Pale Moon vs FX

[Virgorising]

Hi,


Cause I read about Pale Moon in the "I am soooo annoyed re FX beta builds" thread, I just got it. Am in it right now.

Was going to get 64-bit, but did not like the warnings indicating it is kinda BETA & may be buggy, so got the 32. I used the tool to migrate all my FX settings and add ons and it worked instantly.

Can anyone pls say if they are running the 64 version and if they are having any issues?

And, can anyone running it pls say if they like it, and have made it their default browser and why?

Thanks!

 

[ChronoReverse]

I use the 64bit version by default because the only plugin I allow is Flash anyway (and even then, it's gated for specific sites). Been perfectly stable so far (and I hear it can eat a thousand tabs like no other browser can).

 

[balloonshark]

I like my tabs below the navigation toolbar. It also gives you the option to put them on top like the newer versions of FireFox. I also like the status bar.

I've considered using the 64bit version but the warnings also kept me away. That and I have a rare BSOD when running FF or PM sandboxed in my limited user account. I may give it a go anyways.

 

[code65536]

I've never used Pale Moon, but I've been using 64-bit builds of Firefox Nightly for years now. (I'm the world's worst tab hoarder, and 64-bit Firefox is the only browser that remains usable when I have a couple thousand tabs open.)

I don't actually update every night--more like whenever I feel like it, which comes out to be about once a month or so. And it's very stable. I think there was only once where the browser was unusable, and I had to replace it with a build from a few days earlier.

I used to contribute code to Firefox, so I can tell you that Mozilla substantially changed their development process when they went rapid-release after v4. In the old days, new features and other substantial changes would land directly on the trunk, which meant that that the nightlies were in pretty bad shape for much of the development cycle. Now, those large changes land on test branches and only land on the trunk after they've been vetted. The goal now is to maintain the trunk at a "shippable" state at all times, and anything that breaks trunk is immediately backed out, fixed outside of trunk, and relanded (instead of leaving it on the trunk and fixing it on the trunk). Prior to v4, I used the nightly branch only for testing, but now I use Nightly as my main browser on every one of my computers, and it works great.

Now, as I said, I've never used Pale Moon, but I personally wouldn't worry about that beta label.

 

[Virgorising]

I use the 64bit version by default because the only plugin I allow is Flash anyway (and even then, it's gated for specific sites). Been perfectly stable so far (and I hear it can eat a thousand tabs like no other browser can).

Thanks for sharing! I use more than one add-on, but just maybe, I will uninstall 32 and try 64. Being a compulsive computer cleaning person, I clear history a lot, so having 1K tabs open, not an issue for me, but still good to know, cause it must reflect something good.

Having used this thing for total of 15 mins so far, not clear yet how it differs from my FX, but still happy I learned about it here, cause I'd never heard of it, so far just got the 32 and will get a better sense of it.

Just the immediacy/under one nano of the migration of everything from FX impressed me.

 

[Virgorising]

I've never used Pale Moon, but I've been using 64-bit builds of Firefox Nightly for years now. (I'm the world's worst tab hoarder, and 64-bit Firefox is the only browser that remains usable when I have a couple thousand tabs open.)

I don't actually update every night--more like whenever I feel like it, which comes out to be about once a month or so. And it's very stable. I think there was only once where the browser was unusable, and I had to replace it with a build from a few days earlier.

I used to contribute code to Firefox, so I can tell you that Mozilla substantially changed their development process when they went rapid-release after v4. In the old days, new features and other substantial changes would land directly on the trunk, which meant that that the nightlies were in pretty bad shape for much of the development cycle. Now, those large changes land on test branches and only land on the trunk after they've been vetted. The goal now is to maintain the trunk at a "shippable" state at all times, and anything that breaks trunk is immediately backed out, fixed outside of trunk, and relanded (instead of leaving it on the trunk and fixing it on the trunk). Prior to v4, I used the nightly branch only for testing, but now I use Nightly as my main browser on every one of my computers, and it works great.

Now, as I said, I've never used Pale Moon, but I personally wouldn't worry about that beta label.

