TR Forums

So, basically as per the title. I have been using Waterfox x64 for awhile now and have been fairly pleased with it. Out of curiosity the other day I was looking up other x64 browsers and see there are quite a few other variants based off FF.

I think I am going to give this one a try out of curiosity, although I can't really see if there will be an actually difference between builds on today's cpu's.
http://cyberfox.8pecxstudios.com/

Has anyone else tried cyberfox or other FF variants with any luck??

I've been using Palemoon for several years now, without any issue.
It's a 64-bit community driven version of FireFox.

sircharles32 wrote:

I've been using Palemoon for several years now, without any issue.
It's a 64-bit community driven version of FireFox.

+1. I gave up on Firefox after they went to v28. Pale Moon is a very capable replacement.

If you liked Firefox 4.0's UI without using the classic restore addons, I would also suggest using Palemoon. The developer keeps up with the security patches that Mozilla pushes out, which is an important factor that I consider when dealing with software forks.

He did say that he plans on diverging away from Firefox due to his strong dislike of their Chromium direction, starting with changing how the GUI scripting works (which caused some incompatibilities with FF addons).

Ya heard decent things about pale moon also.

Anyone ever try CyberFox?

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

strong dislike of their Chromium direction

As do I. I've been playing with Chromium for a few days, and frankly, Chromium is a better "Chromium" than the current Firefox wannabe. Chromium with uMatrix and Ghostery gives me more control, though with more effort, than Firefox with NoScript and Ghostery. Chrome is just too google-ified for me.

Over morning coffee on Saturday, I built Chromium 45 from source. Ubuntu (and therefore Linux Mint) is not quite keeping up with stable releases (they're at 41). Over this morning's coffee, I built Firefox Nightly. Between the two, while Chromium built cleanly, the Firefox build was fraught with amateurish/sloppy warnings that really turned me off. Yikes, what have I been running/trusting all these years?!?!?

Though I've been a staunch user/supporter of Firefox (and Thunderbird) forever, I've started hunting around. The adware coming in future releases may push me away for good. I still may eventually decide to stick with Firefox, but will definitely check out Palemoon (among others) - maybe over tomorrow morning's coffee.

Agree with the others in this thread, the best I've used thus far is Palemoon. It has replaced Safari and later Opera as my fourth browser.

I've tried both pale moon and cyberfox. Stick with pale moon.

Cyberfox doesn't have a proper update mechanism. You have to manually download every update. They do have a update utility (not built in), but I never got it to work. Cyberfox potentially might have less issues than pale moon, but it isn't worth the update hassles. Pale moon, on the other hand, works perfectly, aside from needing pale moon specific extensions. A lot of extensions won't install because of the version number, plus Australis, requiring a port. Pale moon has their own extension system though, so for the most part everything works ok.

I'm using Adblock Latitude because Adblock Plus developers stated that they did not want to support a "Firefox clone" or another web browser.

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

I'm using Adblock Latitude because Adblock Plus developers stated that they did not want to support a "Firefox clone" or another web browser.

Don't. There are better options. Also, I use encrypted web and blur. Noscript is also great, but it annoys the hell out of me by breaking video links.

l33t-g4m3r wrote:

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

I'm using Adblock Latitude because Adblock Plus developers stated that they did not want to support a "Firefox clone" or another web browser.

Don't. There are better options. Also, I use encrypted web and blur. Noscript is also great, but it annoys the hell out of me by breaking video links.

OK, are you saying that ABP simply refuses to install? What about uBlock? (Which is what I use nowadays.) That plus click to run plugins wherever possible and third party cookies blocked works well for me.

localhostrulez wrote:

OK, are you saying that ABP simply refuses to install? What about ub? (Which is what I use nowadays.) That plus click to run plugins wherever possible and third party cookies blocked works well for me.

Yes. A lot of extensions that are coded for the new FF+Australis don't work, and/or don't install, requiring a fork to a pale moon version. UB can be installed, but is not supported and has UI issues. I'm not going to go into specifics, but if you search for alternatives, there is a 3rd option that is better, albeit non-configurable.

localhostrulez wrote:

l33t-g4m3r wrote:

UnfriendlyFire wrote:

I'm using Adblock Latitude because Adblock Plus developers stated that they did not want to support a "Firefox clone" or another web browser.

Don't. There are better options. Also, I use encrypted web and blur. Noscript is also great, but it annoys the hell out of me by breaking video links.

OK, are you saying that ABP simply refuses to install? What about uBlock? (Which is what I use nowadays.) That plus click to run plugins wherever possible and third party cookies blocked works well for me.

ABP will install, but it won't place nice with Palemoon's UI because ABP is designed for FF's Australis.

Giving Palemoon x64 a spin right now. Between the return of the 3.0 UI and the amazing speed increases, I may linger here for a bit.

Hmmmm might give palemoon a try. I wonder if it will work along side cyberfox?

anotherengineer wrote:

Hmmmm might give palemoon a try. I wonder if it will work along side cyberfox?

Palemoon and FF are happily co-existing when both open (8.1/64) so I can't see why not.

I have a first gen core i7 (Xeon W3680 @ 4.5GHz) and firefox rarely scrolls smooth even with gpu acceleration enabled.

Page scrolling with Palemoon feels a lot like Safari on a new Mac.

Well, while Palemoon is way faster and isn't Australis, it still suffers from the usual FF memory bloat.

Sitting at 298Mb with 5 tabs open, compared to 305Mb in Chrome with 1 tab. Is Chrome even worse than FF for memory footprint?

Palemoon x64 was a Pos for me, long startup times and frequently 'stalling' for whatever reason. Ymmv, but I'm not the only one, by looking at their forums. The 32 bit build was far far better.

This may sound silly, but what is a FF derivative?

FireGryphon wrote:

This may sound silly, but what is a FF derivative?

Someone glomming the FF open-source codebase and trying to fix the things FF refuses to fix or made worse (Australis), and releasing their own fork.

Hmm, at first glance, Palemoon 64-bit and uBlock seem to work pretty well. Not a fan of their UI changes from Firefox, so I did some of the about:config changes listed on their site. And the newer UI in Firefox is actually kinda nice IMO. Also trying to figure out how to get the status bar as a little popup - I don't get anything if I disable the bar on the bottom.

Another satisfied PaleMoon user here. Using it with ABL and NoScript.

Been using Palemoon for a day to kick its tires and I'm happy so far.

localhostrulez wrote:

Not a fan of their UI changes from Firefox

Whereas I'm ecstatic that I don't need to find an add-on to make FF look like FF should look (v3.x in my reckoning).

jihadjoe wrote:

Another satisfied PaleMoon user here. Using it with ABL and NoScript.

Same here, long time user of palemoon x64, with ABL, and foxyproxy standard

Whatever browser stays open source and does not get in bed with the masses of advertising scum and villany is where I and any other sane internet users should follow. This means full user control whether it be built-in or through providing enough hooks so add-ons like noscript and ublock remain effective.
The whole adblock multi-forking mess and 'approved ads' corruption of various efforts originally meant to protect users just shows how insidious and easy the dark side can be. I think in the somewhat near future mozilla is going to get sucked in too.

/typed this as I wait for a proxy log dump of drive-by malware for the last month, mostly delivered by ad networks that couldn't give two **** about your computer's integrity.

Removed adblock+ and install ublock origin on all my FF and FF alternatives, seems to be faster.

anotherengineer wrote:

Removed adblock+ and install ublock origin on all my FF and FF alternatives, seems to be faster.

Yep, that's what I've found with Chrome and Firefox. Let's hope that it stays nice and light, unlike µTorrent.