Reviews of Waterfox

1. 
   cltx99

   Reviewing 18.0.1 (Jan 22, 2013)

   It's very good. However, I didn't detect any noticeable differences in performance compared to the latest FF release. So, I decided to stay with FF.
2. 
   lescaut

   Reviewing 16.0.1 (Jan 18, 2013)

   Not usually one to take the trouble to write a review.
   Tried this browser a year or so back. It crashed regularly and was
   therefore uninstalled after only a short while.
   Disappointed with my regular browsers of choice, I decided to
   try Waterfox again. It is fast, stable and "feels" right. Easily set up
   and hardly recognisable as the browser that gave me grief last time.
   Touch wood! Just made it my default browser, generally the time when
   things go awry.
3. 
   Slug_Coordinator

   Reviewing 15.0 (Sep 4, 2012)

   Waterfox 64 has issues with Supporting Divx, Xvid, and Quicktime playbacks. Also it freaks out with Gmail and some other sites found out you have to go into the about:config and turn off the network.http.spdy.enabled.v2 to false as well as the network.http.spdy.enabled.v3 to also be set to false...
   
   So if you get funny characters that's the fix to resolve it which really is sad considering those are suppose to be speed optimizations so it's kinda useless to have them if you cant use them.
   
   Codec Support is terrible, Divx, Xvid, and Media Player Codec for Firefox will not work with this version. It's terrible and sad at the lack of work done here where its needed to make Waterfox viable. basically you have to run 32 bit Firefox to enjoy most of the common Web Codec Multimedia formats. Waterfox is not meant to do this.
   
   Seriously I'm not sure why that is not worked on more version 13 - 15 is a huge disappointment as far as multimedia goes. Guess with these bugs and they have yet been addressed its time to go back to Firefox until these are resolved.
4. 
   Sven123456789

   Reviewing 14.0.2 (Aug 15, 2012)

   speed is excellent but like some users mentioned. That pop up add thing is a problem. Also a problem, When I use Pale Moon, it seems to be seperate from firefox in the directory. So I can use both at the same time like using 2 different browsers. Waterfox seems directly linked to firefox. So if you decide to use waterfox, you can forget about firefox being your main browser. I know firefox is fooling around with a 64 bit version. I've used it, very fast but not many apps work with it.
5. 
   cltx99

   Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 30, 2012)

   I was looking forward to WF 14, but it's a disappointment. Hardly any decent skins work with it. Also there's occasional error pop-ups. Once you get through that it worked just fine. I installed a program called "Expat Shield" so that I could watch the Olympics using BBC Iplayer. WF 14 was the default browser and Expat shield wouldn't work as well as Iplayer.
   
   I reinstalled WF13 and everything worked just fine. It seems that WF14 needs some work. Until it's up to snuff I'll be using WF13.
6. 
   PaulWilliams

   Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 29, 2012)

   Version 14 is the reason I went back to Firefox. (1) When you update without uninstalling the old version you get a file missing error every time you open the program, so you have to uninstall and then re-install waterfox. (2) Every 30 minutes or so a dialog box pops up saying that waterfox is up to date. If it were only once, it wouldn't have bothered me, but every 30 minutes is ridiculous.
   
   If anyone wants a faster 64-bit compatible Firefox clone, they should look into Pale Moon.
7. 
   xsnred

   Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 29, 2012)

   The "do not tick box" only leaves your preferences, such as bookmarks, tools/options, etc. You should have no other problems at all. I usually go into the registry and remove ALL traces manually, but this time I tried it their way and had no problem. If you guys are here at BN, then I'm sure you must know what you're doing. Obviously there's a conflict somewhere. Go find it! I have confidence in you. It's too easy to blame the software, it's always the software.
8. 
   HydrantHunter

   Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 27, 2012)

   Had the same problem as asaenz. Went to Waterfox's web site (using Chrome) and found this: "Note: Make sure to uninstall any previous versions of Waterfox before installing Waterfox 14. Make sure to NOT tick the Remove profile data box!"
   
