Well, I like it, mostly

[rg0057]

So, I went to the Help | Submit Feedback page, and it sent me to https://input.mozilla.org/en-US/feedback.

I'm here in lieu of telling Mozilla that I like Pale Moon. I didn't migrate any of my profiles over, preferring to start fresh, so I can't really compare speeds directly, but the feeling after a few days is that the 64-bit version of Pale Moon is several times faster than 32-bit Firefox on my PC. I've been trying to make Pale Moon use a lot of memory, because that's my real problem with Firefox, but I've been having trouble getting it to even use a lot of memory, much less crash, even on pages with many pictures (a sure way to make my Firefox crash). I suspect Pale Moon 64-bit won't crash, no matter how much memory it wants. My PC has more than enough.

Only one add-on didn't work (an old weather toolbar add-on) and I decided that my cellphone is probably a better place for such a thing anyway.

I do prefer Firefox's GUI order (menu, then tabs, then address bar) because it follows the tab paradigm correctly, but I can live with the weirdness, in exchange for speed and stability.

Thanks for making something good.

[Blacklab]

@rg0057: Welcome to the forum!

I do prefer Firefox's GUI order (menu, then tabs, then address bar) because it follows the tab paradigm correctly

If you like your tabs above your Address Bar just select that option via: Menu Bar > View > Toolbars > Tabs on Top selection box? (or right click in an empty area of the Tab Bar). Although IMHO separating the tab from its associated page content is one weirdness I prefer not to live with!

BTW: Any readers interested in the Firefox UX team's reasoning behind moving to "Tabs on Top" might enjoy Alex Faaborg's "Why Tabs are on Top in Firefox 4" blog and video from a while back in June 2010 - although he doesn't convince me I'm afraid! Given where we are with the Australis abomination about to arrive there is a rather wistful moment about 1min into the video when Alex Faaborg emphasizes...

... I have to make it really, absolutely, perfectly, completely, clear that what we are debating is the default preference. As always users have complete control over customizing Firefox so its exactly the way they like...

My, My! How times have changed? Sadly "Tabs on Top" is nailed down in Australis along with much else besides! Alex Faaborg left Mozilla in 2011.

[Moonchild]

I do prefer Firefox's GUI order (menu, then tabs, then address bar) because it follows the tab paradigm correctly

I'm just curious - exactly which paradigm is this? Can you point me to a definition/dissertation of it?

Any readers interested in the Firefox UX team's reasoning behind moving to "Tabs on Top" might enjoy Alex Faaborg's "Why Tabs are on Top in Firefox 4" blog and video from a while back in June 2010 - although he doesn't convince me I'm afraid!

Maybe it's not convincing because the "conceptual design" mockups are not exactly correct about the distinction of which controls "belong to" which group But I guess that's getting off-topic to the poster's original feedback.

rg; Thanks for the feedback, always nice to get positive voices in the house for a change!

[opera1215b1748]

I do prefer Firefox's GUI order (menu, then tabs, then address bar) because it follows the tab paradigm correctly

I'm just curious - exactly which paradigm is this? Can you point me to a definition/dissertation of it?

In my otherbrowser I'm used to the following order (from top to bottom):

1. a browser window frame (with the Hide, Minimize/Maximize and Close buttons in the top-right corner);
2. a browser's menu bar with its' usual user-configurable buttons;
3. underneath which is a tab bar;
4. underneath which an URL bar is located - quite logically - because it relates to that particular tab;
5. then goes the actual content frame.

As the displays with 16:9 (or even wider) screen ratio became the norm - the someothebrowser (before it was abandoned by its' developers) allowed to place the tabs on the side (either left or right one) of the window - leaving more screen estate in vertical direction.

[Drexl]

I guess I just see the tabs as the replacement for the title bar (which historically shows the page's title), and as such it makes sense that they would be on top. Because as the previous poster mentioned, the URL bar should be just above the page content. I like having it closer.

But really, I could go either way if all else were equal. The main reason I like tabs on top is because it frees up more vertical space when the browser window is maximized (since the tabs occupy what would be a blank title bar). I also have used the Moveable Firefox Button add-on since version 4 to get the menu button in line with the URL bar to free up more room for tabs.

[Moonchild]

All in all, it depends on how you want to use the browser. I'll make sure to keep tabs on either top or bottom configurable, because different people and different screen sizes are better served with different approaches. Maximized browsers will benefit from tabs in the title bar (screen edge target), windowed browsers will not (increases mouse distance).

As an example, on my netbook I use Pale Moon with tabs on top, maxmized, no bookmarks toolbar - to get the most out of my 600 px high screen.
On my desktop I use the classic menu, tabs on bottom, bookmarks toolbar in windowed mode - to make the most out of a higher-resolution multitasking setup.

[opera1215b1748]

...I'll make sure to keep tabs on either top or bottom configurable...

No way PM will be able to put tabs at the sides?

[Rohugh]

There are add-ons for tabs on the side.

