Slug_Coordinator reviewed vG5.1.6 on May 12, 2023

Pros: Not much change

Cons: You need a SSE4.2 Compliant Processor and Windows 10 to install it this is not as stated for all Windows Versions.

Bottom Line: Miss leading on the All Versions of Windows Compatible. it's not.

Someone reviewed v on Mar 19, 2023

Pros:

Cons:

Bottom Line:

Slug_Coordinator reviewed vG5.0 Beta 4 on Sep 23, 2022

Pros: See comments ...

Cons: Waterfox requires a SSE4.2 compatible CPU

Bottom Line: Since G4 if your pc does not ahve Waterfox requires a SSE4.2 compatible CPU it will not work so it is not all versions of windows compatible....

Someone reviewed v on Jul 5, 2022

Pros: 555

Cons: 555

Bottom Line: 555

Slug_Coordinator reviewed vG4.0.7 on Feb 11, 2022

Pros: None, to be found

Cons: It still will not load on Windows 7 Machines and if you have a older version of waterfox Installed like G3.2.6 (64-bit) it will mess it up. I use to love Waterfox buts the G4 has been nothing but a Nightmare to try to install it alone.

Bottom Line: If you have G3.2.6 (64-bit) dont bother upgrading till they fix G4.

Slug_Coordinator reviewed vG4.0.3.1 on Nov 30, 2021

Pros: None has tons of issues.

Cons: When Upgrading from G.3.2.6. it crashes during installation, once it does install
DRM's no longer work on TUBI, NETFLIX, SPECTRUMTV Online, Pluto. If you try to roll back the DRM is still no longer allowing Videos to play.

Netflix says OUTDATED Browser

The Feedback linnks and other lings in the Help About no longer work as well.
it's getting rushed too fast.

Bottom Line: The Automatic Update to this needs to not be activated during Installation, so you can keep current versions until the new builds are solid.

Someone reviewed vG3.2.0 on Sep 15, 2021

Pros: The Waterfox app could have been better than before and could have been too good but some missing points here in this app.

https://chennaiescortgirls.tumblr.com/
https://groups.google.co...-Services/c/TB8qMSOsgiQ

Cons: Don't worry keep it up.

Bottom Line: The Waterfox app could have been better than before and could have been too good but some missing points here in this app.

joaodav reviewed vG3.1.0 on Feb 22, 2021

Pros: - as good as firefox, with better performance.

Cons: - still some performance issues in my own setup (it may have to do with the gecko engine, not waterfox's fault).

Bottom Line: In my own experience and needs of productivity, Firefox's costumization options and overall layout far exceeds its lack of performance in comparison to other browsers. I've been using mozilla/firefox since its inception. Anyway, i've been having problems with very slow or irresponsive firefox. So i started to test every other browser i could get my hands on for a week or so ago and it just confirmed that i can't work properly with a browser that, for instance, doesn't let me, fully, natively, and in a simple way, costumize the toolbars. It really baffles my mind how does chromium and other engines want to be taken serious with only 4 basic buttons on it's toolbar - it's an insult to any user. Waterfox did solve (not totally but pretty close) the performance issues that i've been having with firefox and it's as costumizable as the later. So, five stars of course.

LakotaElf reviewed vG3.0.1 on Dec 4, 2020

Pros: Fast and not loaded down with crap that you rarely use. Will allow installation of legacy addons and it works very well, I feel is just as good a Waterfox which is a very good browser. I would change to that but I hate all this change to this and that all the time. Palemoon is all I need, but waterfox is very good.

Cons: None that I can think of.

Bottom Line: Use PaleMoon or Waterfox, both good browsers. Firefox is going the way netscape did and AOL ruined it as they do most things. I wish they would bringback Netscape, that was a excellent browser. I think Firefox at one time was very good, but not any more...

psycros reviewed v2020.01 on Jan 26, 2020

Pros: All the benefits of the transitional v55 Firefox and security patches of the newer versions without all the other BS.

Cons: This could well be due to addons I'm running but occasionally WF gets a bit laggy, particularity when using Facebook services. A quick restart always seems to fix it.

