Waterfox on 64-bittinen muunnelma Mozillan Firefox -selaimesta. The 64-bit Waterfox is also available in a fully portable version for users who prefer portable programs or who want a portable 64-bit Web browser for their USB drive. Ohjelma on optimoitu 64-bittisille jrjestemille, eik se tue 32-bittist kyttjrjestelm. Waterfox toimii useimpien 64-bittisten pluginien kanssa, joihin kuuluvat muun muassa Adobe Flash, Sun Java ja Microsoft Silverlight. We pitted it against top-ranked browsers in two separate 64-bit Windows installations, Home Premium and Ultimate. We also tried Waterfox Portable with and without standard Firefox installed. The biggest difference most users will see between Firefox and Waterfox (installed or portable) is the deep-blue Waterfox Start button and blue logo. Waterfox automatically imported our user data from our existing Firefox installation. If you open Waterfox and then open Firefox, the pages will open in Waterfox, and vice versa: If we had Firefox open, clicking the Waterfox icon opened a new page in Firefox (which is why we tried Waterfox with and without Firefox installed). Other than that, Waterfox looks and behaves exactly like what it is, Firefox with some fancy tuning under the hood. We ran numerous bandwidth speed tests on Waterfox Portable, the installed Waterfox, Firefox 18, Internet Explorer 9 32-bit and 64-bit, Opera, and Google Chrome. Both the installed and portable versions of Waterfox loaded quickly and were very similar to the others in performance, though none dethroned the reigning speed champ, Chrome. Waterfox is optimized for 64-bit systems (and has no x86 build), and claims to be the fastest 64-bit variant of the Firefox browser. The installed Waterfox clearly bested the portable version, which has been our experience with portable browsers. Major plugins such as Adobe Flash, Sun Java, Microsoft Silverlight all have supported 64-Bit binaries available, and will work with Waterfox just as they would with Firefox. But both Waterfox versions seemed fast and stable in actual browsing. Of course, all the major Web browsers perform quite well in most conditions we suggest trying each of them since they're all free. Both for Waterfox and PortableApps.But if you want an up-to-date, fully portable 64-bit browser, Waterfox Portable is the obvious choice. I was just wondering whether you would be interested to adopt this into your portable portfolio? I'm not a developer but not opposed to generate my own portable version with the means that I have, but maybe it would attract some more users. It runs smoothly and even after days and days of usage (with two dozen open tabs) a lot faster with a lot less RAM-usage (a constant 1.3 to 1.5 GB, whereas Firefox climbed up to 2.2 GB) than Firefox. ![]() ![]() ![]() I'm using version 9 that I made portable myself by copying the program-folder inside one from your portable Firefox installation. However, I recently stumbled upon Waterfox ( ), that has since even been accepted by Mozilla. Unfortunately there are only nightly builds from Mozilla themselves with 64-bit support, but it will most likely never reach the end user (unless you agree to be an eternal alpha-tester). I searched the whole site for this app that I'm requesting now, but couldn't find any information.įirefox still is the most versatile browser, but the more intense usage you put into it, the more you will cripple it's performance. And foremost thank you for the great effort you put into PortableApps! I'm very proud to say I stuck with you long before my friends (who also keep switching to portable applications) or all the magazines around the world who are referring to you now.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |