Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Running Waterfox & Firefox simultaneously

2,132 views
Skip to first unread message

Dan

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 4:33:33 PM1/25/12
to
I've been reading the Waterfox http://waterfoxproject.org/ is a bit
faster in a 64 bit environment. Anyone use this? I'd like to give it a
try, while retaining my existing FF 7.0.1. Anyone done this?

Dan

Big_Al

unread,
Jan 25, 2012, 4:52:55 PM1/25/12
to
Dan said this on 1/25/2012 4:33 PM:
I was going to but now that you made the question, I think I'll wait for
responses.

But from a very non technical point, I would think a simple zip of the
profile directory would backup all your settings. The FF program
wouldn't get screwed with but you could ever reload that rather easy

Peter

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 10:50:59 AM1/26/12
to
Using Mozbackup is even easier. I just migrated everything to a new PC
and when I imported the Mozbackup generated file into FF on my new PC,
it worked perfectly. All my add-ons and bookmarks were there and even
my LastPass account worked perfectly with no tweaking. Same same for
Thunderbird.

EE

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 1:45:45 PM1/26/12
to
Can Waterfox use Firefox themes and extensions?

»Q«

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 3:50:34 PM1/26/12
to
On Thu, 26 Jan 2012 11:45:45 -0700
EE <nu...@bees.wax> wrote:

> On 2012-01-25 14:33, Dan wrote:

> > http://waterfoxproject.org/

> Can Waterfox use Firefox themes and extensions?

The FAQ link is at the top of the web page.

Ron Hunter

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 7:38:25 PM1/26/12
to
Yes.
I don't recommend trying to run them simultaneously.

Dan

unread,
Jan 26, 2012, 10:29:08 PM1/26/12
to
Thanks for the replies. Ron, what's the issue you see with running both
at the same time? What I have in mind is loading Waterfox, trying it
out, and keeping it if I like it better than my current FF. I wouldn't
really need to run them both at the same time at any given moment, I
just want to be sure I can go back to FF if I don't like Waterfox.

Dan

Tarkus

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 1:16:47 AM1/27/12
to
I think that's what he means, not to try and run them both literally at
the same time (if you even can). Waterfox uses your regular Firefox
profile.

Ron Hunter

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 3:22:45 AM1/27/12
to
I switch between them, with the same profile. The only 'problem' is
that Waterfox doesn't work with my Nuvola theme (but then neither does
Aurora). Trying to run two programs simultaneously with the same
profile doesn't work.
When I switch back to FF 10 beta, I have to reload my Nuvola theme.

F1...@nospampobox.com

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 10:59:09 AM1/27/12
to
On 1/25/2012 1:33 PM On a whim, Dan pounded out on the keyboard
Dan,

You didn't have a valid email, as I usually respond directly, and no one
here explained how to do it.

You can have different versions of Firefox installed at the same time,
and be able to run them at the same time, but you will need to have a
separate profile for each version, and install each one into a separate
program folder. Here is an article explaining how to do it using
Firefox 3 and Firefox 2, but the process would be the same for what you
want to do:
http://blog.codefront.net/2007/08/20/how-to-have-firefox-3-and-firefox-2-running-at-the-same-time/



Terry
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 12:37:56 PM1/27/12
to
F1Com wrote:

> You didn't have a valid email, as I usually respond directly, and no one
> here explained how to do it.

Why would you do that? Would it not be better to reply to the group, so
all those "no one" others could learn as well?

--
-bts
-This space for rent, but the price is high

EE

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 2:25:21 PM1/27/12
to
That area is empty.

EE

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 2:26:20 PM1/27/12
to
By "them", do you mean Waterfox and Firefox, or themes and extensions?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 3:20:43 PM1/27/12
to
EE wrote:

> »Q« wrote:
>> EE<nu...@bees.wax> wrote:
>>> Dan wrote:
>>>> http://waterfoxproject.org/
>>
>>> Can Waterfox use Firefox themes and extensions?
>>
>> The FAQ link is at the top of the web page.
>
> That area is empty.

Do you mean you see no FAQs? You have JavaScript disabled.

Big_Al

unread,
Jan 27, 2012, 3:33:09 PM1/27/12
to
Dan said this on 1/25/2012 4:33 PM:
I've used it a few times and every time I switch between them, WF and
FF, each wants to check add-ons. But other than that, WF and FF901 seem
to play nicely. Not sure about jumping from WF9 to FF7 though.

I do think WF is faster and it surely loads faster, and uses the same
add-ons so I simply deleted FF. I've been using Chrome and really like
Mozilla better so this has pulled me back into the fold.


EE

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 2:46:16 PM1/30/12
to
On 2012-01-27 13:20, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> EE wrote:
>
>> »Q« wrote:
>>> EE<nu...@bees.wax> wrote:
>>>> Dan wrote:
>>>>> http://waterfoxproject.org/
>>>
>>>> Can Waterfox use Firefox themes and extensions?
>>>
>>> The FAQ link is at the top of the web page.
>>
>> That area is empty.
>
> Do you mean you see no FAQs? You have JavaScript disabled.
>
No, Javascript is enabled. I have disabled certain commands, such as
onunload, but most commands are enabled. I looked at the source code.
There are no questions or answers in any text in the source code for
that page, so they are not there.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 3:18:03 PM1/30/12
to
Oh yes they are there. Because of JavaScript. Look in the source for

============================

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://jh.revolvermaps.com/b.js"></
script><script type="text/javascript">rmb_ki101
('75exwe2vthx','4','99','18',0,'ffffff','010020','aa0000');</script></
span>

</div>
</div>
<div id="content">
<!-- insert the page content here -->
<div id="faqSection">
<!-- The FAQs are inserted here -->

</div>

============================

See "The FAQs are inserted here".

The content is placed in that location by the external JavaScript from
that "revolvermaps.com" script. If you don't see it, obviously you have
something disabled.

»Q«

unread,
Jan 30, 2012, 6:34:57 PM1/30/12
to
You're blocking something -- you can see them with a fresh profile, no
settings changed from default.

Anyway, the answer to your original question is yes.

Herb

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 4:20:42 AM1/31/12
to
Thanks for pointing out Waterfox.

I just installed it in parallel with FF 9 (having read this thread I'm
aware that I shouldn't run them simultaneously).

Question:
What is the reason behind using a different name, in view of the fact
that, as far as I am aware, other programs simply have 32-bit and 64-bit
versions under the same name?

--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk


»Q«

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 12:46:15 PM1/31/12
to
On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 09:20:42 +0000
Herb <HE@UK> wrote:

> Thanks for pointing out Waterfox.
>
> I just installed it in parallel with FF 9 (having read this thread
> I'm aware that I shouldn't run them simultaneously).
>
> Question:
> What is the reason behind using a different name, in view of the fact
> that, as far as I am aware, other programs simply have 32-bit and
> 64-bit versions under the same name?

The Mozilla Corporation does not allow third parties to use its
trademarked product names without permission, and permission is IMO
pretty onerous to come by. Anyone is free to take Mozilla source and
compile and distribute binaries without any special permission, but all
the branding has to be removed, including product names and logos.

Eventually, Mozilla will distribute official 64-bit versions for
Windows, and they will have all of Firefox's usual logos and names.
("Eventually" was supposed to happen before now, but it keeps getting
pushed back.)

As an aside, I'm running Firefox 9.0.1 compiled on my own computer with
the branding left in place. I'm free to do that, but I can't give you
a copy of my binary browser. I may have just violated Mozilla's rights
by calling it Firefox in this post. ;)

F1...@nospampobox.com

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 1:59:00 PM1/31/12
to
On 1/31/2012 1:20 AM On a whim, Herb pounded out on the keyboard

> On 25.01.2012 21:33 UK Time, Dan wrote:
>> I've been reading the Waterfox http://waterfoxproject.org/ is a bit
>> faster in a 64 bit environment. Anyone use this? I'd like to give it a
>> try, while retaining my existing FF 7.0.1. Anyone done this?
>
> Thanks for pointing out Waterfox.
>
> I just installed it in parallel with FF 9 (having read this thread I'm
> aware that I shouldn't run them simultaneously).
>

Must not have read all of it.
http://blog.codefront.net/2007/08/20/how-to-have-firefox-3-and-firefox-2-running-at-the-same-time/

Running any two versions would be the same.

> Question:
> What is the reason behind using a different name, in view of the fact
> that, as far as I am aware, other programs simply have 32-bit and 64-bit
> versions under the same name?
>

Waterfox is not a Mozilla product. Hopefully you read the pages before
downloading and installing anything. ;-)

EE

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 3:50:01 PM1/31/12
to
I had to disable Adblock Plus on that page to get the content to
display. The description says it was built specifically for Windows.
Does that mean the performance will be only mediocre for Mac OS?

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 4:05:01 PM1/31/12
to
EE wrote:

> On 2012-01-30 13:18, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> [snippage]
>> The content is placed in that location by the external JavaScript from
>> that "revolvermaps.com" script. If you don't see it, obviously you have
>> something disabled.
>>
> I had to disable Adblock Plus on that page to get the content to
> display.

So, yes, you had it blocked. Is there a setting for 'third-party' scripts?

> The description says it was built specifically for Windows.
> Does that mean the performance will be only mediocre for Mac OS?

Is that a joke? :-)

Chris Ilias

unread,
Jan 31, 2012, 4:13:28 PM1/31/12
to
On 12-01-31 3:50 PM, _EE_ spoke thusly:
> I had to disable Adblock Plus on that page to get the content to
> display. The description says it was built specifically for Windows.
> Does that mean the performance will be only mediocre for Mac OS?

The official mac version is an i386/x86_64 universal binary. If you're
using Mac OS X 10.6 and above, Firefox is already 64-bit, and you don't
need a unofficial build.

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

Herb

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 5:27:40 AM2/1/12
to
Thanks for your reply.

I didn't realise that Waterfox isn't official.

I'll probably revert to Firefox and wait for the release of the official
64-bit version.

