just wondering...
I'm using them both and am comparing them...
anyone else that has used both and have their findings?
Page 1 / 1
@ wrote:
just wondering...
I'm using them both and am comparing them...
anyone else that has used both and have their findings?
I've only heard one other mention of Waterfox and until reading your post, I never knew about Palemoon (ok, ok, so I can't stay on top of everything y'know :$ ).
Anyhoot, to answer your original question: "anyone know the main performance differences between palemoon and waterfox?" the answer is no, at least not yet, but I'm about to find out! 😛
Hi Remixed
Hope that you are well?
The general consensus from what I read is that Palemoon is better and faster then Waterfox...but as always one should take this generality with a pinch of salt as a lot of things can affect that. Having said that from from my use of Palemoon (having made a very limited comparison with Waterfox) I would tend to agree.
If interested you can, as Jeff mentioned, find a fair amount of info on the InterWeb...and I would start with this topic, and go from there.
Regards
Baldrick
Hope that you are well?
The general consensus from what I read is that Palemoon is better and faster then Waterfox...but as always one should take this generality with a pinch of salt as a lot of things can affect that. Having said that from from my use of Palemoon (having made a very limited comparison with Waterfox) I would tend to agree.
If interested you can, as Jeff mentioned, find a fair amount of info on the InterWeb...and I would start with this topic, and go from there.
Regards
Baldrick
Oh ok well thank you to both of you!!
Oh and I am doing a bit better..
😃 Hello @ , I have installed both of these browsers a couple of weeks ago on my laptop to see if I could work the Webroot extensions. I do believe @ knows alot more concerning these browsers. I haven't been able to test or be on that laptop(W Vista 64) but I can give you a holler if I notice a difference, if you want. ;)
Hope you are hanging in these with lifes trials and tribulations!
Hope you are hanging in these with lifes trials and tribulations!
Cool. Let me know. 🙂
Sure will @ :)
On my phone. .. 🙂
On my phone. .. 🙂
Quote/ Pale Moon is an Open Source, Firefox-based web browser available for Microsoft Windows and Linux, focusing on efficiency and ease of use. Make sure to get the most out of your browser!
Pale Moon offers you a browsing experience in a browser completely built from its own source with carefully selected features and optimizations to maximize the browser's speed*, stability and user experience, while maintaining compatibility with thousands of Firefox extensions many have come to love and rely on.
Waterfox:
Quote Waterfox is a high performance browser based on the Mozilla platform. Waterfox is specifically for 64-bit systems, with one thing in mind: speed.
Pale Moon offers you a browsing experience in a browser completely built from its own source with carefully selected features and optimizations to maximize the browser's speed*, stability and user experience, while maintaining compatibility with thousands of Firefox extensions many have come to love and rely on.
Waterfox:
Quote Waterfox is a high performance browser based on the Mozilla platform. Waterfox is specifically for 64-bit systems, with one thing in mind: speed.
Great article appreciate knowing the difference. ..
Thanks again Antus67. 🙂
Thanks again Antus67. 🙂
So it looks like Palemoon is a bit more different. Kinda liking it so far but it doesn't look as good as waterfox28 tho but I can get a theme.
At least it won't have that ugly australis theme that's a chrome wannabee! If I wanted a chrome UI I would use chrome!
At least it won't have that ugly australis theme that's a chrome wannabee! If I wanted a chrome UI I would use chrome!
Hi Remixed
You really need to bench mark each against activities that you want to do/undertake and see which is the best of the two. Yes, they are clearly, according to the blurb, built for a purpose but one's own system can impact the way each works and effectively contradict the blurb...in the case of your own system.
Regards
Baldrick
You really need to bench mark each against activities that you want to do/undertake and see which is the best of the two. Yes, they are clearly, according to the blurb, built for a purpose but one's own system can impact the way each works and effectively contradict the blurb...in the case of your own system.
