I've just installed waterfox-bin from AUR and holy fuck

>>58595229
plus no sjw agenda

>>58595229

Is waterfox on Windows?

The only thing I have problem with is insane tearing when scrolling (smooth scrolling disabled). If someone has a fix I would appreciate. I've tried

gfx.vsync.compositor true
gfx.vsync.hw-vsync.enabled
gfx.vsync.refreshdriver

I have disabled vsync in nvidia-settings for vidya gamez, do I have to enable it?

>>58595255
Waterfox was primarly a 64-bit version of Firefox for Windows. So yes.

Okay I think I fixed the tearing

gfx.xrender.enabled true
gfx.direct2d.force-enabled true
gfx.use_text_smoothing_setting true
gfx.direct2d.disabled false

Don't know which one exactly helps, but there is literally no reason to use firefox or palemoon now (especially palemoon that piece of shit).

>>58595362
Thanks, will try tonight.

File: logo_chromium.png (57KB, 533x537px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 533x537px

And now you're going to install ungoogled-chromium

File: so_color_v13_032~02.jpg (15KB, 135x216px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 135x216px

I do like waterfox too but the youtube ui and heavy sites in general run better in chromium based browsers.

>>58595426
And how exactly is chromium better? For me the only better thing in chrome was it's responsiveness but firefox has much better configuration

>>58595426
shill plz go

>>58595229


Did they fork this or does the code base get merged regularly with the mozilla source?

>>58596626
The dev just changes some extremely minor shit and compile it in Clang (previously ICC but he gave up rewriting code to make it compatible) instead of GCC.

File: 1478570678267.png (160KB, 640x558px) Image search: [Google]

160KB, 640x558px

>>58595229
what fingerprinting scores does it get on panopticlick?

File: 10701940_10154693530405019_4432320256045974263_n.jpg (107KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 960x960px

>>58595229
can I sync my bookmarks like I already do with chrome and firefox? I like having the same bookmarks on all my devices.

>linux 0.0
also just use pgo when compiling normal firefox. You will get the same effect.

yo, I just untar the files. where should I dump this folder under?

I installed this and tested it for a while, didn't notice any improvements. Seems like a placebo to me, or you fucked your Firefox install up so badly that a fresh one is much faster. That's the problem with software that gives its users freedom, and part of why Chrome is consistently faster - Chrome users have extremely limited control over their browser.

I just ran waterfox for about 30 minutes with only 5 tabs and it was already using 750MB of Ram from basic web browsing. No youtube or any web apps.

Kind of shitty op.

>>58597778
so by that logic we should we should just run edge.

I can't even get that pile of shit to render a page. Extremely doubtful it's 2x as fast as normal Firefox.

5 Socialisms have been deposited into your account

>>58595268
in firefox i had terrible screen tearing with hardware acceleration enabled. If the settings are at all similar try that.

File: chrome_2017-01-22_06-33-18.png (68KB, 1920x950px) Image search: [Google]

68KB, 1920x950px

lul @ Chromium

>tfw forced to use Firefox because of the addons

Should I switch to Waterfox? I'm using Windows 10.

Sweet shill thread. Nobody wants to hear about some shitty firefox ripoff you and your mom cooked up to ace some benchmarks.

I already asked this question in another one of the shill threads for waterfox but here we go again:
>Firefox:
>HTML5 Capabilities
>82.88%
>Waterfox:
>HTML5 Capabilities
>86.31%
How the fuck can waterfox have better HTML5 capabilities than Firefox if it's just using a regular Gecko engine?

>>58597346
>compiling firefox
it will take a few hours, I'd rather just get a binary
>>58597778
I even said that it works by using the same config/profile as normal firefox, so there was no fresh installation - the only thing that changed was the binary, settings/addons/etc is all the same
>>58597830
unused ram is wasted ram, btw what OS?
>>58598141
>I'm using Windows 10
I recommend killing yourself, or atleast stop asking stupid question, install the fucking browser, do a benchmark and if you don't like it just uninstall
>>58598167
it goes so fast I have to play eurobeats when surfing the webz now and I want the same experience for /g/entoomen

>>58598219
ubuntu mate. poor excuse for poor memory management

>>58598219
>I recommend killing yourself, or atleast stop asking stupid question, install the fucking browser, do a benchmark and if you don't like it just uninstall

Woah, fella, I'm just asking a friendly question.

