The future of Firefox and Pale Moon

[Moonchild]

Keeping up with current news and release of information about future Firefox builds, it's becoming more and more clear that using a current base and backporting fixes is the way to go at the moment for Pale Moon.

Lifting out a few future features of Firefox, and Pale Moon's approach to them:

• In-line autocomplete of URLs:

  This is designed to anticipate what URL is being typed into the Address Bar, pre-loading the web page in the background before the URL has been entered.

  Pre-emptive loading of pages based on a "guessed" completion of the URL while it's being typed: Bad Idea.
  Why?: Typoes causing unwanted content to be downloaded, background loading of unnecessary content (wasting bandwidth - people on metered connections will absolutely hate this! It's also wasting CPU -- this is not efficient), and how smart can a "guess" be if you've never visited a page before? (When do you type a URL? When you go to a page you have likely bookmarked? No, usually when you go somewhere you haven't gone to before.)
• The new home tab:

  Mozilla plans to use it as a portal to the upcoming Apps Market, for example.

  Pale Moon is not and does not want to be affiliated with any predefined "Apps Market" and pushing this commercial portal upon its users. Instead, the current Pale Moon Start page serves well as a balanced starting location with search capabilities and quick links, and will be maintained.
• The New Tab page with "quick dial" thumbnails:
  This is wrought with potential performance problems and inefficient use:
  1. Thumbnail creation of pages is expensive in terms of CPU usage (see: Panorama/Tab Groups), for one.
  2. A blank "new tab" page does not distract you from what you were intending to do with the new tab by presenting you with suggestions to other things (psychology 101)
  3. A blank "new tab" page allows easy drag/drop of links/URLs
  4. The bookmarks toolbar (enabled by default in Pale Moon) already has a "most visited" entry giving you a much faster way to select frequently used pages at a fraction of the "expense"
  5. Quick dial and/or new tab add-ons are already available for people preferring this (and additional) new tab functionality with more configurability
  A side note is that Mozilla admits that a good number of people would want to switch this off by default, and has provided a control to revert back to a blank tab from the new design, although this "blank" tab isn't really a blank tab. Basically including yet another gadget enabled by default that should be optional (i.e.: through an add-on or easy to completely disable) and will be dead weight for a lot of users.
  NOTE: The "quick dial" new tab page is included in Pale Moon because it has been a semi-frequent request by users to have something "Opera-like" in the browser (and Pale Moon tends to listen to its users in terms of what is desired), but it is disabled by default to not impact performance of the browser. It takes some manual changing of parameters to enable it at the moment (expect this to be made more user-friendly in the future).
• Metro Firefox and Desktop Apps:

  Support for desktop apps, which can be installed and used independently of Firefox, even when offline.

  Desktop integration has never been one of Pale Moon's goals. Pale Moon is a browser application, and does not need desktop integration, hooking into metro, or providing "chrome-less full screen apps" that can easily be achieved already by going full-screen from the browser (without losing your UI entirely), and currently no less than 26 major issues listed to be resolved before it can even be implemented.
• Panel-based download manager:
  This is potentially desirable but depends heavily on how exactly this hooks into the current browser code. If it is intertwined with undesired GUI changes, then the current approach will be maintained (download manager window + download status indicator in the status bar)
• Completely silent background updates:
  Bad idea for a number of reasons, and against Pale Moon's approach of freedom of choice: freedom of choice which browser you want to run, when you want to update and to what you want to update.
  The web browser - your gateway to the internet in many cases and an essential part of most people's daily life on the PC - is a key application. Silent updates may break functionality, cause issues, etc. And you won't know if there has been an update (especially not if Mozilla goes ahead and removes the version number from a clearly visible place) causing your sudden inability to use some/all sites, or that something else is going on (malware, network problems, etc.)
• Integrated PDF reader:
  You are at all times better off opening foreign formats in the designated external applications (Adobe's plug-in has always been poor, I recommend to simply download and open in the standalone reader). What's next, integrate support for Openoffice Formats? Spreadsheets?
  Also, the viewer built into the core will be basic, at best. No annotations, probably no field support, etc. etc.
  The viewer (Adobe Reader) is already widely available and commonly installed on a lot of systems (and with plenty of free alternatives if you don't want Adobe's sizable package). It's also easy to implement cross-platform with Ghostscript. I don't see the need for the integration of a PDF reader into the core of the browser.
  Moreover, incremental downloading of PDF documents has been problematic from day 1 - slow downloads, stalls, browser hangups, to name a few
  Lastly: Implementing a viewing application like this in the browser core, you need to have an as fool-proof and secure implementation as possible. Since this will be part of an application that will be fully trusted on your system, and if in the core of the browser without any potential safeguards or sandboxing, any exploit of the PDF reading subsystem will be a potential high-risk problem: arbitrary code run in a trusted application with full access to the internet and possibly also an administrative-level "maintenance service" (from the silent updates) that is running is a security nightmare scenario.