Fascinating info, and I don even know what a TRUNK is, but I get they are now being careful and deliberate in evolving the app until a given improvement will not impact us negatively, and that does not surprise me.

U R the second person to say, pay no mind to their warnings re 64 bit and maybe go back and give it a try!

But I also want my carefully chosen add-ons to be compatible.

Thanks!

 

[Virgorising]

I like my tabs below the navigation toolbar. It also gives you the option to put them on top like the newer versions of FireFox. I also like the status bar.

I've considered using the 64bit version but the warnings also kept me away. That and I have a rare BSOD when running FF or PM sandboxed in my limited user account. I may give it a go anyways.

Only cause of yr post, did I just notice my tabs in Pale Moon, ARE, in fact, below the navigation bar; I like it there as well, and did not know recent builds of FX let you put it there!

And, obviously, I share yr caution, tho people here are sayin 64 is stable. I even resented moving the bullet to the 32 bit circle, but I did it anyhow; most of my apps are still 32-bit, I see via Revo Uninstaller, despite it makes me sad.

Boy U learn amazing stuff in this community!!!!:biggrin:

 

[Virgorising]

OMG!!!!!!

http://www.palemoon.org/testimonials.shtml

K.....I am almost ready to uninstall 32 and try the 64. I like uninstalling the existing version before doing a change of this sort. I LUV I LEARNED about this thing here!!!!!!!!! Pretty sure I never would have known otherwise.
______________________________________________
Update:

K....I am now in Pale Moon 64 bit. Happy to see my Lavafox red still there; I chose to keep my personal setting s when I uninstalled 32. But....Norton protection not there and sadly, it seems my Internet Download Mgr app not compatible.

It seems two of my important add ons work with this. I will test this for a bit, and see if I should keep it or go back to 32.

They did say very few add ons available still for the 64. But, if I think it's faster than the 32, I will keep it!
After all, I am running W7 64, and now, with 8 GBs of RAM, for reasons.
____________________________________________________________
Happier Update!

Wait! I was wrong! Looked in IDM, and among integrated browsers, there was Pale Moon with a check in the box. So, opened it again, and now see it IS, IN FACT COMPATIBLE and working!!!!

Yay!!! I am kinda thrilled re all this, esp now, that the 64 bit version appears to have no downsides!!!!!

Thanks so much for all the feedback/INFO!!!!:biggrin:
________________________________________________
Shallow addendum: Only thing I don like is the icon.:|
_________________________________________
Another edit: http://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=3100

OMG, there are other, nit-picking icon obsessed humans out there! I use icon maker to make my own re my desktops cause I need icons I like. Wonder if they all have Virgo rising?

Mind you, never saw the old icon.....it's the one I just got I am not liking. Unlike the FX ones, it has no passion. Who cares if it actually depicts a blue moon?()

 

[JEDIYoda]

Been using Pale Moon since I heard about it on these forums!! I like it!!

 

[Virgorising]

Been using Pale Moon since I heard about it on these forums!! I like it!!

I GET IT NOW!!!!!!!!:biggrin:

 

[Berryracer]

Ever since I've used Pale Moon, I fell in love with it! Gives you the speed of Chrome, but with the lovely interface and add-ons of Firefox minus the quircks

 

[Virgorising]

Ever since I've used Pale Moon, I fell in love with it! Gives you the speed of Chrome, but with the lovely interface and add-ons of Firefox minus the quircks

IS TRUE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:biggrin:

And, without the U must be kidding privacy invasion for commerce of Chrome, forget the mind numbing glut.

I am LUVIN THIS NOW! And, the 64 bit version!
_______________________________________________
Edit:

Just went to C what my options might be to change the icon. What is this? What is the mask thingy? It's the one I have, I guess, private browsing? Wish they had more options, tho I am not enraged re the icon to the extent I just learned some people are! I jus don like it, is all.

 

[Virgorising]

Wow!

http://www.palemoon.org/faq.shtml

They truly are far less connected than I thought! FX and Pale Moon!!! In fact, they are kinda ENEMIES ALMOST.

Will Firefox and Pale Moon work together in the future?

