Firefox browser alternatives

Discussion in 'other software & services' started by The Red Moon, Mar 11, 2016.

  1. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
  2. Adric

    Adric Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2006
    Posts:
    795
    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.
     
    Last edited: Mar 12, 2016
  3. n8chavez

    n8chavez Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2003
    Posts:
    2,305
    Location:
    Location Unknown
    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.
     
  4. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    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.
     
  5. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    770
    Location:
    SW USA
    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...

    CustomizeCFox.jpg
     
  6. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    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.
     
  7. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    3,770
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    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:cool: works great.

    Bo
     
  8. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    770
    Location:
    SW USA
    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. :D

    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.
     
  9. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    2,911
    Location:
    Australia
  10. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    770
    Location:
    SW USA
    YAWN. This is Wilders and some of us want, and enjoy, to not care about that. :p 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.
     
  11. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    3,770
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    I know it is, and it also applies to Chrome and Internet explorer.

    Bo
     
  12. bo elam

    bo elam Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2010
    Posts:
    3,770
    Location:
    Nicaragua
    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
     
  13. haakon

    haakon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2015
    Posts:
    770
    Location:
    SW USA
    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.

    BDISsnag.jpg

    [/off topic]
     
  14. Krusty

    Krusty Registered Member

    Joined:
    Feb 3, 2012
    Posts:
    2,911
    Location:
    Australia
    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.
     
  15. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    The GUI of that in-built utility looks very very similar to the GUI of the Classic Theme Restorer add-on.
     
  16. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    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.
     
  17. vasa1

    vasa1 Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 1, 2010
    Posts:
    4,152
    +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.
     
  18. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,133
    Location:
    USA
    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.
     
  19. The Red Moon

    The Red Moon Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2012
    Posts:
    3,872
    And its very tiresome when proponents of firefox fail to see why these forks exist in the first place.
     
  20. Victek

    Victek Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2007
    Posts:
    5,133
    Location:
    USA
    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".
     
  21. Alhaitham

    Alhaitham Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 18, 2013
    Posts:
    173
    Location:
    Egypt
    :thumb: :thumb:
     
  22. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,802
    Location:
    Texas
    This thread is for discussion of browsers that are derived from or similar to Firefox.
     
  23. SweX

    SweX Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2007
    Posts:
    6,429
    Good job :thumb:
     
  24. Daveski17

    Daveski17 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2008
    Posts:
    8,030
    Location:
    Lloegyr
  25. wolfrun

    wolfrun Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2009
    Posts:
    483
    Location:
    Canada
    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.
     
Loading...