Information disclosure via the High Resolution Time API

Updated

libjpeg-turbo to 1.4.2 from 1.4.0
libpng to 1.6.18 from 1.6.16

Changed

Removed Encrypted Media Extensions (they didn't work on x86_64 anyway)

To be done for next test build

Update ICU to 56.1 from 55.1
Find fix for YouTube issues

Sorry for the long delay. Still waiting for Intel to patch the compiler bug for v41+
Download

N.B. Test builds aren't digitally signed"


----------



## Screemer

Firefox v42.0 is out..
Is this regular release channel releases?

If so there is now a x64 release channel Firefox?
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/42.0/win32/
http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/42.0/win64/

Any thoughts?

They are both from the release channel.. Meaning they are official releases.

I have also learned that in x64 code Mozilla have chosen since v40 beta to disable all plugins but Adobe flash (and I think 2 other).
Meaning Silverlight, Java, Microsoft Lync and so on are not accessible or installable no mater what we users do.
Perhaps that's the reason it's not working for me in Waterfox to?


----------



## Prime2515102

"Amazon Video isn't supported on the 64-bit version of Firefox. We recommend using our HTML5 video player on Google Chrome, Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 8.1 or later, Microsoft Edge, or Opera."

Apparently Amazon has ditched Silverlight and Flash (finally!) but I'm getting this error.

Is there anything I can do to make it think I'm using 32-bit Firefox to see if it actually works?


----------



## WetLook

Alex,
When will this new update 40.0.3, be ready from: "Help" "About Waterfox"?

Post #7047

Quote:
Originally Posted by WetLook View Post

Waterfox 40.0.3 isn't showing up as an Update for me either.
Is it supposed to?

Answer:
Oops that's my fault, the update file didn't get updated on the website! I'll sort that out 

Thanks for all your hard work and time spent on this project.


----------



## Whudunit

A few days ago I started having an issue with Netflix. I receive error code F7701-1003. It has to do with DRM settings, however this solution is not listed in the options menu for Waterfox. It is, for Firefox and Palemoon, am I doing something wrong, because I really like WF, and want to keep using it. As mentioned this only just started in the past few days, right around the time all the apps were being updated, so I assume their browser was too.

Thank You, in advance.


----------



## gijs007

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Whudunit*
> 
> A few days ago I started having an issue with Netflix. I receive error code F7701-1003. It has to do with DRM settings, however this solution is not listed in the options menu for Waterfox. It is, for Firefox and Palemoon, am I doing something wrong, because I really like WF, and want to keep using it. As mentioned this only just started in the past few days, right around the time all the apps were being updated, so I assume their browser was too.
> 
> Thank You, in advance.


Same problem here, I think it has to do with the new Firefox 42 which has some changes in the way certain content is handled and Netflix assumes we all use the latest Firefox..

Anyway, now that Firefox officially releases 64 bit versions will we still get new Waterfox versions? I've noticed that we haven't received the latest 2 Firefox updates.


----------



## Quantum Reality

This website says there will not be NPAPI support (whatever that means) for the official 64bit FF.

http://www.fudzilla.com/news/39051-firefox-close-to-having-64-bit-browser-for-windows


----------



## Prime2515102

I believe NPAPI is plugin support.


----------



## Screemer

In official x64 version after v41.0a1 they added a whitelist for NPAPI plugins.
And the only plugin that is white listed is Adobe Flash? Silverlight, Java, MsOffice, MsLync and so on is not on the list.
Devs took the decicion to blacklist all but Flash..
Read about it here and let them know it's NOT OK!
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1187005

Perhaps this can be a new project for our beloved MrAlex, Waterfox could be the official x64 version that allow plugins.


----------



## Baldone

Waterfox 40.1.0 installed through prompts from the browser that an update was ready. Great







!


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I have disabled my AVG virus protection. I have disable Malwarebytes.

I go to "Help", "About Waterfox",



I click on "Apply Update...", a window opens "New Version Available",



I click on "Get the New Version", and then I get a window "Update Failed".



What do I need to do to get this update from "Help", "About Waterfox", "Apply Update"?
I know I can DL this program from https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ so please don't suggest this option.
There are people that would like this 40.1.0 Update available thru the above mentioned steps.

I know this project is time consuming and a lot of work, and I for one appreciate
what you have done, and are doing. thumb.gif

WetLook


----------



## thechas

I also had 2 computers that would not update from the update button in Waterfox.

Manual update from the waterfox.org website worked for both.

Chas


----------



## MrAlex

Hey all! Really sorry for the tardy replies here lately, been busy trying to balance everything! Reason why Waterfox is on 40.1.0:

Quote:


> Just a quick heads up why there hasn't been any news from me in regards to the latest Firefox release. Mozilla have a new tuple header that they've created and gets used fairly frequently and unfortunately, this causes an internal compiler error as can be seen here.
> 
> I'm just waiting for Intel to let me know when it gets patched and then the next release should be ready.
> 
> Until then, I've patched all the security issues released in v41 and v42 into 40 and will be releasing it as 40.1.0. This version also has support for WebP (.webp) image files!


Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> *pokes MrAlex* FF made another update, how are we on the WF variant?


Hopefully you've got the new update 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Firefox v42.0 is out..
> Is this regular release channel releases?
> 
> If so there is now a x64 release channel Firefox?
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/42.0/win32/
> http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/42.0/win64/
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> They are both from the release channel.. Meaning they are official releases.
> 
> I have also learned that in x64 code Mozilla have chosen since v40 beta to disable all plugins but Adobe flash (and I think 2 other).
> Meaning Silverlight, Java, Microsoft Lync and so on are not accessible or installable no mater what we users do.
> Perhaps that's the reason it's not working for me in Waterfox to?


Waterfox won't have the limitation Mozilla have put in place.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> "Amazon Video isn't supported on the 64-bit version of Firefox. We recommend using our HTML5 video player on Google Chrome, Internet Explorer 11 on Windows 8.1 or later, Microsoft Edge, or Opera."
> 
> Apparently Amazon has ditched Silverlight and Flash (finally!) but I'm getting this error.
> 
> Is there anything I can do to make it think I'm using 32-bit Firefox to see if it actually works?


I've returned a useful config entry: general.useragent.override.<URL>. Try using it for Amazon: Go to *about:config,* right click > new string: *general.useragent.override.amazon.com* with a value of something like:



Code:


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Alex,
> When will this new update 40.0.3, be ready from: "Help" "About Waterfox"?
> 
> Post #7047
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by WetLook View Post
> 
> Waterfox 40.0.3 isn't showing up as an Update for me either.
> Is it supposed to?
> 
> Answer:
> Oops that's my fault, the update file didn't get updated on the website! I'll sort that out
> 
> Thanks for all your hard work and time spent on this project.


It should be up now for the latest build 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Whudunit*
> 
> A few days ago I started having an issue with Netflix. I receive error code F7701-1003. It has to do with DRM settings, however this solution is not listed in the options menu for Waterfox. It is, for Firefox and Palemoon, am I doing something wrong, because I really like WF, and want to keep using it. As mentioned this only just started in the past few days, right around the time all the apps were being updated, so I assume their browser was too.
> 
> Thank You, in advance.


Should be fixed in 40.1.0 thanks to the general.useragent.override config. The reason being Netflix has decided to only allowe official Firefox builds ( or at least what they think is official  )

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *gijs007*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Whudunit*
> 
> A few days ago I started having an issue with Netflix. I receive error code F7701-1003. It has to do with DRM settings, however this solution is not listed in the options menu for Waterfox. It is, for Firefox and Palemoon, am I doing something wrong, because I really like WF, and want to keep using it. As mentioned this only just started in the past few days, right around the time all the apps were being updated, so I assume their browser was too.
> 
> Thank You, in advance.
> 
> 
> 
> Same problem here, I think it has to do with the new Firefox 42 which has some changes in the way certain content is handled and Netflix assumes we all use the latest Firefox..
> 
> Anyway, now that Firefox officially releases 64 bit versions will we still get new Waterfox versions? I've noticed that we haven't received the latest 2 Firefox updates.
Click to expand...

Reason for the delay in newest versions: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/reason-for-delay-and-40.1-this-week

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> In official x64 version after v41.0a1 they added a whitelist for NPAPI plugins.
> And the only plugin that is white listed is Adobe Flash? Silverlight, Java, MsOffice, MsLync and so on is not on the list.
> Devs took the decicion to blacklist all but Flash..
> Read about it here and let them know it's NOT OK!
> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1187005
> 
> Perhaps this can be a new project for our beloved MrAlex, Waterfox could be the official x64 version that allow plugins.


Waterfox won't have any whitelist 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Waterfox 40.1.0 installed through prompts from the browser that an update was ready. Great
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> !


Awesome!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I have disabled my AVG virus protection. I have disable Malwarebytes.
> 
> I go to "Help", "About Waterfox",
> 
> 
> 
> I click on "Apply Update...", a window opens "New Version Available",
> 
> 
> 
> I click on "Get the New Version", and then I get a window "Update Failed".
> 
> 
> 
> What do I need to do to get this update from "Help", "About Waterfox", "Apply Update"?
> I know I can DL this program from https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ so please don't suggest this option.
> There are people that would like this 40.1.0 Update available thru the above mentioned steps.
> 
> I know this project is time consuming and a lot of work, and I for one appreciate
> what you have done, and are doing. thumb.gif
> 
> WetLook


Ah would be good to see what causes this. If you could follow these steps:

Quote:


> In about:config, make sure app.update.log is set to enable
> Launch the browser to the default homepage (preferably with no active JavaScript)
> Open the browser console (Ctrl+Shift+J)
> Click the Menu Buttons (), click help
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and select About Waterfox
> Try to apply the update
> The browser console should log the process (logs relevant should start with app.update or similar)
> Copy and paste log here (or pastebin.com)


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> I also had 2 computers that would not update from the update button in Waterfox.
> 
> Manual update from the waterfox.org website worked for both.
> 
> Chas


If you could do the same as above that would be great to see what the issue is upgrading to 40.1.0!


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I have already done the manual DL and install for the 40.1.0 Update.

WetLook


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I have already did the manual DL and install for the 40.1.0 Update.
> 
> WetLook


I found the issue, the update file 404'd! Damn it Azure







really sorry about the inconvenience!


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

No problem, Thanks!!!

WetLook


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox won't have the limitation Mozilla have put in place.
> 
> I've returned a useful config entry: general.useragent.override.. Try using it for Amazon: Go to *about:config,* right click > new string: *general.useragent.override.amazon.com* with a value of something like:
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> [code]Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:42.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/42.0</code>
> </pre></div>
> 
> It should be up now for the latest build
> Should be fixed in 40.1.0 thanks to the general.useragent.override config. The reason being Netflix has decided to only allowe official Firefox builds ( or at least what they think is official
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> )


Well, this sort of worked for Amazon. Although, I had to change "WOW64" to "WOW32" (deleting it completely didn't work). However, it simply forced it to use silverlight instead of the HTML5 player. Oh well, at least I don't have to switch browsers to watch a movie now.

Thanks


----------



## Quantum Reality

Might wanna check out something like this:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/user-agent-switcher/

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/user-agent-overrider/

Pale Moon users sometimes have issues like this so there's been some discussion of UA switchers on their forums.


----------



## Screemer

Thank you for the responses MrAlex..
Seems I will stick to Waterfox then, even tho Mozilla has released an official but really crippled x64 version.

Looking forward to future great releases. As always...


----------



## Prime2515102

I have a minor problem with videos at NBC. http://www.nbc.com/heroes-reborn/episode-guide/season-1/sundae-bloody-sundae/109

When I set it to full screen the controls won't go away. It has something to do with the status bar (that isn't there). With "Status-4-evar" enabled it shows URL's in the lower left corner. With Status-4-evar disabled it does the same thing but doesn't show the URL's. Sometimes it disappears for a few seconds and the controls disappear, but as soon as it starts loading something again, it comes back.

The video controls aren't being picked up by the screenshot, but they're there.

This started with 40.1.0

P.S. The video is really choppy also. I don't know if it's because the video controls are being held open or what.


----------



## Screemer

Seems Mozilla has crawled to the cross a bit at least. In v43 of the x64 FF Silverlight is once more activated. However, still no Java, Office or Lync.


----------



## msuguy71

On this new version (40.1.0) some of my banking sites no longer load completely. One example is:

https://citiretailservices.citibankonline.com/RSnextgen/svc/launch/index.action?siteId=PLCN_BESTBUY#signon

Any idea if this is something that can be fixed with a config option?

Rick


----------



## Screemer

Any new builds comming? Firefox has released 43.0.1 x86 and x64


----------



## msuguy71

I imagine that red arrow would get annoying after awhile.









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I have a minor problem with videos at NBC. http://www.nbc.com/heroes-reborn/episode-guide/season-1/sundae-bloody-sundae/109
> 
> When I set it to full screen the controls won't go away. It has something to do with the status bar (that isn't there). With "Status-4-evar" enabled it shows URL's in the lower left corner. With Status-4-evar disabled it does the same thing but doesn't show the URL's. Sometimes it disappears for a few seconds and the controls disappear, but as soon as it starts loading something again, it comes back.
> 
> The video controls aren't being picked up by the screenshot, but they're there.
> 
> This started with 40.1.0
> 
> P.S. The video is really choppy also. I don't know if it's because the video controls are being held open or what.


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> I imagine that red arrow would get annoying after awhile.


lol


----------



## kronckew

arrow? what red arrow? all i get is a hunk of blue hot air balloon telling me that they are sorry, the video is unavailable in my area. that's discrimination. i demand a red arrow. i demand a video. i am a citizen of the USA! i have rights!

ah, well. the local red arrows over here in the UK are better than that one anyway.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Wondering myself about new versions of WF. I've decided to standardize on WF for my new OS install because 64-bit Mozilla Firefox is probably not _quite_ ready for prime time, and Pale Moon, while nice, is branching off more and more and a couple of extension incompatibilities are getting harder to keep on top of.

TBH though compared to my G3258, somehow WF feels a tad bit sluggish compared to PM running on it. Could just be bad heatsinking though; am still shaking down my 4690K, heh.

Since I now have 32 GB of RAM, I made a 4 GB RAMdisk and moved the Waterfox cache to that, seems to have made things a bit snappier. Also takes some of the load off my SSD, which is good.


----------



## Baldone

Anyone here try v43.0 TestBuild 3? See:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/3ytgf5/waterfox_430_test_build_3_performance_fix/

Looks to be on the cusp of release.


----------



## Quantum Reality

MrAlex, how soon can you move on this? I've just found out that FF 41+ actually block HTML5 video properly on Youtube whereas <41 do not, and WF's codebase is currently on FF 40.


----------



## kevindd992002

With the release of FF 64-bit, is WF a better browser than it?


----------



## kronckew

waterfox is a lot more optimised that the x64 firefox releases, x64 is a bit of an afterthought for mozilla, they concentrate more on x86. but they're not too shabby. you can try them both & decide which one works best for you. firefox will be coming out with the newer e10s multi-process code enabled soon (it is in the nightly alphas & newer betas with mixed results), so mr. alex will have to catch up on that aspect.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> waterfox is a lot more optimised that the x64 firefox releases, x64 is a bit of an afterthought for mozilla, they concentrate more on x86. but they're not too shabby. you can try them both & decide which one works best for you. firefox will be coming out with the newer e10s multi-process code enabled soon (it is in the nightly alphas & newer betas with mixed results), so mr. alex will have to catch up on that aspect.


That's what I thought. I hope that e10 will be implemented sooner than expected though. I mean it was present a couple of versions ago already.


----------



## kronckew

it's off by default i hear, but you can turn it back on with some cryptic variables in about:config. it's buggier in the releases tho, so caveat emptor. it's working reasonably well in the nightly alpha build, but still a bit buggy with multiple processes enabled rather than the default 1. haven't tried the betas. if you use the betas or alphas they have turned e10s off & you have to do some about:config tricks rather than a option tick box to get it working again, due to some changes that break it for some users. (i generally use the firefox nightly (alphas) unless it's broken, then i revert to waterfox till they fix it.


----------



## kevindd992002

Ok, gotcha.

I'm having an issue with WF 40.1.0 now. I'm trying to play YouTube videos from LinusTechTips and the highest quality I get is 360p. And I see a link in the settings gear icon of the Youtube video for "missing options". The link redirects to this URL: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6322658?p=missing_quality&rd=1

This doesn't make sense because when I try it on another computer with WF with the same version, I get the list of qualities up to 1080p. What gives?

Additionally, when I go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 on the problem computer, it says that it does not support H.264 and MSE & H.264 while on the working computer it supports all 6 listed protocols. The extensions are all the same on both WF instances.


----------



## RSB965

This forum is not update first...i always seen on other site update for Waterfox first...http://www.downloadcrew.com/
and on Waterfox site now...
Waterfox 43...


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok, gotcha.
> 
> I'm having an issue with WF 40.1.0 now. I'm trying to play YouTube videos from LinusTechTips and the highest quality I get is 360p. And I see a link in the settings gear icon of the Youtube video for "missing options". The link redirects to this URL: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6322658?p=missing_quality&rd=1
> 
> This doesn't make sense because when I try it on another computer with WF with the same version, I get the list of qualities up to 1080p. What gives?
> 
> Additionally, when I go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 on the problem computer, it says that it does not support H.264 and MSE & H.264 while on the working computer it supports all 6 listed protocols. The extensions are all the same on both WF instances.


BUMP! on this.


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RSB965*
> 
> This forum is not update first...i always seen on other site update for Waterfox first...http://www.downloadcrew.com/
> and on Waterfox site now...
> Waterfox 43...


Actually one ought to avoid third party sites that post downloads. Mr Alex the author posts to reddit about current updates. For instance:

https://i.imgur.com/PFJLqN8.png


----------



## RSB965

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Actually one ought to avoid third party sites that post downloads. Mr Alex the author posts to reddit about current updates. For instance:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/PFJLqN8.png


I follow this forum (unregistered) since i don't know maybe beginning of Mr Alex work...I thought that this forum was first source (Waterfox site doesn't exist earlier...etc)...So for present i`m wrong and good to know...Thanks.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Still no update through the usual update channel of Waterfox's auto-updater. What's the holdup?


----------



## Baldone

Quantum Reality,

Did you read my post just two above yours that included Mr Alex's comments on the auto updates?

But if you want to get a jump start on things before Mr. Alex sets up the auto updater, have at it here:
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-43.0-release-download


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I have a minor problem with videos at NBC. http://www.nbc.com/heroes-reborn/episode-guide/season-1/sundae-bloody-sundae/109
> 
> When I set it to full screen the controls won't go away. It has something to do with the status bar (that isn't there). With "Status-4-evar" enabled it shows URL's in the lower left corner. With Status-4-evar disabled it does the same thing but doesn't show the URL's. Sometimes it disappears for a few seconds and the controls disappear, but as soon as it starts loading something again, it comes back.
> 
> The video controls aren't being picked up by the screenshot, but they're there.
> 
> This started with 40.1.0
> 
> P.S. The video is really choppy also. I don't know if it's because the video controls are being held open or what.


Has this issue been resolved in 43?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *msuguy71*
> 
> On this new version (40.1.0) some of my banking sites no longer load completely. One example is:
> 
> https://citiretailservices.citibankonline.com/RSnextgen/svc/launch/index.action?siteId=PLCN_BESTBUY#signon
> 
> Any idea if this is something that can be fixed with a config option?
> 
> Rick


You can create a preference in about:config such as this for any websites that seem to be not displaying properly. I'd recommend using the latest FF UA.



(click to enlarge)

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Wondering myself about new versions of WF. I've decided to standardize on WF for my new OS install because 64-bit Mozilla Firefox is probably not quite ready for prime time, and Pale Moon, while nice, is branching off more and more and a couple of extension incompatibilities are getting harder to keep on top of.
> 
> TBH though compared to my G3258, somehow WF feels a tad bit sluggish compared to PM running on it. Could just be bad heatsinking though; am still shaking down my 4690K, heh.
> 
> Since I now have 32 GB of RAM, I made a 4 GB RAMdisk and moved the Waterfox cache to that, seems to have made things a bit snappier. Also takes some of the load off my SSD, which is good.


Quite a snappy computer set up you've got going on! Hopefully v43 will run better!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> MrAlex, how soon can you move on this? I've just found out that FF 41+ actually block HTML5 video properly on Youtube whereas <41 do not, and WF's codebase is currently on FF 40.