Since Mozilla has obviously chosen to follow a different path at the management level, it doesn't seem likely that Pale Moon and Firefox will ever see a unification or joining of forces. ​

Mike Beltzner

(Product Director for Mozilla Firefox) did get in touch, but the contact was rather brief, limited to him asking about the baseline optimization of Pale Moon and asking to discuss the main differences, but it was made clear that Firefox was not going to cut away the essential things needed for the kind of optimization done in Pale Moon. With the way the query was put and the lack of further responses after explaining the basic optimization being done in the build process and not by changing code, it feels rather like Mozilla was looking for a quick fix/source code snippets to address some issues Firefox seems to have, rather than a sincere offer for cooperation. I'm therefore also less inclined to take future approaches seriously.​

 

[Berryracer]

Wow!

http://www.palemoon.org/faq.shtml

They truly are far less connected than I thought! FX and Pale Moon!!! In fact, they are kinda ENEMIES ALMOST.

Will Firefox and Pale Moon work together in the future?

Since Mozilla has obviously chosen to follow a different path at the management level, it doesn't seem likely that Pale Moon and Firefox will ever see a unification or joining of forces. ​

Mike Beltzner

(Product Director for Mozilla Firefox) did get in touch, but the contact was rather brief, limited to him asking about the baseline optimization of Pale Moon and asking to discuss the main differences, but it was made clear that Firefox was not going to cut away the essential things needed for the kind of optimization done in Pale Moon. With the way the query was put and the lack of further responses after explaining the basic optimization being done in the build process and not by changing code, it feels rather like Mozilla was looking for a quick fix/source code snippets to address some issues Firefox seems to have, rather than a sincere offer for cooperation. I'm therefore also less inclined to take future approaches seriously.​

Thank god they wont join forces. Mozilla is diving into a deep pit and Pale Moon is excelling IMHO

 

[Virgorising]

Thank god they wont join forces. Mozilla is diving into a deep pit and Pale Moon is excelling IMHO

I am now, slowly startin to get that. But how sad is it? Way sad.:|

Also, that my red Lavafox, which I MUST HAVE, migrated immediately, fed my idealism and need to believe people work together in these things.
_____________________________________
Addendum:
http://srcweb.net/browser/pale-moon-20-2

I mean, it is FX based, after all.

 

[Berryracer]

I am now, slowly startin to get that. But how sad is it? Way sad.:|

Also, that my red Lavafox, which I MUST HAVE, migrated immediately, fed my idealism and need to believe people work together in these things.
_____________________________________
Addendum:
http://srcweb.net/browser/pale-moon-20-2

I mean, it is, FX based, after all.

I hear you man, that's indeed a very good theme

 

[Virgorising]

I hear you man, that's indeed a very good theme

:thumbsup::wub:

 

[Virgorising]

U think I should uninstall FX? Just the prospect scares me, cause who could have thought I would even be considering that?

On the other hand, why do I need it now???

 

[code65536]

So... basically, Pale Moon is Firefox built with different compiler settings to make use of new CPU instructions, with some minor changes on the UI side. Most of the visible changes are just different configuration defaults.

The FAQ is thus very misleading. It's very vague about what changes they made (because they basically didn't change anyway except tweak settings and disable some features that they didn't think people cared about). Like disabling accessibility. It's true that 99.9% of people don't use it and the only reason it's included is so that governments who must obey disability access rules can install Firefox. But it's also true that disabling it doesn't actually affect performance or significantly reduce Firefox's footprint. If there's any change in performance, it mostly comes from the different compiler settings and a placebo effect.

Some of the other things that they say is off-base, too. Mozilla has tons of automated tests in place that puts each hourly build through its paces on all platforms (Windows, Mac, etc.), and among those tests are performance tests. If a new feature causes a slowdown, there is a review to see if that feature is worth the performance cost. These Pale Moon hacks make it sound like Mozilla doesn't care about performance--they do.

