Palemoon 15.1 just released

2»

Comments

  • REDBUSREDBUS Posts: 2,315
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    alanwarwic wrote: »
    Does Mozilla still get the google search cash to cover development and support costs for this Gecko engine?

    Don't know but I'm sure you'd find the answers here on palemoon forum http://forum.palemoon.org/
  • REDBUSREDBUS Posts: 2,315
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thought i'd give it a try and i'm very impressed. would i be right in saying i can copy my firefox profile over to palemoon directly to save me having to re-log in to all my sites ?

    http://forum.palemoon.org/ you get answers here Jason
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 508
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    thought i'd give it a try and i'm very impressed. would i be right in saying i can copy my firefox profile over to palemoon directly to save me having to re-log in to all my sites ?

    Yes, it's very easy to do using the Pale Moon migration tool which you can download here: www.palemoon.org/migrationtool.shtml
    Just make sure both Firefox and Pale Moon are not running, then run the migration tool and it'll copy over your Firefox profile, bookmarks, saved passwords, add-ons and user settings.
  • JasonJason Posts: 76,557
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    thanks for that, worked like a charm. doesn't seem massively faster to me at the moment, and i've got the 64 bit version running as well, but then i suppose i never really pay a lot of attention to things like that :)
  • radioanorakradioanorak Posts: 4,247
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    In Palemoon click on Bookmarks & from dropdown select organise bookmarks. This will help you import from other browser
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,885
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    It may look like chrome, but it is not chrome.
    Anyway, what I meant is that each version of FF that comes out it seems to have problems with extensions

    The major issue for many users was in the 3.x to 4.x transition. Otherwise, if something worked (officially) in 4.x then it worked in subsequent versions.

    In my case, I had a few extensions that didn't work on 4.x and found alternatives in most cases. There were two which I could force to work and I can still force them to. I use about 25 extensions.
    since Pale moon is still FF, it will also have the same problems with each release.

    I got fed up of updating FF only for my extensions not to work.

    At least with Chrome or Dragon which I use, it don't matter how they update it, all my extensions always work.

    Doesn't happen for me, i.e., no change since 4.x. But it depends on the nature of your extensions I guess.

    i said it before and I will say it again, Mozilla lost the plot after version 3.5 and it don't matter how Pale moon dress it up, the browser is still firefox.

    Shame really as I used to like Ff.

    Yes, the way they did rapid release was poor. It didn't affect me personally but it did lots of users (such as yourself). If they were going to have such a policy they should have (a) waited for their auto-whitelisting of extensions (added in 10.x I think) and (b) after rolling out silent updates (with users being notified in advance of the latter so they could disable if desired). Basically, they needed to have applied a bit more thought instead of just blindly copying Chrome.

    Apart from this current Firefox is much better than 3.x IMO.
  • REDBUSREDBUS Posts: 2,315
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    palemoon just updated from 15.1 to 15.1.1

    15.1.1 > update >

    This is a minor update to address some important performance (high CPU usage) and stability (browser hang) issues in Pale Moon 15.1. Specifically, some of Tete009's patches were backed out.
    Azure acceleration with his patches is still in place, but the multi-threaded box blur and cairo patches were removed to fix the CPU and browser hang issues, respectively.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The major issue for many users was in the 3.x to 4.x transition. Otherwise, if something worked (officially) in 4.x then it worked in subsequent versions.



    In my case, I had a few extensions that didn't work on 4.x and found alternatives in most cases. There were two which I could force to work and I can still force them to. I use about 25 extensions.

    i had a few extensions that would work in four but would not work in later versions. i did not want alternatives, other wise I would have had the alternatives in the first place.

    i only used about 4-5, the same now with Dragon I got 5 extensions, Lastpast, xmarks, click and clean, abine Taco and Do not track plus.
    Doesn't happen for me, i.e., no change since 4.x. But it depends on the nature of your extensions I guess.

    i suppose it does.
    Yes, the way they did rapid release was poor. It didn't affect me personally but it did lots of users (such as yourself). If they were going to have such a policy they should have (a) waited for their auto-whitelisting of extensions (added in 10.x I think) and (b) after rolling out silent updates (with users being notified in advance of the latter so they could disable if desired). Basically, they needed to have applied a bit more thought instead of just blindly copying Chrome.

    Apart from this current Firefox is much better than 3.x IMO.

    The rapid release was not the only problem, it seemed that no matter what version of Firefox came out it was not improved, or not enough to make me think the new versions was worth bothering with.

    firefox still takes a age to start up, it still got the silly search box. the browser still does a search in Google if you use the URL box, sure you can change the default int he search box, but not the URL box.

    Makes me wonder why the Search box is needed now?

    Firefox still seems to take up far more resources than it should do and it seems clunky
    Do they still have the memory leak problem, how many years have they had that problem?

    chrome is not perfect mind you which is why I use a clone, i hate the way Chrome keeps auto updating, the clone don't, but Dragon still have the annoying thing of keep reminding me a update is available and will not allow me to just say no and leave it, at least SWiron don't do that.

    i used firefox for years even before it change it's name to firefox, i used Netscape before that, I hardly used Internet Exploder in all the years I have been using a PC. i thought with some more competition firefox would have improved, but all they do is build in useless features that are not needed.

    Too late to get me back to use it to be honest, they blew it as I said after version 3.
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,885
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    firefox still takes a age to start up,

    Not for me. No different than the other browsers. I do have a lot of RAM now. With 3.6 on my old XP box it took a long time but so did everything else and my box had been dying for a long time.
    it still got the silly search box. the browser still does a search in Google if you use the URL box, sure you can change the default int he search box, but not the URL box.

    Makes me wonder why the Search box is needed now?