Bottom Line: Show Mozilla exactly how you feel about the way they've been running things over the past few years. Use Waterfox Classic!

Sven123456789 reviewed v2020.01 on Jan 23, 2020

Pros: The best

Cons: nothing

Bottom Line: Talk about fake news. 3.2 review wise. U kidding me? Edge and chrome are far worse than this. Waterfox allows me to access all those old add on's with no problems. Runs smooth as can be. Ignore the trolls and give this old school style browser a chance.

Slug_Coordinator reviewed v56.2.14 on Sep 5, 2019

Pros: If you used a lot of the previous Add-On's that Firefox dumped Waterfox allows you to use them once again. Waterfox is a hybrid of some features of Old and New Firefox with much better consistency.

You can do more customization to it and keep the layout with Classic Theme as you wish. Everything works without the AU TO Upgrades that Firefox went out of their way to hide and remove.

Waterfox is what use to make Firefox great,

Also they dont just render your Add-ons useless or remove them like Firefox did.

Cons: I've not found any con's with Waterfox. Infact I find things work better, Video, Watching Movies, My Cable TV online etc., it hasn't given any issues on my 7 Home PC's including 2 Mac's.

Bottom Line: Unless Firefox goes back to allowing me to continue to use the Legacy Add-Ons i use for work and home I am sticking with Waterfox. This way I can enjoy both New and Old with one Browser and I dont have stuff just removed with no warning or automatically.

Aegis69 reviewed v56.2.0 on May 16, 2018

Pros:

Cons:

Bottom Line: Ive found replacements now for all the extensions I lost on the FF changeover, and I have to say FF is a lot faster than it was before. Im back on FF now, Waterfox was a good stopgap solution for a while tho.

Sven123456789 reviewed v56.0.3 on Jan 17, 2018

Pros: good

Cons: really none

Bottom Line: With firefox jumping the shark with version 57, waterfox has nicely replaced it.

Aegis69 reviewed v55.2.0 on Oct 6, 2017

Pros: fast

Cons: Wont be updated after 56 likely

Bottom Line: Waterfox is all I wanted, I just wanted firefox to be fast and this is it. The future is unclear for this browser after FF57 comes out, but Ill stay on it as long as I can.

Sven123456789 reviewed v55.0.2 on Aug 22, 2017

Pros: Lots of Firefox themes and add on's work with this. No problems with any sites r plug ins.

Cons: Very closely related to firefox. That if you want to use this, it might affect Firefox also as an fyi. Didn't affect any other browser.

Bottom Line: To be fair, its not too bad. Like Kstev mentioned, with Mozilla going in an entire different direction soon affecting allot of add on's themes who knows what this will do to all the browser clones based on this. I know about cyberfox giving up and allot of rumblings in the Seamonkey world about these changes. Pale moon branched away from this but unfortunately I've had a few sites not work with it. Waterfox is good. Better than Chrome. And a heck of allot better that either IE or Edge.

kstev99 reviewed v53.0.1 on May 11, 2017

I've been using this since Firefox announced that only web extension addons will work in the very near future. That means that the one thing that made Firefox stand out, CUSTOMIZATION, will soon be a thing of the past as about 80% of your addons will not work with the new Firefox (AKA Clone of Google Chrome.)

Waterfox imported all of my bookmarks, addons etc and is working flawlessly. Cyberfox you say? Cyberfox developers have announced they are going to throw in the towel when Firefox drops support fpr XUL / X{COM. Thanks to the Waterfox developer. I'm sure it will be picking up a LOT of users in the near future.

Sven123456789 reviewed v51.0 on Jan 27, 2017

Since Firefox has a 64 bit version, that makes this pretty much useless And I agree. since trying Cyberfox, I havent look back.

CyberDoc999 reviewed v50.1.0 on Dec 24, 2016

cyberfox is way better

Lsavagejt reviewed v48.0.2 on Sep 9, 2016

It is easier to remove the bloatware from Waterfox that comes bundled with Firefox, however the last version of Waterfox had a major memory leak. Perhaps this version is better. Also, there should be a way to migrate bookmarks between browsers.

comnut reviewed v48.0.1 on Aug 18, 2016

If you hate australis, PALE MOON does a good 64 bit browser.. and a well ordered forum, too...