Nor is Mozilla a tyrant obsessed with pixels. In fact, Beltzner (who left Mozilla a while back) approved a minor change that I made that ended up adding some pixels (some people were for it, some were against it). It's not a dictatorship--not a democracy either, but people who contribute do have a voice. It sounds like these Pale Moon people weren't happy that some decisions didn't go their way (nobody is ever going to be happy with every decision--there are some that I disagree with, and some that I agree with) and decided to make their own variant, which is fine (this is open-source, after all), but I don't like how they misrepresent things. Especially when what they're offering is just a recompiled Firefox with configuration changes.

 

[Virgorising]

So... basically, Pale Moon is Firefox built with different compiler settings to make use of new CPU instructions, with some minor changes on the UI side. Most of the visible changes are just different configuration defaults.

The FAQ is thus very misleading. It's very vague about what changes they made (because they basically didn't change anyway except tweak settings and disable some features that they didn't think people cared about). Like disabling accessibility. It's true that 99.9% of people don't use it and the only reason it's included is so that governments who must obey disability access rules can install Firefox. But it's also true that disabling it doesn't actually affect performance or significantly reduce Firefox's footprint. If there's any change in performance, it mostly comes from the different compiler settings and a placebo effect.

Some of the other things that they say is off-base, too. Mozilla has tons of automated tests in place that puts each hourly build through its paces on all platforms (Windows, Mac, etc.), and among those tests are performance tests. If a new feature causes a slowdown, there is a review to see if that feature is worth the performance cost. These Pale Moon hacks make it sound like Mozilla doesn't care about performance--they do.

Nor is Mozilla a tyrant obsessed with pixels. In fact, Beltzner (who left Mozilla a while back) approved a minor change that I made that ended up adding some pixels (some people were for it, some were against it). It's not a dictatorship--not a democracy either, but people who contribute do have a voice. It sounds like these Pale Moon people weren't happy that some decisions didn't go their way (nobody is ever going to be happy with every decision--there are some that I disagree with, and some that I agree with) and decided to make their own variant, which is fine (this is open-source, after all), but I don't like how they misrepresent things. Especially when what they're offering is just a recompiled Firefox with configuration changes.

Wow. Valuable and interesting assessment! And, given what I've read, I think in ways accurate. But, perhaps you are not factoring in the direction FX seems to be going in....maybe over written and with increasing glut and so, impediments?

If PM works as well as it appears to, via some sharp edits and greater responsiveness to current CPUs, and the architects honor that mindset ongoing, isn't that a good thing?

 

[JEDIYoda]

sounds to me like code65536 is a fanboy and it would not matter whaT OS you used even if you used the Sierra Nevada OS.....

 

[Berryracer]

sounds to me like code65536 is a fanboy and it would not matter whaT OS you used even if you used the Sierra Nevada OS.....

d!tto man :whiste:

And about his comment, Pale Moon's speed is far more superior to Firefox, with Pale Moon, pages start loading instantly as if it were Chrome, but with Firefox there is a slight lag before the page starts to load

 

[R0H1T]

d!tto man :whiste:

And about his comment, Pale Moon's speed is far more superior to Firefox, with Pale Moon, pages start loading instantly as if it were Chrome, but with Firefox there is a slight lag before the page starts to load

This has got nothing to with it being palemoon, its more likely due to a new installation which doesn't bloat the user profile &/or turning off the HDD cache completely which I believe is a default setting for palemoon. I've used x64 builds for FF since they were first released a few years & the difference between any custom firefox build & the latest nightly(or aurora) is negligibly minor not to mention the thing that'll help a lot more is something like this ~ SpeedyFox 2

 

[lxskllr]

So... basically, Pale Moon is Firefox built with different compiler settings to make use of new CPU instructions, with some minor changes on the UI side. Most of the visible changes are just different configuration defaults.

One thing you aren't taking into account is the ux changes Firefox is making, and Palemoon isn't. There's many people that don't like the changes, and there needs to be a browser for people who can read, and understand how a menu works. I'm hoping someone makes a fork for GNU/Linux, but if not, I'll likely be switching to Seamonkey.

 

[flexy]

when I have a couple thousand tabs open.

when I have a couple thousand tabs open.

when I have a couple thousand tabs open.



Are you serious?