   Among the various 'new' things for v14 was a new installer - but apparently not one that could handle a *necessary* step for a working upgrade.
   
   Giving it a very generous 3 since it's still one of the better FF-alternates, but the broken upgrade path is inexcusable, imo.
9. 
   asaenz

   Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 27, 2012)

   This version (14) did not run and produced error messages. Tried to reinstall/repair but it didn't help ... back to previous version (13) ... hopefully fixed soon.
   
   Update: lowered my rating from 4 to 3 for not including a message in installation package that the previous version must be uninstalled ... lack of attention to support for users.
   
   Update 2: I was able to install Ver. 14 after uninstalling 13.
10. 
    JethroB

    Reviewing 14.0.1 (Jul 27, 2012)

    Reviewing 14.0.1
    Crashes on my Windows7 notebook.
    Reverted to 13.0 PL1
11. 
    Sven123456789

    Reviewing 13.0 Patch Level 1 (Jun 9, 2012)

    So far so good. Runs very fast. Also downloaded Pale Moon 64 bit. Sorta ran both and I found Waterfox just a tad faster on some sites like Yahoo and Google. Either way, worth a look.
12. 
    xsnred

    Reviewing 13.0 Patch Level 1 (Jun 8, 2012)

    I use Waterfox on my Windows 7 64 bit machine and it is blazing fast. Never a problem and I don't expect one. I've always dissed the "my browser's faster than yours bullship", but Waterfox is quite impressive. I don't see how any tweaks could possibly make it faster than it already is, at least on my rig.
13. 
    kstev99

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 16, 2012)

    I use this on the laptop, and Palemoon (32) in the deskop. It is very fast and there ARE optimizations made. From the website:
    
    "Waterfox was compiled with SSE2, the AMD Core Math Library and the following optimisation flags: /O2 /GR- /GS- /GA"
    
    I think it's speed is at least comparable if not faster than PM. Benchmarks agree.
    
    http://www.networkworld....fox-faceoff-255880.html
14. 
    cltx99

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 14, 2012)

    Simply excellent and getting better.
15. 
    trgilpin

    Reviewing 11.0 (Mar 13, 2012)

    Pale Moon FTW
16. 
    gatorfan95

    Reviewing 10.0.2 (Feb 22, 2012)

    I am not sure why but Waterfox requires Visual C++ Redistributable be installed before it will run or you get a msvcr100.dll is missing error. Given the insignificant differences in the benchmarks between this and Palemoon, I would prefer to use something that I can download and run, not have to add things I don't normally use installed on my machine. But that's just me.
    
    @asaenz
    Palemoon 9.2 IS FF 10.0.2 The updates to PM lag a week or so behind the major updates of FF. The reasons for this are spelled out very clearly on the Palemoon website.
17. 
    DrTeeth

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 13, 2012)

    The problems are because this is just a simple port of the 32-bit source with NO tweaking or modifications. The so-called "tweaks" are common to all 64-bit apps - they are nothing special. To get a properly modified AND optimised 64 bit build, there is only 1 contender, Pale Moon.
18. 
    Lsavagejt

    Reviewing 10.0.1 (Feb 13, 2012)

    I had the same problem as F1. Lost all bookmarks. They should tell people that WF is FF-dependent. Without FF installed, WF is a shell. A fast shell.
19. 
    asaenz

    Reviewing 10.0 (Feb 9, 2012)

    @Jim Don't know about "lazier version of Pale Moon" ... they didn't bother to make a release 10 version. Installed without problems on my computer and runs fine on all the sites I visit. Normally I give a 4 but I'm adding 1 for their taking the time and trouble to make a 64-bit version of FF available for us 64-bit Windows users.
20. 
    F1Racer

    Reviewing 10.0 (Feb 7, 2012)

    Whoever put together the uninstaller for this needs his head banging against a wall for an hour or so.
    Thought I`d give this a try. Seemed ok at first. But I was in Facebook and clicking on some posted thumbnail photos and they weren't expanding to their full size. Strange. So I tried it in Firefox and it worked fine.
    Now... Waterfox installs in its own folder and is separate. It loads in your bookmarks and cookies but what it doesn't tell you is that it uses the ones from Firefox and doesn't make its own copy of the Firefox ones.
    