    Bit subjective this, but I like the separate search box and hate Chrome's crappy Omnibox. In theory a combined url/search box should work fine but I've yet to see it.
    Firefox still seems to take up far more resources than it should do and it seems clunky
    Do they still have the memory leak problem, how many years have they had that problem?

    I've not noticed any difference in memory use between Chrome and Firefox. They both use a lot. Firefox is actually designed to use more RAM if available and less if not. this is to minimise paging. I suspect Chrome is the same.

    There's the separate problem of memory leaks. Sometimes this is conflated with the fact that it may use a lot of memory. I think the memory leaks got noticeably better from about FF 5 onwards, I can't quite remember which version. Anyway, on this work PC where I leave Firefox running for days memory averages around 500k with 15 extensions. On my home PC I've had one Firefox crash in well over a year and that was when I was attempting something that was definitely unsupported in firefox.
    i thought with some more competition firefox would have improved, but all they do is build in useless features that are not needed.

    It does add features I don't care for but I just don't use them. For default features I don't like I just customise them to my choosing. No problem for me.
    Too late to get me back to use it to be honest, they blew it as I said after version 3.

    Browser preference is subjective. Whether they have certain features or not is objective, but whether you care or should care for any feature is subjective. At home I have IE, Chrome and Opera installed as well but I still consider Firefox way better than the others for the way I like to work.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Not for me. No different than the other browsers. I do have a lot of RAM now. With 3.6 on my old XP box it took a long time but so did everything else and my box had been dying for a long time.

    i have a AMd Phenom II 3.6Mhz with 8GB of Ram and firefox was still slow to start up, it was better when I tried it on the SSD unit. it is just that long delay from when I click on the icon and when I can use it.

    Chrome is almost instant.
    Bit subjective this, but I like the separate search box and hate Chrome's crappy Omnibox. In theory a combined url/search box should work fine but I've yet to see it.
    Granted I found it strange to use the URL bar for searches, but it makes sense, if I put a wrong address in it will try and do a search for it.
    chrome omnibox does work fine, well for me anyway.
    I've not noticed any difference in memory use between Chrome and Firefox. They both use a lot. Firefox is actually designed to use more RAM if available and less if not. this is to minimise paging. I suspect Chrome is the same.


    One of the things that did annoy me at first with Chrome is that each tab was a separate process and I thought maybe it used a bit more memory than it should, but t6hat is how it separates each tab so if one crashes the whole browser don't go. Firefox would just crash and that was it. I think Firefox now does the same as chrome.
    There's the separate problem of memory leaks. Sometimes this is conflated with the fact that it may use a lot of memory. I think the memory leaks got noticeably better from about FF 5 onwards, I can't quite remember which version. Anyway, on this work PC where I leave Firefox running for days memory averages around 500k with 15 extensions. On my home PC I've had one Firefox crash in well over a year and that was when I was attempting something that was definitely unsupported in firefox.


    FF used to be awful for using memory when it was left running, which a few years back was annoying as people did not have the memory they got now. i think FF programmers got a bit lazy, maybe they should have programmed software on the Amiga, they would not have memory leaks on that, the Amiga would not cope and would crash.

    It does add features I don't care for but I just don't use them. For default features I don't like I just customise them to my choosing. No problem for me.
    One of the things I hated about Opera apart from it silly cookie handling was the fact it was trying to be more than just a browser.

    [/quote]
    Browser preference is subjective. Whether they have certain features or not is objective, but whether you care or should care for any feature is subjective. At home I have IE, Chrome and Opera installed as well but I still consider Firefox way better than the others for the way I like to work.[/QUOTE]

    That is your opinion, the only browser now installed on my computer is comodo Dragon which is a Chrome clone, i uninstalled firefox a while back, I did have pale moon installed for a while, but found it was a waste of space on the drive as i never used it.

    I know I can't uninstall Internet Exploder as such, but I have removed it in the add/remove programs section in the control panel as far as I can. so it will never come up.

    dragon is the only browser I need.
  • NewWorldManNewWorldMan Posts: 4,885
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    noise747 wrote: »
    Browser preference is subjective. Whether they have certain features or not is objective, but whether you care or should care for any feature is subjective. At home I have IE, Chrome and Opera installed as well but I still consider Firefox way better than the others for the way I like to work.

    That is your opinion,.

    Yep. Like I said, it's subjective. All I can do is describe what appeals to me and what doesn't. I can describe certain features and report my own experiences but ultimately I can't persuade you that you should like the things I do or vice-versa.
    I know I can't uninstall Internet Exploder as such, but I have removed it in the add/remove programs section in the control panel as far as I can. so it will never come up.

    I rarely use IE but as I work in Microsoft-centric software development I need to interact with it. Lots of MS products are dependent on it. Also, there's still the occasional time when a site requires IE.
  • noise747noise747 Posts: 30,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Yep. Like I said, it's subjective. All I can do is describe what appeals to me and what doesn't. I can describe certain features and report my own experiences but ultimately I can't persuade you that you should like the things I do or vice-versa.

    Very true

    I rarely use IE but as I work in Microsoft-centric software development I need to interact with it. Lots of MS products are dependent on it. Also, there's still the occasional time when a site requires IE.

    I use IE at work, but that is not very often. i need to use Ie about 10 mins a day if that.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    Forum Member
    I rarely use IE but as I work in Microsoft-centric software development I need to interact with it. Lots of MS products are dependent on it. Also, there's still the occasional time when a site requires IE.

    Which MS product is dependent on IE?
    Cant you use an addon like IEtab, uses the engine not the actual browser. Not used this method for a year or so, as not seen anything lately that requires IE.
    Use to use it also for web design compatibility, but not really needed anymore.
Sign In or Register to comment.