Cyberfox 17.0.1--64 bit Firefox variant

[Cimmerian]

I heard about and installed this the other day, works pretty well so far.

Discussion here-

http://virtualcustoms.net/showthread.php/48631-Cyberfox-17-0-1-x64-bit-version-of-Firefox?

I didn't register for this forum, I found the download on Sourceforge-

http://sourceforge.net/projects/cyberfox/?source=navbar

[berryracer]

Im sure it isn't compatible with the IE Tab though alike all other 64 bit variants :(

When you go to a page which requires Flash, it would say a missing plugin is missing :(

[zfactor]

why would you not have flash player for firefox installed??

[berryracer]

-{ Quote: "why would you not have flash player for firefox installed??" }-

I do have it installed bro.....but if you launch a site that needs FLASH, it would say Missing Plugin, if you choose to install the missing plugin, it can't find it

try it for your self

try to go to http://zone.msn.com/en/spades/default.htm

then try to start a game

[twl845]

How does it compare with Pale Moon 64x browser? I'm running PM 64x and I like it. Fast and almost a FF clone.

[Cimmerian]

-{ Quote: "How does it compare with Pale Moon 64x browser? I'm running PM 64x and I like it. Fast and almost a FF clone." }-
This compares pretty well to both Pale Moon and Waterfox. I would say Cyberfox is more closely related to Waterfox than Pale Moon, it doesn't leave out or disable features like Pale Moon does. I like Pale Moon a lot, but dropped it last week as it and G Data don't like each other on my pc.
Cyberfox is up to date with the current Firefox build, while Waterfox isn't, and Pale Moon only adds certain security fixes. So far, I'm impressed..

[safeguy]

Interesting. Seems like more and more are willing to build a 64-bit Firefox variant for users...

[ratchet]

A few weeks ago I tried Waterfox and couldn't discern any difference between it and Firefox so I went back to Ff. Now my system is built with a SSD and an Ivybridge 3570K CPU so it is already fast. Is there a way I could bench mark both installs? In practicality would some browsing experiences be better with Waterfox or Cyberfox but then others with just Firefox? Thank you!

[Cimmerian]

-{ Quote: "A few weeks ago I tried Waterfox and couldn't discern any difference between it and Firefox so I went back to Ff. Now my system is built with a SSD and an Ivybridge 3570K CPU so it is already fast. Is there a way I could bench mark both installs? In practicality would some browsing experiences be better with Waterfox or Cyberfox but then others with just Firefox? Thank you!" }-
I've never benchmarked my browsers, I rely on the performance I observe. I can tell you Waterfox and Cyberfox both load pages faster for me than Pale Moon or Firefox. I did check with a friend who's kind of anal about benchmarking, he says he uses this site..
http://browsermark.rightware.com/
If you try it, please tell us your results!

[twl845]

-{ Quote: "I've never benchmarked my browsers, I rely on the performance I observe. I can tell you Waterfox and Cyberfox both load pages faster for me than Pale Moon or Firefox. I did check with a friend who's kind of anal about benchmarking, he says he uses this site..
http://browsermark.rightware.com/
If you try it, please tell us your results!" }-
I think that an individuals set up has something to do with how fast a page loads. I find that FF and Waterfox load about the same, and Palemoon loads a page faster than you can blink. I haven't tried Cyberfox yet.

[ratchet]

-{ Quote: "I've never benchmarked my browsers, I rely on the performance I observe. I can tell you Waterfox and Cyberfox both load pages faster for me than Pale Moon or Firefox. I did check with a friend who's kind of anal about benchmarking, he says he uses this site..
http://browsermark.rightware.com/
If you try it, please tell us your results!" }-
Thank you for the link! I probably won't get to this today but will experiment sometime this week.

[pandorax]

I guess this is not pgo build?

[Cimmerian]

-{ Quote: "Thank you for the link! I probably won't get to this today but will experiment sometime this week." }-
You're welcome..:)

-{ Quote: "I guess this is not pgo build?" }-
I'm not sure, I didn't check..I believe the source code is available on Sourceforge, if you would like to check. I posted the link in the first post. I don't know if that info is included.

-{ Quote: "I think that an individuals set up has something to do with how fast a page loads." }-
I agree, plug-ins & extensions can definitely make a difference.

[ratchet]

Wow, this is fast! Didn't benchmark but I'm not imagining it.

[Bodhitree]

Very slow compared to Chromium.

I find all FF variants to be variants of bloatware, but still bloatware. Only Maxthon or Chromium offers the speed I require.

[ratchet]

Yeh, but folk's Ffs are like perfectly moded trucks or cars. Frankly, when running on a SSD drive hard to differentiate between anything anyway. Still can tell this Cybf is FAST!

[Cimmerian]

-{ Quote: "Wow, this is fast! Didn't benchmark but I'm not imagining it." }-
Yeah, fastest variant I've tried so far.