Regards
Baldrick
Hi remixedcat :D
One of the main, and in my own opinion, biggest differences is that Palemoon creates a separate profile that Firefox. Waterfox does not. This means that you cannot run Waterfox and Firefox at the same time. If you do have both Firefox and Waterfox installed you might (it doesn't happen always, but sometimes) see Firefox or Waterfox say "checking for compatibilty for your addons with this version of Firefox/Waterfox" - then the other browser does the same - then again - and again... because they both are pulling the same dataso they are trying to share the extensions. This can be a bit of an inconvenience because sometimes when you start up Firefox it asks you to confirm the installation of the some of the Webroot extenions, even if you already have. You can't have both browsers open at the same time; whichever one you open first (Firefox or Watefox), that is the one that will open, even if you open the executable for the other browser since they use the same profile. Waterfox I'm sure could be used great by itself, it just can't co-exist with Firefox. Looking at my task manager, Watefox also appears to use about 50-70 MB more memory, probably not enough to make a difference if you have a system with an x64 processor anyway, but I thought I'd mention it. I personally don't notice any aesthetic speed differences in loading the webpage itself, but in graphics rendering I do notice that Palemoon is smoother and flows a bit better; that is beacuse most of the changes in Palemoon are under the hood in the graphics and rendering engines where you won't really "see" the speed difference if you run a speedtest. Another imporatant note: Palemoon does not and will not use the Australis interface (the Chrome look alike). Markus Straver (the developer of Palemoon) has said this. From the Palemoon website (I have bolded some of the more relevant points) :
" 1. Pale Moon, like Firefox (and several other browsers) is based on the Gecko rendering engine. This means that the core rendering functions for Pale Moon and Firefox will be a very close match and that whatever functionality there is in the Gecko core code, will also exist in Pale Moon. Where specific core functions have been changed, it has been done carefully and with due consideration to provide better performance and efficiency while not endangering the security of the browser.
2. Some functions have been completely disabled to cut down on input complexity (accessibility, for one), unnecessary/unused code (multiple additional modules) and to remove non-essential tools that would be better left to the free choice of the user. This improves stability and speed, and reduces resource use.
3. ...e.g. by reducing the number of concurrent http and total dns requests needed when browsing
4. ...The build environment used for Pale Moon allows for specific optimizations in the building process that actually uses the capabilities of the computer hardware it runs on (specifically: advanced processing instructions) and gears the machine code at the assembly level specifically towards certain generations of processors, as opposed to trying to compromise for different ways of working of old (read: museum-grade) hardware. This is the biggest contributor to the speed increase seen in Pale Moon, as it impacts every aspect of the browser, from loading pages to drawing graphics and running scripts."
Palemoon was compiled using Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 Update 4 (MSVC CL 11), which means you should not get any missing .dll errors that you may get in Waterfox, nor should you have to install C++ to make it work.
From the Watefox website:
"Q: What makes Waterfox fast?
A: Waterfox was compiled with Intel's C++ Compiler with the following optimisations: Intel's Math Library, SSE3, AVX for supported Intel processors, jemalloc, Profile-Guided Optimisation and the /O3 switch." This means that you might have to install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 Redistributable and the Intel C++ Redistributable if you get a missing .dll error, as they say in the FAQ:"Q: Why am I getting a missing .dll error? A: If by chance you get this error, install the Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 Redistributable and the Intel C++ Redistributable." As a side note, if you do want to use Palemoon, you can make the icons look like they do in Waterfox by right clicking on of the buttons (home, downloads, etc.) and then checking "use small icons" in the customization window. You can also re-arrange the icons if you want to. Overall, Palemoon is more friendly when co-existing with Firefox, and is compiled differently than Watefox. Palemoon also gives more details as to the coding changes than Watefox does so it is easier to see the differences. Waterfox uses more memory than both Firefox and Palemoon, but that shouldn't be too big an issue. Graphic rendering wise, Palemoon, in my personal opinion, does seem to be a bit smoother and better flowing than both Waterfox and Firefox. Okay, I hope I haven't bored you to sleep with all the techno babble and quotes! All in all, whichever browser works and you like best is the one you should use. My own 2 cents is that I personally prefer Palemoon. Feel free to ask anymore questions 😃. Shran
