Hi. I've been using Palemoon for quite some time and happy with, but I'd like to know which of the 3 main forks is the most Wilders-recommended Palemoon Waterfox Cyberfox what do you thing of each in terms of: speed stability resource usage add-ons compatibility support whatever else you can think of
I'm sure everyone has an opinion so you will get a mix of answers. In my experience the official Firefox will have the least compatibility issues. Firefox is also the fastest. On the other points, I have not seen enough difference to justify using the others. Of the choices you listed, I find Palemoon to be the most polished. If I were forced to use one, that would be it.
I`ve been using PaleMoon exclusively for approx. 30 months without any problems. (I have no others installed to compare)
Waterfox and Cyberfox are 64 bit (Pale Moon is available in both 32 bit and 64 bit builds). That's one reason people use them. I tried Waterfox and Cyberfox and saw no advantage while also experiencing occasional compatibility issues. Another reason some people prefer one of these is they're still using the older Firefox UI and not Australis. I like Australis and see no significant advantage to the other builds so I use Firefox.
It's probably just my pseudo experience, but Cyberfox is somewhat faster while Pale Moon barely shows different performance compared to that crappy, nonsensical piece of crap called Mozilla Firefox and its retarded Australis UI. Although Pale Moon seems to be more stable. As for the addons, I don't use many of them but so far all the addons I know works fine in Pale Moon and Cyberfox. I don't think I've ever tried Waterfox, so can't say anything about that one.
For lying. Pale Moon or Cyberfox. I'm not sure with Waterfox due to some discussions in the past indicating a rather inactive development circle. Also, it seems Waterfox still keeps the Australis UI. So I don't think I would favour it.
http://www.ghacks.net/2009/05/09/firefox-custom-builds/ Firefox Ultimate Lawlietfox Lightfirefox pcxFirefox tete009 In terms of speed I was really impressed by the pcxFirefox variant. LightFirefox is also great but it has compatibility issues with some 'exotic' extensions'.
Have you ever tried Firefox Ultimate? Is it actually threaded to use multiple cpu cores? Does it make a difference?
waterfox 32 is out, has been recompiled with a new c++ compiler and re-optimized for x64. initial reports are it is now faster than palemoon and cyberfox and faster than chrome. the stability problems have largly been fixed. haven't tried 'firefox ultimate', mozilla has a mutithreaded version called e10s, the code is actually in the current release and can be enabled via about: config, see the mozillazine forum thread on it to learn how. it is not stable, supports ony one thread, tho you can try more. also doesn't support multithreading of addons or plugins which are disabled as long as e10s is active. it is considered highly experimental and pre alpha.
Thanks for the info. I'll have to pass on e10s, but Waterfox 32 sounds promising. I'd like to hear from anyone using WaterFox 32 how it performs.
Cyberfox doesn't have a built-in update manager though. But the developer provides an optional installable update manager. It says that you will need .NET Framework 4.5 but it seems to work just fine in my computer without it. I don't remember I had ever installed .NET 4.5.
To be honest I've tried a few of these and IMO there are no substantial differences. Any minor difference there may be will be completely overshadowed by your choice of addons anyway, which are the real source of excess load. Everything else is the same Gecko engine with slight tweaks due to compiler flags.
I don't know, perhaps due to my strong distaste towards Mozilla but I find that Pale Moon and Cyberfox to be more reliable. Firefox is kind of crash happy, sluggish and lags a lot to me.
Something to try... Install any of the variants such as Cyberfox and have Firefox installed too. Then with all browsers closed run CCleaner. Next run Firefox and go to three sites just the front page. Close the browser and run CCleaner again. Note how many files and the bytes cleaned. Next run Cyberfox and visit the same three sites. Close the browser and run CCleaner again and see if there are not fewer files needing to be cleaned and see if there is a noticeably much smaller amount of bytes cleaned. This will say something about the differences. Also for those who might not be aware - try speed-battle.com to see the relative difference of browser speeds. If you do - run each browser at least three or four times as each result seems to vary a little. Best wishes
Is there any particular reason why mozilla themselves are not incorporating these into firefox itself.I find it odd there are several variants of firefox and yet firefox itself is not gaining any benefit from it..
https://www.palemoon.org/technical.shtml https://www.palemoon.org/technical.shtml#Firefox_Differences https://www.palemoon.org/faq.shtml#What_are_the_differences_with_Firefox http://sourceforge.net/projects/cyberfox/ Basically, the differences lie in optimizing for specific CPU architectures, removing certain features that are deemed unnecessary for casual users and UI changes. On the other hand, Firefox caters to a wider audience (those who needs developer tools for e.g.) and needs to maintain compatibility across different hardware and architectures within 1 build. Firefox 64-bit build for Windows is also in development but only released in Developer Edition and not mainstream stable release yet.
Do you use one of the alternate forks, and if so do you see any significant advantage? I tried them and couldn't perceive any benefit. The only significant difference at the moment IMHO is the alternates don't use Australis.
I am currently trying the intel x64 build of cyberfox. General performance - feels no improvement and actually slightly worse. Stability - this is my main reason for trying it out, I am heavy on tabs and feel I am maximising 32bit capabilities on firefox, the performance drop off with more tabs loaded sadly is still evident but not conclusive yet if its worse or better than stock firefox, I have yet to see signs of instability that I have with stock firefox such as black windows, and crashes. Addon Compatibility - copied my firefox profile over and all seems fine, all addons and extensions working as expected. So the scaremongering about 64bit and broken addons seems a myth at least for me. Cyberfox does have a few addition built in settings which are welcome as well. such as having a better more private referrer and adjustments related to other privacy stuff as well.
The greatest thing about Cyberfox is you can ask the developer (Toady) anything and if he is awake (seems as though he doesn't sleep much) he'll be on it immediately! Reminds me of the old days when tzuk owned Sandbokie.
Mac OSX PPC fork is TenFourFox which continues updated FF support for the platform long after it was abandoned by both Apple and Mozilla.