Jump to content
Login new information ×
Login new information

Mozilla Firefox 58.0 "Quantum" Is Now Available for Download, Here's What's New

angel

By angel
in Software News

Recommended Posts

dcs18

dcs18

Posted
Posted

 

9 minutes ago, Undertaker said:
43 minutes ago, dcs18 said:

My personal angst against WebNext is not about the security updates — it's more to do with the stonewalling of customization possibilities.

 

Now, Firefox never did possess more protection than (for example) Chrome — most folks used Firefox for its customization.

 

If I started using the humdrum WebNext — I'd miss the fact that the looks on my legacy copy of Firefox could make young, fertile virgins feel touched for the very first time. tx38TOr.gif

I never did try it before and never have tried it after the v57 era but I think using the userchrome.css, it is still possible to modify it to an extent that makes the virgins excited.

The CTR developer himself posted info about this for after v57 scenario.  I think it is the soul that matters and not the outer beauty.

In the days that nSane lay comatose, I'd tried the CTR CSS on the latest WebNext releases and also injected a lot of my own codes (on a completely fresh profile and installation) — however, the end-result did not meet my expectations.

 

As far as the soul is concerned, Mozilla security updates would never ever be able to reach my levels of protection at any given point-in-time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 53
  • Views 6.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply
dcs18

dcs18

Posted
Posted

While in the midst of testing Waterfox, I realized that the latest ESR had started crossing the V56 Nightlies and switched over (after uninstalling Waterfox.)

 

In my brief encounter with Waterfox, found it to be sweet — waiting now, for the arrival of the next hardware (from any of my clients) so that I can perform a full-fledged testing with Waterfox and the latest Quantum Firefox, as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
22 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

@WALLONN7 What do you miss on the post v56 version-firefox?

 

I use about 16 addons... 15 of them do not work in 57+... 

Plus I hate Chrome-Edge-look-and-feel... And it was beated by Waterfox in Mozilla's own benchmark test... I did run its tests... Wait... I lost the website...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted
3 minutes ago, WALLONN7 said:

 

I use about 16 addons... 15 of them do not work in 57+... 

Plus I hate Chrome-Edge-look-and-feel... And it was beated by Waterfox in Mozilla's own benchmark test... I did run its tests... Wait... I lost the website...

OK don't bother finding the source, I'll take your word for it and give it a try sometime.

Thanx.

 

p.s Can you tell me what exact Waterfox version you use?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
21 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

OK don't bother finding the source, I'll take your word for it and give it a try sometime.

Thanx.

 

;)

 

Quote

p.s Can you tell me what exact Waterfox version you use?

 

56.0.3

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted

@WALLONN7 I tested the Waterfox v56.0.3 x64 as against the Firefox Beta 59.0.b4 x64 in their default state.

And Firefox was twice as fast as Waterfox in loading pages, as per my testing.

This included sites like nsaneforums, ghacks, youtube, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
2 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

@WALLONN7 I tested the Waterfox v56.0.3 x64 as against the Firefox Beta 59.0.b4 x64 in their default state.

And Firefox was twice as fast as Waterfox in loading pages, as per my testing.

This included sites like nsaneforums, ghacks, youtube, etc.

 

Well. once you use 59.0.b4 x64... Mozilla is working...

Did you use some app or something like that to measure time?! If so, tell me...

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WALLONN7 said:

Well. once you use 59.0.b4 x64... Mozilla is working...

^^I didn't understood the second part.

 

1 minute ago, WALLONN7 said:

Did you use some app or something like that to measure time?! If so, tell me...

While in browser press F12, shift to network tab, load your page and note the timing.

Keep in mind not to time cached pages(or clear cache before).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

 

 

 

 

Something is weird in your results... Firefox low results is fine... But Waterfox's is too high on your side... Hardware related?!...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, WALLONN7 said:

Something is weird in your results... Firefox low results is fine... But Waterfox is too high on your side... Hardware related?!...

It may be harware related. Saw your screenshot more closely now, seems like the firefox profile was affected by kaspersky injection whereas the waterfox one was not.

Also you have Adguard running, my test is based on given as is basis. Try and see if the results differ if you take into account these two issues I mentioned.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Ecarion

Ecarion

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Undertaker said:

[...]

And Firefox was twice as fast as Waterfox in loading pages, as per my testing.

I have read a few topics (on the internet and I will add one example) and I believe too it's might be true

Because apparently yes there is a trouble but (for the moment) I don't know the cause... But at least I can only assume, it's a related to the request itself but which ones :

  1. DNS,
  2. Telemetry,
  3. DNT (aka Do Not Track),
  4. One addon preinstalled (activity-stream, etc),
  5. TrackingProtection,
  6. IP_v6,
  7. SafeBrowsing (antivirus webfilter, etc),
  8. Prefetch,
  9. SSL (CSP, unsafe, cookies leak HSTS, OCSP, etc),
  10. Experiments,
  11. Geolocation,
  12. the DOM (HTML5 localStorage, workers, indexedDB, flyweb, HTML5 sessionStorage, serviceWorkers, etc),
  13. Sync,
  14. etc
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
23 minutes ago, Undertaker said:

It may be harware related. Saw your screenshot more closely now, seems like the firefox profile was affected by kaspersky injection whereas the waterfox one was not.