I just switched back to Windows after exclusively using Linux for 6 months and getting fed up with it. Windows allows me to get more work done.

Doing my own benchmarks requires time and effort. I just want to know what other people have experienced.

>>58597851
it's literally the same browser, just compiled with optimalization flags for modern CPUs and some telemetry shit removed
so no wonders that it won't run on your pentium 3

File: 2017-01-21-231323_425x85_scrot.png (7KB, 425x85px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 425x85px

>>58598219
Are you using a computer from the 90s?

>>58598246
>Doing my own benchmarks requires time and effort
nigga just open the fucking link, click start and wait 3 minutes
>>58598257
I've never actually compiled something that big, figured it would be longer
still too long though, especially considering that there is no reason to do it if I can just get a binary which is also slightly better than original

>>58597295
Yes, your bookmarks are saved under your user directory. Not just in your browser, Windows user.

>>58598257
Not him but on muh gentoo with an i5-44XX, compiling firefox takes about 45 minutes.

Still waiting for an answer to >>58598216 btw. If anyone can answer please do.

>>58598282
I'm using a 4690, also on gentoo. I doubt it takes 3 times as long on something thats only a tiny bit slower than what I have.

>>58598304
I don't know man, did you do anything specific to your install? I'm using git instead of rsync (but I doubt it affects anything when compiling shit) and my /var/tmp/portage is on tmpfs. I don't think I changed anything else.

File: waterfox ram.png (21KB, 1287x306px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 1287x306px

>>58598238
i don't know how to help you
RAM usage doesn't matter to me though, I only care about speed

>>58598352
btw please ignore PRI 20, I will fix that later

>>58598326
Same set up as you. I am using the "custom-optimization" use flag so that it uses the -02 option from my CFLAGS.
I guess thats probably the only difference.

>>58598374
Oh I'm also using most of the "system-*" flags so that firefox isn't building its own copies. Thats probably where the most time savings are.

>>58598381
Yeah I have these too. Also using +ffmpeg +hardened +jemalloc3 and +jit.

>>58598421
hmm.
I'm only not using hardened.
Well it also looks like I don't have pgo set. It doubles compile time. So if you are using it then your time would be right where I would expect it.

>>58598452
I don't use pgo either. But I just remembered that I also have --jobs and --load-average=3 in my make.conf, you probably don't and the difference between my compile time and yours must come from there.

>>58598515
I'm using --jobs=3. All load-average does is stop other jobs from starting if its above the threshold.
The only other thing I can think of is MAKEOPTS. I have mine set to "-j5"

Besides that the only other thing I can think of is that a sorcerer cast an incantation on you

>>58598554
I also have -j5 in my makeopts. This is really puzzling.
I'm still using firefox-45, if you're using firefox-50 maybe the build process has been improved?

>>58595229
>Linux 0.0
>Linux 0.0
>Linux 0.0
>Linux 0.0

>>58598554
I build firefox again just to make sure I wasn't telling you bullshit and it took 30 minutes. It's 33% faster than what I remembered but still a lot more than you. I wouldn't be surprised if it came from the check run by +hardened though. I guess the case is closed then :).

>>58598620

$ uname -s -r -v
Linux 4.8.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Dec 9 07:24:34 CET 2016

>>58598623
That must be it. I don't run hardened though I have been thinking of switching to a hardened profile. But if I do it it would have to be hardened/musl.

I am using 50, and they removed firefox hello in 49 so there may have been some improvement in build time from that though I don't really know.

>>58598662
From what I read using musl as your main libc on your desktop is a bad idea, there's a lot of software that relies on quirks of the glibc and would break when using a more "standard-compliant" libc.

>>58598682
I'm well aware. Which is why I've been holding off.

I'm fine with testing things things and switching some things for alternatives if I need to. I switched to libressl for example but that was mostly a drop in replacement.

