Firefox browser alternatives

Try pale moon.
http://www.palemoon.org/

 

Why?

I will look for alternatives when Firefox no longer fits my needs. Right now I don't want to spend the effort migrating to and customizing another browser.

 

It uses the same profile as FF; just drag the contents over to the new directory. But be warned, because of the PaleMoon version number, a lot of the Firefox plugins don't work.

 

well im sorry to disagree But pale moon exists for a reason.
Pale moon gets rid of all the un-needed nonsense which has come firefox,s way.(hello,pocket amongst others.).Then there was the australis inclusion which users got whether they wanted it or not....

Pale moon does not contain any telemetry or adverts.All un-necessary code has been removed in pale moon.
Firefox has become too bloated and there does not seem any signs of recovery.

As firefox gets worse more users will leave it and go for pale moon.

 

Pale Moon is great "install and forget" Mozilla-mimic browser.

For those wanting to abandon Firefox but remain on a compatible Mozilla development and release path, Cyberfox is an outstanding alternative, currently at version 45.0.

https://cyberfox.8pecxstudios.com

There are separate versions compiled for 32 or 64 bit Windows for Intel and AMD processors, installed and portable. Their stand-alone Profile Buddy will migrate a current Firefox setup to a new Cyberfox install for users who can't or won't work with profiles manually.

I have 22 extensions added and over the past years have not had any issues with addons.mozilla.org extensions, themes, collections, etc. Well, other than issues those things have with Mozilla.

Cyberfox doesn't get in the way of about:config and fully reports about:about pages data and functions. Also included is an embedded utility loaded with toys...

 

Pale moon is not simply a clone or mimic.It has its own code integrated into the browser plus it does not need to follow the firefox release schedule because it does not contain all the firefox bloat.
It always has pertinent security updates and runs a lot better than firefox.

 

If someone has a major problem with Firefox in their computer, and this person likes the Gecko engine, in my opinion, that makes it a good reason to switch to something like Pale moon. Otherwise, No. Here is the perfect reason why not.

Of all the Gecko engine browsers, Firefox is the browser that is officially supported by most programs that interact with browsers. You don't believe me, take a look.
https://support.norton.com/sp/en/us/home/current/solutions/kb20090430145000EN_EndUserProfile_en_us
http://support.kaspersky.com/9818

I looked for two specific examples and thats what I am posting, but there are more if you want them. Same with programs like Sandboxie and many others. That doesn't mean that most programs are not gonna work with Pale moon, but Firefox is the Gecko browser that most of this companies work on supporting. Sorry, but this is the truth.

And anyway, Firefox works great.

Bo

 

I never mentioned the word clone, which Pale Moon is not. That is a correct assessment.

I did specifically target "those wanting to abandon Firefox but remain on a compatible Mozilla development and release path" without intent to challenge your post (which I didn't quote) or Pale Moon. However, I'm glad my post motivated you to expound further on its first-rate aspects.

Way back it started out as a Mozilla clone and has since embarked on Straver's Goanna based development path. However, even the Web site itself states, "like Mozilla Firefox in the way it works."

As IMHO Pale Moon has long surpassed the Mozilla-fork moniker, if you can come up with a better word than mimic (skilled imitator), let's hear it. I'm open.

And yeah... Anything runs better that Firefox.

For the record, I had once long used Pale Moon from practically day one and donated to the end that Moonchild snail-mailed me a thank you postcard.

 

Bo,

FYI, that KB is about Norton Family and not the Norton Security line of programs, but your point is valid. Only Firefox is supported, not even Cyberfox which I'm using now is supported by Norton.

 

YAWN. This is Wilders and some of us want, and enjoy, to not care about that. Cyberfox is perfectly capable of being configured (I like to refer to that at as "bent to my will") to interact with everything I want it to. Firefox is for everyone else and is perfectly acceptable in that respect.

 

I know it is, and it also applies to Chrome and Internet explorer.

Bo

 

Haakon, some of us like Firefox. By the way, the name of this thread is New Firefox Browser version Released, not, Lets swich from Firefox to Pale moon or whatever other browser.

Face it. Firefox works great for most of us and despite all the recent changes, its still a better option than PM or the one you like.

Bo

 

BDIS-2016; Cyberfox Intel X64 Portable; Windows 7

These are not Web Protection (URL filter) detections but actual malicious payload interdictions. Legitimate Web sites - not pr0n or warez. Honest. OK... one of 'em was a celebrity cheesecake wallpaper site.



[/off topic]

 

Except FF is only partially supported due to changes in Mozilla's extensions and both 32-bit and 64-bit browsers are now supported, except as mentioned FF.

 

The GUI of that in-built utility looks very very similar to the GUI of the Classic Theme Restorer add-on.

 

Yes this thread is indeed about the new firefox releases,However i think a parallel needs to be formed in relation to firefox forks etc.
First off we need to question exactly why these forks exist in the first place.The obvious answer would seem to be that there is something in firefox that users simply do not want in their browser.

Of course dissatisfaction with firefox will inevitably create off shoots like pale moon for example which attempts to cater for people who wish to retain the look of firefox prior to australis being implemented.
There may be other reasons why cyberfox and waterfox were created but the fundamental issue seems to be that the course and road map of firefox is simply not to everyones liking.

 

+1.

It's very tiresome to see proponents of forks persistently evangelise in a thread with a specific title. I fail to see why they can't just start a new, appropriately-titled thread.

 

One reason for Cyberfox and Waterfox is they were available in 64 bit versions when Firefox was not, but FF64 is in the release channel now.

 

And its very tiresome when proponents of firefox fail to see why these forks exist in the first place.

 

I think you would find that there are people willing to have the discussion if a thread was created specifically for it. Part of the resistance here is because it's "off topic".

 

Good job

 

Easy peasy; K-Meleon.

http://kmeleonbrowser.org/

 

Used to use Palemoon in the past but now back to Firefox. In Palemoon I can't play the videos in HTML5 format (NOT IN FLASH) without the sound being all garbled up, sounding like a monster from a horror flick, at this website http://espn.go.com/nfl/ which I use very often; if this can be corrected, then I might consider going back to Palemoon. Meanwhile I'll stick with Firefox as those videos at that site play quite well with sound not being garbled. N.B. I posted this problem at the Palemoon forum previously and it was blamed on the site itself. But how come there isn't a problem in Firefox? Rest my case. A request to those that use use google chrome, opera cyberfox etc.., would appreciate if you would go to the ESPN website above and see if there are any sound problems in HTML5 with your particular browser. Thanks.