Also you have Adguard running, my test is based on given as is basis. Try and see if the results differ if you take into account these two issues I mentioned.

 

Kaspersky and Adguard disabled and not running...

 

BFELo.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
DKT27

DKT27

Posted
  • Administrator
Posted

Interesting those benchmarks. Helps me understand the speed of nsane.forums better.

 

But have you guys noticed in that benchmark, a lot of things are cached, more so in the official Firefox, it suggestions some better caching changes might have been made in it.

 

Anyway, when I used to benchmark browsers and different versions, I used to do it in a completely new profile - while it does not represent the common users, it takes bad addons and such things out of the equation. As for the above benchmarks, I suggest you guys completely disable both the browser's cache and then test it both on FP and the forums.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, WALLONN7 said:

 

Kaspersky and Adguard disabled and not running...

 

BFELo.jpg

 

40 minutes ago, DKT27 said:

Interesting those benchmarks. Helps me understand the speed of nsane.forums better.

 

But have you guys noticed in that benchmark, a lot of things are cached, more so in the official Firefox, it suggestions some better caching changes might have been made in it.

 

Anyway, when I used to benchmark browsers and different versions, I used to do it in a completely new profile - while it does not represent the common users, it takes bad addons and such things out of the equation. As for the above benchmarks, I suggest you guys completely disable both the browser's cache and then test it both on FP and the forums.

 

And now with cache disabled... Again, Kaspersky and Adguard  not running...

 

https://worldimages.gallery/images/2018/01/26/BFfA1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Administrator
DKT27

DKT27

Posted
  • Administrator
Posted
35 minutes ago, WALLONN7 said:

 

 

And now with cache disabled... Again, Kaspersky and Adguard  not running...

 

 

Seems that in uncached page loading, official Firefox is a whole minute faster here, atleast from the looks of it.

 

Also, have you ran any famous JS or otherwise benchmarks. What do they say about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted

Hi @WALLONN7 Sorry for late reply.

As you see within your tests, firefox is faster and this change is even more so illustrated in the next version i.e.v59.

I also compared the two in js testing like spider and jetstream and firefox fared better in my testing.

 

My opinion is the only thing that would want me to keep Waterfox is for the legacy addons but I don't use any(all y addons are web extensions). However, if you look on what you are losing out, then you may want to reconsider your decision.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WALLONN7

WALLONN7

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Undertaker said:

Hi @WALLONN7 Sorry for late reply.

 

Hi @Undertaker... No problem...

 

Quote

As you see within your tests, firefox is faster and this change is even more so illustrated in the next version i.e.v59.

I also compared the two in js testing like spider and jetstream and firefox fared better in my testing.

 

My opinion is the only thing that would want me to keep Waterfox is for the legacy addons but I don't use any(all y addons are web extensions). However, if you look on what you are losing out, then you may want to reconsider your decision.

 

Yeah, it is... But not as much to be a pain in my ass... 

Addons thing are the point in the end... Even @dcs18, a knowledge box, is thinking about moving on... 

Mozilla did send us its message: "40% are not enough..."

So fuck off all of them, including me!!! 

Is it Mozilla business and nothing personal?! Fine... So am I... 

Maybe someday in the future, where Waterfox / Basilisk won't exist, well, I may reconsider... Chromium based browsers will never be an option... 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
dcs18

dcs18

Posted
Posted

 

On 1/26/2018 at 10:10 PM, Undertaker said:
On 1/26/2018 at 10:06 PM, WALLONN7 said:

Did you use some app or something like that to measure time?! If so, tell me...

While in browser press F12, shift to network tab, load your page and note the timing.

Keep in mind not to time cached pages(or clear cache before).

Instead of having to clear the cache, one can just include the additional (final) step of clicking the Performance button to enjoy a pie-chart result view of both cached and uncached versions side-to-side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted
4 hours ago, dcs18 said:

Instead of having to clear the cache, one can just include the additional (final) step of clicking the Performance button to enjoy a pie-chart result view of both cached and uncached versions side-to-side.

Can you show an e.g? What browser and which version are we talking about here?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Undertaker

Undertaker

Posted
Posted

@dcs18 Not really sure, where this option is and it's not clear from your screenshot either. Or maybe they removed it.

 

Edit: Ok got it now, it's not in the performance tab as I thought but within the network tab, at the bottom left, we have the performance analysis button.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...