You are free to offer your suggestions and thoughts to this post, but I do ask you to give constructive feedback and keep things civil.

[Lootyhoof]

While I agree with you on the vast majority of the mentioned points (after all, who needs URL autocomplete, apart from maybe those who can't spell it or won't search it?), the download panel is an interesting topic. Personally, the current method of a download window is a little obtrusive and gets in the way. While I understand that there are add-ons to resolve this, such as the Download Statusbar, it just seems to be something that should be in by default (not necessarily that add-on, but an integrated download panel).

It's not crucial to have it by any means, but it certainly would help remove an occasional annoyance. The only issue with Mozilla's implementation is that they seem to think you don't want the extra space that button takes.

[Greenboyb1]

I like the idea of a panel-based download manager. I agree that In-line autocomplete of URLs and Completely silent background updates are a bad idea. I think that "Apps Market" would be cool, but I understand Pale Moon not wanting to endorse that. The Integrated PDF reader would also be cool, but downloading is still the best ay to go, so I understand that decision. I agree that The New Tab page with "quick dial" thumbnails would bloat the browser, and it can as you said, be found as an add-on.

Ok so I was about to post this and

Personally, the current method of a download window is a little obtrusive and gets in the way. It's not crucial to have it by any means, but it certainly would help remove an occasional annoyance. The only issue with Mozilla's implementation is that they seem to think you don't want the extra space that button takes.

I agree, that is why I unchecked the box under general options that says

Show the Downloads window when downloading a file

[Lootyhoof]

Ok so I was about to post this and

Personally, the current method of a download window is a little obtrusive and gets in the way. It's not crucial to have it by any means, but it certainly would help remove an occasional annoyance. The only issue with Mozilla's implementation is that they seem to think you don't want the extra space that button takes.

I agree, that is why I unchecked the box under general options that says

Show the Downloads window when downloading a file

I'm aware of this option, however I like to see what I'm downloading (given that it has more precise download metrics than the progress indicator). I could probably live with this, but I'd still prefer an integrated option.

[steviem1]

I must say overall I agree with Pale Moon's stance on the changes Firefox are planning to implement. It's becoming increasingly clear that personal choice for the user is not the number one priority in future releases of their browser, as exemplified by Completely silent background updates, which would be a bad thing and a retrograde step to my mind.

At all times we as users need to have total control and to know exactly what is being downloaded onto our computers in this age of Malware and the many other security issues, potentially interfering with what should be a pleasurable internet experience.

Long may Pale Moon continue to be the simple but highly efficient browser that it is.

[Greenboyb1]

Ok so I was about to post this and

Personally, the current method of a download window is a little obtrusive and gets in the way. It's not crucial to have it by any means, but it certainly would help remove an occasional annoyance. The only issue with Mozilla's implementation is that they seem to think you don't want the extra space that button takes.

I agree, that is why I unchecked the box under general options that says

Show the Downloads window when downloading a file

I'm aware of this option, however I like to see what I'm downloading (given that it has more precise download metrics than the progress indicator). I could probably live with this, but I'd still prefer an integrated option.