Its UP TO YOU what you choose.. cyberfox, ultrafox, etc, etc...

-Lord- reviewed v47.0.1 on Jul 6, 2016

Why bother with this when you can download a 64bit version of firefox right from Mozilla's site? go to their site, scroll down to bottom, choose the otehr versions link and find the one you need. available for windows, mac, linux and for all in 32 or 64 bit.

guru_v reviewed v44.0.2 on Feb 16, 2016

This is one revision that should get a pass, because it contains the same bug that was in 44.0.1, which is the inability of the user to comment on certain sites, due to some problem that goes away when the browser is put into safe mode.

Better to stay with 43.0.4 until the author gets it fixed. [I believe it has something to do with the implementation of the java, but have not been willing to pursue the problem myself.] The same thing occurred in the 43+ version, but the author caught it quickly. It does not seem to be a lesson learned.

guru_v reviewed v43.0 on Jan 7, 2016

Waterfox is the performance version of Firefox, for those who have been tired of waiting for a 64 bit version. Sure, now there is one [for at least a couple of weeks], but Waterfox is optimized for those with the higher end hardware, and those that flinch when they hear about some of the stupidity coming from Mozilla, such as signed extensions, and forced media encryption. Waterfox loses the bad ideas, and since it is compiled to be faster, and the author seems to know what he is doing, it is. The author says about 20% on some hardware, I say "enough to tell it's faster as long as you're awake!"

Not always the fastest on the draw with updates, the upside is the mistakes are limited, and the author is easy to contact, and amenable to suggestions from the users.

CyberDoc999 reviewed v40.0.2 on Aug 26, 2015

Cyberfox 64 even has 2 versions one for AMD and one for Intel

Sven123456789 reviewed v32.0.3 on Oct 8, 2014

Same crappy U.I. as the new Firefox.

CyberDoc999 reviewed v32.0 on Sep 5, 2014

Waterfox is slow... please try CyberFox

CyberDoc999 reviewed v30.0 on Jul 7, 2014

try it now it is all fixed and very fast!!!!

fredreed reviewed v24.0 on Oct 8, 2013

I tried waterfox and it was very slow to having issues with connecting to yahoo and other various websites. It's a very unstable web browser. Stay away from it and avoid it at all costs.

cltx99 reviewed v18.0.1 on 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.

lescaut reviewed v16.0.1 on 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.

Slug_Coordinator reviewed v15.0 on 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.

Sven123456789 reviewed v14.0.2 on 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.

cltx99 reviewed v14.0.1 on 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.

PaulWilliams reviewed v14.0.1 on 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.

xsnred reviewed v14.0.1 on 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.

HydrantHunter reviewed v14.0.1 on 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.

asaenz reviewed v14.0.1 on 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.

JethroB reviewed v14.0.1 on Jul 27, 2012

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

Sven123456789 reviewed v13.0 Patch Level 1 on 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.

xsnred reviewed v13.0 Patch Level 1 on 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.

kstev99 reviewed v11.0 on 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

cltx99 reviewed v11.0 on Mar 14, 2012

Simply excellent and getting better.

trgilpin reviewed v11.0 on Mar 13, 2012

Pale Moon FTW

gatorfan95 reviewed v10.0.2 on 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.

DrTeeth reviewed v10.0.1 on 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.

Lsavagejt reviewed v10.0.1 on 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.

asaenz reviewed v10.0 on 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.

F1Racer reviewed v10.0 on 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.

stevvie reviewed v10.0 on Feb 7, 2012

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

cltx99 reviewed v10.0 on 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!

Jim reviewed v9.0 on 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).

asaenz reviewed v8.0 on 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.

coover reviewed v8.0 on 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.

asaenz reviewed v7.0 on 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.

abelchavez reviewed v7.0 on Sep 30, 2011

Wow, finally waterfox plays Cityville....

Good job, & it runs quick.....

I'm impressed.....:)

ischaver reviewed v7.0 on Sep 30, 2011

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

coover reviewed v7.0 on 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.

djb247365 reviewed v7.0 on 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