 It's available now 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> it's off by default i hear, but you can turn it back on with some cryptic variables in about:config. it's buggier in the releases tho, so caveat emptor. it's working reasonably well in the nightly alpha build, but still a bit buggy with multiple processes enabled rather than the default 1. haven't tried the betas. if you use the betas or alphas they have turned e10s off & you have to do some about:config tricks rather than a option tick box to get it working again, due to some changes that break it for some users. (i generally use the firefox nightly (alphas) unless it's broken, then i revert to waterfox till they fix it.


E10S is pretty much broken for WF. Intel's C++ just doesn't work well with it at all. In fact v43 took up 3 weeks of my life including all the way through Christmas going through thousands of commits finding out which patches broke everything. I'm dreading v44...

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *RSB965*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Actually one ought to avoid third party sites that post downloads. Mr Alex the author posts to reddit about current updates. For instance:
> 
> https://i.imgur.com/PFJLqN8.png
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I follow this forum (unregistered) since i don't know maybe beginning of Mr Alex work...I thought that this forum was first source (Waterfox site doesn't exist earlier...etc)...So for present i`m wrong and good to know...Thanks.
Click to expand...

Yes this is where Waterfox first started! Come March, it'll be 5 years ago! How time flies... Waterfox is also on Twitter and Reddit 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Still no update through the usual update channel of Waterfox's auto-updater. What's the holdup?


Sorry it's just a habit to release the installer first to see if there are any huge issues that might have slipped through testing and completely mess everything up.

In-fact some users are reporting v43 crashing completely for them (but I've tried on 4 systems with completely different hardware) so if you guys could test out 43.0.1 that'd be awesome!

If you want to test out the automatic updates:

Go to *about:config*, right click anywhere *New>String* with the name *app.update.url.override* and a value of *https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml*

Or just download the installers here


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Has this issue been resolved in 43?


No, the problem is still there.


----------



## tomv

Great job on 43. had it for couple days, runs like a charm . Thanks for the hard work!


----------



## WetLook

Where is the Waterfox 43.0 Setup for Windows.
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/downloads on shows
Waterfox 40.1.0 Setup for windows.
It also shows Waterfox 43.0.1 Portable, is this supposed to be for our laptops?

Thanks Mr.Alex for your time and help. You are doing a GREAT job and I appreciate your work!!!


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Portable just means it saves all it's settings in the same folder it's installed in. Great for having it on a flash drive.


----------



## thechas

Very strange.
I downloaded the 43.0.1 setup from the link on the main Waterfox page yesterday.

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/

Today, the link is for the older 40.1.0 release.

Mr Alex, what is up with the website?

Chas


----------



## GrumpyOne

He probably took it down for one reason or another.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Has this issue been resolved in 43?
> 
> 
> 
> No, the problem is still there.
Click to expand...

If you can recreate the problem with Firefox, I'd submit a bug report to Mozilla.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> Great job on 43. had it for couple days, runs like a charm . Thanks for the hard work!


Thanks! Appreciate it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Where is the Waterfox 43.0 Setup for Windows.
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/downloads on shows
> Waterfox 40.1.0 Setup for windows.
> It also shows Waterfox 43.0.1 Portable, is this supposed to be for our laptops?
> 
> Thanks Mr.Alex for your time and help. You are doing a GREAT job and I appreciate your work!!!


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Very strange.
> I downloaded the 43.0.1 setup from the link on the main Waterfox page yesterday.
> 
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
> 
> Today, the link is for the older 40.1.0 release.
> 
> Mr Alex, what is up with the website?
> 
> Chas


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> He probably took it down for one reason or another.


Basically anyone who didn't have a pre-existing Firefox/Waterfox profile, would be met with a crash straight away. Portable wasn't affected because of the use of the -p flag setting up a profile location and Mac uses Clang  Managed to find the bug after 5 days of bisecting. Grim! Here's a post with more info on what happened: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-43-installer-reverted-to-40.1.0-and-some-insight

Anyway 43.0.4 is out which rebases everything to FF43.0.4 and fixes the issue! Finally after 2 months straight of debugging through the holidays I'm going to have a long weekend


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok, gotcha.
> 
> I'm having an issue with WF 40.1.0 now. I'm trying to play YouTube videos from LinusTechTips and the highest quality I get is 360p. And I see a link in the settings gear icon of the Youtube video for "missing options". The link redirects to this URL: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6322658?p=missing_quality&rd=1
> 
> This doesn't make sense because when I try it on another computer with WF with the same version, I get the list of qualities up to 1080p. What gives?
> 
> Additionally, when I go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 on the problem computer, it says that it does not support H.264 and MSE & H.264 while on the working computer it supports all 6 listed protocols. The extensions are all the same on both WF instances.


MrAlex?


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi Mr. Alex,

Waterfox 40.1.0 still reports it is up to date. Is the Update Channel Dead?


----------



## tomv

Thanks MrAlex, got the new update. thank you for your work.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Ok, gotcha.
> 
> I'm having an issue with WF 40.1.0 now. I'm trying to play YouTube videos from LinusTechTips and the highest quality I get is 360p. And I see a link in the settings gear icon of the Youtube video for "missing options". The link redirects to this URL: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/6322658?p=missing_quality&rd=1
> 
> This doesn't make sense because when I try it on another computer with WF with the same version, I get the list of qualities up to 1080p. What gives?
> 
> Additionally, when I go to https://www.youtube.com/html5 on the problem computer, it says that it does not support H.264 and MSE & H.264 while on the working computer it supports all 6 listed protocols. The extensions are all the same on both WF instances.
> 
> 
> 
> MrAlex?
Click to expand...

Ooh sorry! I think it's related to this bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1233970

It varied on systems where YouTube would serve different qualities to different WF users. You could either install the WF43.0.4 update now, (or wait for the automatic update tomorrow) to see if it fixes it, if not on the broken system try playing around with the user agent: Make a pref called *general.useragent.override.youtube.com* and give it a value similar to this:



Code:


[B]Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:41.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/43.0[/B]

See if it makes any different with different values?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi Mr. Alex,
> 
> Waterfox 40.1.0 still reports it is up to date. Is the Update Channel Dead?


I've released the update to every other WF version except 40.1.0, due to that being the busiest. Want to make sure users aren't reporting any updater issues while I'm asleep, so 40.1.0 will get the notification tomorrow. You could always make the preference *app.update.url.override* and set it's value to *https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml* to force the update (then reset it when you're done).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *tomv*
> 
> Thanks MrAlex, got the new update. thank you for your work.


You're welcome!


----------



## safari801

I don't blame you, take a loooong weekend:thumb:


----------



## WetLook

:cheers:Mr. Alex,

Enjoy your long weekend, I am sure you can use the break!!!
Thank you for your work and time with this project, I appreciate it.

WetLook


----------



## kevindd992002

I'm using a proxy server with auto-detect proxy settings set in the network options of WF. After upgrading to WF 43.0.4, opening WF does nothing. The tabs just hang there. When I configure WF to use No Proxy (my firewall is not set to block port 80 and port 443 so I can choose to use the proxy or not), everything works properly. Any ideas on this?


----------



## kevindd992002

I manually specified the proxy server IP address and port number and everything worked also. So the problem is the auto-proxy detection of WF 43.0.4. It doesn't detect proxy.dat properly.


----------



## Quantum Reality

What happens if you use "System Proxy settings"?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> What happens if you use "System Proxy settings"?


It does work when you set it to use "system proxy settings" but doesn't forward traffic to the proxy server. This is a known issue in FF/WF (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=621429). So now even auto-detect proxy settings doesn't work.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Upgraded WF through the usual autoupdate channel. Noticed the d/l was 95 megs whereas the WF 43 installer from the website is 72 megs. What gives?

Also, setting "media.autoplay.enabled" does not properly forbid Youtube from loading an HTML5 video, though the video player subwindow will be blank and not display images - Mozilla and other websites claim that FF 43+ will properly recognize this setting.

No idea if this is a WF issue or an issue with the underlying FF codebase.


----------



## kevindd992002

I confirmed another issue wherein when WF is set to save the session (multiple tabs) when exiting out of it, it restores most of the tabs (probably the set of tabs up to a few hours ago) but not the latest ones. I then tried closing some tabs that were in the set that keeps on restoring, closed WF, and then it restored those closed tabs again! It seems to me that the sessionstore file is not being overwritten with latest data whenever it gets closes. I've been a very long time user of FF/WF and love the session saving feature and this is the very first time I've encountered this. Can you please help MrAlex?


----------



## Baldone

Like others who have posted elsewhere (reddit, etc.), I am experiencing repeated crashes when using flash under 43.0.4.. Watching the process seems to indicate that memory isn't being refreshed/dumped and once it hits a certain level... CRASH. I can get maybe 3 minutes of streaming video before this happens. This wasn't a problem with 40.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Suggestion for WaterFox. I want the "browser.newtab.url" option back.

This option was removed in Firefox 41. It's to prevent hijackers from overriding your new tab page, which is pointless when your home page can be just as easily modified.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I confirmed another issue wherein when WF is set to save the session (multiple tabs) when exiting out of it, it restores most of the tabs (probably the set of tabs up to a few hours ago) but not the latest ones. I then tried closing some tabs that were in the set that keeps on restoring, closed WF, and then it restored those closed tabs again! It seems to me that the sessionstore file is not being overwritten with latest data whenever it gets closes. I've been a very long time user of FF/WF and love the session saving feature and this is the very first time I've encountered this. Can you please help MrAlex?


BUMP!


----------



## anti-clockwize

I was using waterfox up until the latest build, and have switched back to firefox since they now offer 64 bit.
Is there much difference between the two browsers? firefox seems to be a bit more compatible with some things, netflix is one example (netflix doesnt operate properly using waterfox for me - and netflix offers no support for the browser)


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Has this issue been resolved in 43?


Ok, the problem is still there in Firefox (the bit about the status holding the controls open on nbc.com).

Also, something else came up and this is really bizarre.

When I try to watch a movie on Vudu.com, it start buffering, then stops, asking to switch the video to SD. Here's the weird bit: When it does this, my internet slows to a crawl (and sometimes cuts out completely) unless I reset my router (or reset my cable modem if the router is out of the chain). It does this in Waterfox and Firefox also. I just watched a movie on vudu with IE and had no problem.

P.S. I just upgraded to 43.0.4 and both problems remain.


----------



## Baldone

This flash business really has me aggravated. I've uninstalled and reinstalled the plug in to no avail. As I posted here a few days ago, it appears to crash because it doesn't dump memory and once it gets "fat" enough, it goes belly up. Wasn't an issue in early Waterfox releases.

Also note that it has been posted as an issue on Reddit's Waterfox Community support. No response / fix yet though


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> I don't blame you, take a loooong weekend:thumb:


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> :cheers:Mr. Alex,
> 
> Enjoy your long weekend, I am sure you can use the break!!!
> Thank you for your work and time with this project, I appreciate it.
> 
> WetLook


Cheers!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Upgraded WF through the usual autoupdate channel. Noticed the d/l was 95 megs whereas the WF 43 installer from the website is 72 megs. What gives?
> 
> Also, setting "media.autoplay.enabled" does not properly forbid Youtube from loading an HTML5 video, though the video player subwindow will be blank and not display images - Mozilla and other websites claim that FF 43+ will properly recognize this setting.
> 
> No idea if this is a WF issue or an issue with the underlying FF codebase.


Intel's compiler generates larger code output, especially with all the optimisation flags. Hmm interesting, I'll have a look at that flag.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxpenguinxx*
> 
> Suggestion for WaterFox. I want the "browser.newtab.url" option back.
> 
> This option was removed in Firefox 41. It's to prevent hijackers from overriding your new tab page, which is pointless when your home page can be just as easily modified.


Ah right I see, I'll bring it back I think for 44.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I confirmed another issue wherein when WF is set to save the session (multiple tabs) when exiting out of it, it restores most of the tabs (probably the set of tabs up to a few hours ago) but not the latest ones. I then tried closing some tabs that were in the set that keeps on restoring, closed WF, and then it restored those closed tabs again! It seems to me that the sessionstore file is not being overwritten with latest data whenever it gets closes. I've been a very long time user of FF/WF and love the session saving feature and this is the very first time I've encountered this. Can you please help MrAlex?
> 
> 
> 
> BUMP!
Click to expand...

That is really strange but I have a feeling I know what a lot of issues are caused by. Basically Mozilla have implemented their own snprintf function, for which ICL generates bad code all the time. When using the VS2015 toolchain, it has it's own working implementation that ICL generate code that works without crashing. WF44 will be built with ICL/VS2015 toolchain so stability should be a LOT better.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *anti-clockwize*
> 
> I was using waterfox up until the latest build, and have switched back to firefox since they now offer 64 bit.
> Is there much difference between the two browsers? firefox seems to be a bit more compatible with some things, netflix is one example (netflix doesnt operate properly using waterfox for me - and netflix offers no support for the browser)


There are a lot of differences. See here.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Has this issue been resolved in 43?
> 
> 
> 
> Ok, the problem is still there in Firefox (the bit about the status holding the controls open on nbc.com).
> 
> Also, something else came up and this is really bizarre.
> 
> When I try to watch a movie on Vudu.com, it start buffering, then stops, asking to switch the video to SD. Here's the weird bit: When it does this, my internet slows to a crawl (and sometimes cuts out completely) unless I reset my router (or reset my cable modem if the router is out of the chain). It does this in Waterfox and Firefox also. I just watched a movie on vudu with IE and had no problem.
> 
> P.S. I just upgraded to 43.0.4 and both problems remain.
Click to expand...

That's very odd. If it happens with FF as well I'd recommend filing a bug as soon as possible as that sounds serious. Your other issue sounds like it could be graphics driver issue though, as I know some drivers tend to cause oddities like that.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> This flash business really has me aggravated. I've uninstalled and reinstalled the plug in to no avail. As I posted here a few days ago, it appears to crash because it doesn't dump memory and once it gets "fat" enough, it goes belly up. Wasn't an issue in early Waterfox releases.
> 
> Also note that it has been posted as an issue on Reddit's Waterfox Community support. No response / fix yet though


Hmm yes I'll revert the plugin whitelist removal from the codebase and instead use a pref to disable it, should make things a bit more stable.


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally posted by MrAlex
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Baldone
> 
> This flash business really has me aggravated. I've uninstalled and reinstalled the plug in to no avail. As I posted here a few days ago, it appears to crash because it doesn't dump memory and once it
> gets "fat" enough, it goes belly up. Wasn't an issue in early Waterfox releases.
> 
> Also note that it has been posted as an issue on Reddit's Waterfox Community support. No response / fix yet though frown.gif
> 
> Hmm yes I'll revert the plugin whitelist removal from the codebase and instead use a pref to disable it, should make things a bit more stable.


Thank you sir!


----------



## Quantum Reality

_*"WARNING: the 'heap-allocated' memory reporter does not work for this platform and/or configuration. This means that 'heap-unclassified' is not shown and the 'explicit' tree shows less memory than it should. "*_

From about:memory

Is this because of a custom memory allocator?

Also, WF seems to really chomp through memory. With 32 GB it's not really an issue, but when I see it routinely using between 2 and 3 GB of RAM....


----------



## kronckew

what good is memory if you ain't usin' it? if it isn't broke, don't fix it.


----------



## Quantum Reality

It's not just that; it's that as a person on reddit complained, WF seems to be very sluggish on pages now, and I know from experience that large memory usage tends to slow down Mozilla-type browsers. MrAlex is aware of the problem and claims to be unregressing some regressions that went into 43.x.


----------



## MrAlex

Here's a test build:

Quote:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> Really sorry this release has taken so long. I was originally planning to update the toolchain to use Visual Studio 2015 but local app deployment with it has become a bit of a pain and it doesn't seem to work without the use of installing of the MS Redistributable, which isn't ideal. So I wasted a week of dev time trying to fix that. Back to using Visual Studio 2013 toolchain for Intel's C++ compiler.
> 
> I'll keep it short and sweet:
> 
> 
> Buttery smoothness is back
> Huge stability increase, random crashes should now not happen anymore (fixed a header that ICL was generating malformed output, causing crashes)
> Fixed page load icon to now spin once again
> Disabled webcomponents, which should fix a myriad of websites not loading properly
> 
> Download


----------



## GrumpyOne

About to install, hoping for the best.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Oh my God these page load times are ridiculous. Can beta builds safely be installed over release builds and then updated to the next release because I have had it up to here *points at ceiling* with WF's random sluggishness.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> About to install, hoping for the best.


Thanks, let me know how it goes!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Oh my God these page load times are ridiculous. Can beta builds safely be installed over release builds and then updated to the next release because I have had it up to here *points at ceiling* with WF's random sluggishness.


Yes won't be any issues. This is basically the final build, just it isn't digitally signed. Has the test build fixed the sluggishness?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Yep! Page loads are speedier now.

Couple quick bugs though:

First time I copied the files over and then ran WF it stalled and took ages to load. Must've been doing a release-notes version check or summat and couldn't find it.

Also every now and then the autocomplete dropdown won't fill in from past history + bookmarks. Deleting the text and then typing something else seems to kick it back into gear.

Am using the following extensions:

Download Cleaner (auto-wipes download history on successful d/l)
New Xkit (Tumblr add-on)
NoScript (javascript blocker/whitelister)
Self-Destructing Cookies (self-explanatory, default blacklist of cookies, selective preservation based on a whitelist)
EDIT: Also noticing a couple weirdities with scrolling; it's kind of like WF is "bunching" the text at the first third and second third of the page as text moves up or down. Might be an issue with the smooth-scrolling algorithm (and probably is: I just disabled smooth scrolling and things seem OK now).

EDIT 2: I can reproduce the problem with the autocomplete dropdown if my mouse pointer is anywhere in the vicinity of where the dropdown will be. It's still a bit randomish but it seems to NOT happen if the mouse pointer is anywhere else on the screen.

EDIT 3: It looks like Mozilla "squashed" things down in the rendering engine for FF 44+. Self-Destructing Cookies has a popup that looks messed-up in beta!WF, but in a FF 43.0.4 64bit install I have on another computer, it appears fine (but after update to 44.0.1 it looked messed there, too). Also, the autocomplete dropdown has more spacing between the lines than WF 44 beta does (it's pretty subtle though). Could you un-do this in your release WF build?

Waterfox 44 beta:



Firefox 43.0.4:



The "Visit website.com" feature was not reverted: I just used the arrow-click shortcut on the 43.0.4 dropdown.

EDIT 4:

I've also noticed that HTML5 video on Youtube in ~1080p fullscreen (I use a 1920x1200 screen) seems kind of a touch blurry and choppy, but in the normal-size video screen the images are very crisp and the framerate is noticeably faster. Firefox HTML5 engine issues?


----------



## Baldone

44.0.2 available now. Auto update notification may not be working in 43.0.4

https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-44.0-release-download

Shockwave Flash is still crashing







"Unresponsive plugin"
...and yes I've done all the Mozilla and Adobe suggested cures to include even updating my graphics driver. Nothing makes any difference


----------



## Quantum Reality

With Javascript disabled Waterfox's website is presenting to me a "Download for Mac" button. How on earth can it be not even trying to check my useragent for the OS?


----------



## kevindd992002

Is anyone experiencing sluggish tab loading with 44.0.2?


----------



## Emissary of Pain

maybe I am just an idiot ... but why has "from my country" been removed from "search tools" ? .... haha


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emissary of Pain*
> 
> maybe I am just an idiot ... but why has "from my country" been removed from "search tools" ? .... haha


Honestly I've bever seen that.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Yep! Page loads are speedier now.
> 
> Couple quick bugs though:
> 
> First time I copied the files over and then ran WF it stalled and took ages to load. Must've been doing a release-notes version check or summat and couldn't find it.
> 
> Also every now and then the autocomplete dropdown won't fill in from past history + bookmarks. Deleting the text and then typing something else seems to kick it back into gear.
> 
> Am using the following extensions:
> 
> Download Cleaner (auto-wipes download history on successful d/l)
> New Xkit (Tumblr add-on)
> NoScript (javascript blocker/whitelister)
> Self-Destructing Cookies (self-explanatory, default blacklist of cookies, selective preservation based on a whitelist)
> EDIT: Also noticing a couple weirdities with scrolling; it's kind of like WF is "bunching" the text at the first third and second third of the page as text moves up or down. Might be an issue with the smooth-scrolling algorithm (and probably is: I just disabled smooth scrolling and things seem OK now).
> 
> EDIT 2: I can reproduce the problem with the autocomplete dropdown if my mouse pointer is anywhere in the vicinity of where the dropdown will be. It's still a bit randomish but it seems to NOT happen if the mouse pointer is anywhere else on the screen.
> 
> EDIT 3: It looks like Mozilla "squashed" things down in the rendering engine for FF 44+. Self-Destructing Cookies has a popup that looks messed-up in beta!WF, but in a FF 43.0.4 64bit install I have on another computer, it appears fine (but after update to 44.0.1 it looked messed there, too). Also, the autocomplete dropdown has more spacing between the lines than WF 44 beta does (it's pretty subtle though). Could you un-do this in your release WF build?
> 
> Waterfox 44 beta:
> 
> 
> 
> Firefox 43.0.4:
> 
> 
> 
> The "Visit website.com" feature was not reverted: I just used the arrow-click shortcut on the 43.0.4 dropdown.
> 
> EDIT 4:
> 
> I've also noticed that HTML5 video on Youtube in ~1080p fullscreen (I use a 1920x1200 screen) seems kind of a touch blurry and choppy, but in the normal-size video screen the images are very crisp and the framerate is noticeably faster. Firefox HTML5 engine issues?


