>>52266467
It already beats chrome in terms of speed, assuming that's some firefox fork. Maybe you should start looking at benchmarks instead of looking at new tab animations like a fucking mongoloid.

>>52266485
chrome is faster than waterfox in every way. use chrome for a day then go back to waterfox .

>>52266467
You should get the Speed Tweaks addon, but waterfox was already faster than Chrome for me.

I stopped using Waterfox though because it causes a video memory leak if I play a video game while having a video or some music streaming.
it's fucking weird I was so scared my RAM or something was fucked.
Waterfox is made by some kid btw.

>>52266467
Uninstall Waterfox and install 64-bit Firefox with e10s (aka multi-process mode). Waterfox is merely an unofficial 64-bit build of Firefox, and now that an official bild is out, it's just obsolete. I'm using latest Dev Edition, most extensions are still working perfectly.
Migrated from Waterfox, which did lag a lot.

>>52266505
There's no discernible difference unless, again, you're looking at those tab animations like a retard. Whatever difference is in milliseconds, is not something you can see for yourself and you need benchmarks to measure it. Enjoy your botnet.

>>52266485
There's a difference between website rendering speed and general speed (i.e. sartup time, responsiveness etc.), which is where all firefox forks suck badly. On all of my 3 systems chrome launches immediately, whereas firefox takes a while.

>>52266588
>(i.e. sartup time,
Google adds a service to windows (or whateve OS) startup to make it seems like it's loading faster, when it's actually making your computer start up slower, consuming resources and feeding usage data to google. It doesn't go away when you uninstall chrome.
> responsiveness etc.
Again, placebo effect from having those shitty tab animations and not something useful or relevant at all. If anything, it makes tabs open a split second slower.

>>52266588
There is no noticeable speed difference on equal terms, and by equal terms I mean same extensions and same OS. The problem is that Firefox has good extensions whereas Chrome doesn't, and that causes your speed difference. To be fair, pre-e10s Firefox is rather slow indeed.

And yeah, preloading Chrome into RAM is cheating. If Firefox added itself to autoruns there'd be no difference either.

Install Firefox instead since it has 64-bit builds now and isn't three versions behind like Waterfox is.

>>52266467
Try SeaMonkey, it's the only browser that comes close to Chrome, much faster than WaterFox too.

is there any way to middle click anywhere in the tab bar and open up a new tab. it is literally the only reason I use firefox.

Chromium's debugger is better too

>le chrome speed meme
Come back to me when you can actually start customizing it and not just dealing with the UI shitfest that Jewgle leaves you in

>>52266650
Meme

>>52266467
In all seriousness, the current 43.0 Test variant of Waterfox is (currently) much more responsive than the 40.1 Release if that's what you're using.