[Bodhitree]

-{ Quote: "Yeh, but folk's Ffs are like perfectly moded trucks or cars. Frankly, when running on a SSD drive hard to differentiate between anything anyway. Still can tell this Cybf is FAST!" }-

I gave up on FF, it's just not quick enough anymore. I can tweak Chromium to be much faster, such as turning on HTTP Pipelining, and GPU render aspects. But I can never seem to make FF load pages nearly as fast using page load timers to test it. Now Maxthon, THAT is fast too.

Frankly, don't see any difference with this one compiled in 64-Bit as any other version of FF.. Slow..

[Bodhitree]

I ran the above benchmarks on a system with FW/AV and Admuncher. All clean installations of the browsers with no plugins. 35Mbps connection, Quad Core 3.2ghz, 8GB Ram, GTX460OC card.

Chromium DevBuild - 5500
Yandex Browser - 4900 (Russian Compiled)
Cyberfox 17 - 4200
Epic Browser - 4000 (Firefox made to look identical to chrome, slick product)
Maxthon - 3900
Opera - 3600
Safari - 3100
K-Meleon - Epic fail (4x lockups)

Looks like Chromium is still faster (by a lot), which I felt when I was trying these. Opera feels really slow these days, sadly.

[Mman79]

-{ Quote: "I ran the above benchmarks on a system with FW/AV and Admuncher. All clean installations of the browsers with no plugins. 35Mbps connection, Quad Core 3.2ghz, 8GB Ram, GTX460OC card.

Chromium DevBuild - 5500
Yandex Browser - 4900 (Russian Compiled)
Cyberfox 17 - 4200
Epic Browser - 4000 (Firefox made to look identical to chrome, slick product)
Maxthon - 3900
Opera - 3600
Safari - 3100
K-Meleon - Epic fail (4x lockups)

Looks like Chromium is still faster (by a lot), which I felt when I was trying these. Opera feels really slow these days, sadly." }-

Just as an FYI, K-Mel is a dead project as of 2012, and its last stable release was 2 years ago. So, don't expect much out of it ;D

[Bodhitree]

Ahh didn't notice..

Too bad Chromium has 64-Bit versions on Linux but not on Windows, it's VASTLY faster on Linux. I generally much prefer Linux Distros over Windows, but I am forced to Windows for gaming reasons. Opera-64 is amazingly fast on Linux as well, and really slow on Windows IMO.

Most of the other browsers use the IE DLL's, so they aren't worth mentioning (Avant, Slim, etc). Maxthon is the best of those, but as you can see above, slower than I expected. So really it's back to Chromium builds for me, tweaked out, they seem to be the fastest you can get on Windows. I'd use Canary if it could be set to default browser so I didn't have to manually update Chromium every week. One thing I found - Chromium is STILL faster than most of the dev builds of chrome, and loads way quicker.. I think Chrome might check for updates when you fire it up, which actually slows application launch by several seconds - which annoys.

Edit:

1) Chromium can load directly to the speeddial, Chrome(and dev versions) all load to 'login' to your Google account, even if you check go to new tab page(speed dial)
2) Chromium loads 20-30% faster on startup, I assume Chrome is checking versions at launch? I don't see a method to disable this.

So for those reasons, I am forced to use Chromium unless I can find workarounds.

[Bodhitree]

Hmm we I solved the sync garbage in Chrome/Chrome-Dev;

Add [HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Policies\Google\Chrome]
"SyncDisabled"=dword:00000001 into registry and it disables the Sync everywhere in the product, and launches where you want.

Now working to speed loading.. More soon I hope..::)

[Bodhitree]

I can't seem to get Chrome(even Devs) to load faster, sometimes it takes a full 20 seconds to load on my fast machine. Chromium loads instantly. None of my searches on the internets yield any working advice to speed it up. I am unsure of why this happens somewhere between Chromium and Google, they slow performance and loading the browser is dramatically slowed. I will continue to investigate.

I did find a program to automatically update Chromium, so I will likely try that and if it works just stick with Chromium. If I can't find the issue causing slow loads with Chrome that is.

[Bodhitree]

Found the culprit for Chrome slowdowns, and 10-30 second load times when firing off the browser from an icon or taskbar.

Go into About:Flags

DISABLE Built-in Asynchronous DNS

This is set to "Default", which usually means it is operational. However in the Chromium builds this is set to disabled. Try it, you should be shocked at how fast this makes Chrome. It appears this is holding up after 1 hour of testing it.

Edit: Off, after these changes, Chrome-Dev Proper is Benchmarking out at 5400-5500 as well. Vs the 4600-4900 normal.

Try it and see.

