#Waterfox vs cyberfox for mac os x
#Waterfox vs cyberfox software

Firefox 89: Can this redesign stem browser's decline?īefore Netscape was squeezed out of business, 'Mozilla' was its internal codename for its product.In a complete non-surprise, Mozilla hammers final nail in FTP's coffin by removing it from Firefox.Firefox 91 introduces cookie clearing, clutter-free printing, Microsoft single sign-on.Want to support Firefox? Great, you'll have no problem with personalised, sponsored search suggestions then.

#Waterfox vs cyberfox for mac os x

Until just last month, there were a handful of Firefox forks to help keep elderly Macs useful, such as Parrotgeeks Firefox Legacy for Mac OS X 10.6 and TenFourFox for PowerPC Macs. But currently, it's thriving, unlike its progenitor.Īlongside Waterfox and Waterfox Classic, Pale Moon, and Basilisk, other Mozilla forks carry on work in which the Mozilla Foundation lost interest. The project is not without its own controversies, such as its purchase by ad vendor System1. Waterfox G4, based on Firefox 91, adds support for Arm-compatible Macs (and soon Arm Linux), and starts the process of switching from tracking Mozilla's ESR releases to the central branch. The third release, Waterfox G3, was based on Firefox 78 and added support for Chrome and Opera extensions, allowed the tab bar to sit below the URL box, and re-enabled the status bar. Meanwhile, development based off the modern Firefox codebase continues. Along with supporting older extensions, Waterfox Classic also supports older versions of Mac OS X back to 10.7, making it useful for users left stranded when new Apple OS releases no longer support their hardware. That branch is now known as Waterfox Classic. Notably, the project forked and continued work on Firefox 56, the last version to support classic add-ons, while back-porting subsequent security fixes. He went on to remove controversial features such as Mozilla's telemetry, sponsored links, and bundled additions such as Pocket. Lead developer Alex Kontos started it when he was a student as a project to build a 64-bit edition of Firefox long before Mozilla offered such a thing. SO far Cyberfox is working great and I plan on sticking with it as long as it maintains reasonable levels of CPU and RAM usage.Waterfox targets higher-end PCs and Macs. I tired to use the Waterfox browser but it would not startup properly, crashing almost immedaitely.

I have plenty of RAM, but once you start getting over 70% CPU usage, the system starts to get very sluggish. I think the RAM usage is a wee bit high, Firefox would use about 160 MB, but I was way more concerned about maxing out my CPU. I also had to disable all Flash and Silverlight plugins which makes browsing the web almost impossible nowadays.Ĭyberfox is currently running with 2 tabs open and I'm seeing 7-15% CPU usage and 281 MB of RAM usage which is fine with me. However, Firefox (35.0.1) would start up and almost immediately peg my CPU at 100%.

#Waterfox vs cyberfox software

I'm using a Toshiba laptop with an Intel P3 dual-core processor running at 2.2 GHz, Windows Home Premium 64 Bit, and 8GB of RAM, which *should* be more than enough machine and software to browse the web. But I like what I see so far - it seems to be very fast and it's not chewing up my CPU like Firefox was doing. I'm giving it 4 stars to start, only been using it for a couple of hours.