Corrine, I believe you use the Pale Moon browser, correct?
This last FireFox update offering has really turned me off. It pushing this new Pocket feature, but the update for new release screen says its an important security and stability update. There is no security changes in the release notes, and the others are for seemingly obscure problems so it makes me think Mozilla is being disengenuous stressing how "important" the update is. It just leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Not only that, but I keep using extensions like Classic Theme Restorer to try and fix the Astralgus "improvements" to my layout. So it is seeming more and more reasonable to get of the accelerated update train and do something more streamlined and on a sane update schedule.
My question with Pale Moon though, is whether to use the 64 bit version for my Windows 7 Pro 64-bit machine, or go with the standard 32 bit version. Which one did you choose and why?
Also I understand profiles and extensions are completely importable--could you confirm that and provide any caveats please?
I cannot answer for Corrine but for me, if there is a 64-bit version available for any program I want, I use that. So I am using the x64 bit version of PM with no problems or regrets.
Thats good to hear, because I am also of the opinion that if there is a 64-bit version, I want to use it. Its just that on this page https://www.palemoon.org/palemoon-win64.shtml , there are a whole string of warnings of problems including that a lot of plugins are not compatible with 64-bit versions. Its always hard for me to tell if I will be affected by stuff like that, or if its just some obscure thing that only affects a few users.
I believe Satrow uses 64-bit Pale Moon and he is also a member of the Pale Moon beta-testing group. Although he stops by regularly, I'll ping him so he doesn't miss this thread, particularly since he may have more detailed information about extensions that are a problem with the 64-bit version.
Not sure I would call 4 a "whole string" - guess it's a matter of perspective.
But to address, them, #1 is a given. To run 64-bit software, you need a 64-bit OS.
#2 Only some plug ins have problems. I don't use any plug ins - only Adblock "add-on" and it works fine. So I can't address the plug-in issue.
#3 Also a given.
#4 All I can say there is I have not seen those problems with the 6 or 7 newer and legacy, NVIDIA and AMD, cards or integrated graphics solutions I've used with PM.
I would say try it and see what happens. One thing I have found is that Pale Mood is does not complain or leave a bunch of remnants behinds when you uninstall it. So I would stay install the 64-bit version and see how it works on your system. If it gives you problems, try the 32-bit version see if the problems go away.
pastywhitegurl,
I will echo Digerati. I am using a non-mainstem version of 32 bit Pale Moon on a Windows XP computer with a 64 bit chip but a 32 bit Windows OS. I am using about 7 extensions altogether, six of which come from Mozilla/Firefox with no problems. I have heard that Adblock Plus has some issues in Pale Moon, so Pale Moon has offered a derived version called Adblock Latitude which works just as well.
I am also using a 64 bit Pale Moon on a 64 bit Windows 7 Notebook with all the same extensions. I have encountered no problems. I do not think that you would have any significant problems with either a 32 bit or 64 bit Pale Moon, unless you are possibly using some very obscure and unsupported extensions. There is a list of possible Incompatible Add-on issues at " https://addons.palemoon.org/resources/incompatible/ ".
Pale Moon operates and looks pretty much like Firefox used to before they began the rapid fire updates. For serious security issue updates Pale Moon does keep up with Firefox. However all of the various cosmetic updates and issues are generally ignored.
If you are looking for another Gecko-engine browser you might want to investigate SeaMonkey also. It still looks and feels much like the old Netscape Navigator. I use a lot of different browsers in rotation but I have decided on SeaMonkey as my default browser. My reasoning was and still is that SeaMonkey seems to use less memory than Firefox and Pale Moon, besides the fact that everything is in its same familiar place like it was in the Netscape days.
As far as I can tell SeaMonkey only comes in 32 bit for Windows and Mac, although there is an unofficial 64 bit for Linux.
v_v
Plugins are 32/64 bit-specific, Extensions are not.
For browsers, unless you regularly approach 1.8 - 2.7GB memory usage (approx. the Process limits for x86 software), you're probably better off staying with x86 browsers, they'll use ~20-30% less memory and they have a much larger range of Plugins available than the x64 versions.
Both varieties of Pale Moon can have the same issues with a small number of Extensions that are hard-coded, eg. any that are coded to work specifically with Firefox.exe. The Pale Moon Add-ons team try to work with the creators of these to get a PM version built or they can usually suggest an alternative that will work with PM.
There's nothing to stop you trying out both versions to get a feel for which version is better for the way you work. Long browser sessions with high page or tab counts is usually where x64 versions perform better.
Thanks guys,
Great advice. I'll give it a try, probably sometime this week.