Sorry I didn't reply earlier, didn't know there were edits!


Seems strange that, maybe it's indexing your history once again. Have you noticed any different now after running for a while?
That seems odd. Does hardware acceleration have anything to do with the effect?
Interesting, I'll see if I can find a bug relating to the size decrease
Yes, I get it on both FF and WF on my 2560x1080 monitor

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> 44.0.2 available now. Auto update notification may not be working in 43.0.4
> 
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-44.0-release-download
> 
> Shockwave Flash is still crashing
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Unresponsive plugin"
> ...and yes I've done all the Mozilla and Adobe suggested cures to include even updating my graphics driver. Nothing makes any difference


I'm delaying the auto-update, I'm saving up money to cover the CDN cost







, just found out Github allow hosting of binary files, may move to that, it's free!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> With Javascript disabled Waterfox's website is presenting to me a "Download for Mac" button. How on earth can it be not even trying to check my useragent for the OS?


Yep that's the default button download. The website is (mostly) static for simplicity's sake and so JavaScript detects the browser. It's what almost every (even dynamic) website uses to detect user agent.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Is anyone experiencing sluggish tab loading with 44.0.2?


It should be the opposite in this release. Any chance you take a video?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Emissary of Pain*
> 
> maybe I am just an idiot ... but why has "from my country" been removed from "search tools" ? .... haha


Could you elaborate a bit? Any screenshots of what's missing?


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

I tried restarting the browser and it seems faster now. Maybe it was just about the cache when I first upgraded. I'll monitor and will report back with a video if there are more issues.


----------



## Quantum Reality

The release 44.0.2 patches the dropdown bug that caused text nondisplay so I imagine some debugging code was causing that little issue. I'll reinstate smooth scrolling and see how it rolls.


----------



## kronckew

page 1 still says 43.0.4. d/l page says 44 

?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Smooth scrolling appears to work properly now.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> I tried restarting the browser and it seems faster now. Maybe it was just about the cache when I first upgraded. I'll monitor and will report back with a video if there are more issues.


Okay great!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> page 1 still says 43.0.4. d/l page says 44
> 
> ?


Looks like I can't edit the first post any more, probably an update to OCN caused this.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Smooth scrolling appears to work properly now.


Great, glad to hear it.


----------



## Bitemarks and bloodstains

PM ENTERPRISE and he will unlock it for you.


----------



## Baldone

This is minor but irritating. Since upgrading to 44.0.2 I've found that when refreshing pages on sites such as Amaaon, TBGUide, etc. instead of the new page refreshing to the top, they show in the middle (the slider on the right ends up centered in the middle of the page). WTH? Anyone else experiencing this?

The flash crashing issues (plugin has stopped working and the plugin container has encountered a problem) is still an issue for me


----------



## Baldone

44.0.3 is out
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-44.0-release-download

What's new in Waterfox 44.0.3?
Updates

Disabled Tracking Protection for non-private browsing instances as it was breaking various pages relying on tracking cookies
Disabled 64-Bit Plugin whitelist to allow all 64-Bit plugins to run


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> 44.0.3 is out
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-44.0-release-download
> 
> What's new in Waterfox 44.0.3?
> Updates
> 
> Disabled Tracking Protection for non-private browsing instances as it was breaking various pages relying on tracking cookies
> Disabled 64-Bit Plugin whitelist to allow all 64-Bit plugins to run


That sounds like a step backwards. The whole point of Do Not Track etc is that users may not want websites to leave unwanted tracking info on their computers.


----------



## Baldone

nt


----------



## kevindd992002

What is wrong with the built-in updater of WF? Why is it that it gets fixed and then gets broken again and then gets fixed again? From what I remember, this problem doesn't exist in FF, right?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Bitemarks and bloodstains*
> 
> PM ENTERPRISE and he will unlock it for you.


Thanks I will do!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> This is minor but irritating. Since upgrading to 44.0.2 I've found that when refreshing pages on sites such as Amaaon, TBGUide, etc. instead of the new page refreshing to the top, they show in the middle (the slider on the right ends up centered in the middle of the page). WTH? Anyone else experiencing this?
> 
> The flash crashing issues (plugin has stopped working and the plugin container has encountered a problem) is still an issue for me


Hmm very odd. Not sure what I can suggest anymore for the plugin crashes :/

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> 44.0.3 is out
> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-44.0-release-download
> 
> What's new in Waterfox 44.0.3?
> Updates
> 
> Disabled Tracking Protection for non-private browsing instances as it was breaking various pages relying on tracking cookies
> Disabled 64-Bit Plugin whitelist to allow all 64-Bit plugins to run
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds like a step backwards. The whole point of Do Not Track etc is that users may not want websites to leave unwanted tracking info on their computers.
Click to expand...

Do Not Track is still there, I just disabled the tracking protection (different from DNT) that was recently introduced because it broke a lot of websites. For example disqus would no longer work as the cookie it uses to store your user session on is a 'tracking' cookie.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> What is wrong with the built-in updater of WF? Why is it that it gets fixed and then gets broken again and then gets fixed again? From what I remember, this problem doesn't exist in FF, right?


I just didn't seed the update file, was trying to get some money together for the CDN as it's quite expensive. Has been resolved now though as they might be giving me a sponsored account because Waterfox is open source, which is quite cool!


----------



## kevindd992002

@MrAlex

Thanks for the confirmation.


----------



## Prime2515102

44.0.3:

There is a problem with the chat program from http://www.flashcoms.com/

I have no idea what version, but it is an old one. In the chat window, there is a feature to send images but when clicking the "browse" button to select an image, it does nothing. This hasn't worked since 40.1.

This problem has occurred before (a very long time ago-maybe back in the Waterfox 2x.x range [maybe even 1x.x range]), but it was corrected with a Flash update. The Flash updates aren't fixing it now.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> 44.0.3:
> 
> There is a problem with the chat program from http://www.flashcoms.com/
> 
> I have no idea what version, but it is an old one. In the chat window, there is a feature to send images but when clicking the "browse" button to select an image, it does nothing. This hasn't worked since 40.1.
> 
> This problem has occurred before (a very long time ago-maybe back in the Waterfox 2x.x range [maybe even 1x.x range]), but it was corrected with a Flash update. The Flash updates aren't fixing it now.


I'll have a look into this for you.

Okay guys, something new here!

Quote:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> So I've decided to experiment a test build utilising clang-cl. I'm considering moving away from Intel's C++ compiler for the following reasons:
> 
> 
> Compiler bugs I submit related to Mozilla code still haven't been patched 6 months after I submit them
> ICL generates bad output in parts of the codebase, which is generally the cause for a lot of obscure crashes
> It's quite exhausting finding new issues with ICL and the Mozilla codebase every update as there are so many new changes each time.
> 
> Reasons I'm considering moving to Clang-cl:
> 
> 
> It's free and open source
> It generates very efficient output
> Compile time is half of ICL
> Speed of the resulting program is just as fast as ICL!
> Jemalloc works with clang builds, which means better memory control!
> 
> Here's Waterfox 45 for you to test compiled by Clang-cl, let me know your thoughts on this build and whether you think it's a good direction for Waterfox to take
> 
> Download Build 2


I'd appreciate any feedback you guys have in regards to this Clang build.


----------



## Screemer

Hi MrAlex.

I've been trying the v45 build 2 release.

I have crashes from time to time..

Code:



Code:


Faulting application name: waterfox.exe, version: 45.0.0.5909, time stamp: 0x56dcc3c4
Faulting module name: ntdll.dll, version: 6.3.9600.18202, time stamp: 0x569e7d02
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x000000000003b6a9
Faulting process id: 0x30fc
Faulting application start time: 0x01d179e156591b56
Faulting application path: C:\Program Files\Internet\Waterfox\waterfox.exe
Faulting module path: C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll
Report Id: ed047774-e5ee-11e5-82d0-c4d9873b7021
Faulting package full name: 
Faulting package-relative application ID:

I downloaded this file: waterfox-45.0.en-US.win64.2.zip

I just felt I should report it, I haven't tried on a clean profile and running it as a portable browser works without any crashes.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hi MrAlex.
> 
> I've been trying the v45 build 2 release.
> 
> I have crashes from time to time..
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> 
> Code:
> 
> 
> Faulting application name: waterfox.exe, version: 45.0.0.5909, time stamp: 0x56dcc3c4
> Faulting module name: ntdll.dll, version: 6.3.9600.18202, time stamp: 0x569e7d02
> Exception code: 0xc0000005
> Fault offset: 0x000000000003b6a9
> Faulting process id: 0x30fc
> Faulting application start time: 0x01d179e156591b56
> Faulting application path: C:\Program Files\Internet\Waterfox\waterfox.exe
> Faulting module path: C:\Windows\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll
> Report Id: ed047774-e5ee-11e5-82d0-c4d9873b7021
> Faulting package full name:
> Faulting package-relative application ID:
> 
> I downloaded this file: waterfox-45.0.en-US.win64.2.zip
> 
> I just felt I should report it, I haven't tried on a clean profile and running it as a portable browser works without any crashes.


Thanks for the report! Crash reports are good, help me to solve whatever is wrong! Hmm, it seems someone else had this crash too but was related to one of his add-ons. They were using about 20 though, so hard to pin-point which ones. Could I ask for a list of your add-ons?


----------



## Screemer

Might scare you a bit tho MrAlex.









1. Add-on Compatibility Reporter (v2.0.6.1-signed) - Report add-on compatibility issues to Mozilla
2. Advanced Cookie Manager (v5.12) - Advanced Cookie Manager: To manage and monitor cookies.
3. BBCodeXtra (v0.5.3) - Adds BBCode/HTML/XHTML and custom tags commands to the context menu
4. BugMeNot Plugin (v3.1-signed) - Log in with BugMeNot, with single click.
5. Cache Status (v0.9.0) - Easy cache status & management from status
6. checkCompatibility (v1.3.1-signed) - Reinstates the extensions.checkCompatibility preference.
7. Classic Bookmarks Button (v1.0.1-signed) - This add-on restores pre-Australis bookmarks button on Firefox 29+, but can be used on previous Firefox versions too as an additional bookmarks button. Use 'Customize Toolbar' menu to place it on your preferred toolbar.
8. Classic Compact Options (v25.0.1-signed) - This adds the "Classic Compact Options" menu item to the "tools" menu, which allows one to change the appearance of the theme Classic Compact. Options include: using keyhole arrows; turning off gradient backgrounds; turning off rounded borders; and turning on chiseled toolbar dividers. Requires the theme Classic Compact v25.0 or higher.
9. Classic Theme Restorer (v1.4.8) - 'Classic Theme Restorer' brings back appmenu button, squared tabs, add-ons bar, small nav-bar buttons, a few older buttons and more to Firefox Australis UI. Use 'Customize' menu to move buttons on toolbars.
10. CLEO (v6.0.3) - Create multi-addon install package (Cleopack)
11. ColorZilla (v2.8.2) - Advanced Eyedropper, ColorPicker, Page Zoomer and other colorful goodies
12. Configuration Mania (v1.23.2016030901) - More Advanced (hidden) configures
13. Console² (v0.9.1-signed.1-let-fixed) - The next generation error console.
14. Customize about:newtab (v1.3.0) - Custimze the new about:newtab page.
15. CustomizeGoogle (v0.76) - Enhance Google search results and remove ads and spam.
16. Download Manager Tweak (v1.0.9.1-signed) - Allows the download manager to also open in a tab or sidebar, and adds some optional display changes.
17. Extension List Dumper (v1.15.2.1-signed) - Dumps a list of the installed extensions.
18. Facebook Secret Emoticons (v3.3.2.1-signed) - This Add-on gives you access to all secret emoticons in Facebook.
19. Fasterfox (v3.9.85.1-signed) - Fasterfox provides performance and network tweaks for Firefox. Fasterfox makes your browsing much faster! Watch Youtube Faster with Fasterfox!
20. FEBE (v8.8.2) - Backup your Firefox data
21. Firebug (v2.0.14) - Web Development Evolved. Firebug is free and open source software distributed under the BSD License.
22. Firefox Hello Beta (v0.1) - Web sharing for Firefox
23. Fire IE (v0.4.6.1) - Embeds Internet Explorer(IE) to use the powerful Firefox add-ons. Not only an enhanced IE Tab, but also an enhanced Internet Explorer with Adblock Plus and FireGestures support. Switch to the IE engine in one click and dismiss your IE.
24. FireQuery (v2.0.1) - Firefox plugin for jQuery development
25. Flagfox (v5.1.8) - Displays a flag depicting the location of the current server
26. FlashGot (v1.5.6.12.1-signed) - Enables single and massive ("all" and "selection") downloads using the most popular external download managers for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBSD (dozens currently supported, see Extension's Home Page for details). FlashGot offers also a Build Gallery functionality which helps to synthetize full media galleries in one page from serial contents originally scattered on several pages, for easy and fast "download all".
27. Flash Video Downloader - YouTube HD Download [4K] (v9.5.1) - Flash Video Downloader helps you to download any video (flv, mp4, HD) from YouTube-like, Facebook, Break, Metacafe and more in one click. You can download mp3, music (iPod), avi and more. Download Flash games. Download Helper.
28. Forecastfox (fix version) (v2.4.1) - Get international weather forecasts with this highly customizable extension
29. Form History Control (v1.4.0.4.1-signed) - Manage Form History (view, edit, delete, clean-up, export/import)
30. FoxyProxy Standard (v4.5.6) - FoxyProxy - Premier proxy management for Firefox
31. Free Download Manager extension (v2.1.1) - Free Download Manager integration with Firefox browser.
32. Greasefire (v1.0.8.1-signed) - Automatically find Greasemonkey scripts on Userscripts.org
33. Greasemonkey (v3.7) - A User Script Manager for Firefox
34. HP Client Security Manager (v1.0.0.5833) - Provides secure and convenient logon to Web sites
35. Html Validator (v0.9.6.6) - Adds HTML validation to the View Page Source of the browser. The validation is done by Tidy or a SGML Parser from W3c.
36. IE Tab 2 (FF 3.6+) (v6.2.18.1) - Enhanced version of the classic IE Tab that includes support for FireFox 3.6 and beyond.
37. IE View (v1.5.6.1-signed) - Open pages in IE via Firefox menus
38. Image Zoom (v0.6.3.1-signed) - Adds zoom functionality for images
39. Integrated Authentication for Firefox (v3.0.1.1-signed) - An extension that helps with enabling and managing NTLM (Windows pass-through) and other SPNEGO (integrated authentication) settings.
40. is.gd Creator (v0.2.2) - Provides easy access to the is.gd URL shortening service
41. Joomla! Admin (v1.6.1-signed) - Joomla! Admin helps Web Developers using Joomla, to quickly switch between 'Administrator' and 'Site' views of their Website. It is compatible with Mozilla Firefox, Flock, and SeaMonkey Web Browsers.
42. Less Spam, please (v0.8.0.1-signed) - Create a valid, temporary and anonymous mail address on demand. This mail address can be reused without restriction.
43. Linkification (v1.3.8.1-signed) - Converts text links into genuine, clickable links.
44. Local Filesystem Links (v0.99.42) - Scans pages for file:/// links and makes it possible to open them with the system's file browser.
45. LocalLink (v0.5.1-signed) - Open links in local context.
46. MailCatch: Temporary Emails (v1.0.4) - Temporary email service with MailCatch.com directly inside your browser!
47. Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant (v1.3.1.1-signed) - Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET Framework versions to the web server.
48. MinimizeToTray revived (MinTrayR) (v1.1.2.1-signed) - Minimizes windows into the system tray
49. Mozilla Archive Format (v3.1.3) - Save exactly what you see, in a single file. MAFF (based on ZIP) is compact and exceptional for video and audio. MHT (Internet Explorer's format) allows easy exchange with IE users. Store many tabs, find original, and more!
50. MWAddon Client (v2.0.48) - Improve Mafia Wars gameplay experience and feel free while it is doing the hard work.
51. New Tab Pro (v0.6.1) - You can customize the number of the tiles of the New Tab page (about:newtab), right on that page.
52. Nightly Tester Tools (v3.7.1-signed) - Useful tools for the nightly tester.
53. Noia 4 Theme Manager (v2.0.0) - Select gray, black, blue, Firefox 3-like, FF4+ (Win7) or AeroGlass skins and customize your Firefox with many personal tweaks.
54. OpenDownload² (v4.1.1) - Extends the "Save" dialog by a button to open the file directly.
55. Optimoz Tweaks (v0.4) - Sidebar autohide and other user interface tweaks
56. Print Preview (v0.7.1.3) - Creates a Print Preview toolbar button and context menu item.
57. Print/Print Preview (v1.0) - Replace the default "Print" button with the Mozilla Suite style "Print/Print Preview" toolbar button/menu, with additional "Page setup" option. Adds new options to context menu as well.
58. S3.Google Translator (v5.18) - Translation of selected text, introduced by a phrase or a fully web-site from any language to any language
59. Sage (v1.5.4) - A lightweight RSS and Atom feed reader.
60. Saved Password Editor (v2.9.6) - Adds the ability to create and edit entries in the password manager.
61. ShrinkThisLink.com Link Shrinker (v1.3.2.1) - Adds right-click context menu items for shrinking links with ShrinkThisLink.com
62. Shumway (v0.11.617) - Shumway is an HTML5 technology experiment that explores building a faithful and efficient renderer for the SWF file format without native code assistance. See http://areweflashyet.com/extension/license.txt for license information.
63. Sidebar Auto Show/Hide (v0.10.1-signed) - Automatically shows the sidebar when the mouse cursor touches the left window border, and closes it when the cursor is over the web page.
64. Skip Cert Error (v0.4.4.1-signed.1-let-fixed) - Skip SSL/TLS certificate error page.
65. SQL Inject Me (v0.4.7.1-signed) - An extension to test for SQL injection vulnerabilities
66. SQLite Manager (v0.8.3.1-signed) - Manage any SQLite database on your computer
67. Tab Mix Plus (v0.4.2.2) - Tab browsing with an added boost.
68. Test Pilot (v1.2.3.1-signed) - Help make Firefox better by running user studies.
69. Textarea Cache (v0.9.3.2.1-signed) - Allows to save automatically the content in a text input field.
70. TinyUrl Creator (v1.0.5) - Convenient tool to create small url redirects from longer ones.
71. uBlock (v0.9.5.0.1-let-fixed) - A fast, potent, and lean blocker. Easy on CPU and memory.
72. WebDAV Launcher (v1.1.0) - Adds the ability to launch a WebDAV url directly in a WebDAV aware client.
73. Web Developer (v1.2.5.1-signed) - Adds a menu and a toolbar with various web developer tools.


----------



## MrAlex

That's an impressive amount of add-ons, I must admit. I'll see if I can find any add-ons you both use and see if I can reduce the crashes.

In the mean while here's a third test build: Download. I've disabled SEH which might have been causing the crashes as Clang-cl just added support for it. Any chances it improves things?


----------



## Screemer

Hi MrAlex,

Been testing it for about an hour so far and it sure seem more stable.








Also very quick. Seem to use less RAM than 44.0.3

So far a great build as usual..


----------



## Screemer

For your information MrAlex.
On another machine running Waterfox 45 testbuild 3.