--
Herbert Eppel
www.HETranslation.co.uk

Herb

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 5:30:11 AM2/1/12
to
On 31.01.2012 18:59 UK Time, F1...@NOSPAMpobox.com wrote:
> On 1/31/2012 1:20 AM On a whim, Herb pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 25.01.2012 21:33 UK Time, Dan wrote:
>>> I've been reading the Waterfox http://waterfoxproject.org/ is a bit
>>> faster in a 64 bit environment. Anyone use this? I'd like to give it a
>>> try, while retaining my existing FF 7.0.1. Anyone done this?
>>
>> Thanks for pointing out Waterfox.
>>
>> I just installed it in parallel with FF 9 (having read this thread I'm
>> aware that I shouldn't run them simultaneously).
>>
>
> Must not have read all of it.
> http://blog.codefront.net/2007/08/20/how-to-have-firefox-3-and-firefox-2-running-at-the-same-time/
>
>
> Running any two versions would be the same.

Yes, sure, but what I meant was that one shouldn't run them
simultaneously using the same profile.

>
>> Question:
>> What is the reason behind using a different name, in view of the fact
>> that, as far as I am aware, other programs simply have 32-bit and 64-bit
>> versions under the same name?
>>
>
> Waterfox is not a Mozilla product. Hopefully you read the pages before
> downloading and installing anything. ;-)

Not really =-O

Anyway, under the circumstances I'll probably revert to Firefox and wait

EE

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 2:28:38 PM2/1/12
to
It is a question. If it was designed specifically to work well with
Windows, is there any point in getting the Mac version?

EE

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 2:30:51 PM2/1/12
to
On 2012-01-31 14:13, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-01-31 3:50 PM, _EE_ spoke thusly:
>> I had to disable Adblock Plus on that page to get the content to
>> display. The description says it was built specifically for Windows.
>> Does that mean the performance will be only mediocre for Mac OS?
>
> The official mac version is an i386/x86_64 universal binary. If you're
> using Mac OS X 10.6 and above, Firefox is already 64-bit, and you don't
> need a unofficial build.
>
Ok, thanks. I'll ignore it then. Firefox on the Mac Pro seems very
fast anyway.

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

unread,
Feb 1, 2012, 3:56:03 PM2/1/12
to
EE wrote:

> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>> EE wrote:
>>> ... built specifically for Windows.
>>> ... performance will be only mediocre for Mac OS?
>>
>> Is that a joke? :-)
>
> It is a question. If it was designed specifically to work well with
> Windows, is there any point in getting the Mac version?

Dunno. My question was somewhat of a joke (note smiley). If "built for
Windows" how would it run on a Mac at all?

EE

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 5:51:13 PM2/2/12
to
On 2012-02-01 13:56, Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
> EE wrote:
>
>> Beauregard T. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> EE wrote:
>>>> ... built specifically for Windows.
>>>> ... performance will be only mediocre for Mac OS?
>>>
>>> Is that a joke? :-)
>>
>> It is a question. If it was designed specifically to work well with
>> Windows, is there any point in getting the Mac version?
>
> Dunno. My question was somewhat of a joke (note smiley). If "built for
> Windows" how would it run on a Mac at all?
>
If the main effort was to make Waterfox efficient for Windows, would the
Mac version (there is one, right?) be better than Firefox for Mac?

Chris Ilias

unread,
Feb 2, 2012, 6:20:50 PM2/2/12
to
On 12-02-02 5:51 PM, _EE_ spoke thusly:
> If the main effort was to make Waterfox efficient for Windows, would the
> Mac version (there is one, right?) be better than Firefox for Mac?

There is no version of Waterfox for Mac. It's Windows-only. See
<http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/>

EE

unread,
Feb 3, 2012, 2:39:12 PM2/3/12
to
On 2012-02-02 16:20, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 12-02-02 5:51 PM, _EE_ spoke thusly:
>> If the main effort was to make Waterfox efficient for Windows, would the
>> Mac version (there is one, right?) be better than Firefox for Mac?
>
> There is no version of Waterfox for Mac. It's Windows-only. See
> <http://waterfoxproject.org/downloads/>
>
OK. Thanks for the info.

prowas...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 5:29:25 PM3/26/12
to
On Wednesday, January 25, 2012 3:33:33 PM UTC-6, Dan wrote:
> I've been reading the Waterfox http://waterfoxproject.org/ is a bit
> faster in a 64 bit environment. Anyone use this? I'd like to give it a
> try, while retaining my existing FF 7.0.1. Anyone done this?
>
> Dan

Can I get google phone to work in waterfox?

Chris Ilias

unread,
Mar 26, 2012, 6:12:24 PM3/26/12
to
On 12-03-26 5:29 PM, prowas...@gmail.com wrote:

> Can I get google phone to work in waterfox?

If you have questions about Waterfox, it's best to ask them. There is a
support link on their website, that points to
<http://www.overclock.net/showthread.php?t=975626>.

quebeccl...@gmail.com

unread,
Mar 28, 2013, 2:00:50 AM3/28/13
to
0 new messages