Palemoon or Waterfox ? You decide...

[psyko666]

Wich do you prefer; Palemoon or Waterfox and why ?!

I'm using Waterfox x64 cause my Firefox was shutting down when using Google pages sometimes... with Waterfox that problem is gone... ^_^

[fortheloveof***]

palemoon all the way.

why?

x64 browser is not really needed so use Palemoon standard version.

watermoon will always be based on the Mozilla dev x64 and right now they show that 0 love.

Pale moon is nicely managned. Good updates and it is stable

Works with all firefox addons ( if you use the standard x86 version)

Has a very nice backup tool to easily export and import profiles with out a required addon.

I see Waterfox as a bit of a gimmick but Palemooon is what is says it is. A very optimised Firefox for newer windows systems.

read the palemoon changelog from version 15.3 to current

http://www.palemoon....enotes-ng.shtml

There are actually some good posts on this forum by users already about their experiences with both. Some by a guy whose friend is doing some Aero dev fro Win 8

Overall if you use both, check many reviews and google results i think overalll you will find that Palemoon is the solid, simple choice for a working optimised Firefox based browswer in both x86 and x64 versions, but i say use the 32bit for plugin compatibility.

Very easy to completely migrate to Palemoon from Firefox ( and back if you deicde to later on

Waterfox if you like that kind of gimmicky stuff and are not commited to certain plugins.

[Shadowx]

Thanks @fortheloveof***, i will try

[psyko666]

My NORTON Toolbar doesn't work with Waterfox x64.. maybe I'll try Palemoon.. thanks for your reply! ^_^

[fortheloveof***]

It did take some getting used to with their Versioning compared to Firefox.

So just because Palemoon is v15 and Firefox is version v17 does not mean Palemoon is behind.

From what i see the Devs don't update for silly things just because Firefox got 1 new feature and a version bump to stay in line with their dev cycle.

But they do push out stability and performance tweaks, along with any other important stuff quite fast.

[psyko666]

With Waterfox x64 AdBlock Plus works fine.. any good Adblockers for Palemoon ?!

[DKT27]

palemoon all the way.

why?

x64 browser is not really needed so use Palemoon standard version.

watermoon will always be based on the Mozilla dev x64 and right now they show that 0 love.

Pale moon is nicely managned. Good updates and it is stable

Works with all firefox addons ( if you use the standard x86 version)

Has a very nice backup tool to easily export and import profiles with out a required addon.

Even though I've tried none, I've come to know about few things.

x64 is said to have good enough performance increase.

Waterfox is made independently, Firefox supporting 64-bit or not doesn't matter. Lot of users use and love it.

All the Firefox addons are said to working with Waterfox (the dev claims 100% compatibility).

Backup tool thing is interesting. :think:

It did take some getting used to with their Versioning compared to Firefox.

So just because Palemoon is v15 and Firefox is version v17 does not mean Palemoon is behind.

From what i see the Devs don't update for silly things just because Firefox got 1 new feature and a version bump to stay in line with their dev cycle.

But they do push out stability and performance tweaks, along with any other important stuff quite fast.

My personal view is, in fast moving browser world, I don't want to be using 3 version old browser. Lot of small to big backend changes are made every version, which don't appear on Firefox changelog. I'm not against Pale Moon in general, but sticking with old version kills it for me.

[fortheloveof***]

I tested ad block + on Palemoon x64 and it worked fine (bottom left corner for icon)

waterfox is x64

add-ons (noscript) and plug ins (java) are not the same things. I think you are mixing them up.

the add-on dev decides of x86 or x64 support. not the Palemoon or Waterfox devs. Not all add-ons works with x64 bit browser version.

For accuracy: this would mostly relate to add-ons that are borderline plugins in the way they behave (toolbars for example) or plugins that come with say, you printer from HP/Brother. The provided plugins/addons might not work with x64. critical? up to the user i guess.

The code is based on the Mozilla source code which is no longer being actively maintained. I cannot really comment on how well they took this and "improved" it. < oops --- that was just wrong, explained below

Performance increases are questionable. I agree that the signs should point to improved performance but as always with real world testing many other things come into play, mostly hardware and environment variables.