I use AiOS (All-in-One Sidebar) which has a nice alternative. AiOS opens the download window in the sidebar so that you can see the downloads window and the entire web page. (I find it to not get in the way as much)

[Night Wing]

Concerning Firefox.

I don't need a Home Tab, I don't need a New Tab page, I don't need Metro and Desktop Apps and I've already killed Silent Update on FF 12 since I did a custom install and unchecked the Maintenance Service which sneaks the updates on to the browser so this innocuous little piece of software isn't bundled with Firefox 12 on my computers.

With all that is being planned for FF 13 and beyond, it looks like I will just keep FF 12 as my backup browser for both of my two computers and never update (upgrade) to FF 13 and/or beyond.

I firmly believe the Firefox developers are now developing future versions of the Firefox browser strictly to appeal to developers and power users and negating the vast majority of people like me who are non technical types and what we first liked about Firefox which is/was the ease with working with the FF browser and with less bloat.

With Firefox mirroring what Chrome does, I'm glad and very fortunate Moonchild (and Pale Moon) doesn't have the "monkey see, monkey do" attitude by mimicking very closely the path Firefox is now taking. The path Firefox is now taking isn't the path I want as a non technical person.

[Moonchild]

Show the Downloads window when downloading a file

I'm aware of this option, however I like to see what I'm downloading (given that it has more precise download metrics than the progress indicator). I could probably live with this, but I'd still prefer an integrated option.

This is exactly the point a lot of people seem to miss when you think about what to include in the core of a browser. Anything beyond basic and functional features that aren't related to your immediate browsing experience (and downloading files isn't) quickly drifts into the area of personal choice and personal preference. It already has basic retry/pause/resume functionality, it provides basic metrics. You can see what you are downloading by opening the download manager window (Ctrl+J) and have more detailed information that way, including links to the originating page and the download itself (context menu).

If you want more detailed metrics, more advanced functionality (e.g. segmented downloading) and the likes, you can peruse the large collection of add-ons (they are called extensions for a reason, they extend the core functionality of the browser) to find one that suits your specific needs - but your needs will not be the next user's needs (you may want more metrics, your neighbor may want a simple progress bar but individually for each file, their neighbor may want automatic SHA hashing upon completion, ...), but what all of you want is to download the file and have tools to control the download and check its status (which is included in the current functionality).

[Moonchild]

A note on the "thumbnail" new tab page: this functionality will be included in Pale Moon 12, but will be disabled by default.
If you want to enable this functionality (out of curiosity or because you really really want it) you can enable it as follows:

1. Type about:config in the address bar
2. Find the parameter browser.newtabpage.enabled and set it to true
3. Find the parameter browser.newtab.url and set it to about:newtab

[dark_moon]

Why you dont remove the new page crap?

It is to complex for a fast palemoon release or what?

[megaman]

Why you dont remove the new page crap?

It is to complex for a fast palemoon release or what?

People like the feature, me being one of those people.

[Greenboyb1]

Why you dont remove the new page crap?

It is to complex for a fast palemoon release or what?

People like the feature, me being one of those people.

Same here

[Moonchild]

Why you dont remove the new page crap?

It is to complex for a fast palemoon release or what?

It's not too complex - but it's something people have asked for regularly. Pale Moon development goes both ways, not just developers deciding what users will get, but users also influencing what gets developed.
I've included it this way because when it's disabled, it is impactless in terms of performance (the content and scripts never get loaded or run).
People who want to trade off some performance for this feature can do so.

I've edited the original post to clarify Pale Moon's approach on this matter.

[stravinsky]

agree with all the points.
PM is a browser. Period.