[opera1215b1748]

There are add-ons for tabs on the side.

Band-aids everywhere!
That's why I'm skeptical about FF...

[Moonchild]

Add-ons aren't band-aids

There seems to be a group of people who think this and are very apprehensive about using browser extensions as-needed.
The browser without any extensions (the core) gives a common set of features that is used by most people alike. Extensions come into play if you want to further shape the way you prefer to browse, through personal preference or choice.

Extensions are an integral part of the Firefox/Pale Moon design, so if you want functionality not found on the core, then please broaden your view. Extensions add additional browser code (UI and/or scripting) to the browser in very much the same way the browser itself is programmed (Most of the front-end browser functionality built on top of the Gecko engine is done with JavaScript, XML XHTML, CSS and XUL).
Extensions keep the core lean by only adding features that are common to a majority of users, and leaving the rest up to the user to choose.

You can argue about extensions being developed by third parties, but since most of them are fully open source under a free license, it's easy to adapt or take over development if someone stops programming your favorite ones. In addition, the Mozilla core developer team isn't all that much different, apart from being paid and being directed by management - and many patches are submitted by volunteers around the globe.

[opera1215b1748]

...a common set of features that is used by most people alike...

...depends mostly on people's education by a vendor about certain features availability.

The otherbrowser has had lots and lots of features. But because its' vendor did not care to promote them - even the old-time users know not most of them.
Personally me - I use very basic features like rocker gestures, hot-keys, key-chords (like Ctrl-B to "past-and-go" in the URL/search field). I cannot imagine how can any other browser be without them. How do you go backwards to the previous page if not by holding the right mouse button down while clicking the left one? Do you move your mouse all the way to the top of the window where the Back button is located?! Unimaginable!

So, the basic set depends on the good will of a vendor - and its' attitude to its' audience.
Otherwise we will have a bare-boned "sorta-browser" with a pile of add-ons to be usable.

[Moonchild]

Although, there's a difference between not exposing a feature and "exposing a feature 20 different ways because 1% or less of people -might- prefer it". You can't plan for every contingency; not only would you have clashing interests for the use of a certain key or control, it would also add needless complexity to the application code (in turn slowing things down and making it more bug-prone).

e.g.: There is a back button, it has several shortcuts (one mouse (right-click, then click the context menu), one keyboard (BackSpace), one UI (the button)). If you want to add additional shortcuts, that would be beyond the core of the browser unless a significantly large group of users wants it. In that case, you use an extension. It's not a "band-aid" in that respect, but an enhancement to suit your specific needs.

[Rohugh]

...depends mostly on people's education by a vendor about certain features availability.

The otherbrowser has had lots and lots of features.

It sounds to me you will be happier with the other browser. I don't want something packed with "features" that I am not going to use, it seems to me that doing that is making it more difficult to develop, more difficult to spend time removing all the stuff I don't want and probably slow the browser if they are left in. I want a browser that is fast and reliable and one that I can personalize to my own needs without forcing them on other users.

[Night Wing]

I don't want something packed with "features" that I am not going to use, it seems to me that doing that is making it more difficult to develop, more difficult to spend time removing all the stuff I don't want and probably slow the browser if they are left in. I want a browser that is fast and reliable and one that I can personalize to my own needs without forcing them on other users.

I'm in total agreement with your and MC's comments. Of course, I'm a little biased since I'm a non technical computer user and not a power user which most, if not all, of you are on this site.

[tribaljet]

The basic principle that has to change is that addons aren't crutches for something faulty at its core, but rather extensions of the browser itself. It isn't a coincidence that Mozilla has the largest addon library in the world, and not just going by addon numbers but also quality to boot. One is hard pressed to find to exactly similar browsers, precisely due to that fact.

Basically, nearly every single feature one can imagine can be achieved through addons, userscripts, so on and so forth.

[opera1215b1748]

...It isn't a coincidence that Mozilla has the largest addon library in the world...

May be this is true. But it is not necessarily a GoodThing™ because most of add-on developers (at least those I have looked at) try to provide a be-all-end-all kind of soft - besides a primary function they often bloat their code with all sorts of unrelated blows-and-whistles...

[tribaljet]

Clearly you haven't been looking at the right addons.

[Rohugh]

opera1215b1748 - you are then saying you want add-ons included with the basic browser? If so which ones, and who gets to choose them, the ones you would ask for are probably not the ones I would want and certainly "Tabs on the side" would be extremely far down down the list. Ask any poster here which they want and you would end up with maybe hundreds, bloated browser much? No, it isn't a practical proposition.

[opera1215b1748]

I personally do not use "tabs on the side" layout - I'm on the EeePC900 with 10" screen.

But I honestly do not (still - even after MC's explanation) understand why going backward/forward could be anything else but "mouse-rocker" (hope, this it its' name) gestures.

[tribaljet]

Again, addons to the rescue: https://addons.mozilla.org/en/firefox/a ... egestures/