#Waterfox vs firefox windows 7#

It could not be uninstalled, but it could be disabled which we did prior to testing. In the case of the second browser, Pale Moon comes with a built-in toolbar extension. None of the browsers had any extensions installed when we tested them. (We did this three separate times.) We checked the memory usage of each with one tab open on. We then timed how long it took to load and fully render the main page of our own site, with the browser's history and cache cleared. We also timed how long it took for each browser to cold-start after Windows was rebooted, and then checked its memory usage with just one blank tab open. (Under Kraken, the lower number is the better rating, representing the fastest performance.) We ran the Kraken test three times - twice in a row, the third after rebooting the computer - and picked the lowest number result. You can read details at its official wiki. Because these three browsers are based on Firefox code, we tested them on Mozilla's own benchmark site, Kraken. running it through a battery of tests to rate how quickly it can render images, run CSS, execute JavaScript, etc.).

There are a lot of sites that purport to test the speed of a web browser (i.e. (One caveat, Firefox Nightly releases a new version almost every day, so your results may vary.) We took a look at three Firefox variants made for 64-bit processor computers running a 64-bit version of Windows, giving each a series of tests to rate its speed and performance. However, 'official' is the key word since Mozilla has developed alpha versions of Firefox that support Windows 64-bit, and there are two other browsers built by independent developers based on Firefox's open-source code. (The exception for now has been Internet Explorer 9.)

#Waterfox vs firefox windows 7#

Although computers running the 64-bit version of Windows 7 have become more common, there aren't many Windows-compatible browsers compiled to run on 64-bit processors.