Faulting application name: waterfox.exe, version: 45.0.0.5913, time stamp: 0x56e1b08c
Faulting module name: ntdll.dll, version: 10.0.10240.16683, time stamp: 0x56ad9704
Exception code: 0xc0000005
Fault offset: 0x0000000000034f4d
Faulting process id: 0x1670
Faulting application start time: 0x01d17d0d60fa9bcd
Faulting application path: D:\Program Files\Internet\Waterfox\waterfox.exe
Faulting module path: C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM32\ntdll.dll
Report Id: 14375511-fc9a-41b6-a1cd-d98e8f3bab03
Faulting package full name:
Faulting package-relative application ID:

Faulting application name: plugin-container.exe, version: 45.0.0.5913, time stamp: 0x56e1b18c
Faulting module name: mozglue.dll, version: 45.0.0.5913, time stamp: 0x56e1b081
Exception code: 0x80000003
Fault offset: 0x000000000000305f
Faulting process id: 0x554
Faulting application start time: 0x01d17d0d63d69a5a
Faulting application path: D:\Program Files\Internet\Waterfox\plugin-container.exe
Faulting module path: D:\Program Files\Internet\Waterfox\mozglue.dll
Report Id: 0d63da97-b1d3-4882-badb-740cd7fb3aad
Faulting package full name:
Faulting package-relative application ID:

Same extension setup and same profile as previous report.

Other than these problems I really like the 45 version, seem to be starting much quicker than previous builds and also seem quicker when surfing. Seem to use less RAM.


----------



## msuguy71

Mr Alex,

Currently on 44.0.3. For the last two updates, I have been having a problem where the browser screen goes blank. To fix it, I have to maximize the window and then return it to normal. If I happen to have two instances of Waterfox running, one I am working on, and one is playing YouTube videos (using HTML5). If the browser screen goes blank, once I max/unmax one browser, the one playing the video returns also, but the video is flashing. There does not seem to be a pattern to when the browser screen goes blank.

I have made sure all my plugins are up to date. I tried a complete new install with a new profile. Still have this issue. I have included a screen shot with the post. Any ideas?



Thanks,

Rick


----------



## Baldone

Haven't tried the new test versions yet. But with 43.0.4 and following the advice in this article regarding Flash, the earlier crash problems are now GONE. Go figure























http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/11/adobe-issues-fix-for-critical-flash-bug.html?intcmp=hphz17

https://helpx.adobe.com/security/products/flash-player/apsb16-08.html?PID=7649589


----------



## safari801

Test build 3 crashes about every 4-5 minutes as does test build 2. going back to 44.0.3 and no crashes.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Test build 3 crashes about every 4-5 minutes as does test build 2. going back to 44.0.3 and no crashes.


Do you have any similar add-ons to Screemer?

Quote:


> 1. Add-on Compatibility Reporter (v2.0.6.1-signed) - Report add-on compatibility issues to Mozilla
> 2. Advanced Cookie Manager (v5.12) - Advanced Cookie Manager: To manage and monitor cookies.
> 3. BBCodeXtra (v0.5.3) - Adds BBCode/HTML/XHTML and custom tags commands to the context menu
> 4. BugMeNot Plugin (v3.1-signed) - Log in with BugMeNot, with single click.
> 5. Cache Status (v0.9.0) - Easy cache status & management from status
> 6. checkCompatibility (v1.3.1-signed) - Reinstates the extensions.checkCompatibility preference.
> 7. Classic Bookmarks Button (v1.0.1-signed) - This add-on restores pre-Australis bookmarks button on Firefox 29+, but can be used on previous Firefox versions too as an additional bookmarks button. Use 'Customize Toolbar' menu to place it on your preferred toolbar.
> 8. Classic Compact Options (v25.0.1-signed) - This adds the "Classic Compact Options" menu item to the "tools" menu, which allows one to change the appearance of the theme Classic Compact. Options include: using keyhole arrows; turning off gradient backgrounds; turning off rounded borders; and turning on chiseled toolbar dividers. Requires the theme Classic Compact v25.0 or higher.
> 9. Classic Theme Restorer (v1.4.8) - 'Classic Theme Restorer' brings back appmenu button, squared tabs, add-ons bar, small nav-bar buttons, a few older buttons and more to Firefox Australis UI. Use 'Customize' menu to move buttons on toolbars.
> 10. CLEO (v6.0.3) - Create multi-addon install package (Cleopack)
> 11. ColorZilla (v2.8.2) - Advanced Eyedropper, ColorPicker, Page Zoomer and other colorful goodies
> 12. Configuration Mania (v1.23.2016030901) - More Advanced (hidden) configures
> 13. Console² (v0.9.1-signed.1-let-fixed) - The next generation error console.
> 14. Customize about:newtab (v1.3.0) - Custimze the new about:newtab page.
> 15. CustomizeGoogle (v0.76) - Enhance Google search results and remove ads and spam.
> 16. Download Manager Tweak (v1.0.9.1-signed) - Allows the download manager to also open in a tab or sidebar, and adds some optional display changes.
> 17. Extension List Dumper (v1.15.2.1-signed) - Dumps a list of the installed extensions.
> 18. Facebook Secret Emoticons (v3.3.2.1-signed) - This Add-on gives you access to all secret emoticons in Facebook.
> 19. Fasterfox (v3.9.85.1-signed) - Fasterfox provides performance and network tweaks for Firefox. Fasterfox makes your browsing much faster! Watch Youtube Faster with Fasterfox!
> 20. FEBE (v8.8.2) - Backup your Firefox data
> 21. Firebug (v2.0.14) - Web Development Evolved. Firebug is free and open source software distributed under the BSD License.
> 22. Firefox Hello Beta (v0.1) - Web sharing for Firefox
> 23. Fire IE (v0.4.6.1) - Embeds Internet Explorer(IE) to use the powerful Firefox add-ons. Not only an enhanced IE Tab, but also an enhanced Internet Explorer with Adblock Plus and FireGestures support. Switch to the IE engine in one click and dismiss your IE.
> 24. FireQuery (v2.0.1) - Firefox plugin for jQuery development
> 25. Flagfox (v5.1.8) - Displays a flag depicting the location of the current server
> 26. FlashGot (v1.5.6.12.1-signed) - Enables single and massive ("all" and "selection") downloads using the most popular external download managers for Windows, Mac OS X, Linux and FreeBSD (dozens currently supported, see Extension's Home Page for details). FlashGot offers also a Build Gallery functionality which helps to synthetize full media galleries in one page from serial contents originally scattered on several pages, for easy and fast "download all".
> 27. Flash Video Downloader - YouTube HD Download [4K] (v9.5.1) - Flash Video Downloader helps you to download any video (flv, mp4, HD) from YouTube-like, Facebook, Break, Metacafe and more in one click. You can download mp3, music (iPod), avi and more. Download Flash games. Download Helper.
> 28. Forecastfox (fix version) (v2.4.1) - Get international weather forecasts with this highly customizable extension
> 29. Form History Control (v1.4.0.4.1-signed) - Manage Form History (view, edit, delete, clean-up, export/import)
> 30. FoxyProxy Standard (v4.5.6) - FoxyProxy - Premier proxy management for Firefox
> 31. Free Download Manager extension (v2.1.1) - Free Download Manager integration with Firefox browser.
> 32. Greasefire (v1.0.8.1-signed) - Automatically find Greasemonkey scripts on Userscripts.org
> 33. Greasemonkey (v3.7) - A User Script Manager for Firefox
> 34. HP Client Security Manager (v1.0.0.5833) - Provides secure and convenient logon to Web sites
> 35. Html Validator (v0.9.6.6) - Adds HTML validation to the View Page Source of the browser. The validation is done by Tidy or a SGML Parser from W3c.
> 36. IE Tab 2 (FF 3.6+) (v6.2.18.1) - Enhanced version of the classic IE Tab that includes support for FireFox 3.6 and beyond.
> 37. IE View (v1.5.6.1-signed) - Open pages in IE via Firefox menus
> 38. Image Zoom (v0.6.3.1-signed) - Adds zoom functionality for images
> 39. Integrated Authentication for Firefox (v3.0.1.1-signed) - An extension that helps with enabling and managing NTLM (Windows pass-through) and other SPNEGO (integrated authentication) settings.
> 40. is.gd Creator (v0.2.2) - Provides easy access to the is.gd URL shortening service
> 41. Joomla! Admin (v1.6.1-signed) - Joomla! Admin helps Web Developers using Joomla, to quickly switch between 'Administrator' and 'Site' views of their Website. It is compatible with Mozilla Firefox, Flock, and SeaMonkey Web Browsers.
> 42. Less Spam, please (v0.8.0.1-signed) - Create a valid, temporary and anonymous mail address on demand. This mail address can be reused without restriction.
> 43. Linkification (v1.3.8.1-signed) - Converts text links into genuine, clickable links.
> 44. Local Filesystem Links (v0.99.42) - Scans pages for file:/// links and makes it possible to open them with the system's file browser.
> 45. LocalLink (v0.5.1-signed) - Open links in local context.
> 46. MailCatch: Temporary Emails (v1.0.4) - Temporary email service with MailCatch.com directly inside your browser!
> 47. Microsoft .NET Framework Assistant (v1.3.1.1-signed) - Adds ClickOnce support and the ability to report installed .NET Framework versions to the web server.
> 48. MinimizeToTray revived (MinTrayR) (v1.1.2.1-signed) - Minimizes windows into the system tray
> 49. Mozilla Archive Format (v3.1.3) - Save exactly what you see, in a single file. MAFF (based on ZIP) is compact and exceptional for video and audio. MHT (Internet Explorer's format) allows easy exchange with IE users. Store many tabs, find original, and more!
> 50. MWAddon Client (v2.0.48) - Improve Mafia Wars gameplay experience and feel free while it is doing the hard work.
> 51. New Tab Pro (v0.6.1) - You can customize the number of the tiles of the New Tab page (about:newtab), right on that page.
> 52. Nightly Tester Tools (v3.7.1-signed) - Useful tools for the nightly tester.
> 53. Noia 4 Theme Manager (v2.0.0) - Select gray, black, blue, Firefox 3-like, FF4+ (Win7) or AeroGlass skins and customize your Firefox with many personal tweaks.
> 54. OpenDownload² (v4.1.1) - Extends the "Save" dialog by a button to open the file directly.
> 55. Optimoz Tweaks (v0.4) - Sidebar autohide and other user interface tweaks
> 56. Print Preview (v0.7.1.3) - Creates a Print Preview toolbar button and context menu item.
> 57. Print/Print Preview (v1.0) - Replace the default "Print" button with the Mozilla Suite style "Print/Print Preview" toolbar button/menu, with additional "Page setup" option. Adds new options to context menu as well.
> 58. S3.Google Translator (v5.18) - Translation of selected text, introduced by a phrase or a fully web-site from any language to any language
> 59. Sage (v1.5.4) - A lightweight RSS and Atom feed reader.
> 60. Saved Password Editor (v2.9.6) - Adds the ability to create and edit entries in the password manager.
> 61. ShrinkThisLink.com Link Shrinker (v1.3.2.1) - Adds right-click context menu items for shrinking links with ShrinkThisLink.com
> 62. Shumway (v0.11.617) - Shumway is an HTML5 technology experiment that explores building a faithful and efficient renderer for the SWF file format without native code assistance. See http://areweflashyet.com/extension/license.txt for license information.
> 63. Sidebar Auto Show/Hide (v0.10.1-signed) - Automatically shows the sidebar when the mouse cursor touches the left window border, and closes it when the cursor is over the web page.
> 64. Skip Cert Error (v0.4.4.1-signed.1-let-fixed) - Skip SSL/TLS certificate error page.
> 65. SQL Inject Me (v0.4.7.1-signed) - An extension to test for SQL injection vulnerabilities
> 66. SQLite Manager (v0.8.3.1-signed) - Manage any SQLite database on your computer
> 67. Tab Mix Plus (v0.4.2.2) - Tab browsing with an added boost.
> 68. Test Pilot (v1.2.3.1-signed) - Help make Firefox better by running user studies.
> 69. Textarea Cache (v0.9.3.2.1-signed) - Allows to save automatically the content in a text input field.
> 70. TinyUrl Creator (v1.0.5) - Convenient tool to create small url redirects from longer ones.
> 71. uBlock (v0.9.5.0.1-let-fixed) - A fast, potent, and lean blocker. Easy on CPU and memory.
> 72. WebDAV Launcher (v1.1.0) - Adds the ability to launch a WebDAV url directly in a WebDAV aware client.
> 73. Web Developer (v1.2.5.1-signed) - Adds a menu and a toolbar with various web developer tools.


----------



## safari801

Last pass, tweak network, disconnect, html5 video everywhere, avira browser safety, and flash which is set to "ask to activate"


----------



## Quantum Reality

@MrAlex

Can you at some point modify the installer to include a "enable/disable privacy-related options"?

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections

Note that there are several things executed on first install which store physically identifiable information, such as the geolocation check on first run for the default search engine (which is usually Google).

Ideally there should be one checkbox that allows the user to disable all first-run Mozilla options - including being able to omit the H.264 codec download if the user doesn't want it.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1074968

Also it seems like what you will need is "defaultPref" not "pref" or "lockpref" in order to let the options be user-changeable later.

ADDED:

Also, can you harden Waterfox by changing some of the security-related options? One of the biggest issues is speculative prefetching of links.

https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections#w_prefetching


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Last pass, tweak network, disconnect, html5 video everywhere, avira browser safety, and flash which is set to "ask to activate"


Thanks for the info!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> @MrAlex
> 
> Can you at some point modify the installer to include a "enable/disable privacy-related options"?
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections
> 
> Note that there are several things executed on first install which store physically identifiable information, such as the geolocation check on first run for the default search engine (which is usually Google).
> 
> Ideally there should be one checkbox that allows the user to disable all first-run Mozilla options - including being able to omit the H.264 codec download if the user doesn't want it.
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1074968
> 
> Also it seems like what you will need is "defaultPref" not "pref" or "lockpref" in order to let the options be user-changeable later.
> 
> ADDED:
> 
> Also, can you harden Waterfox by changing some of the security-related options? One of the biggest issues is speculative prefetching of links.
> 
> https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-stop-firefox-making-automatic-connections#w_prefetching


That's a good idea! I'll see what I can change that hopefully doesn't affect the user experience at all.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Suggestion. Ability to automatically clear history older than X days, and add a "clear history older than X days" in the clear all history window.

The current clear history option doesn't make any sense to me. You can only clear history that is up to 1 day old. Depending on the time of day, it's only up to 4 hours old. If it's older, you have to clear all history to get rid of it. This doesn't make any sense to me.

I know you can press ctrl+H to see your recent history and manually delete older stuff. Doing it this way you have to manually delete each month's group. There's no way to select multiple groups and delete them all in one click.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Download cleaner will help for part of that! Auto-clears on successful download.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/download-cleaner/


----------



## Screemer

Hi MrAlex,

I've been monitoring your thread over at reddit to see when v45 will be released.
Info from reddit:

Code:



Code:


Waterfox 45 is on its way (normal ICL builds)

I just today got Firefox v45.0.2 update.
Any information on when v45 will be released? And also, will it be based on v45.0.2?

Love your work and prefer Waterfox over Firefox any day..


----------



## MrAlex

Sorry for the delay guys. Intel's C++ compiler has just become impossible to work with, especially considering the massive codebase shifts Mozilla are making, so for the time being it's back to VC build. I'll hopefully be able to move over to GCC or Clang for the next release  (or even back to ICL if they fix their compiler bugs)

---

Hi all,

This build will be similar to the final release tomorrow (it's based on the last 46 beta branch, so final release will be based on the release branch). Please test it out and let me know if anything is missing! 

*Features*


Disabled EME (doesn't work on 3rd party builds anyway)
Removed Pocket completely
Removed all telemetry/data collection being sent back to Mozilla
Disabled the 64-Bit NPAPI white-list so that the user can decide what plugins they can run (doesn't make sense for Mozilla to do this as most of their user base probably aren't technically proficient), but it's something Waterfox users are capable of handling.
I've also allowed unsigned extensions to run as well as there are still some old extensions people like to use (it's disabled by Mozilla for the same reason as above)
Windows XP 64-Bit support
Updated ICU to 57.1 (current Mozilla base is on 56.1)
Switched to Visual C++ temporarily, until ICL bugs have been fixed or have a stable build with GCC or Clang
*Download*


----------



## xxxhugo

Hello,
thanks for Waterfox 46, but I have problem with Browsermark test (web.basemark.com) - it cannot pass Conformity responsiveness (it freezes there). Previous version, as well as Firefox 46 pass all tests.

EDIT: After about 10 minutes test finally ends up, but anyway there is something wrong (as shown at the pictures)


----------



## WetLook

I have also found that under "Plugins" and clicking on "Check to see if your plugins are up to date"
is not working.

PluginUpdates.JPG 337k .JPG file


----------



## kevindd992002

I'm using WF 44.0.3 and I'm really having a weird problems with my settings. Every single time I restart my computer (not just restarting WF itself), the settings below become unchecked.

Settings -> Privacy -> History -> Remember search and form history
Settings -> Security -> Logins -> Remember logins for sites

This happened all of a sudden without me doing anything. In my other computer with the same version of WF, everything is working just fine. FF/WF account sync is setup on all my WF instances but only this particular computer is having this problem so I figured I can rule this out as the potential problem.

Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.


----------



## kevindd992002

Any help here Mr. Alex?


----------



## Xblizit

Why is java always enabled?

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/4jl4nc/why_is_java_always_enabled/

Why is java always enabled how do i fix it changing click to play to true has no affect.


----------



## safari801

Get rid of Java, it's a security problem and you'll never miss it. I uninstalled it a year ago and haven't had any need to use it.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Get rid of Java, it's a security problem and you'll never miss it. I uninstalled it a year ago and haven't had any need to use it.


MINECRAFT!, and most OEM server hardware management software >_>


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *xxxhugo*
> 
> Hello,
> thanks for Waterfox 46, but I have problem with Browsermark test (web.basemark.com) - it cannot pass Conformity responsiveness (it freezes there). Previous version, as well as Firefox 46 pass all tests.
> 
> EDIT: After about 10 minutes test finally ends up, but anyway there is something wrong (as shown at the pictures)


So I seem to be able to run the test without issue on Windows/Mac. Don't suppose anything changes on a clean profile?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I have also found that under "Plugins" and clicking on "Check to see if your plugins are up to date"
> is not working.
> 
> PluginUpdates.JPG 337k .JPG file


Yes sorry about that, I was a bit overzealous in removing callback URLs to Mozilla. I'll add it back in next release 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I'm using WF 44.0.3 and I'm really having a weird problems with my settings. Every single time I restart my computer (not just restarting WF itself), the settings below become unchecked.
> 
> Settings -> Privacy -> History -> Remember search and form history
> Settings -> Security -> Logins -> Remember logins for sites
> 
> This happened all of a sudden without me doing anything. In my other computer with the same version of WF, everything is working just fine. FF/WF account sync is setup on all my WF instances but only this particular computer is having this problem so I figured I can rule this out as the potential problem.
> 
> Any help would be appreciated. Thanks.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Any help here Mr. Alex?


Sorry for the late reply! That is very odd. Could you check and see if the actual preference reverts? *browser.formfill.enable* should be *true* and so should *signon.rememberSignons*. If not, there could be an add-on affecting those preferences or for some reason your profile settings aren't saving.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Xblizit*
> 
> Why is java always enabled?
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/4jl4nc/why_is_java_always_enabled/
> 
> Why is java always enabled how do i fix it changing click to play to true has no affect.


Sorry about that, wasn't meant to be like that. You can just change *plugin.state.java* to *1* instead of *2*


----------



## GrumpyOne

So I still can't watch 4k youtube vids without it stuttering and buffering like crazy, anyone else have this issue?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry for the late reply! That is very odd. Could you check and see if the actual preference reverts? *browser.formfill.enable* should be *true* and so should *signon.rememberSignons*. If not, there could be an add-on affecting those preferences or for some reason your profile settings aren't saving.


Those are both set to true but when I restart the computer OR restart just the browser (it happens randomly between the two), for some reason they get set to false. I'm not sure if it's an add-on because I have the exact set of add-ons on another computer that's not experiencing the problem. Any other ideas?


----------



## Baldone

Just installed v47.0. Nice although the previously noted nit about the check to see if plugins are up to date is still not functional. I have to use Firefox to do the check and it then disables the theme I use in Waterfox. A minor PITA all things considered, but still it'd be nice for the check function to work properly.


----------



## WetLook

I mentioned that in post #7172 of 7181
In post #7178 of 7181 Alex said "Yes sorry about that, I was a bit overzealous in removing callback URLs to Mozilla. I'll add it back in next release ".
Alex's flat got flooded out and had more pressing problems I'm sure.
Anyway thanks Alex for your time & help with Waterfox.


----------



## Baldone

Yeah I just caught that looking in a reddit. Alex has had his share of bad luck of late although I believe he's quite happy in his new job.


----------



## kevindd992002

I thought Electrolysis was already implemented in the new Firefox? I think I've read that somewhere in my email just recently. Can you guys confirm?


----------



## GrumpyOne

Anyone else having issues with Flash enabling on most sites?