[Buggle]

First off, Moonchild, I would like to compliment you on an excellent product you provide. I've been using and recommending Palemoon for some months now, ever since someone mentioned it to me. It partly removed the need for Chrome on my systems, since it brings back some of the responsiveness FF used to have and Chrome is now the king of. It still isn't as responsive as Chrome or even Opera, but it's way better than FF. Given the superiority of the browser itself in terms of its powerful add-ons and technical state, I do use it as my main browser.
Still, I often like to use both IE9 (x86) and Opera (12 alpha and now beta). The first I have set as my default browser because of it's quick startup time and good performance overall, and the second I use beauce of Opera Mobile on my Nokia S60v5 phone. In the light of those browsers, I would like to comment on the points you mention; I registered on this board for that specific reason .

Keeping up with current news and release of information about future Firefox builds, it's becoming more and more clear that using a current base and backporting fixes is the way to go at the moment for Pale Moon.

• In-line autocomplete of URLs:

Although I do agree with the things you write, they are to my eyes primarily aimed at the manner of implementation. I've noticed the autocomplete in IE is very comfortable, and I started to use it a lot. Autocomplete shortens the time required to type an address one often uses. I do think it should be limited to the main domain name however (so instead of http://www.domain.com/bla/bla.htm, it should only autocomplete domain.com), since this is what annoys me in the recently visited implementation of both FF and PM: they put in thousands of sub-pages of forums I visited with huge URLs and such. Limiting the autocomplete to the main domains will also lower the resources needed. Again; I do think this is a very useful feature, basing on my experiences with IE9.

[*]The New Tab page with "quick dial" thumbnails:

I have come accustomed to this feature through my use of Opera. I -absolutely- love it. Most of us will have a few websites we visit regularly, and this is a very intuitive way of having these websites at the click of a button. I do agree with you these should not be dynamic and causing loading stress. In Opera, you can set the thumbs load frequency to anything you like from never to every few minutes.
Also I think for the average Joe who might use one of these browsers, it is a very useful feature. IE btw has it as well; here it is a list of the most visited websites - in Opera you have to manually set them. In IE they also do not contain much info (less accessible to my eyes) and in opera it is a snapshot of the website itself.
I have now enabled the setting in PM12; thank you for keeping this in. I do still prefer Opera's implementation over Mozilla's though.

[*]Metro Firefox and Desktop Apps:

While I totally agree with you on the desktop integration, the question remains what the influence of Win8 will be on the use of FF and PM. I am not a developer, so I do not know to what extend Metro will be relevant to FF/PM development, but I do think it is essential the browser should be fully useable in the Metro environment probably to be included in Win8 by default. Not doing so will undoubtedly cost user share.

[*]Panel-based download manager:

You state later on in a post that downloading is not part of the browsing experience. I do think it is, since there is no other way to get a program off of a website, and downloading is actually something I personally do multiple times a day. My wife does so as well (looking at her downloading cue) and so does my mother, who does not even really understand what downloading is (she does keep asking me "what that downloading is"; I've never been able to explain it to her in a language she understands...).

[*]Completely silent background updates:

I totally agree with you on the security issues. Also, for me (and everyone replying here) this will be the preferred process. We (the people posting in this threat) are power users and experts, and we like to have control over what we do. We do not like it when the computer suddenly does things without us knowing.
Regular users do not care about that, however. They just want a computer that works, and is safe. And this is where FF in the past has been so problematic, because users like my mother or my wife are either scared because they do not understand what happens (immediately stressing about the pop-up, and unable to simply read and understand what the message says) or annoyed that they have to click, click, restart etc. the computer. They don't care about such things, they just want to keep doing what they were doing. The effect is a completely insecure browser and me having to remove trojan after trojan. Having a silent updating process is certainly a crucial feature to at least be able to enable, given the solution is secure. I do hope therefore, that once the feature is matured in future versions of FF, you will consider adding it to PM possibly in the default disabled state. Again; for the average user, this is a more than desirable feature.
And I must admit that I felt freed of the ever-present updating urge while using Chrome for some time. That was like going to the psychologist; very relaxing experience!

[*]Integrated PDF reader:

Besides, whenever someone installs the Adobe Reader, it installs a Plugin anyway, so this is absolute nonsense. What's next; a docx reader?