I still use Firefox, but what i pointed out was with some backup add-ons or just copying the profile you can easily go from (x86) Firefox to Palemoon and back. So it is a very viable alternative for Firefox that you can switch to and from in home/work environments.

Firefox has a dev cycle they stick to, this means nothing in terms of providing new features or improvements. A new version of Firefox today is no promise of anything being better, tweaked or improved.

edit: in an ideal world i would use Firefox or Palemoon x64 but i currently run into too many issues in terms of compatibility that i use x86 and i am happy with the performance. So i just recommend using the Palemoon x86 version

Oops : I meant, dev with the x64 version in mind is not being maintianed, i made it sound like Firefox in general.I guess they take the source code and tweak/compile is themselves for x64. Waterfox just seems a bit gimmicky like i said in how they approach this. Where as i think Palemoon 1: offer x86 version and 2: approaches the x64 buiild without the drama

So if you are actually looking for a Firefox replacement on updated Windows platforms Palemoon is the right choice. Maybe Waterfox is just ahead of its time with the x64 bit only approach. But Palemoon x86 just works with all things that work with Firefox x86 + the optimisations.

[DKT27]

No addons are made to work for x64.

Waterfox is based on main Firefox source code, not 64-bit nightly source code. Main code is later optimized and ported to 64-bit.

Benchmarks have shown that Waterfox and Pale Moon, when same versions, have similar benchmarks to each others, so real world performance might well matter a lot. But when compared to Firefox betas or newer versions, the numbers change.

I'm really interested about the backup thing. Last time I heard, Mozilla was planning something like that, but as always, not their priority.

As for newer versions. Firefox 16: incremental garbage collection, this fixed lots of memory and javascript issues. Brings new animation support. Opus audio. Better about:memory thing (which sends Mozilla infos that help them fix memory problems). And these are the rest of the changes/bug fixes. Firefox 17 brings Social API (I don't use it, but some may. Think about it, full on messenger like in one browser). Click to play blocks vulnerable things. Lots and lots of dev tools and improvements (I know it cause I use them). Then sandbox for iframes, which is a big security change. Lots of performance increase. And then bugfixes. And last, latest beta 18, which brings major quality increase in images. Improved start up times. Other security stuff. However, what the changelog doesn't mention is 20-25% performance increase due to IonMoney. It will be interesting to see if Pale Moon updates to 18 when it releases.

Now, why I'm against sticking to older versions is, I've gone through each Firefox versions one by one. I've used each and every beta since v4. And believe me when I say, v16 and more importantly, v17 and later v18 has brought major performance increase when it comes to page loading, load handling and smoothing stuff. From what I saw, v17 probably has most backend changes since the release of v4.

Just now I saw your edit. :)

[fortheloveof***]

yeah i said a couple of dumb things (badly worded) in the last post which i saw and edited:

addons & plugins info and the source code part.

Originally the question was Palemoon vs Waterfox. I say Palemoon.

and for which x64 version i prefer the DEV approach of Palemoon again.

Palemoon vs Firefox is a different question i think and i do agree with what you say. FireFox is a good browser and if it works there is no particular reason to switch. It just goes back to what i said about the 2 different DEV cycles of Palemoon and Firefox.

There is a good backup addon for Firefox called FEBE https://addons.mozil...fox/addon/febe/

But Palemoons tools is very good and independent of the browser.

[demoneye]

My personal view is, in fast moving browser world, I don't want to be using 3 version old browser. Lot of small to big backend changes are made every version, which don't appear on Firefox changelog. I'm not against Pale Moon in general, but sticking with old version kills it for me.

same conclusion in my side 2, Palemoon is 15 , firefox is beta 18 ... i dont want to lag behind

[spudboy]

x64 variants of Firefox/Palemoon/Waterfox actually take a performance hit in many areas. Just because it's x64 doesn't mean it's better/faster.

[Knightmare]

I think I tried both, but wasn't able to find some of my add-ons, so I went back to the Inferno Fox. :P

[Lucent]

Actually, there's Nightly (Firefox 20.0a1 at the moment) that supports amd64 platforms flawlessly and it's updated every day -- yep, it's advertised as unstable, but it isn't, never had a crash with it.