File: 2017-01-22-00:19:20-screenshot.png (705KB, 2560x1440px) Image search: [Google]

705KB, 2560x1440px

>>58595229

File: waterfoxabouthomecss.webm (591KB, 1114x730px) Image search: [Google]

591KB, 1114x730px

Who here /knows how to make this the default waterfox about:home css/?

>>58595229
without sounding like a paranoid faggot who's it made by and has source been audited?

>>58598682
Also I should add that some of the gentoo devs maintain a musl overlay with patches for quite a few things. https://gitweb.gentoo.org/proj/musl.git

everyone itt:

>install waterfox
>configure it
>migrate
>one week later realize that one website has a weird quirk and go back to your old browser

>>58598934
>configure it
please read thread, you don't configure anything

fast like my feminine dick

>spotify has more usage than waterfox
so is waterfox more lightweight cause used to be firefox at the top of my list

>>58599345
If you want something lightweight something like surf, dwm, or uzbl if you need a gui. If you don't pretty much all the tui ones are pretty decent.

>>58595229
just got 290.51 in standard firefox on windows 10 with a i5 3450.
Tell me how 297.9 is considered x2 performance.
Beside the nice logo, what's the point of this browser?

>>58598246
Seeing as the anon is being an asshole.
Yes, it's far better on Windows than Firefucks is.
It's faster, and has full addon support for firefox extensions.

>>58599641
firefox: 297.9
waterfox: 512.06

waterfox is 71% faster
not exactly 2 times but still a lot

>>58599684
damn I didn't see the second benchmark result, my bad

>>58595362

I have no problems with Pale moon at all but thanks for the suggestion I guess.

try firefox-nightly

>>58595229
i have been using waterfox for few years now, its faster than ff and more stable.

File: 1457216569828.jpg (37KB, 615x409px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 615x409px

>australis

>>58595229
are addons supported?

>>58599829
it's literally firefox with better compilation flags, nothing else
all addons werk

>>58599871
looks like i have a new browser now

>>58595426
>no good alternative to vimperator
into the trash it goes

>>58599902
>no good alternative to Rikaisama

into le trash it goes

>>58597830
Compare to 5 tabs over chrome

I read somethings months back that Firefox ate ssd's.
Is this fixed? Is this still a problem in Fire/Waterfox? Didn't bother fixing it so installed chromium

>>58595229
290 on firefox stable
430 on watefox
452 on firefox dev edition

>>58600509
you can disable disk cache in any firefox, also can move profile dir to ramdisk

>>58595229
somehow I don't trust it

File: ssdlife_ub_2017-01-22_14-38-05.png (57KB, 474x622px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 474x622px

>>58600509
I have always used the cache directories on the SSD and it seems healthy still.

>>58595229
desktop using Linux 0.0 with Chrome 55.0.2883.87 score:
635.65

breakdownbreakdown
Conformance
CSS Capabilities 57.86%
HTML5 Capabilities 96.04%
Page Load and Responsiveness Capabilities 93.14%
Resize Capabilities 75.97%

>>58595229
So what exactly is the advantage of using this obscure spin-off?

>>58598620

gollygeewizz@archbox ~]$ uname -s -r -v
Linux 4.8.13-1-ARCH #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Dec 9 07:24:34 CET 2016
[gollygeewizz@archbox ~]$

File: 1454585951583.jpg (6KB, 246x205px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 246x205px

>>58595229
got 436.69 on waterfox 50.1.0 and 446 on firefox 53 on wangblows

File: mah_googly_browser.png (356KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

356KB, 1920x1080px

>>58599937
Same person here. I've had chromium running with extensions since yesterday and I'm currently using 780 MB of ram with 24 tabs with youtube running on a couple.

>>58603733
Pages load faster and seems to use less RAM (for me at least). Can do no harm to try it and if you don't like it or don't see a difference just stick with firefox.

When I installed it just now it has literally opened with all my bookmarks and preferences exactly as I had them on FF. It has required zero configuration. And pages load quicker for me.

>>58604390
Holy... New version? Mine eats gigs of ram.

>>58605704
Version 55.0.2883.87

>>58605704
sorry, I just realized I had killed chrome earlier. Once I went through all the tabs it was the same ram pig it always is.