You are free to offer your suggestions and thoughts to this post, but I do ask you to give constructive feedback and keep things civil.

Glad to be of assistance, I hope this is constructive and civil!

[Night Wing]

Buggle,

I'm a computer illiterate non technical person. I'm NOT a power user. You and I are 180 degrees apart in what we "need" and "want" from a browser. I'm more like your mother, but I have a little bit more knowledge than your mother has. I'll explain.

When I have problems with Windows 7, I have to go next door to my neighbor who is a self taught power user. He fixes all the problems I encounter with Windows 7 when things "don't go right" if you get my drift. When we converted my old XP computer to run Windows 7 Ultimate, the BIOS didn't like it. He had to go into the Bios and he "did his thing" to make W7U work. The sound card which worked with XP didn't work with W7U because of the original motherboard. He found a Rocketfish sound card on eBay which works with the motherboard which gives me sound with W7U.

He also showed me when Microsoft sends updates, to not let them automatically put them on my computer. He showed me how to read them first and then let me decide what they mean and gives me the options to install or not. As an example. I'm one of those computer illiterate people who started out with IE 6. I liked IE 6. Then Microsoft put one of those "updates" on my old 1998 computer and I was saddled with IE 7 and I didn't like IE 7. That's when I found the SeaMonkey browser because it reminded me of the old Netscape which I liked. SeaMonkey was my default browser for 4 years. When SM v2.1 came out, the SM developers (who are power users) put in a new Data Manager. Power users loved it, but I hated and despised it. The last and best SM browser for a computer illiterate non technical person was 2.0.14 and this is still on both of my computers. I use this version because it doesn't have the new data manager with it's penchant for unnecessary mouse clicks to do things. What took one mouse click to do things as with cookies, can now take up to ten mouse clicks to do the exact same thing. SM is now up to (v2.9), but I won't update to it because of the Data Manager which aggravates me.

As for a browser, I want a browser that is easy to work with and easy to configure since I am computer illiterate. With I bought my newest Windows 7 64-bit computer, it came with IE 8. I don't like IE 8 or IE 9. When buttons aren't customizable and can't be moved to a place on the left side of the browser (like the Home button), that is the kiss of death for me when it comes to liking a browser. Also, I hated the Bing search engine thingy in the top right of the browser. I couldn't get rid of this thing. Having it makes my address bar in IE 8 shorter. The only thing I use IE 8 for is to download other browsers.

When I bought my newest computer running Windows 7 Home Premium 64-bit, MS kept nagging me to update to IE 9 on four separate occasions. My neighbor told me to highlight the next update, right click on it and when the box pops up, click on Hide and no more IE 9 updates.

Now for FF & PM. I make the changes in the FF & PM browsers via Options. I don't ever go into "about:config" because that is an area which I don't understand at all. Those things in there are like Greek to me. I don't understand any of it. I know if I make a change, it will change something in the browser. For me, "about:config" is nothing more than a disaster waiting to happen. So, I never use the "about:config" thing.

As for downloading, I'm not a downloader. I've got four browsers on my computer and two addons for both FF and PM, along with the usual downloads and updates for Nvidia, Java, Flash, Avast Free AV and Comodo Firewall. But, after that, the only downloads on my computer are an archery program called the Dynamic Spine Calculator, Open Office which opens the archery program for the spreadsheet on it, Belarc Advisor which tells me what's installed on my computer hardware wise and a nifty little utility program called Search Everything which shows every program file on my computer even if the file is "hidden".

This is my second comment in this thread. So, your comment which you state everyone here making a comment in this thread is a power user is incorrect and I'm the example. I'll close by saying browser developers who keep putting in "stuff" which power users are constantly harping on which us computer illiterate non technical users will never use or makes the browser more difficult to use.....stampedes us computer illiterate non technical types to hit the highway and run as fast was we can to choose another browser. With FF 13, if Metro is by default and I can't disable it, I'd dump FF altogether. Ditto for Silent Update and the New Tab Page if these can't be disabled either.