Also, there's the nightly-ionmonkey branch with the new Javascript engine that seems to be nearly as fast as Google's V8 ;)

About the plugin compatibility, you need to install Nightly Tester Tools and disable the version check for addons, everything should work out of the box, without any hassle.

[psyko666]

Don't you guys have the same problem with FF that it sometimes crashes when using Google ?!

I did so that's the main reason I use Waterfox now...

[DKT27]

Actually, there's Nightly (Firefox 20.0a1 at the moment) that supports amd64 platforms flawlessly and it's updated every day -- yep, it's advertised as unstable, but it isn't, never had a crash with it.

Also, there's the nightly-ionmonkey branch with the new Javascript engine that seems to be nearly as fast as Google's V8 ;)

About the plugin compatibility, you need to install Nightly Tester Tools and disable the version check for addons, everything should work out of the box, without any hassle.

Mozilla has, yet, only announced that they will disable 64-bit builds. Final decision as it maybe called, it will take couple of months, only after that they will discontinue them.

@fortheloveof***: Yup aware about febe. :)

[Lucent]

Mozilla has, yet, only announced that they will disable 64-bit builds. Final decision as it maybe called, it will take couple of months, only after that they will discontinue them.

When it's going to be done, I'll migrate to another browser, they're going to lose a faithful user, and many others that relied on those builds ;)

And, doesn't this kind of attitude break also Palemoon and Waterfox, since they're forks of Nightly? (at least, Waterfox IS a Nightly fork)

[DKT27]

When it's going to be done, I'll migrate to another browser, they're going to lose a faithful user, and many others that relied on those builds ;)

And, doesn't this kind of attitude break also Palemoon and Waterfox, since they're forks of Nightly? (at least, Waterfox IS a Nightly fork)

What's important to note here, that, somehow, with tons on money, Google still hasn't released the 64-bit version. For IE, the 64-bit versions have always used last version's engine. So your option will be Opera, which is great, but lacks charm. On the other hand, what if this will ultimately mean the actual Firefox will get faster? Also note that this disabling of 64-bit will be temporary, as somewhere in future they will have to make 64-bit builds.

Nope. Waterfox is based on stable version source code, it has nothing to do with nightlies. As mentioned above, it takes the stable source code, makes tweaks, ports it to 64-bit version and compiles it.

[Lucent]

What's important to note here, that, somehow, with tons on money, Google still hasn't released the 64-bit version. For IE, the 64-bit versions have always used last version's engine. So your option will be Opera, which is great, but lacks charm. On the other hand, what if this will ultimately mean the actual Firefox will get faster? Also note that this disabling of 64-bit will be temporary, as somewhere in future they will have to make 64-bit builds.

Nope. Waterfox is based on stable version source code, it has nothing to do with nightlies. As mentioned above, it takes the stable source code, makes tweaks, ports it to 64-bit version and compiles it.

The lack of charm won't be an issue, on my main PC I'm still with the classic Windows 2000-like theme, so eyecandyness is the last thing I need, but it should have a nice adblocker.

Chrome doesn't need a 64 bit build (not in the near future, at least), since it can bypass the 4 GB memory by splitting into more than one process, but Firefox is stuck with a single one, and leaks lots of memory if left in the background...

So Waterfox is a fork of mozilla-central and not of nightly-*? I thought it was a tweaked bleeding-edge build :blink:

[DKT27]

The lack of charm won't be an issue, on my main PC I'm still with the classic Windows 2000-like theme, so eyecandyness is the last thing I need, but it should have a nice adblocker.

Chrome doesn't need a 64 bit build (not in the near future, at least), since it can bypass the 4 GB memory by splitting into more than one process, but Firefox is stuck with a single one, and leaks lots of memory if left in the background...

So Waterfox is a fork of mozilla-central and not of nightly-*? I thought it was a tweaked bleeding-edge build :blink:

My point of lack of charm isn't exactly at the looks, rather the feeling. Also feels bloated.

I think the memory limit for 32-bit processes is 2 or 3 GB. Chrome uses the highest memory of them all.