One of the main, and in my own opinion, biggest differences is that Palemoon creates a separate profile that Firefox. Waterfox does not. This means that you cannot run Waterfox and Firefox at the same time. If you do have both Firefox and Waterfox installed you might (it doesn't happen always, but sometimes) see Firefox or Waterfox say "checking for compatibilty for your addons with this version of Firefox/Waterfox" - then the other browser does the same - then again - and again... because they both are pulling the same dataso they are trying to share the extensions. This can be a bit of an inconvenience because sometimes when you start up Firefox it asks you to confirm the installation of the some of the Webroot extenions, even if you already have. You can't have both browsers open at the same time; whichever one you open first (Firefox or Watefox), that is the one that will open, even if you open the executable for the other browser since they use the same profile. Waterfox I'm sure could be used great by itself, it just can't co-exist with Firefox. Looking at my task manager, Watefox also appears to use about 50-70 MB more memory, probably not enough to make a difference if you have a system with an x64 processor anyway, but I thought I'd mention it. I personally don't notice any aesthetic speed differences in loading the webpage itself, but in graphics rendering I do notice that Palemoon is smoother and flows a bit better; that is beacuse most of the changes in Palemoon are under the hood in the graphics and rendering engines where you won't really "see" the speed difference if you run a speedtest. Another imporatant note: Palemoon does not and will not use the Australis interface (the Chrome look alike). Markus Straver (the developer of Palemoon) has said this. From the Palemoon website (I have bolded some of the more relevant points) :
" 1. Pale Moon, like Firefox (and several other browsers) is based on the Gecko rendering engine. This means that the core rendering functions for Pale Moon and Firefox will be a very close match and that whatever functionality there is in the Gecko core code, will also exist in Pale Moon. Where specific core functions have been changed, it has been done carefully and with due consideration to provide better performance and efficiency while not endangering the security of the browser.
2. Some functions have been completely disabled to cut down on input complexity (accessibility, for one), unnecessary/unused code (multiple additional modules) and to remove non-essential tools that would be better left to the free choice of the user. This improves stability and speed, and reduces resource use.
3. ...e.g. by reducing the number of concurrent http and total dns requests needed when browsing
4. ...The build environment used for Pale Moon allows for specific optimizations in the building process that actually uses the capabilities of the computer hardware it runs on (specifically: advanced processing instructions) and gears the machine code at the assembly level specifically towards certain generations of processors, as opposed to trying to compromise for different ways of working of old (read: museum-grade) hardware. This is the biggest contributor to the speed increase seen in Pale Moon, as it impacts every aspect of the browser, from loading pages to drawing graphics and running scripts."
Palemoon was compiled using Microsoft Visual Studio 2012 Update 4 (MSVC CL 11), which means you should not get any missing .dll errors that you may get in Waterfox, nor should you have to install C++ to make it work.
From the Watefox website:
"Q: What makes Waterfox fast?
A: Waterfox was compiled with Intel's C++ Compiler with the following optimisations: Intel's Math Library, SSE3, AVX for supported Intel processors, jemalloc, Profile-Guided Optimisation and the /O3 switch." This means that you might have to install Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 Redistributable and the Intel C++ Redistributable if you get a missing .dll error, as they say in the FAQ:"Q: Why am I getting a missing .dll error? A: If by chance you get this error, install the Microsoft Visual C++ 2010 x64 Redistributable and the Intel C++ Redistributable." As a side note, if you do want to use Palemoon, you can make the icons look like they do in Waterfox by right clicking on of the buttons (home, downloads, etc.) and then checking "use small icons" in the customization window. You can also re-arrange the icons if you want to. Overall, Palemoon is more friendly when co-existing with Firefox, and is compiled differently than Watefox. Palemoon also gives more details as to the coding changes than Watefox does so it is easier to see the differences. Waterfox uses more memory than both Firefox and Palemoon, but that shouldn't be too big an issue. Graphic rendering wise, Palemoon, in my personal opinion, does seem to be a bit smoother and better flowing than both Waterfox and Firefox. Okay, I hope I haven't bored you to sleep with all the techno babble and quotes! All in all, whichever browser works and you like best is the one you should use. My own 2 cents is that I personally prefer Palemoon. Feel free to ask anymore questions 😃. Shran
Wow! Nice comparison 🙂
Thank you 😃. I try!
Reply
Login to the community
No account yet? Create an account
Enter your E-mail address. We'll send you an e-mail with instructions to reset your password.