Now, I hope I'm not in hot water with Moonchild, but if I am and I get banned, so be it.

[Greenboyb1]

I hated the Bing search engine thingy in the top right of the browser. I couldn't get rid of this thing. Having it makes my address bar in IE 8 shorter.

IE9 doesn't have this feature that I can find. I just have to right click on a blank spot and check "Show tabs on a separate row" and I have a full size address bar.

When buttons aren't customizable and can't be moved to a place on the left side of the browser (like the Home button), that is the kiss of death for me when it comes to liking a browser.

Same here

Now, I hope I'm not in hot water with Moonchild, but if I am and I get banned, so be it.

I don't think that he will ban you. Your comment sounded civil to me. Plus I was going to point this out to Buggle using a quote form a different post where you stated that you are "computer illiterate".

And even in your other post on this topic stated:

The path Firefox is now taking isn't the path I want as a non technical person

[Buggle]

Actually, Night Wing, you might even understand from reading my post that I am writing and suggesting as a user, just like you. I do not see how what you are saying is any different from what I am suggesting in the post I made - other than pointing out the obvious; of course not everyone here will be a power user. That's not the point; and also has nothing to do with the contents of my comments. The majority will be however, since this is the Pale Moon forum, and not the Firefox help forum. To be even more exact; this is the Pale Moon Development subforum. I do believe the generalization is justified that the people that hang around here have a more than average technical affinity. That is what I understand to be a power user. And yes, if you actually check the contents of your updates before installing, you might even fall into that category by my standards. The large majority of users will not do that, I dare say.
This then also goes for Greenboyb1 - Btw, why the need for the "" around my Nickname? You do understand someone might take that as an insult?

But all comments aside, using an outdated browser is exactly the problem I'm talking about. In your case you actively refuse installing (security)updates for personal reasons, and others simply do so out of fear to break something, ignorance or irritation. The latter three are clear arguments in favour of background updates. Regrettably, the first at least in general is as well.
Computers get infected by the millions because of people visiting sites with browsers that are no longer supported or otherwise not up to date. This is a real problem and it is affecting (in the end) all of us, at least on an aggregated scale. This also goes for windows/microsoft updates however; why is it that you refuse to run an update to software which is tagged as crucial? Since you're not even using IE, there is not a single reason for you to not update that software (and since the IE engine is part of Windows itself, it IS relevant even if you do not use it as a browser). As I said, things like this are causing problems such as Botnets, stolen credit card numbers, email phishing, malware, keyloggers, etcetera etcetera. Installing security updates for software should be a no-brainer. The only ones not doing so should be system administrators with very good reasons not to update their software, for instance because of legacy dependencies.
I think this opinion will not make me much popular to you, but it is the truth. Updates are a necessary evil. But once in a while someone like Moonchild comes along, and he makes something that better fits your needs than has been the case till that moment.
Still, this is besides the point regarding the silent updates. It was triggered by your comments about SeaMonkey.
What I was referring to in my original post are those users that refuse to install the updates to Firefox or even Palemoon because they are annoyed by them or are afraid of them (both apply to many people I know). It took me a LOT of effort to get, as an example, my mother and wife to install their FF/PM updates; to stay safe and keep my home network out of danger - and all the other people on the internet who would be affected by their computer becoming part of a botnet, or their savings dissapearing because of a browser security hole.
But since (maybe) the majority of the users of PaleMoon will want the software to behave as it is now (to keep control, probably), the silent background update process, if it were to be included, should be set to disable by default. No-one is talking about you having to change anything in about:config. I don't either. There are lots of reasons why the availability of the feature is critical, and is being included in FF. The main one I just described (lengthily), and civil, I hope, since I do not mean to insult or attack anyone. I'm just stating obvious facts (and I might also add; in a non-native language).

