Firefox forks

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by Joxx, Sep 12, 2014.

  1. Joxx

    Joxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2012
    Posts:
    1,126
    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
     
  2. xxJackxx

    xxJackxx Registered Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2008
    Posts:
    4,049
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  3. Fad

    Fad Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2009
    Posts:
    378
    Location:
    England
    I`ve been using PaleMoon exclusively for approx. 30 months without any problems.

    (I have no others installed to compare)
     
  4. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
    Last edited: Sep 12, 2014
  5. Wroll

    Wroll Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Posts:
    549
    Location:
    Italy
    All the same.
     
  6. guest

    guest Guest

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2014
  7. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    Wow, what did Mozilla do to deserve such ire? :) Anyway, which one do you use? (or maybe none?)
     
  8. guest

    guest Guest

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Sep 12, 2014
  9. PaulBB

    PaulBB Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Posts:
    708
  10. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    Have you ever tried Firefox Ultimate? Is it actually threaded to use multiple cpu cores? Does it make a difference?
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2014
  11. kronckew

    kronckew Registered Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2006
    Posts:
    210
    Location:
    CSA Consulate, Glos., UK
    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.
     
  12. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  13. BoerenkoolMetWorst

    BoerenkoolMetWorst Registered Member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Posts:
    3,770
    Location:
    Outer space
    Cyberfox has also both 32 bit and 64 bit availability.
     
  14. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    Thanks, I didn't know they were offering an X86 build.
     
  15. guest

    guest Guest

    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.
     
  16. Defcon

    Defcon Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2006
    Posts:
    332
    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.
     
  17. guest

    guest Guest

    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.
     
  18. Mayahana

    Mayahana Banned

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2014
    Posts:
    2,220
    You guys are awesome. This pcx firefox flies.. Anyone know the story behind it?
     
  19. Q Section

    Q Section Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2003
    Posts:
    771
    Location:
    Headquarters - London & Field Offices -Worldwide
    Something to try...
    1. Install any of the variants such as Cyberfox and have Firefox installed too.
    2. Then with all browsers closed run CCleaner.
    3. Next run Firefox and go to three sites just the front page.
    4. Close the browser and run CCleaner again. Note how many files and the bytes cleaned.
    5. Next run Cyberfox and visit the same three sites.
    6. 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
     
    Last edited: May 7, 2015
  20. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    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..o_O
     
  21. safeguy

    safeguy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Posts:
    1,709
    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.
     
  22. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,123
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  23. chrcol

    chrcol Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Posts:
    772
    Location:
    UK
    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.
     
  24. ratchet

    ratchet Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2006
    Posts:
    1,912
    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.
     
  25. NormanF

    NormanF Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2009
    Posts:
    1,441
    Mac OSX PPC fork is TenFourFox which continues updated FF support for the platform long after it was abandoned by both Apple and Mozilla.
     
Loading...