I'm not good with mozilla-central stuff. All I know it is uses stable source code, not nightly, that's all. :P Infact, no Firefox fork (that I know of) uses nightly source code, only the stable one.

[demoneye]

What's important to note here, that, somehow, with tons on money, Google still hasn't released the 64-bit version. For IE, the 64-bit versions have always used last version's engine. So your option will be Opera, which is great, but lacks charm. On the other hand, what if this will ultimately mean the actual Firefox will get faster? Also note that this disabling of 64-bit will be temporary, as somewhere in future they will have to make 64-bit builds.

Nope. Waterfox is based on stable version source code, it has nothing to do with nightlies. As mentioned above, it takes the stable source code, makes tweaks, ports it to 64-bit version and compiles it.

The lack of charm won't be an issue, on my main PC I'm still with the classic Windows 2000-like theme, so eyecandyness is the last thing I need, but it should have a nice adblocker.

Chrome doesn't need a 64 bit build (not in the near future, at least), since it can bypass the 4 GB memory by splitting into more than one process, but Firefox is stuck with a single one, and leaks lots of memory if left in the background...

So Waterfox is a fork of mozilla-central and not of nightly-*? I thought it was a tweaked bleeding-edge build :blink:

nither mozilla , show me how u can use more than 2 giga using firefox ? i am using about 18 tabs and its barely scratch the 1 giga mem uses :)

[fortheloveof***]

A lot of the views are interesting and worth thinking about.

For me it comes down to the fact that a Firefox alternative has to be stable and optimised or there I no real point in not just staying with Firefox. That is why when I look at the alternatives Palemoon seems like the sensible choice since it will just work mostly, is interchangeable with Firefox, provides useful tools, has a x86 version for maximum compatibility and is therefore potentially acceptable as a manageable alternative in a professional setting.

But, and this is the real kicker:

As people have mentioned about not wanting to get left behind feature or version wise this is where a lot of the small projects will feel the pain.

The DEV cycles the big boys are using is making the browser game a big boys club and many small projects just do not have the time or resources to keep up. SAD really since there is still a need for these alternative versions.

So when there was no real awareness or demand for competition in the performance/platform the Big Boys club did what they wanted, and released when they felt like it. Now they are just squeezing out competition with these DEV cycles that no small project could keep up with if they have real lives, kids, work and bills. Effectively killing them off over time.

This to me is the hardest part when choosing now, how far will the main browser get ahead while i wait for (Palemoon) to update. Then it all starts over.

For example: when Firefox was 15.1 and Palemoon was also 15.1 i would say go go for Palemoon. But now when you look it is basically Firefox 17/18 or Palemoon 15.3 the answer is not so clear.

For example 2: this plug-in https://addons.mozil...uper-start/ if you install on Palemoon gives you a lower version 2.0.2 you can then update TO 3.6.3 max. On FireFox you get the newest 4.0.3. Maybe you can hack it but that is not the point.

A small but annoying thing when you use that plugin as much as i do.

(on a side note i see no real reason valid to use or need x64 bit browsers just yet so the x86 version is what i use. Using bleeding edge DEV repos and programs is not really the answer to this issue since we should be looking at the stable release option)

[Nima]

I have been using Firefox for many years and did not have any major problem with it, I really feel okay with it. ^_^

Although I tried Waterfox some months ago and I should say that it's x64 version works very fine but I prefer original Firefox rather than it's alternatives, I feel more comfortable with it. ;)

Chrome is also a very good choice, I like it, too. ;)

[Lucent]

nither mozilla , show me how u can use more than 2 giga using firefox ? i am using about 18 tabs and its barely scratch the 1 giga mem uses :)

I'll screenshot the Task Manager next time I'm using Waterfox on my main PC ;)

[demoneye]

nither mozilla , show me how u can use more than 2 giga using firefox ? i am using about 18 tabs and its barely scratch the 1 giga mem uses :)

I'll screenshot the Task Manager next time I'm using Waterfox on my main PC ;)

In that case , using waterfox 16 u may get high above 1 giga since there is a mem lick in that version, try firefox 17 and u will see the mem usage difference.

try FF 18 and it even reduced in my side anyway :)