[Moonchild]

I don't really have time now to fully join the discussion going on, but I will note one important thing about the silent updates. It's not desirable if for nothing else but you taking away the choice for people to update or not and when to update or not and when to use bandwidth. Security considerations of people not upgrading is not a valid argument, considering that is all about people having a security-aware attitude. If you never teach people to be security-aware, by doing everything silently and in the background, then they will never learn. If they aren't comfortable doing software upgrades themselves, they surely shouldn't let some process they can't even stop do it for them, but instead either take a basic course in computer literacy or have someone knowledgeable help them. In companies you have system administrators doing this, at home it should be no different, and be a task for the "wiz on the block" to spend 10 minutes to help people out (and not necessarily for free, either) - if they only ask for it.

In addition, the implementation is done with a windows service that is an open door to knowledgeable hackers since it requires net access to download and admin access to silently install (and keep in mind the source code is freely available so anyone knowledgeable can figure out how to use it). This is the main reason I don't want to include it in default disabled state - then it's JUST a hazard with no benefit at all - in what way is that desirable?

EDIT: Oh, and let's not forget how internet security software may be tripped by a new browser version and break an updated browser. Then the browser "suddenly stopped working and won't start again" without any warning or any clue to the user as to why - how is that NOT going to lose a chunk of your user base?

[Night Wing]

Buggle,

It's not me wanting "not" to update (upgrade) to a newer version of the same browser because of security. It's me not wanting to update to a newer version because of what the developers "think" I need "things wise" with all the stuff they put into the newer version of the same browser because power users want these "things".

When FF 13 comes out, FF 12 will have been out for 6 weeks. I find it hard to swallow FF 12 is now, only after 6 weeks, so insecure security wise that I "must" update to FF 13 and if I don't, the hackers out there are going to turn my computer into a bot. If a browser is only good for 6 weeks, then the developers of the browser are moving way too fast because they're the ones creating all of these security flaws in my opinion simply because........"we have a 6 week update version schedule we must maintain". I also think market share comes into play too because with Silent Update, Mozilla can make the statement that (speaking figuratively and not literally) "as of such and such date, FF 13 has a 25% share of the browser market compared with Google Chromes' percentage share with their version". I'm not interested in keeping up with the Joneses browser wise.

If the FF developers make Silent Update by default, along with a Home Tab, the New Tab Page where I CANNOT disable these settings, that is a lack of common sense on the browser developers no matter how brilliant and smart they are. Smart is good, but smart with good common sense is the best of both worlds.

This is why I would never update to FF 13 and just stay with FF 12 just like I did with SeaMonkey (v2.0.14). When browser developers make drastic changes where they irritate users or make things difficult for people like myself, we won't use the browser anymore. With the old SM version browser I still use, it doesn't have the new Data Manager I hate which is now in the newer SM versions starting with v2.1, but the older version still has the email client built in it which I do like.

Speaking of browser security, this is why I have Avast Free and Comodo Firewall where the firewall has Defense + which I think is a HIPPS type program inside the firewall. Whatever Avast misses, Comodo will catch and vice versa. And both programs have a sandbox in them so I enable Avast's sandbox and disable Comodo's sandbox. With a layered approach to "security", I don't worry how old a browser is. But, if I did run into some trouble, I've always got my next door neighbor to bail my rear end out.

In closing, the wants and needs of power users are totally different than computer illiterate non technical users like me. Power users like "new and shiny" technical things. Us computer illiterate non technical users like "ease of use with customization as an added bonus". As long as I can disable things I don't like and/or never use, I don't mind updating to a newer version of the same browser. But, if browser developers take away choices, like Google Chrome developers have with their "our way or the highway" attitude concerning Silent Update, then it's the highway for me and the reason why I would revert back to the last version of a browser which was easy for me to use and gave me no frustration or aggravation. BTW, I don't have the Google Chrome browser on either of my two computers.

Lastly, thank you Moonchild for not banning me. But, if you did, I would still use the Pale Moon browser because I like using the browser. It's easy for me to use and configure via Options and the use of the Customize box.