Cyberfox 17.0.1--64 bit Firefox variant

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Cimmerian, Dec 2, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Cimmerian

    Cimmerian Registered Member

  2. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    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 :(
  3. zfactor

    zfactor Registered Member

    why would you not have flash player for firefox installed??
  4. berryracer

    berryracer Suspended Member

    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

    then try to start a game
  5. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

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

    Cimmerian Registered Member

    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..
  7. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

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

    ratchet Registered Member

    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!
  9. Cimmerian

    Cimmerian Registered Member

    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..
    If you try it, please tell us your results!
  10. twl845

    twl845 Registered Member

    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.
  11. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    Thank you for the link! I probably won't get to this today but will experiment sometime this week.
  12. pandorax

    pandorax Registered Member

    I guess this is not pgo build?
  13. Cimmerian

    Cimmerian Registered Member

    You're welcome..:)

    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.

    I agree, plug-ins & extensions can definitely make a difference.
  14. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

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

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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.
  16. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    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!
  17. Cimmerian

    Cimmerian Registered Member

    Yeah, fastest variant I've tried so far.
  18. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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..
  19. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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.
  20. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    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
  21. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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.


    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.
  22. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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..:rolleyes:
  23. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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.
  24. Bodhitree

    Bodhitree Registered Member

    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.
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2012
  25. Mman79

    Mman79 Registered Member

    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.