I installed Pale Moon (x64) today, copied over my FF profile, and I think I'm really liking it. It is easier to customize than FF has been lately even WITH classic theme restorer. I like my statusbar. Its nice not to have to force it. :) I don't seem to be able to drag extension icons or address and search to the title bar like I could in FF, so I have an extra tool bar now. Maybe there's a way and I just haven't figured it out yet.
A lot of my extensions don't work, but most of those I really don't need anyway, and the ones I do I've found replacements for. The only thing I haven't replaced yet is adblock because they said I should back up my filter presets before installing, and I have to figure out how to do that.
Sumatra PDF reader did not make the transition in the plug-ins :( , but I understand that is not supposed to be necessary? There isn't a PDF in the list on the applications page to associate it with. How do I add one? The only thing there is PDF Foxit Reader document.
I'll miss Lazarus, but I have Text Area Cache thats almost as good. It just doesn't save form fills. There is one site I visit regularly that is displaying an old favicon in the tabs and address bar (but the bookmarks icon is fine). I haven't figured out how to fix that yet, but thats a minor annoyance.
ah. got Lazarus working. Not sure what the problem was before, but yay. :)
Importing the Firefox data is preferable to copying the profile over, less likely to pickup anything already buggy or FF -specific.
The latest Sumatra version 3.0 doesn't have the browser plugin, mainly for security reasons I think, websites can check installed plugins and malicious sites might manipulate them by serving specially crafted pages.
Once you try to open/download a 'new' file type, you should get a popup asking what you want to open it with - that also creates a new entry in the Applications/Associations page, where you can then modify it. If you only have Foxit showing under applications/pdf, you probably need to close the browser(s) and reinstall Sumatra if the Ask or Choose functions aren't offered.
Odd things like old favicons displaying might be down to browser sniffing by the website, if they guess wrong, they deliver content for older/incorrect browsers. You might want to test by using Firefox Compatibility mode for a while (Options > Advanced > General).
You might want to study this for Adblock and PM: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6732 ABL is a version modified to work with PM (I'm currently using uBlock, having spent a year or so without any ad blocking loaded in the browser).
Also, reapply your SpywareBlaster blocks now that you have PM.
Thanks for those helpful suggestions. I think I will redo the profile transfer as you suggest, as I've found that I can't view saved passwords in the sites on my bookmarks toolbar (the field is just empty) so something went wrong anyway. Unless they are being blocked or something--not sure.
How do I reapply SpywareBlaster blocks? Just update?
For the passwords, you may need to follow the normal Mozilla method if an import also fails, see https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profiles-where-firefox-stores-user-data.
Just start SpywareBlaster, check for updates and enable all protection - check the Protection Status tab.
As an alternative, you might want to install Password Exporter (https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/password-exporter/) on both Firefox and PaleMoon. That way, you can try exporting your passwords from Firefox and then importing to Pale Moon.
Seems odd to me that some transfered just fine. Just some of the ones in the bookmarks toolbar are messed up. The address bar icon info drop down shows that they are saved, and then when I ask to see them, there is nothing in the box.
Should I delete the current profile (thats been copied over) before importing the FireFox one?
Not quite sure how to do this.
I would create and use a new PM Profile during testing, exit Pale Moon completely, restart it from a Command prompt (or Win key + R) to the Profile Manager : "C:\Program Files\Pale Moon\palemoon.exe" -p
(^^- this is for the default x64 PM location, x86 PM on 64-bit Windows would be "C:\Program Files (x86)\Pale Moon\palemoon.exe" -p, default for 32-bit Windows is "C:\Program Files\Pale Moon\palemoon.exe" -p)
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/profile-manager-create-and-remove-firefox-profiles
Once the new Profile is tested and working as required, the old Profile can be removed.
Quote from: satrow on June 13, 2015, 09:01:50 AM
You might want to study this for Adblock and PM: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=6732 ABL is a version modified to work with PM (I'm currently using uBlock, having spent a year or so without any ad blocking loaded in the browser).
Thank you, Andy! I had been using Adblock Latitude but was noticing it was using a
lot of memory. I kept the default uBlock (https://www.ublock.org/) settings which is what I had been using with Adblock, yet, uBlock is using ~30% less memory than Adblock.
For those of us who are already using Mbam Pro's web blocking and/or a good hosts file, we're already covering a large majority of the blocks added by uBlock/AdBlock anyway, even though it looks like the extension is blocking a lot, it might be blocking a lot less than Mbam Pro/hosts is - and Mbam covers all browsers (all software connections in the case of the hosts file), not just the browser(s) it's installed in.