    So because of this Facebook issue I decided Waterfox has issues and went to uninstall it. It then asked me if I wanted also to remove WATERFOX's bookmarks and cookies. That lead me to believe it did make a duplicate set of the ones from Firefox. You know so it could function independantly. That would be a better scenario for future reference !
    As it said they were the bookmarks and cookies from Waterfox and made no mention or gave no warning that it would affect Firefoxs stuff, I went ahead.
    
    Sure enought when I went back in to good old Firefox I had a clean profile. All gone.
    I did back up my bookmarks before installing Waterfox so no biggie there. It's just putting in all the add-ons now and havin NoScript re-learn everything again.
    Put a damn warning on that it will be deleting FIREFOX's bookmarks not WATERFOX's. People do run them both in parallel you know.
    Wankers.
21. 
    stevvie

    Reviewing 10.0 (Feb 7, 2012)

    This seems slower in ALL benchmarks than the standard 32 bit version of firefox.
22. 
    cltx99

    Reviewing 10.0 (Feb 7, 2012)

    Downloaded and works very well. All of my add-ons work. It also picked up all of my bookmarks and passwords automatically. It's fast and no problems with page rendering. Palemoon is very good, but Waterfox was easier to set up. No need for "migration app." Well done!
23. 
    Jim

    Reviewing 9.0 (Dec 24, 2011)

    Just a quick question, what's the difference between this and Pale Moon? Pale Moon has been compiling a 64bit version of Firefox for a much longer time and this just seems like a lazier clone (no 32bit version).
24. 
    asaenz

    Reviewing 8.0 (Nov 16, 2011)

    This release of Waterfox seems to be an Aurora version of Firefox therefore that might explain why some add-ons/extensions don't work (yet). But it is worth a try if you're interested in a modified 64 bit version of Firefox otherwise you have to go with nightly probably until version 11 is available.
25. 
    coover

    Reviewing 8.0 (Nov 16, 2011)

    Wow ... a great 64 bit browser. I may make this my default browser very soon.
    
    But Firefox users beware. Many of the Firefox ad-ins don't work with this browser yet. However, if you have a 64 bit OS, you should download and install this browser, just to test it against Firefox in order to find out if your ad-ins work or not. For me, frankly, I'd rather use this browser without some of the ad-ins than use Firefox.
26. 
    asaenz

    Reviewing 7.0 (Oct 5, 2011)

    I like it (Chevy Chase)
    Just install Microsoft Visual C++ x64 and you're ready to go. Open source makes it possible for products like Waterfox especially when FF developers don't seem to want to put out such a product on their own even after 64 bit has been out for awhile and 32 bit is in the rear view mirror.
27. 
    abelchavez

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 30, 2011)

    Wow, finally waterfox plays Cityville....
    
    Good job, & it runs quick.....
    
    I'm impressed.....:)
28. 
    ischaver

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 30, 2011)

    great program-faster than ff and all add-ons work!!
29. 
    coover

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 30, 2011)

    This browser is quick.
    
    However, going to several "video" sites, I found the 64 bit software evidently has not the codecs required to run the videos. One, for example, is foxnews.com. I would guess the problem is with "flash".
    
    Addendum: Adobe now has a flash player for 64 bit in beta ... look for flash player 11 for browsers other than Internet Explorer. They also have a version 11 for the 64 bit Internet Explorer if you wish to use it.
30. 
    djb247365

    Reviewing 7.0 (Sep 29, 2011)

    For some reason I love trying new software, and since I'm a big fan of Firefox, I decided to try this. I've heard of Pale Moon, which I've tried before, but not this, and I gotta say, it's definitely fast. I have Waterfox running, along-side a portable version of the new 10.0 Firefox nightly build, and I'm very much impressed. I would definitely recommend this to any Firefox fanatic that wants the speed and features, without the typical Firefox clutter

Discuss Waterfox

No comments yet