----------



## WetLook

kevindd992002

http://www.ghacks.net/2016/06/07/firefox-49-multi-process-architecture/

Mozilla plans to make Firefox 49 the first stable version of the web browser in which the browser's new multi-process architecture Electrolysis (E10S) is enabled by default for a major part of the browser's user base.


----------



## kevindd992002

Gotcha, thanks!


----------



## Prime2515102

I just upgraded to 47 and it fixed the problem I was having with that chat application. What a relief, I feel really insecure being so many revisions behind! haha

I don't know about the CBS video site because they cut people who use ad blockers off. Go figure...


----------



## Baldone

Clear cache content in advanced options doesn't work fully in v47.0.


----------



## thecreator1965

Quote:
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Anyone else having issues with Flash enabling on most sites?


Yes, I am seeing this as well, even when Flash is Always Active and the latest Adobe Flash is installed.


----------



## Drake87

What's the difference between this and the official firefox 64 bit? I've got both and as far as I can tell they're identical.


----------



## thechas

Operationally, you should notice no difference between Waterfox and Firefox x64.
Functionally, Waterfox normally runs a bit faster. The Waterfox developer (Mr. Alex) uses a different compiler for the Waterfox code and puts a lot of effort into optimizing the code for higher speeds and performance.

If you should notice any webpage that does not load properly or other operational problems with Waterfox, please post here so that Mr. Alex has a chance to resolve and correct any problems.

Chas


----------



## Drake87

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Operationally, you should notice no difference between Waterfox and Firefox x64.
> Functionally, Waterfox normally runs a bit faster. The Waterfox developer (Mr. Alex) uses a different compiler for the Waterfox code and puts a lot of effort into optimizing the code for higher speeds and performance.
> 
> If you should notice any webpage that does not load properly or other operational problems with Waterfox, please post here so that Mr. Alex has a chance to resolve and correct any problems.
> 
> Chas


I'll switch over to waterfox then. All of my add ons work fine with it, just wondered if there was anything different, other than a prettier icon. Thanks.


----------



## WetLook

Alex,

I downloaded the "Version 47 (June 2016)" from https://www.waterfoxproject.org/
After I installed it, relaunched Waterfox, a window opened stating "Update Ready to Install" "The update will be installed the next time Waterfox starts".

I restarted Waterfox, another windows opens "Update Installed; The update was successfully installed".

When I go to "Help" "About Waterfox" a window opens (see attached jpeg)
"About Waterfox" "Apply Update".

WaterfoxApplyUpdate.JPG 45k .JPG file


I have tried applying update a couple times and still get "Apply Update".
Attached is "Update History" (see attached jpeg)

WaterfoxUpdateHistory.JPG 161k .JPG file


Is there indeed another update?

Also I have found that under "Plugins" and clicking on "Check to see if your plugins are up to date "is not working. I also mentioned this in post #7172.

Thanks Alex,

WetLook


----------



## Prime2515102

I just checked and there was an update to 47.0.1 and it installed fine. You might want to try to manually download the installer and try that.

Same problem here with the plugin update check not working (not sure if it worked in 47.0).


----------



## WetLook

Prime2515102,

When I go to "Help", "About Waterfox", I see "Waterfox is up to date" now.
Alex must have tweaked something. As you can see by my post above, the Ver. 47.0.1
shows as being installed and still had "Apply Update".
Also did you see Ver.47.0.2 shows up in the "Tools", "Options", "Advanced", "Update Tab",
click on "Show Update History". What is the latest update version you see. It will be the first one listed.


----------



## Baldone

.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Prime2515102,
> 
> When I go to "Help", "About Waterfox", I see "Waterfox is up to date" now.
> Alex must have tweaked something. As you can see by my post above, the Ver. 47.0.1
> shows as being installed and still had "Apply Update".
> Also did you see Ver.47.0.2 shows up in the "Tools", "Options", "Advanced", "Update Tab",
> click on "Show Update History". What is the latest update version you see. It will be the first one listed.


See

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/4rpe0r/waterfox_stuck_on_4701_after_update/%5B/URL


----------



## WetLook

Baldone,

Should we be using the web site "reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/" when we post comments?
Is overclock going away?

The reason I am asking is I see Mr. Alex commented on a post like the one I posted (post #7196) four days ago,
and I am still awaiting a response here.

Thanks for you reply also.

WetLook


----------



## Baldone

WetLook,
I check both because there have been times Alex responded earlier here.
Remember too he was on vacation recently and no doubt is still dealing with the flood (I believe it was) damage to his home and the challenges of his new job. Can't fault a man for puttiing such issues ahead of monitoring and responding to the various forums/websites.


----------



## WetLook

I agree with you. The flooding would be a pain & time consuming.
I did not know of Alex's new job. Good luck with your new job Alex.

Thanks for your help Baldone!


----------



## GrumpyOne

New issue starting today, any time I close the browser it logs me out of everything. This plus some sites not displaying properly and youtube 4k playback sucking is starting to get to me, just like my name says.......


----------



## MrAlex

Hi everyone!

Really sorry about the massive lack of communication over here, I've just been overwhelmed with life and I haven't managed to reply much even though I've been reading all your comments.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Just installed v47.0. Nice although the previously noted nit about the check to see if plugins are up to date is still not functional. I have to use Firefox to do the check and it then disables the theme I use in Waterfox. A minor PITA all things considered, but still it'd be nice for the check function to work properly.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I mentioned that in post #7172 of 7181
> In post #7178 of 7181 Alex said "Yes sorry about that, I was a bit overzealous in removing callback URLs to Mozilla. I'll add it back in next release ".
> Alex's flat got flooded out and had more pressing problems I'm sure.
> Anyway thanks Alex for your time & help with Waterfox.


My mistake guys, I forgot to add it back in, I'll make sure to try and put in 48









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Yeah I just caught that looking in a reddit. Alex has had his share of bad luck of late although I believe he's quite happy in his new job.


Well it involves me making browsers, so no complaints!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I thought Electrolysis was already implemented in the new Firefox? I think I've read that somewhere in my email just recently. Can you guys confirm?


It has been on by default for Aurora since v42 and has been on A/B testing in Beta since v44. v48 will have it on for 1% of qualifying users then v49 should be enabled for everyone. You can see the schedule here 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> Anyone else having issues with Flash enabling on most sites?


Yes unfortunately Mozilla have implemented a change and it's up to Adobe to make it compatible. There's a new bug tracking this issue here but it's unfortunately very quiet.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Drake87*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *thechas*
> 
> Operationally, you should notice no difference between Waterfox and Firefox x64.
> Functionally, Waterfox normally runs a bit faster. The Waterfox developer (Mr. Alex) uses a different compiler for the Waterfox code and puts a lot of effort into optimizing the code for higher speeds and performance.
> 
> If you should notice any webpage that does not load properly or other operational problems with Waterfox, please post here so that Mr. Alex has a chance to resolve and correct any problems.
> 
> Chas
> 
> 
> 
> I'll switch over to waterfox then. All of my add ons work fine with it, just wondered if there was anything different, other than a prettier icon. Thanks.
Click to expand...

From the website (







):


No Adobe DRM
No Pocket
No data collection
Run every 64-Bit plugin
Run every Add-On (even unsigned ones!)
Windows XP 64-Bit Support

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Baldone,
> 
> Should we be using the web site "
> 
> __
> https://www.reddit.com/r/%5B/URL
> 
> WetLook,
> I check both because there have been times Alex responded earlier here.
> Remember too he was on vacation recently and no doubt is still dealing with the flood (I believe it was) damage to his home and the challenges of his new job. Can't fault a man for puttiing such issues ahead of monitoring and responding to the various forums/websites.


Sorry about that, was just me being busy!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I agree with you. The flooding would be a pain & time consuming.
> I did not know of Alex's new job. Good luck with your new job Alex.
> 
> Thanks for your help Baldone!


Thanks, much appreciated!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GrumpyOne*
> 
> New issue starting today, any time I close the browser it logs me out of everything. This plus some sites not displaying properly and youtube 4k playback sucking is starting to get to me, just like my name says.......


That's not good. Do you get the same issues on Firefox 64-Bit?


----------



## mauritos

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Yes, I am seeing this as well, even when Flash is Always Active and the latest Adobe Flash is installed.


yes i have the same anoying problem of alowing flash on every site???


----------



## kevindd992002

Any news on Waterfox 48?


----------



## WetLook

Just updated to 48.0 and so far it seems faster than 47.0.1 and
"Check to see if your plugins are up to date" is working.

I know it get flustering and time consuming developing the Waterfox browser.
I for one really appreciate your work on this project.

THANK YOU Mr. Alex!!!


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Just updated to 48.0 and so far it seems faster than 47.0.1 and
> "Check to see if your plugins are up to date" is working.


Discussed here as a preview:

__
https://www.reddit.com/r/4ws431/waterfox_48_preview_download_before_release/

I'll wait until Alex releases it as a finished update.


----------



## WetLook

Baldone,

This update came thru my Waterfox 47.0.1 browser.
A Waterfox window popped up asking if I wanted the update.

Just thought I would let you know how I updated Waterfox.

Stay Safe my friend.


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Baldone,
> 
> This update came thru my Waterfox 47.0.1 browser.
> A Waterfox window popped up asking if I wanted the update.
> 
> Just thought I would let you know how I updated Waterfox.
> 
> Stay Safe my friend.


Weird. Do you also have Firefox available on the same computer? And is it set to update beta releases? I have both but both are set to update only normal releases. I haven't received anything about updating my Waterfox. It still says my 47.0.1 is current.

That said I went to https://www.waterfoxproject.org/downloads and it shows v48 available for download.


----------



## WetLook

Baldone,

No I don't have Firefox installed.

I do remember that Mr. Alex had a post earlier
that had us change our configuration to search for new updates.

I don't remember what it was, maybe someone reading this post can help us out.

Stay Safe,

WetLook


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Baldone,
> 
> No I don't have Firefox installed.
> 
> I do remember that Mr. Alex had a post earlier
> that had us change our configuration to search for new updates.
> 
> I don't remember what it was, maybe someone reading this post can help us out.
> 
> Stay Safe,
> 
> WetLook


I got a notification that an update was available from 47 to 47.0.1 and have never changed any configuration. I seem to recall Mr Alex commenting about a third party site or host being responsible for update notification glitiches some time ago. No clue about now since you were notified and I wasn't. Like I said, "Weird!" LOL

ADDENDUM: Found the answer I think as Mr Alex posted this 2 hours ago: _"Automatic updates will be delayed by 24 hours to make sure there aren't any pressing issues before seeding to everyone."_

Also glad FT DeepDark theme has been finally upgraded too









Cheers!


----------



## WetLook

Baldone,

I found what I was writing about, post #6753: http://www.overclock.net/t/975626/waterfox-48-0-10-august-firefox-64-bit/6750#post_23633004

Scroll down and look at "Originally Posted by thecreator1965" and look at the reply.

"app.update.url.override", Value is "https://www.waterfoxproject.org/update/test/win/update.xml".

Check and see if you have this.

Stay Safe,

WetLook


----------



## Baldone

Here's what about:config shows here:



I installed V48 yesterday.


----------



## WetLook

Here's what about:config shows for me.



Have you found any problems with Ver. 48.0


----------



## Baldone

Don't have that override entry.... mmmmmm.

As for v48.0 no problems detected as yet.


----------



## kevindd992002

So at v48, electrolysis is enabled for just "some"?


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So at v48, electrolysis is enabled for just "some"?


Apparently that is what mozilla is doing with Firefox v48.

If you check Waterfox v48 about:config you'll find browser.tabs.remote.autostart is still set to false so no "e10."


----------



## Quantum Reality

MrAlex,

Just wondering when you plan to push the general autoupdate - I'm still not seeing an update available from 44.0.3 (I've been delaying upgrading because of reported issues with Flash, as well as some other issues, in WF 45-47)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Just updated to 48.0 and so far it seems faster than 47.0.1 and
> "Check to see if your plugins are up to date" is working.
> 
> I know it get flustering and time consuming developing the Waterfox browser.
> I for one really appreciate your work on this project.
> 
> THANK YOU Mr. Alex!!!


No worries and glad you enjoy using Waterfox









Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So at v48, electrolysis is enabled for just "some"?


I don't have the e10s rollout enabled, so until it because default, it won't be on.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> MrAlex,
> 
> Just wondering when you plan to push the general autoupdate - I'm still not seeing an update available from 44.0.3 (I've been delaying upgrading because of reported issues with Flash, as well as some other issues, in WF 45-47)


Sorry, realised Clang isn't quite ready for prime time so I release 48.0.1 yesterday and will release the auto-update today


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry, realised Clang isn't _quite_ ready for prime time so I release 48.0.1 yesterday and will release the auto-update today


If it helps, I manually upgraded to 48.0 earlier and it seemed to behave OK, but I imagine there are/were some edge cases that don't play well. Will jump to 48.0.1 tonight then


----------



## safari801

Just downloaded 48.0.2 from Techspot. So far so good.


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *safari801*
> 
> Just downloaded 48.0.2 from Techspot. So far so good.


I got it from here: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/downloads


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> I got it from here: https://www.waterfoxproject.org/downloads


Yeah, I wouldn't download it from anywhere else, might as well download from Cnet lol


----------



## Quantum Reality

48.0.2 has been up for some days now and the autoupdater from help/about still shows no update available.

@MrAlex ?


----------



## GrumpyOne

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 48.0.2 has been up for some days now and the autoupdater from help/about still shows no update available.
> 
> @MrAlex ?


What do you mean? I just checked mine and I'm sitting on 48.0.2


----------



## Prime2515102

I'm currently using Waterfox v48.0.2.

When the box "Tell me when a website asks to store data for offline use" is checked, I never get notifications, yet there is data being stored for offline use for several sites.

I don't remember this notification ever working in any version of Waterfox or Firefox so this is not version specific.

Otherwise, 48.0.2 is working perfectly for me.

P.S. About Flash player always being on...

I had to disable it first for the "always ask" selection to become available on the add-ons page (i.e. only enable and disable were showing, I clicked disable, then always ask became available). Since then it asks me every time (except when I click enable and remember of course).

Maybe that will help people with that problem.


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I just Updated Waterfox.
I launched Waterfox, went to "Help", "About Waterfox", clicked on "Apply Update..." and it updated.

So far no problems, except that after restarting Waterfox the "Apply Update" is still showing,
even though ver. 49.0.1 shows up in the "About Waterfox" pop up window.

If I come across any more issues I will let you know.

A Big Thank You!!!


----------



## Baldone

Weird. Never got an update notice for 49.0.1 but this afternoon got one for 49.0.2 which was successfully installed updating from 48.0.2. Like I said... weird.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Weird. Never got an update notice for 49.0.1 but this afternoon got one for 49.0.2 which was successfully installed updating from 48.0.2. Like I said... weird.


Not weird. The auto update of WF has been on and off for the past few years. It was never stable across several version iterations. Not sure why ot can't be fixed.

@All

Is Electrolysis already enabled? I thought it should be turned on during the September release of FF?


----------



## spinFX

Isn't regular firefox 64 bit now, why people still using waterfox?


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I just Updated Waterfox to 49.0.2
I launched Waterfox, went to "Help", "About Waterfox", clicked on "Apply Update..." and it updated.

After restarting Waterfox the "Apply Update" is showing correct version, 49.0.2 in "About Waterfox" pop up window.

If I come across any more issues I will let you know.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spinFX*
> 
> Isn't regular firefox 64 bit now, why people still using waterfox?


MrAlex often tries to implement features that are present in newer CPUs, which means tweaking the compiling of WF to try and make it speedier than regular FF 64bit at the cost of possibly not supporting older CPUs.

Remember, very technically, FF 64bit should be able to run on a Socket 939 Athlon64 CPU as well as the latest and greatest Core i7s.









The main issue I have found is that to support this kind of speed WF can be rather memory-intensive (depending on the site), so be prepared for it to use around 1 MB 1GB of RAM after a while of browing image-heavy sites.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> MrAlex often tries to implement features that are present in newer CPUs, which means tweaking the compiling of WF to try and make it speedier than regular FF 64bit at the cost of possibly not supporting older CPUs.
> 
> Remember, very technically, FF 64bit should be able to run on a Socket 939 Athlon64 CPU as well as the latest and greatest Core i7s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main issue I have found is that to support this kind of speed WF can be rather memory-intensive (depending on the site), so be prepared for it to use around 1 MB of RAM after a while of browing image-heavy sites.


You mean 1GB, right?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> MrAlex often tries to implement features that are present in newer CPUs, which means tweaking the compiling of WF to try and make it speedier than regular FF 64bit at the cost of possibly not supporting older CPUs.
> 
> Remember, very technically, FF 64bit should be able to run on a Socket 939 Athlon64 CPU as well as the latest and greatest Core i7s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main issue I have found is that to support this kind of speed WF can be rather memory-intensive (depending on the site), so be prepared for it to use around 1 MB of RAM after a while of browing image-heavy sites.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mean 1GB, right?
Click to expand...

Whoops! quite right.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey guys, so thought I might give you a head up on what I've been working on for the last few months. The ideas for this actually started around the time Storm was released last year but in typical start-up fashion it was managed really bad and ended up failing, the ideas on the other hand were still good so I'm going to go at this solo and would appreciate any feedback.


Try and eliminate or minimise as much as possible browser fingerprinting (by utilising Tor button)
Switch to compilation with mingw-w64 and Clang which would mean making Windows builds on Linux, which would allow me to utilise Gitian as well as faster build times 
Set up SSH servers and offer SSH tunneling to them (essentially as an alternative to VPN/Tor routing, but this may be quite difficult to do..I'll have to think of a way to prove that the SSH servers aren't logging anything/collecting anything possibly by using Gitian and depends if people even want this)
Bring this to iOS/Android

Am I missing anything? Any other suggestions would be appreciated!

Also I do apologies for not having any replies after the release of 48.0.2...I thought I had replied







.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I'm currently using Waterfox v48.0.2.
> 
> When the box "Tell me when a website asks to store data for offline use" is checked, I never get notifications, yet there is data being stored for offline use for several sites.
> 
> I don't remember this notification ever working in any version of Waterfox or Firefox so this is not version specific.
> 
> Otherwise, 48.0.2 is working perfectly for me.
> 
> P.S. About Flash player always being on...
> 
> I had to disable it first for the "always ask" selection to become available on the add-ons page (i.e. only enable and disable were showing, I clicked disable, then always ask became available). Since then it asks me every time (except when I click enable and remember of course).
> 
> Maybe that will help people with that problem.


Can you recreate that offline data storage problem with Firefox as well? If so, might be a browser bug.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I just Updated Waterfox.
> I launched Waterfox, went to "Help", "About Waterfox", clicked on "Apply Update..." and it updated.
> 
> So far no problems, except that after restarting Waterfox the "Apply Update" is still showing,
> even though ver. 49.0.1 shows up in the "About Waterfox" pop up window.
> 
> If I come across any more issues I will let you know.
> 
> A Big Thank You!!!


Glad to hear it works! Also that'll happen since you're on the test update URL and I've removed browser build IDs from the update.xml.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Weird. Never got an update notice for 49.0.1 but this afternoon got one for 49.0.2 which was successfully installed updating from 48.0.2. Like I said... weird.


Delayed 49.0.1 auto-update since I had a few issues needing to be fixed 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Weird. Never got an update notice for 49.0.1 but this afternoon got one for 49.0.2 which was successfully installed updating from 48.0.2. Like I said... weird.
> 
> 
> 
> Not weird. The auto update of WF has been on and off for the past few years. It was never stable across several version iterations. Not sure why ot can't be fixed.
> 
> @All
> 
> Is Electrolysis already enabled? I thought it should be turned on during the September release of FF?
Click to expand...

It's not broken, I'm just always hesitant to release them for a couple of days after to make sure there aren't any glaring issues. It seems that no-one really reports issues until the auto-update comes live anyway though haha.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *spinFX*
> 
> Isn't regular firefox 64 bit now, why people still using waterfox?


Well for the reasons above and also from what you can find here:

Quote:


> No Adobe DRM
> No Pocket
> No data collection
> Run every 64-Bit plugin
> Run every Add-On (even unsigned ones!)
> Windows XP 64-Bit Support


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I just Updated Waterfox to 49.0.2
> I launched Waterfox, went to "Help", "About Waterfox", clicked on "Apply Update..." and it updated.
> 
> After restarting Waterfox the "Apply Update" is showing correct version, 49.0.2 in "About Waterfox" pop up window.
> 
> If I come across any more issues I will let you know.


 Awesome, thank you!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *spinFX*
> 
> Isn't regular firefox 64 bit now, why people still using waterfox?
> 
> 
> 
> MrAlex often tries to implement features that are present in newer CPUs, which means tweaking the compiling of WF to try and make it speedier than regular FF 64bit at the cost of possibly not supporting older CPUs.
> 
> Remember, very technically, FF 64bit should be able to run on a Socket 939 Athlon64 CPU as well as the latest and greatest Core i7s.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The main issue I have found is that to support this kind of speed WF can be rather memory-intensive (depending on the site), so be prepared for it to use around 1 MB 1GB of RAM after a while of browing image-heavy sites.
Click to expand...

Well the switch to Clang should be much more efficient with memory usage


----------



## kevindd992002

So when will Electrolysis be enabled permanently?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So when will Electrolysis be enabled permanently?


When Firefox enable it I suppose.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> When Firefox enable it I suppose.


I thought this was supposed to be last September?

I also have an issue with WF that's been bugging me for years and it's happening on different computers. I may have told you this a few months ago but sometimes my setting for Privacy history will just go from "Remember History" to "Custom" without my knowledge. Another setting that does this is the "Remember login for sites", sometimes it just becomes unchecked. These are the only two that do this kind of behavior and it's very very annoying. I notice this only when the username and password fields in most sites do not auto-fill as I expect them to do.

Any ideas?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys, so thought I might give you a head up on what I've been working on for the last few months. The ideas for this actually started around the time Storm was released last year but in typical start-up fashion it was managed really bad and ended up failing, the ideas on the other hand were still good so I'm going to go at this solo and would appreciate any feedback.
> 
> Try and eliminate or minimise as much as possible browser fingerprinting (by utilising Tor button)
> Switch to compilation with mingw-w64 and Clang which would mean making Windows builds on Linux, which would allow me to utilise Gitian as well as faster build times
> Set up SSH servers and offer SSH tunneling to them (essentially as an alternative to VPN/Tor routing, but this may be quite difficult to do..I'll have to think of a way to prove that the SSH servers aren't logging anything/collecting anything possibly by using Gitian and depends if people even want this)
> Bring this to iOS/Android
> Am I missing anything? Any other suggestions would be appreciated!


One thing you might be interested in is letting people know about the CanvasBlocker extension:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/canvasblocker/

Pale Moon implements something like this natively, but Waterfox should be fine with the extension since it's a build off the latest codebase.

I definiitely applaud your pro-privacy stance here, and would again request that you include an installation option allowing users to granularly pick which about:config privacy settings they'd like enabled, e.g.

Disable network prefetch and speculative loading?
Change default search engine to (list of engines e.g. DuckDuckGo, etc)

and then something like "the recommended defaults have been pre-selected"

(I know I originally suggested just one checkbox here, but people should have more flexibility in picking and choosing, I think.)










EDIT

ALSO

I've also seen repeated complaints that Firefox doesn't run like Chrome or even IE does which is to purposely run with reduced permissions regarding the filesystem so an exploit can't affect system files.

http://www.howtogeek.com/165264/heres-why-firefox-is-still-years-behind-google-chrome/

I don't know if you can "harden" WF at all regarding blocking access to critical system files by making Windows run WF with reduced privileges but if it's possible that would be a great defence in depth.

http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/04/noscript-and-other-popular-firefox-add-ons-open-millions-to-new-attack/

I know WF allows unsigned add-ons to be installed, but maybe a warning message to a user as a mild defence in depth would be in order: "The extension you want to install is not signed. Proceed anyway? Y/N"


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> I thought this was supposed to be last September?
> 
> I also have an issue with WF that's been bugging me for years and it's happening on different computers. I may have told you this a few months ago but sometimes my setting for Privacy history will just go from "Remember History" to "Custom" without my knowledge. Another setting that does this is the "Remember login for sites", sometimes it just becomes unchecked. These are the only two that do this kind of behavior and it's very very annoying. I notice this only when the username and password fields in most sites do not auto-fill as I expect them to do.
> 
> Any ideas?


Nevermind. The culprit was the effin' Trend Micro Password Manager.


----------



## GunnzAkimbo

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> When Firefox enable it I suppose.


It disables when there are addons that are incompatible.

If you force enable it, the browser goes to hell with problems, bad lag and page rendering/displaying issues (eg. blank or session restore = blank pages).

Forgotten what this addon is called, but this is what it does:


----------



## kevindd992002

So I left two tabs of tweaktown articles opened in the background for around 1-2 hours and doing nothing on the broser. uBlocker says that it blocked around 900 ad site for EACH! And then waterfox.exe is consuming 6GB already and ******* rising! When you exit the tabs, the memory footprint will never go down unless you completely restart the browser.

This is why I was hoping electrolysis would help me solve this long standing problem. Or is there any way around this today?


----------



## Quantum Reality

No idea re the memory footprint, but you should complain to Tweaktown. There's no reasonable reason for their ads to be bombarding you that much.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> No idea re the memory footprint, but you should complain to Tweaktown. There's no reasonable reason for their ads to be bombarding you that much.


I really wouldn't have the right to complain to a website that's being driven by ads. I guess my question is how do I reclaim the memory back when I exit the tweaktown tabs?


----------



## kronckew

see http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize

try setting the config.trim_on_minimize to true in about:config

see caveat in the ref.

also, try the free memory options in about:memory

also there are a number of addons to implement a memory recovery via a key combo or a button. search on 'free memory'


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> When Firefox enable it I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> I thought this was supposed to be last September?
> 
> I also have an issue with WF that's been bugging me for years and it's happening on different computers. I may have told you this a few months ago but sometimes my setting for Privacy history will just go from "Remember History" to "Custom" without my knowledge. Another setting that does this is the "Remember login for sites", sometimes it just becomes unchecked. These are the only two that do this kind of behavior and it's very very annoying. I notice this only when the username and password fields in most sites do not auto-fill as I expect them to do.
> 
> Any ideas?
Click to expand...

You can see here what the release schedule is. And glad you found the culprit.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Hey guys, so thought I might give you a head up on what I've been working on for the last few months. The ideas for this actually started around the time Storm was released last year but in typical start-up fashion it was managed really bad and ended up failing, the ideas on the other hand were still good so I'm going to go at this solo and would appreciate any feedback.
> 
> Try and eliminate or minimise as much as possible browser fingerprinting (by utilising Tor button)
> Switch to compilation with mingw-w64 and Clang which would mean making Windows builds on Linux, which would allow me to utilise Gitian as well as faster build times
> Set up SSH servers and offer SSH tunneling to them (essentially as an alternative to VPN/Tor routing, but this may be quite difficult to do..I'll have to think of a way to prove that the SSH servers aren't logging anything/collecting anything possibly by using Gitian and depends if people even want this)
> Bring this to iOS/Android
> Am I missing anything? Any other suggestions would be appreciated!
> 
> 
> 
> One thing you might be interested in is letting people know about the CanvasBlocker extension:
> 
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/canvasblocker/
> 
> Pale Moon implements something like this natively, but Waterfox should be fine with the extension since it's a build off the latest codebase.
> 
> I definiitely applaud your pro-privacy stance here, and would again request that you include an installation option allowing users to granularly pick which about:config privacy settings they'd like enabled, e.g.
> 
> Disable network prefetch and speculative loading?
> Change default search engine to (list of engines e.g. DuckDuckGo, etc)
> 
> and then something like "the recommended defaults have been pre-selected"
> 
> (I know I originally suggested just one checkbox here, but people should have more flexibility in picking and choosing, I think.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> EDIT
> 
> ALSO
> 
> I've also seen repeated complaints that Firefox doesn't run like Chrome or even IE does which is to purposely run with reduced permissions regarding the filesystem so an exploit can't affect system files.
> 
> http://www.howtogeek.com/165264/heres-why-firefox-is-still-years-behind-google-chrome/
> 
> I don't know if you can "harden" WF at all regarding blocking access to critical system files by making Windows run WF with reduced privileges but if it's possible that would be a great defence in depth.
> 
> http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/04/noscript-and-other-popular-firefox-add-ons-open-millions-to-new-attack/
> 
> I know WF allows unsigned add-ons to be installed, but maybe a warning message to a user as a mild defence in depth would be in order: "The extension you want to install is not signed. Proceed anyway? Y/N"
Click to expand...

So I'm hoping to implement a sort of Wizard that guides users through what they'd like to have enabled/disabled and how it affects their privacy etc etc. Similar to your suggestions. Also would be a good chance to separate the Waterfox profile to be in a different location while making users aware of this change (which should stop preferences from getting modified by Firefox!).

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *GunnzAkimbo*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> When Firefox enable it I suppose.
> 
> 
> 
> It disables when there are addons that are incompatible.
> 
> If you force enable it, the browser goes to hell with problems, bad lag and page rendering/displaying issues (eg. blank or session restore = blank pages).
> 
> Forgotten what this addon is called, but this is what it does:
Click to expand...

That sounds about correct. E10s won't fully roll out to every platform until Firefox 53 assuming no big issues crop up in Beta.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> So I left two tabs of tweaktown articles opened in the background for around 1-2 hours and doing nothing on the broser. uBlocker says that it blocked around 900 ad site for EACH! And then waterfox.exe is consuming 6GB already and ******* rising! When you exit the tabs, the memory footprint will never go down unless you completely restart the browser.
> 
> This is why I was hoping electrolysis would help me solve this long standing problem. Or is there any way around this today?


Curious, does this occur with Firefox as well? If so might be some back JS programming on TweakTown's part.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> No idea re the memory footprint, but you should complain to Tweaktown. There's no reasonable reason for their ads to be bombarding you that much.
> 
> 
> 
> I really wouldn't have the right to complain to a website that's being driven by ads. I guess my question is how do I reclaim the memory back when I exit the tweaktown tabs?
Click to expand...

I mean, once the JS stops getting executed usage should wind down. Odd that it doesn't though.


----------



## kevindd992002

Yes it does occur with FF too. It seems to be a very common problem. If you Google for the issue you'd come up with a lot of hits with people having this problem for ages already.


----------



## JackCY

I have to say I've switched back to FF 64bit when I found out that FF itself finally has official 64bit builds even if they are not as easy to get to download and I think the 32bit crap is still the primary version being fed on main page. Reason? Speed and RAM usage, updates, compatibility with plugins, there is always something odd, unusual that makes stuff like WF not so great anymore at certain point. It sure was nice when there was no official 64bit FF.

Tweaktown is nuts, I remember with AdBlock+ it wouldn't sometimes even work at all, it bombards with many Ads no joke. When you block the ads and they detect it they go into big lengths to not show you the webpage lol. uBlock Origin works though now depending on what filters you select but works for me.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> I have to say I've switched back to FF 64bit when I found out that FF itself finally has official 64bit builds even if they are not as easy to get to download and I think the 32bit crap is still the primary version being fed on main page. Reason? Speed and RAM usage, updates, compatibility with plugins, there is always something odd, unusual that makes stuff like WF not so great anymore at certain point. It sure was nice when there was no official 64bit FF.
> 
> Tweaktown is nuts, I remember with AdBlock+ it wouldn't sometimes even work at all, it bombards with many Ads no joke. When you block the ads and they detect it they go into big lengths to not show you the webpage lol. uBlock Origin works though now depending on what filters you select but works for me.


Do you mean uBlock origin works for you in Tweaktown?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> see http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize
> 
> try setting the config.trim_on_minimize to true in about:config
> 
> see caveat in the ref.
> 
> also, try the free memory options in about:memory
> 
> also there are a number of addons to implement a memory recovery via a key combo or a button. search on 'free memory'


Thanks. Free Memory 2.0 works for me in freeing up the used memory. Tweaktown sucks big time!


----------



## Quantum Reality

I can't figure out a good place to ask about this but since MrAlex tweaks things a lot









What I've noticed with older implementations of Firefox is that even if you do not bookmark a site, if you go back to it a lot, what happens is that the URL dropdown bar will move the site up in the rankings so past a certain point you can just type part of the URL, down-arrow once, Enter, and you're in.

Now, however, in new Firefox versions this seems to no longer happen.

Can an expert in the FF history ranking algorithm elaborate as to how MrAlex could restore the older behavior for UI consistency?


----------



## WetLook

MrAlex,

I updated to Ver. 49.0.3
When I look under "Help", "About Waterfox" it still shows "Apply Update..." for Ver. 49.0.3

This also happened with a previous update. See post #7226


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 50 Preview:

Windows Download

There has been a lot of progress in getting clang-cl building Firefox, and everything seems stable enough to use builds as daily drivers.

I'm just releasing here to test before wide release.

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I can't figure out a good place to ask about this but since MrAlex tweaks things a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've noticed with older implementations of Firefox is that even if you do not bookmark a site, if you go back to it a lot, what happens is that the URL dropdown bar will move the site up in the rankings so past a certain point you can just type part of the URL, down-arrow once, Enter, and you're in.
> 
> Now, however, in new Firefox versions this seems to no longer happen.
> 
> Can an expert in the FF history ranking algorithm elaborate as to how MrAlex could restore the older behavior for UI consistency?


As far as I'm aware this is still supposed to be the case and for the most part seems to work for me. Any chance you can reproduce this with Firefox?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> MrAlex,
> 
> I updated to Ver. 49.0.3
> When I look under "Help", "About Waterfox" it still shows "Apply Update..." for Ver. 49.0.3
> 
> This also happened with a previous update. See post #7226


Might be because you're on the test URL.


----------



## WetLook

I updated thru the "Help" "About Waterfox", is this a test URL?

Thanks Mr. Alex


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I can't figure out a good place to ask about this but since MrAlex tweaks things a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've noticed with older implementations of Firefox is that even if you do not bookmark a site, if you go back to it a lot, what happens is that the URL dropdown bar will move the site up in the rankings so past a certain point you can just type part of the URL, down-arrow once, Enter, and you're in.
> 
> Now, however, in new Firefox versions this seems to no longer happen.
> 
> Can an expert in the FF history ranking algorithm elaborate as to how MrAlex could restore the older behavior for UI consistency?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm aware this is still supposed to be the case and for the most part seems to work for me. Any chance you can reproduce this with Firefox?
Click to expand...

Yes,

I use Firefox on my laptop because I have to use reasonably well-supported mainstream software on it (it's for work). I can confirm that at the same time as FF switched back to the older single-line style URL history dropdown it stopped moving pages up and down in rankings depending on frequency of re-visiting them.

Pale Moon, which uses the older FF 24/25 codebase, still exhibits the "normal" behavior of moving pages higher in history suggestions in the URL autocomplete dropdown if you revisit them frequently.


----------



## wobinda

Just FYI,
after upgrading to Waterfox 50, Easy DragToGo+ 1.1.7 BETA19 (add-on) doesn't seem to be working anymore







((


----------



## Screemer

I love the speed of Waterfox 50.0 Mr.Alex.

However I seem to have problems with flash? It seem to hang on several sites.
I use the latest released x64 flash v23.0.0.207

Tested here amongst other sites.
http://test-flash.net/

Is it a know issue I missed? Do others have the same problem?


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

The ability to check if our Plugins are up to date has go away.

Thanks for your help.

WetLook


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I updated thru the "Help" "About Waterfox", is this a test URL?
> 
> Thanks Mr. Alex


Yes you might have app.update.url.override set. I've fixed test XML anyway so even if you do get test updates should've keep prompting you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I can't figure out a good place to ask about this but since MrAlex tweaks things a lot
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I've noticed with older implementations of Firefox is that even if you do not bookmark a site, if you go back to it a lot, what happens is that the URL dropdown bar will move the site up in the rankings so past a certain point you can just type part of the URL, down-arrow once, Enter, and you're in.
> 
> Now, however, in new Firefox versions this seems to no longer happen.
> 
> Can an expert in the FF history ranking algorithm elaborate as to how MrAlex could restore the older behavior for UI consistency?
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I'm aware this is still supposed to be the case and for the most part seems to work for me. Any chance you can reproduce this with Firefox?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes,
> 
> I use Firefox on my laptop because I have to use reasonably well-supported mainstream software on it (it's for work). I can confirm that at the same time as FF switched back to the older single-line style URL history dropdown it stopped moving pages up and down in rankings depending on frequency of re-visiting them.
> 
> Pale Moon, which uses the older FF 24/25 codebase, still exhibits the "normal" behavior of moving pages higher in history suggestions in the URL autocomplete dropdown if you revisit them frequently.
Click to expand...

I'll have a look into this for you.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *wobinda*
> 
> Just FYI,
> after upgrading to Waterfox 50, Easy DragToGo+ 1.1.7 BETA19 (add-on) doesn't seem to be working anymore
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ((


Looks like it broke completely with Firefox 50 release. Maybe try DragIt?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> I love the speed of Waterfox 50.0 Mr.Alex.
> 
> However I seem to have problems with flash? It seem to hang on several sites.
> I use the latest released x64 flash v23.0.0.207
> 
> Tested here amongst other sites.
> http://test-flash.net/
> 
> Is it a know issue I missed? Do others have the same problem?


Hmm strange. For some reason dom.ipc.plugins.sandbox-level.* prefs are missing. Will check this ASAP, might be why.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> The ability to check if our Plugins are up to date has go away.
> 
> Thanks for your help.
> 
> WetLook


Have you been able to do this in v49? Might be because of the removal of 64-Bit whitelist?

EDIT:

Rolling out the autoupdate tomorrow, just have some last minute fixes before rolling that out, or you can download the installer from the website.


----------



## MicroCat

Dear @MrAlex how soon will you be updating WF to 50.0.1. to deal with the zero day exploit in firefox? Or is WF unaffected by such vulgarity?

Exploit Report here.


----------



## WetLook

I found this article: https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/security/advisories/mfsa2016-91/

Hope this is fixed soon for WF


----------



## MrAlex

Patching right now


----------



## WetLook

A BIG Thanks Mr. Alex!!!


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I just updated to 50.0.2

The ability to check and see if our Plugins are up to date is still not available.

Thanks for the patch!

WetLook


----------



## kronckew

my security suite takes care of zero day exploits.


----------



## MicroCat

It's fixed! Thanks, Mr. Alex! It's safe to go back to the internets again!


----------



## Baldone

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I just updated to 50.0.2
> 
> The ability to check and see if our Plugins are up to date is still not available.
> 
> Thanks for the patch!


+ 1

I've been loading Firefox to sanity check plugins. Then back to WF 50.0.2. It's a PITA but .....


----------



## WetLook

Baldone,

I didn't think of doing the Plug-In check that way.
I don't have Firefox loaded and really don't want to.

Hopefully Mr. Alex will fix this issue shortly.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Has anyone else been having major and (almost) instantaneous crashes in tabs?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Can't say the issue exists in the equivalent Firefox (at least I've never seen that error on my laptop). Before blaming Waterfox specifically, can you say if the issue started on clean install/upgrade/etc? And can you give details for how the upgrade was performed, if upgraded? Also what OS?


----------



## WetLook

Are you using Waterfox or Google Chrome?
I see "from Google Chrome" in your PNG file.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Can't say the issue exists in the equivalent Firefox (at least I've never seen that error on my laptop). Before blaming Waterfox specifically, can you say if the issue started on clean install/upgrade/etc? And can you give details for how the upgrade was performed, if upgraded? Also what OS?


Uninstalled Waterfox completely. I had an older version installed, but I can't remember what version. Reinstalled Waterfox 50.1.0. Even restarted between those steps. I'm using Windows 10.
Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Are you using Waterfox or Google Chrome?
> I see "from Google Chrome" in your PNG file.


Currently I'm using Chrome, because the whole Waterfox not working for me right now thing.








I hadn't used Waterfox in a while and wanted to try it again.


----------



## Quantum Reality

That is odd. Perhaps MrAlex knows if there is an error log you can send in re: that tab error.

More generally maybe the WIn10 Event Viewer (if it has one like Win7) could show you what was happening on your computer at the time the tab crash occurred.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> That is odd. Perhaps MrAlex knows if there is an error log you can send in re: that tab error.
> 
> More generally maybe the WIn10 Event Viewer (if it has one like Win7) could show you what was happening on your computer at the time the tab crash occurred.


It is definitely odd! I'll see about the event viewer. Thank y'all anyway. <3


----------



## MrAlex

Happy New Years everyone! On to our 6th year of Waterfox







. Apologies for the late replies .

Quote:



> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I just updated to 50.0.2
> 
> The ability to check and see if our Plugins are up to date is still not available.
> 
> Thanks for the patch!
> 
> WetLook


Ah damn sorry, I'll add that back in, keep missing it out!

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kronckew*
> 
> my security suite takes care of zero day exploits.


I suppose, but it's better to have pro-active security as well .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MicroCat*
> 
> It's fixed! Thanks, Mr. Alex! It's safe to go back to the internets again!




Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Samurai Batgirl*
> 
> Has anyone else been having major and (almost) instantaneous crashes in tabs?


 Have you tried with e10s disabled (by setting *browser.tabs.remote.force-enable* to *false*) or in safe mode?


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

It won't even let me go to browser.tabs.remote.force-enable.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Antivirus/malware ruled out? Might be good to scan with an AV and/or Malwarebytes.


----------



## Prime2515102

I have two feature suggestions:

1) If you can make it so the "Other Bookmarks" folder can be hidden or (preferably) deleted in the bookmarks menu, that would be great (why is that even there in the first place?).

2) If you can make so the "Bookmarks Toolbar" folder can be hidden in the bookmarks menu, that would be great too. I don't want to delete that one because I use it, but there is no need for it to be shown in the bookmarks menu.

I know there are add-ons to do this but I have enough add-ons slowing things down already.


----------



## WetLook

I just updated to Ver. 51.0.
This update came thru the Waterfox browser, "Help", "About Waterfox".

Here is the web site that lists the changes to Ver. 51.0:
https://www.waterfoxproject.org/blog/waterfox-51.0-release-download

I don't know where to find Ver. 51.0 other than updating thru the browser.


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

I just updated to 51.0 and see this option needs to be addressed.

The ability to check and see if our Plugins are up to date is still not available.

Just like in my post #7263 for ver. 50.0.2 this option is still not available.

Thanks for the hard work and update, much appreciated!!!

WetLook


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I just updated to 51.0 and see this option needs to be addressed.
> 
> The ability to check and see if our Plugins are up to date is still not available.
> 
> Just like in my post #7263 for ver. 50.0.2 this option is still not available.
> 
> Thanks for the hard work and update, much appreciated!!!
> 
> WetLook


Hmm that's odd, seems to work for me? What issues do you get with the page?



Also, enjoy v51


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> I just updated to 51.0 and see this option needs to be addressed.
> 
> The ability to check and see if our Plugins are up to date is still not available.
> 
> Just like in my post #7263 for ver. 50.0.2 this option is still not available.
> 
> Thanks for the hard work and update, much appreciated!!!
> 
> WetLook
> 
> 
> 
> Hmm that's odd, seems to work for me? What issues do you get with the page?
> 
> Also, enjoy v51
Click to expand...

I tried that same site with Firefox and it doesn't seem to work right for me either (it claims I have no plugins when in actual fact I have the H.264 codec installed). I would suggest manually checking plugins (Ctrl-Shift-A, Plugins, note which ones you have) by going to the originating maker's site (e.g. for Flash and/or Shockwave, go to Adobe's site), and seeing if you are up to date.


----------



## WetLook

OK let's make sure we are addressing the same issue.

We use to be able to check to see if our Plugins are up to date
from the "Add-ons Manager", "Plugins" page.
In post #7274 you said "Ah damn sorry, I'll add that back in, keep missing it out!"

Is this option no longer going to be used?



I know we can go to https://www.mozilla.org/plugincheck/ to check plugins.
I was just wondered if the shortcut was going to be added back into the "Plugins" page.

Thanks Mr. Alex for all your time and work on this project!!!


----------



## WetLook

Quantum Reality,

Using Ctrl-Shift-A does nothing for me.
Is this supposed to show us our plugins?


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Quantum Reality,
> 
> Using Ctrl-Shift-A does nothing for me.
> Is this supposed to show us our plugins?


https://www.accessfirefox.org/Addons_Installation_Guide.php

Also this should help: https://www.accessfirefox.org/Firefox_Addons_Options.php

Ctrl-Shift-A should pop up something like this image:

https://www.accessfirefox.org/Firefox_Beginners_Guide/Add-ons_Customize/Extensions_Options.png


----------



## WetLook

No using Ctrl-Shift-A does nothing for me.
Is there anybody reading this that is having success using "Ctrl-Shift-A" to open their plugin page?


----------



## Quantum Reality

I added another URL to my previous post that shows another way to access the add-ons page.


----------



## WetLook

Quantum Reality,

Thanks for the responses.
I was having a brain fart, I was pressing Clrt+Alt+A and not Ctrl+Shift+A.
Ctrl+Shift+A does work.

Thanks for your help. Now if we could just check our plugins from this page.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> OK let's make sure we are addressing the same issue.
> 
> We use to be able to check to see if our Plugins are up to date
> from the "Add-ons Manager", "Plugins" page.
> In post #7274 you said "Ah damn sorry, I'll add that back in, keep missing it out!"
> 
> Is this option no longer going to be used?
> 
> 
> 
> I know we can go to https://www.mozilla.org/plugincheck/ to check plugins.
> I was just wondered if the shortcut was going to be added back into the "Plugins" page.
> 
> Thanks Mr. Alex for all your time and work on this project!!!


Ah I see...looks like I misunderstood. What I kept missing out was the help URL that redirects to the plugin check page on the Mozilla website. I had no idea that that built-in check is what you meant. Has it ever worked for 64-Bit versions of Firefox? If so, I don't change/touch any code relating to this feature so I'm not sure what it could be.


----------



## thechas

It looks like the Mozilla team combined the check for updates button with several other functions.

There is a "Check for Updates" button in the drop down menu near the search box

.

It is present and functions in Firefox x64 51.0.1

Chas

Just installed Waterfox 51.0.1 and the Check for Updates function is in the same drop down menu as shown above.


----------



## Prime2515102

The link in the archive to download WF 50.0 gives a 404. Any idea where I can download it?

I need to revert my installation. Every problem I have ever had with Waterfox has returned in one single update (52.0.1) and it wasn't much better in the previous version (50.0).


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> The link in the archive to download WF 50.0 gives a 404. Any idea where I can download it?
> 
> I need to revert my installation. Every problem I have ever had with Waterfox has returned in one single update (52.0.1) and it wasn't much better in the previous version (50.0).


Here you go. That's interesting, I wonder if it's anything to do with temporarily switching back to MSVC from Clang? What sort of issues have you been facing?


----------



## Prime2515102

It was the issues with Flash Player where in this chat app the "browse" button to get a picture file wouldn't work (although, that broke again after a Flash update, so I think that's purely Flash in Waterfox (it works in Firefox fine). Now, when I type (in login, or while already logged in) the characters don't show unless I click outside the text input box, then the text I type appears. The odd thing is that it's doing this in several different Flash based chat apps.

On top of that, it got incredibly slow. Pages were taking roughly twice as long to display, and if it's a page with lots of media on it, the scroll will be locked until about 3/4 of it shows up (especially with embedded videos).

In all honesty, I may be in need of a clean profile, but I went back to 48.0.2. and it's ok (that browse button still doesn't work though, it turns out that that's off and on with various Flash updates).

I'll put 50 back and see what happens.


----------



## Prime2515102

Yeah, I put 50.0 back and all is well.


----------



## WetLook

Now you need to update to ver. 52.0.1
It is working for me.


----------



## Samurai Batgirl

I couldn't tell you why, but I still can't get Waterfox to work for me. I've done numerous fresh installs, updated drivers. Installed Firefox to make sure that worked. Nothing.


----------



## kevindd992002

Why is it that most pages load so much faster in Chrome compared to Waterfox? And no, I don't use any proxies. It was like this since forever.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi All,

Is the Waterfox Updater broken? Waterfox Version 52.0.1 reports that it is Up-to-date.


----------



## Sev501

I'm not sure if it's just me but when I added back the Airplane icon for Share and clicking it for the 1st time it tries to load a page and crashes waterfox.

WF 52 the latest one from downloads


----------



## Hotpocketdeath

If you are a reddit user, or look at a lot of images through your web browser, do not update to version 53. It's broken when trying to load URLs directly to a lot of images.

And trying to downgrade back to version 52 does not fix the issue.


----------



## kevindd992002

Can someon explain why Chrome is a faster browser than Waterfox? If it weren't for the stupid tab size management in Chrome, I wouldn't have to resort using Firefox/Waterfox as these two are horrible in speed when having a 100+ tabs in the background.


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Can someon explain why Chrome is a faster browser than Waterfox? If it weren't for the stupid tab size management in Chrome, I wouldn't have to resort using Firefox/Waterfox as these two are horrible in speed when having a 100+ tabs in the background.


Probably due to the way it architecturally separates tab processes in memory. Since each instance of chrome.exe isn't trying to deal with all the other instances as well (Firefox and derivatives don't enforce as strict a segmentation, as I understand, which has been regarded as a security issue as well*), a sluggish website probably doesn't affect performance as much.

* See here for a discussion: https://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html or here: https://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chromium/chromium-security-architecture.pdf


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Probably due to the way it architecturally separates tab processes in memory. Since each instance of chrome.exe isn't trying to deal with all the other instances as well (Firefox and derivatives don't enforce as strict a segmentation, as I understand, which has been regarded as a security issue as well*), a sluggish website probably doesn't affect performance as much.
> 
> * See here for a discussion: https://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html or here: https://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chromium/chromium-security-architecture.pdf


I understand and it is exactly what I thought. But I thought Electrolysis was supposed to be implemented in Firefox/Waterfox since late last year?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> Probably due to the way it architecturally separates tab processes in memory. Since each instance of chrome.exe isn't trying to deal with all the other instances as well (Firefox and derivatives don't enforce as strict a segmentation, as I understand, which has been regarded as a security issue as well*), a sluggish website probably doesn't affect performance as much.
> 
> * See here for a discussion: https://blog.chromium.org/2008/09/multi-process-architecture.html or here: https://seclab.stanford.edu/websec/chromium/chromium-security-architecture.pdf
> 
> 
> 
> I understand and it is exactly what I thought. But I thought Electrolysis was supposed to be implemented in Firefox/Waterfox since late last year?
Click to expand...

It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:


Ok. I get exactly that. How do I know which add-on is the one forcing my browser not to use electrolysis? Or can I force it to enable?

EDIT: Nevermind, I got it working and I immediately noticed the increase in speed! It's day and night for me, unbelievable! Is there any disadvantage with using E10s?


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:


hey Alex, do you know how soon will waterfox come out with 55.0.1?
reason i ask is, starting with Nightly 55.0a.1 they put session restore back into parent process and it is EXTREMELY fast, MUCH faster than even 45.0a.1. I power user with like 4000+ tabs really need this. however 55.0a.1 doesn't come with NPAPI support and disables java thats why I need to use waterfox instead, or wait for firefox ESR but who knows how long that will take. i've been testing waterfox over last month or so and ready to make the switch, when it is version 55 or higher.


----------



## Prime2515102

extensions.e10sBlockedByAddons = false


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. I get exactly that. How do I know which add-on is the one forcing my browser not to use electrolysis? Or can I force it to enable?
> 
> EDIT: Nevermind, I got it working and I immediately noticed the increase in speed! It's day and night for me, unbelievable! Is there any disadvantage with using E10s?
Click to expand...

Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *unityole*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> It is, but some add-ons that aren't compatible might force your browser to not use it. Check in about:support:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hey Alex, do you know how soon will waterfox come out with 55.0.1?
> reason i ask is, starting with Nightly 55.0a.1 they put session restore back into parent process and it is EXTREMELY fast, MUCH faster than even 45.0a.1. I power user with like 4000+ tabs really need this. however 55.0a.1 doesn't come with NPAPI support and disables java thats why I need to use waterfox instead, or wait for firefox ESR but who knows how long that will take. i've been testing waterfox over last month or so and ready to make the switch, when it is version 55 or higher.
Click to expand...

Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.
> 
> Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.


thats excellent. any chance to base it off of nightly 55? I am currently using it and seems stable, other than a few add-on needs update and thats it. afaik or i have heard, 52 and 54 has the most issue, 53 was alright but looks like 53.0.1 version is already available for download.


----------



## Prime2515102

I had to stop updating Waterfox at 50.0 because input fields in Flash-based apps weren't working, and it would go back and forth between that, and not being able to browse to files for upload (in Flash-based apps only). Every version since (including Firefox and it's betas up through 54b9 I think it was) have this problem.

The official release of Firefox 54.0 has fixed all the problems I have been having with 64-bit (the betas were still giving me trouble too). E10s appears to be functioning with full stability as well (enabling it in Waterfox and disabling the ability for add-ons to disable it caused all sorts of havoc).

UPDATE: I was wrong, E10s wasn't enabled, this version of Firefox is just faster. I disabled add-on blocking and it's wicked fast now. Some pages seem to appear instantly. I have been waiting for this day for years. I'm sure something will go wrong...

However, there seems to be a conflict with Waterfox. After having opened Firefox just once, Waterfox now only displays everything at 1/4 the size. When I say everything, I mean web pages and even dialog boxes. All the toolbars are missing as well.

UPDATE 2: This problem was because of disabling DPI scaling under the compatibility tab in Windows. It worked fine until I installed Firefox, but after running Firefox the above symptoms happened.

Now I am stuck with using Firefox for now.

Patiently awaiting Waterfox 54.


----------



## Baldone

Has this site been abandoned for information on the continuing development of Waterfox? Version 54.0.0.1 has been out for a few days now but no comments were posted here about it at all.


----------



## kevindd992002

That's also what I feel about this thread. I guess Alex isn't interested in this thread anymore.


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.
> 
> Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.


hey Alex, quick question, would waterfox eventually support AVX2?


----------



## MicroCat

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> That's also what I feel about this thread. I guess Alex isn't interested in this thread anymore.


Probably busy working on his new Firewater / Fennecfire / Hydrofox browser. Or something. It's summer, so could just be goofing off. ;-)


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *unityole*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.
> 
> Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.
> 
> 
> 
> thats excellent. any chance to base it off of nightly 55? I am currently using it and seems stable, other than a few add-on needs update and thats it. afaik or i have heard, 52 and 54 has the most issue, 53 was alright but looks like 53.0.1 version is already available for download.
Click to expand...

Well, 55 is just around the corner. Most of my time is being spent on infrastructure. Need a place to hold all those add-ons, as well as a better website marketing Waterfox a bit better, showcasing all of its features etc.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> I had to stop updating Waterfox at 50.0 because input fields in Flash-based apps weren't working, and it would go back and forth between that, and not being able to browse to files for upload (in Flash-based apps only). Every version since (including Firefox and it's betas up through 54b9 I think it was) have this problem.
> 
> The official release of Firefox 54.0 has fixed all the problems I have been having with 64-bit (the betas were still giving me trouble too). E10s appears to be functioning with full stability as well (enabling it in Waterfox and disabling the ability for add-ons to disable it caused all sorts of havoc).
> 
> UPDATE: I was wrong, E10s wasn't enabled, this version of Firefox is just faster. I disabled add-on blocking and it's wicked fast now. Some pages seem to appear instantly. I have been waiting for this day for years. I'm sure something will go wrong...
> 
> However, there seems to be a conflict with Waterfox. After having opened Firefox just once, Waterfox now only displays everything at 1/4 the size. When I say everything, I mean web pages and even dialog boxes. All the toolbars are missing as well.
> 
> UPDATE 2: This problem was because of disabling DPI scaling under the compatibility tab in Windows. It worked fine until I installed Firefox, but after running Firefox the above symptoms happened.
> 
> Now I am stuck with using Firefox for now.
> 
> Patiently awaiting Waterfox 54.


Any luck with v54?

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Baldone*
> 
> Has this site been abandoned for information on the continuing development of Waterfox? Version 54.0.0.1 has been out for a few days now but no comments were posted here about it at all.


Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> That's also what I feel about this thread. I guess Alex isn't interested in this thread anymore.


Sorry about that fellas! The Waterfox subreddit is quite a bit more active so I usually spend more of my time on there. I do check here though, but sometimes don't have to time to answer! I'll make sure to improve on it 

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *unityole*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Not really any disadvantages. There may be add-ons that don't work with e10s, but that's it.
> 
> Hey! So, I'm developing a new browser, that will be based off stable Nightly pretty soon and will be run concurrently with Waterfox. It'll have it's own add-on repo etc. Imagine Firefox with XUL and NPAPI. I'll also (try) and extended XUL to take on some more native platform features, for example using Keychain for password management in macOS or utilising the Windows API for notifications, location etc. I'm trying to get an Alpha ready soon for everyone to try. You can read more about that here. I am struggling to come up with a name for it though that's not taken! We'll see heh.
> 
> 
> 
> hey Alex, quick question, would waterfox eventually support AVX2?
Click to expand...

Yes, will add support for video decoding. I'm switching H.264 decoding etc to use ffmpeg and enable flags for AVX2 etc that will benefit everyone. We don't have to worry about MPEG LA here in the UK .

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MicroCat*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> That's also what I feel about this thread. I guess Alex isn't interested in this thread anymore.
> 
> 
> 
> Probably busy working on his new Firewater / Fennecfire / Hydrofox browser. Or something. It's summer, so could just be goofing off. ;-)
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's a pretty busy summer ?


----------



## Prime2515102

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Any luck with v54?


Actually yes! It seems to work perfectly. I was afraid to update to 54.0.0.1 but that's working perfectly also.

I'm having problems with having hardware acceleration enabled, but that's an nVidia driver issue. nVidia mentions this in the release notes for one of their drivers, but it's not mentioned in the release notes for the driver I'm using (two versions old I think, but they seem to work the best for me). In the newest "game ready" driver the mention of the Firefox bug disappeared with no mention of it being fixed either, so I'm not very confident it will be fixed any time in this decade (lol).

As soon as Vega is available I'm selling the GTX 1060 I just bought so that will be a non-issue soon. I have NEVER had any problems like this with AMD drivers on a supported OS (I had been using ATi/AMD cards for 11 or 12 years straight).

P.S. Thank you for adding the ability to install... Widevine I think it is? - I can now watch HTML5 video on sites like Amazon, whereas I had to keep using Flash before. I'm thinking I could have probably added it before but I had no clue it existed.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Any luck with v54?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually yes! It seems to work perfectly. I was afraid to update to 54.0.0.1 but that's working perfectly also.
> 
> I'm having problems with having hardware acceleration enabled, but that's an nVidia driver issue. nVidia mentions this in the release notes for one of their drivers, but it's not mentioned in the release notes for the driver I'm using (two versions old I think, but they seem to work the best for me). In the newest "game ready" driver the mention of the Firefox bug disappeared with no mention of it being fixed either, so I'm not very confident it will be fixed any time in this decade (lol).
> 
> As soon as Vega is available I'm selling the GTX 1060 I just bought so that will be a non-issue soon. I have NEVER had any problems like this with AMD drivers on a supported OS (I had been using ATi/AMD cards for 11 or 12 years straight).
> 
> P.S. Thank you for adding the ability to install... Widevine I think it is? - I can now watch HTML5 video on sites like Amazon, whereas I had to keep using Flash before. I'm thinking I could have probably added it before but I had no clue it existed.
Click to expand...

Ah well, excellent! Glad to hear that. Mozilla may have added the driver version to the driver blacklist, which may be why newer versions now work.

And yes, I've enabled Widevine optionally, so Waterfox still EME free by default. Now to enable H.264 decoding with ffmpeg so I can get rid of the Cisco binaries!


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Yes, will add support for video decoding. I'm switching H.264 decoding etc to use ffmpeg and enable flags for AVX2 etc that will benefit everyone. We don't have to worry about MPEG LA here in the UK
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .


so I assuming avx1 is already in use right? i think nightly 55 has avx but im not sure..


----------



## WetLook

Alex,

First off, THANKS for all your hard work!!! Great Job.

I just tried to check plugins (Click to see if your plugins are up to date) and the
web page that comes up does not give update info.
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/

What now?


----------



## Prime2515102

Instead of clicking "Check to see if your plugins are up to date," click the gear over on the right and click "Check for updates."


----------



## WetLook

Clicking the gear and then check for updates, does not check for plugin updates.


----------



## Prime2515102

Well, when I did that it showed updates for my plugins and extensions.


----------



## WetLook

What happens now.
Does it show updates for plugins?
When I try to "Check to see if your plugins are up to date"; I get this:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/
Your Firefox is out-of-date.

My plugins are not checked using "Check for update". I haven't been able to check "Plugins" since two versions or so ago.
Are you sure you were getting plugins updates using "Check for updates".

Mr. Alex what is going on?
Are you able to get plugin updates using "Check for updates

Also "Check to see if your plugins are up to date"; I get this:
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/plugincheck/
Your Firefox is out-of-date.


----------



## kevindd992002

Having totally lost my faith in Waterfox (it's been a good run with you @MrAlex), I tried installing Firefox 55.0.1 64-bit and it is unbelievable! The memory footprint it has when opening multiple tabs is a thousandfold less than the past versions. It's the fix that I've been waiting for so long!

At this point, is there even an advantage of going with Waterfox if there's already an official 64-bit FF?