[Mman79]

Well I did try your suggestion and, without benchmarks and going just by eyes, speed dropped considerably when I shut it off. I turned it back on, and it behaved as normal. *shrug* The thing is, you're comparing two different browsers, though they come from the same code. Google adds features and tweaks things that Chromium doesn't, so it shouldn't be a surprise that they perform differently.

[Bodhitree]

Async seriously slows down Chrome. Just run diagnostics to see;

chrome://histograms/DNS
Async ON
Histogram: Net.DNS_Resolution_And_TCP_Connection_Latency2 recorded 37 samples, average = 222.7 (flags = 0x1)
Async OFF
Histogram: Net.DNS_Resolution_And_TCP_Connection_Latency2 recorded 35 samples, average = 28.5 (flags = 0x1)

Wow.. Chromes Async is terrible, increasing latency on DNS resolution to 222.7 with it on. No wonder my performance is killed with Chrome and not Chromium which has Async off by default. I would imagine all of the complaints about Chromes startup being slow on the net would be resolved with this single setting. I have yet to see anyone post about this issue.

[Cimmerian]

For any of you running Windows 8, Cyberfox's developer says he recently tested it on 8, and it runs faster on 8 than 7.

[Bodhitree]

I was able to get Operax64 up to 4200, equivalent to Cyberfox. But it took a lot of tweaking including enabling hardware acceleration threads, etc. Opera is my ideal browser, but I didn't like how slow it was, so this is a good thing. I am going to work on caching it into ram, and seeing if I can get it closer to 5000, then it will become my primary browser. (maybe)

EDIT UPDATES:
I got Opera up to nearly 5000 on that benchmark by being really creative. It also appears far far faster than chrome loading pages, so the benchmark may not factor everything. What I am doing is running the 64-Bit USB version of Opera12 100% within the 500mb ram disk. Not a single aspect isn't running outside of the ram disk, and it is exceptionally fast. Also I made sure to install the Silverlight plugin, and other things, as well as turning on HW Accel, turning off the malware detection, and disabling the URL analysis within Opera as well as some developer tweaks.

I used this product; http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk freeware version, then set the ramdisk to save on exit or system shutdown, and reload on startup. It doesn't impact system speed at all, and with gobs of spare ram it doesn't really change much. I recommend 250mb min, 500 max in size, you will likely not fill any of that unless you don't clear your history/cache for a couple of years.

[Krysis]

I tried Cyberfox but ran into identity issues with Firefox (it nicked Firefox settings\addons, etc) - too much conflict! - :P
Since I'm too lazy to create separate profiles for both browsers I had to get rid of Cyberfox. Nice home page though! Plus, uses less memory than Palemoon (my other 64 bit browser) I had same issues once before with Waterfox\Firefox and SRWareIron\Chromium. :blink:

[Cimmerian]

That's strange...Cyberfox shares the same profile data as Firefox, I haven't had any issues. Have you tried posting your problem on the Cyberfox forum? The developer really tries to address every issue from what I can see. That's one of the reasons I'm sticking with this variant.

[ratchet]

Initially I thought Cf was rendering pages faster than Ff and probably does from cite to cite. However, I did notice opening a new session (MSN is the home page and admittedly is the worst possible as I believe it has several flash "things" going on) was slower. Indeed, I then reinstalled Ff and it did load MSN faster. I have 13 active extensions and only one didn't work with Cf. No other issues and certainly not a bad experience. For now I'm back to Ff but will probably try Cf again as it's a painless process going between the two browsers. If anyone has any theories on the new session issue I'd like to hear them. Perhaps this can be rectified and I'll go back to Cf. Thank you!

[Bodhitree]

New session delay is usually something to do with DNS, or Asynchronous scanning. You can do a few things that should solve this;

Internet Options (IE/Windows), then Lan Settings, then disable Automatic Lookup. Also in Chrome you can go to about:flags, then disable asynchronous DNS. Finally, disable netbios on your network card;
http://marjanrepic.wordpress.com/2011/07/05/disable-netbios-over-tcpip-in-windows-7-ent/

Firefox most likely has some DNS settings somewhere as well. In my experience, 99% of the time slow session starts are because of DNS scanning and lookups. I am able to make Chrome start in less than 1 second by disabling these things above, whereas before the first session can take up to 20+ seconds.

[Krysis]

-{ Quote: "That's strange...Cyberfox shares the same profile data as Firefox, I haven't had any issues. Have you tried posting your problem on the Cyberfox forum? The developer really tries to address every issue from what I can see. That's one of the reasons I'm sticking with this variant." }-

OK - that's interesting! I thought it was some kind of 'glitch' that it was creating Mozilla folders in my AppData\Local folder. (I actually renamed my Firefox 'profile' folder to something else and then re-installed Cyberfox - that's how I saw it's proper Home page, etc - but of course I couldn't then use Firefox) I still have the setup file for Cyberfox, so I might experiment some time and see if I can resolve this conflict! (I like nutting out these kinds of issues!) ;D