----------



## WetLook

Mr. Alex,

Whats up?

Are you giving up on this site for our Waterfox support?
The reason I ask is the last time you responded on this site was 07/12/2017

What web site should we be using for Waterfox support?

Thanks for your time and help on this project.


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry about that fellas! The Waterfox subreddit is quite a bit more active so I usually spend more of my time on there. I do check here though, but sometimes don't have to time to answer! I'll make sure to improve on it


hey Mr Alex, i just downloaded waterfox 55 via subreddit and its really fast and speedy, thank you very much!. however i did come across a few issues here. the icons for these buttons are not showing, i even try to use customize by moving these icons/fucntion back and out and restart waterfox and its not fixing it.

icons for Stop, Reload, Forward/Back are not showing. any idea how to get them to show?

edit: nvm works now.. donno what happened


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Having totally lost my faith in Waterfox (it's been a good run with you @MrAlex), I tried installing Firefox 55.0.1 64-bit and it is unbelievable! The memory footprint it has when opening multiple tabs is a thousandfold less than the past versions. It's the fix that I've been waiting for so long!
> 
> At this point, is there even an advantage of going with Waterfox if there's already an official 64-bit FF?


Well it depends if Waterfox fits your needs. I'll be carrying on support for add-ons (as well as everything else Waterfox does) as a lot of people are migrating over from Firefox for that. The coming weeks I'm setting up an add-on store and will be in touch with some of the big add-on devs to keep their add-ons going. Will also be coming to Android to keep extensions available there as well.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> Mr. Alex,
> 
> Whats up?
> 
> Are you giving up on this site for our Waterfox support?
> The reason I ask is the last time you responded on this site was 07/12/2017
> 
> What web site should we be using for Waterfox support?
> 
> Thanks for your time and help on this project.


Hey, sorry about that. This thread isn't usually very active so I'm mostly on Twitter/Reddit.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *unityole*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Sorry about that fellas! The Waterfox subreddit is quite a bit more active so I usually spend more of my time on there. I do check here though, but sometimes don't have to time to answer! I'll make sure to improve on it
> 
> 
> 
> hey Mr Alex, i just downloaded waterfox 55 via subreddit and its really fast and speedy, thank you very much!. however i did come across a few issues here. the icons for these buttons are not showing, i even try to use customize by moving these icons/fucntion back and out and restart waterfox and its not fixing it.
> 
> icons for Stop, Reload, Forward/Back are not showing. any idea how to get them to show?
> 
> edit: nvm works now.. donno what happened
Click to expand...

Hmm very strange ?. Which OS?


----------



## WetLook

When will the final Waterfox ver. 55 be available for us?
I read it was going to be ready this last weekend.

Any update for us?

Thanks Mr. Alex
And keep up the good work!


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well it depends if Waterfox fits your needs. I'll be carrying on support for add-ons (as well as everything else Waterfox does) as a lot of people are migrating over from Firefox for that. The coming weeks I'm setting up an add-on store and will be in touch with some of the big add-on devs to keep their add-ons going. Will also be coming to Android to keep extensions available there as well.


You might get me back again soon for things like that  Are there performance comparison numbers between FF and WF 55 already? Also, is there already WF for Android?


----------



## Screemer

Hello MrAlex,

it's so nice to see you are splitting WF away from FF and that you'll keep the extension support. Made my day.









Since you'll be performing such radical changes to WF, would it be possible to re-implement the support for the old sync protocols? I think the latest version was 1.5 or something like that?
I have access to a private sync server that hasn't been working since FF v53 something. And I'd love to be able to start using it again.

Thanks for all your great work, keep it up and you'll soon be bigger than Mozilla.


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> When will the final Waterfox ver. 55 be available for us?
> I read it was going to be ready this last weekend.
> 
> Any update for us?
> 
> Thanks Mr. Alex
> And keep up the good work!


Finally got the code sign cert issued today, so prepping the release ?.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Quote:
> 
> 
> 
> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Well it depends if Waterfox fits your needs. I'll be carrying on support for add-ons (as well as everything else Waterfox does) as a lot of people are migrating over from Firefox for that. The coming weeks I'm setting up an add-on store and will be in touch with some of the big add-on devs to keep their add-ons going. Will also be coming to Android to keep extensions available there as well.
> 
> 
> 
> You might get me back again soon for things like that  Are there performance comparison numbers between FF and WF 55 already? Also, is there already WF for Android?
Click to expand...

Not that I know of yet, should be roughly equal at the moment as I use the same compiler/flags.

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Screemer*
> 
> Hello MrAlex,
> 
> it's so nice to see you are splitting WF away from FF and that you'll keep the extension support. Made my day.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you'll be performing such radical changes to WF, would it be possible to re-implement the support for the old sync protocols? I think the latest version was 1.5 or something like that?
> I have access to a private sync server that hasn't been working since FF v53 something. And I'd love to be able to start using it again.
> 
> Thanks for all your great work, keep it up and you'll soon be bigger than Mozilla.


I'm not sure it'd be possible to do that, the changes were quite drastic and it would require a lot of engineering time. Could you not update the private server to the newer protocol?


----------



## MrAlex

55.0.2 is out  it's a big one so check out all the release notes.


----------



## Screemer

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> I'm not sure it'd be possible to do that, the changes were quite drastic and it would require a lot of engineering time. Could you not update the private server to the newer protocol?


Perhaps it can be done..







Just asked since I hoped they kind of only disabled the support..
I had to at least ask.


----------



## 86JR

Anyone had this problem? Happens A LOT and just started happening about 2 days ago with no obvious changes.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> You might get me back again soon for things like that  Are there performance comparison numbers between FF and WF 55 already? Also, is there already WF for Android?


Ok, after installing WF 55 and experiencing all the issues with the add-ons and settings I just couldn't convince myself that it's worth using anymore. I think I'll be staying with FF. No offence meant.


----------



## Drake87

Loved the browser. But it has been getting slower and slower, and now the extensions tab completely locks up WF. Back to FFx64 for me, was good while it lasted.


----------



## Prime2515102

I just installed 55.0.2 and it seems to be buttery-smooth so far. I was having some hiccups with Facebook in 55.0.1 (script taking too long warning would come up occasionally) but they are gone.

Immediately after updating, six of my extensions were updated.

The "use hardware acceleration" setting is missing now. Is this intentional? I know it can be changed in about:config but I thought I would mention it.

Overall, Waterfox seems to be getting better and better.

P.S. My Flash Player problems have returned but it happened with a Flash update, not Waterfox. But, I'm not using those sites anymore until 2020 when Flash gets discontinued and they have updated their software.


----------



## 86JR

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Prime2515102*
> 
> The "use hardware acceleration" setting is missing now. Is this intentional? I know it can be changed in about:config but I thought I would mention it.
> 
> .


It's not. You just have to uncheck a box before it:


----------



## Prime2515102

Ahhh, thank you. I didn't even see that because it was in the Advanced section before (or was it? lol).


----------



## JackCY

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *kevindd992002*
> 
> Having totally lost my faith in Waterfox (it's been a good run with you @MrAlex
> ), I tried installing Firefox 55.0.1 64-bit and it is unbelievable! The memory footprint it has when opening multiple tabs is a thousandfold less than the past versions. It's the fix that I've been waiting for so long!
> 
> At this point, is there even an advantage of going with Waterfox if there's already an official 64-bit FF?


There has been no advantage from my POV to using Waterfox and I switched back to FF 64bit official once it was available, faster and better compatibility. Sure when FF was only 32bit then WF 64bit was the way to go but that's quite some time now.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *JackCY*
> 
> There has been no advantage from my POV to using Waterfox and I switched back to FF 64bit official once it was available, faster and better compatibility. Sure when FF was only 32bit then WF 64bit was the way to go but that's quite some time now.


Exactly my thought. I can care less about the add on support but I understand how people would want to go with WF because of that.


----------



## Sev501

For hardware accel you need to change performance settings in the General tab, untick it and you'll see the option there.



So far so good. However it's a bit huge in memory footprint....


----------



## WetLook

Alex,

I can't view any videos on www.youtube.com

I have to go to http://www.infinitelooper.com and paste the youtube video link of the
video I want to watch, and then I can see the video.

What do I need to do to watch youtube videos without having to go to infinitelooper.com
Is this problem a WF problem or a youtube problem?

Is anybody else having this problem?

OK I disabled all my Add-on's and youtube videos will play.
I enabled these add-ons one at a time to see which add-on was causing the player problem.
They are all emabled and the youtube video is playing.
Go figure.


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Youtube videos play for me. I am having an issue with the CCs getting set to a random language but this might be my ISP spoofing my location.


----------



## WetLook

CC is closed captions right?


----------



## xxpenguinxx

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> CC is closed captions right?


Yes.

It works fine at home so whatever they're doing at work is causing it.


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Finally got the code sign cert issued today, so prepping the release ?.
> Not that I know of yet, should be roughly equal at the moment as I use the same compiler/flags.
> 
> I'm not sure it'd be possible to do that, the changes were quite drastic and it would require a lot of engineering time. Could you not update the private server to the newer protocol?


hey mr Alex, is waterfox going to adapt the new firefox quantum beta once its officially out?


----------



## mauritos

good thing is that i made backup of my bookmarks after upgrading to 55.0.2 i lost all bookmarks??


----------



## thechas

Per the WF 55.0.2 release notes, Waterfox creates it's own profile now. You might have missed a prompt when the update releaunched WF.

IMPORTANT! Waterfox now uses its own profile location!

Waterfox now uses its own profile directory. If you have updated from an automatic update, you will get a prompt to import your data to this new location after restarting the browser post update.

As much of your data will try to be kept as possible.

Location on macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Waterfox
Location on Linux: ~/.waterfox/
Location on Windows: %APPDATA%\Waterfox

If you use a different than default location for Firefox, you should be able to just update the profile.ini in the new Waterfox profile location to carry on using that location.

There will be some teething issues with various setting as the change to prepare for continued XUL/XPCOM add-on support, so some add-ons may get disabled and settings changed. With some upcoming updates this should be fixed.


----------



## WetLook

I am having issues when on Facebook posting or watching videos.
Waterfox stops responding for no apparent reason.
It just freezes and sometimes is starts working again and sometimes I need to exit Waterfox and relaunch it.
I anyone else having problems on Facebook?


----------



## Sev501

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I am having issues when on Facebook posting or watching videos.
> Waterfox stops responding for no apparent reason.
> It just freezes and sometimes is starts working again and sometimes I need to exit Waterfox and relaunch it.
> I anyone else having problems on Facebook?


I'm not sure if this is related but sometimes my facebook post button goes missing but allows me to type in status messages but the post button is like greyed out or disabled.

With videos not really the play fine on my end.


----------



## unityole

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> 55.0.2 is out  it's a big one so check out all the release notes.


latest version of waterfox, sound icon sometimes isn't appearing on the tab when the tab has flash and flash plays sounds. confirmed sound icon will appear on the tab if tab is playing video/html source and can be muted just fine, but not when it has flash content. pls fix, as previously can mute everything.


----------



## Quantum Reality

I've been using 64-bit Firefox for a while now. Is there any advantage to switching back to Waterfox? I am especially interested in whether the cache can be moved to a RAM disk. I remember not being very happy when Pale Moon wouldn't do it even with the necessary about:config changes.


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality*
> 
> I've been using 64-bit Firefox for a while now. Is there any advantage to switching back to Waterfox? I am especially interested in whether the cache can be moved to a RAM disk. I remember not being very happy when Pale Moon wouldn't do it even with the necessary about:config changes.


I've been using Firefox 64-bit too and I don't see any advantage of using WF. The developer say that he will be continuing support for legacy add-ons but that's just it. I really feel that WF is slowly deteriorating. Don't get me wrong though, I loved it at its prime but things change and we should adapt.


----------



## WetLook

I am starting to feel the same way!
I am having issues using WF on Facebook, I keep getting script problems every ten to fifteen minutes.
I also see Alex hasn't posted on this web site since 8/21/2017.

Alex are we using the wrong web site?
Should we put using tihs site to rest and only use another web site?


----------



## kevindd992002

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *WetLook*
> 
> I am starting to feel the same way!
> I am having issues using WF on Facebook, I keep getting script problems every ten to fifteen minutes.
> I also see Alex hasn't posted on this web site since 8/21/2017.
> 
> Alex are we using the wrong web site?
> Should we put using tihs site to rest and only use another web site?


For the past few months, I tried convincing myself that Waterfox is still better than Firefox 64-bit but it isn't just the case anymore. I've given up. Too many problems with Waterfox.

Alex mentioned in this thread that he is more active in his subreddit so you might want to check there. I think we should abandoned this thread already. I'm unsubscribing now.


----------



## WetLook

I am hoping Alex reads these comments.

Alex are we beating a dead horse using this web site, please respond?


----------



## WetLook

I just sent a PM to Alex in the hope of getting a response:

Alex,
Are people using Waterfox and having issues using the wrong web site by using overclock.net?
It has been close to two months since you posted here.

There are a few Waterfox users disappointed in your support.
Please instruct users looking for support as to where this support can be found.
This support sure isn't located here on overclock!

Come on and help us.

I appreciate you time and devotion to this project, don't give up supporting your project.

WetLook


----------



## thechas

Per a posting by Alex in August:

"Hey, sorry about that. This thread isn't usually very active so I'm mostly on Twitter/Reddit."

I would suggest that for primary support you look up his Twitter and Reddit feeds.


----------



## WetLook

I saw that post!

If Alex isn't supporting this site anymore, why doesn't he respond and tell us to abandon this web site.
I am going to do that anyway.

This site is pretty much useless lately anyway.


----------



## Lady Fitzgerald

subbed


----------



## Screemer

Seems MrAlex is much more active at Reddit: https://www.reddit.com/user/MrAlex94
And at Twitter: https://twitter.com/Waterfoxproject

Just for your information and to make it easier to find information for you guys.


----------



## WetLook

Why doesn't Mr. Alex respond himself,
I didn't even get a response to a PM I sent Alex 12 days ago.

post #7357 of 7361 which was posted over 12 days ago mentioned PM to Mr. Alex and still no response.


----------



## MrAlex

Hey all,

Sorry for not responding in a while. I saw how people weren't interesting in the using the browser here anymore and I was a bit disheartened, especially as this is where it all began. But it's nice to see a fair few people here at the very least.

Anyway, v56.0 is now available here.

I'll respond to the other queries a bit later, time for bed


----------



## WetLook

Alex,

I thought the same thing as too this is where it all began.
Thanks for your reply and your work on Waterfox, I know it takes a lot of time and patience.

A few of use felt support here was lacking.
I DL ver. 56 and will let you know how it is working for me.

Again Thank You!

Bruce


----------



## Quantum Reality

I switched to WF on my laptop after being less than impressed with FF 57.









So far WF 56 is behaving rather well!


----------



## thechas

Thank you!

And thank you for your ongoing efforts on Waterfox!


----------



## chorse

I've been on this site since the beginning and appreciate all your hard work on WF. It's been my primary browser for years.

I'm glad to see WF ver 56 is out. Ver. 53 was buggy for me. It would intermittently stop responding for about 5 seconds, like it was clearing cache or memory. Very annoying.

Looking forward to loading ver.56.


----------



## MrAlex

Waterfox 56.0.1 is out! Some security updates and fixes with Java NPAPI (added back the tag to load Web Applets).

I won't be releasing the auto-update to those who aren't on 55.2 until I revert the changes that some popular add-ons don't seem to work with ?

Also, glad you're all enjoying v56!


----------



## Quantum Reality

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *MrAlex*
> 
> Waterfox 56.0.1 is out! Some security updates and fixes with Java NPAPI (added back the tag to load Web Applets).
> 
> I won't be releasing the auto-update to those who aren't on 55.2 until I revert the changes that some popular add-ons don't seem to work with ?
> 
> Also, glad you're all enjoying v56!










Thanks!

Quick question - can web applets be selectively loaded? One thing MSIE actually got right way back in the day was allowing the user to be prompted as to whether to let an ActiveX control or plugin run. So if I didn't want a Youtube video to play right away, I just hit "No", and then later if I wanted, I'd reload the page and press "Yes".


----------



## MicroCat

Thanks, Mr Alex!

Enjoy seeing all those extra Waterfox entries in Task Manager now!









Not enjoying how the S3 Organizer was clobbered and all my s3 logins lost. Is there a simple way for a simple person to simply migrate the old S3 Organizer config to the new Waterfox config area?


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:
Originally Posted by *MicroCat* 

Thanks, Mr Alex!

Enjoy seeing all those extra Waterfox entries in Task Manager now!









Not enjoying how the S3 Organizer was clobbered and all my s3 logins lost. Is there a simple way for a simple person to simply migrate the old S3 Organizer config to the new Waterfox config area?

If you know where the extensions stores its data in the profile, you can install it in Waterfox then overwrite the new profile data with the old.

Location on macOS: ~/Library/Application Support/Waterfox
Location on Linux: ~/.waterfox/
Location on Windows: %APPDATA%\Waterfox

Firefox profile location here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by *Quantum Reality* 



> Quick question - can web applets be selectively loaded? One thing MSIE actually got right way back in the day was allowing the user to be prompted as to whether to let an ActiveX control or plugin run. So if I didn't want a Youtube video to play right away, I just hit "No", and then later if I wanted, I'd reload the page and press "Yes".


All plugins are click to play by default now . Not sure if YouTube's Flash player is still available ?.


----------



## thecreator1965

Hi @ All,

Is anyone having problems posting Replies, not asking questions at :
https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp?tab=Threads

As soon as I click on Reply, the Website, becomes unusable.

207-12-13-WaterfoxstillbrokenwithReplies.jpg 362k .jpg file


----------



## falcon26

I am using water fox for my web browser. After about 10-15 minutes I get this popping up and there is no way to close it, only by clt-alt-del will it close. I have run a virus scan but nothing comes up. Anyone have any idea what it could be? I'm on the latest version of water fox also...

https://ibb.co/eKm5VR


----------



## MrAlex

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *thecreator1965*
> 
> Hi @ All,
> 
> Is anyone having problems posting Replies, not asking questions at :
> https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/insider/forum/insider_wintp?tab=Threads
> 
> As soon as I click on Reply, the Website, becomes unusable.
> 
> 207-12-13-WaterfoxstillbrokenwithReplies.jpg 362k .jpg file


I haven't seem to found any more information about this issue :-(

Quote:


> Originally Posted by *falcon26*
> 
> I am using water fox for my web browser. After about 10-15 minutes I get this popping up and there is no way to close it, only by clt-alt-del will it close. I have run a virus scan but nothing comes up. Anyone have any idea what it could be? I'm on the latest version of water fox also...
> 
> https://ibb.co/eKm5VR


That's definitely malware. Launch Waterfox with the -safe-mode flag and then get a list of add-ons about:support > Extensions and take a screenshot/post it here.


----------



## MrAlex

56.0.2 is now out


----------



## StVol

Hi! 
This option does not work
 
http://i99.fastpic.ru/big/2018/0308/e4/242d4bc50fad9cf51ebd49edbef0dae4.png


----------



## WetLook

*USPS.com Compatible Browser Versions*

Alex,
I just read this on https://www.usps.com/browser-check/

Alert: As of April 30, USPS.com will no longer support outdated browsers. To continue access, you may need to upgrade your browser. Read more ›
Make sure your current browser is up to date to continue accessing USPS.com.

As of April 30, 2018, some features on USPS.com will not be compatible with past versions of browsers.

Upgrade your preferred browser to the most current version to have uninterrupted access and protect yourself with the latest security updates.

USPS.com Compatible Browser Versions:	
Mozilla Firefox
Compatible Versions: 59, 58.0.1


----------



## WetLook

*Waterfox ver. 56.2.3*

This web site is not much use anymore. For those of you who still visit this site there is a new version of Waterfox, ver. 56.2.3, https://www.waterfoxproject.org/en-US/waterfox/new/?scene=1

I don't know if Mr. Alex even visits this site anymore. This site needs to be put to bed, since it is not supported anymore!


----------



## grahamperrin

*Orientation*

Rewind a few months, https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/comments/818z1k/-/dv364pw/?context=2 there were problems with registration for Overclock.net …

… I'm here now, it's probably appropriate to direct users towards the main help area that's linked from https://www.waterfoxproject.org/: 


 https://www.reddit.com/r/waterfox/


----------



## grahamperrin

*Cookie prompting*



StVol said:


> Hi!
> This option does not work …


Reintroduce cookie prompting · Issue #203 · MrAlex94/Waterfox

NB https://github.com/MrAlex94/Waterfox/issues/203#issuecomment-438100441 a suggestion to use uMatrix.


----------

