Similarly privacy-focused Pale Moon alternatives?

[suzyne]

I appreciate that my opinions probably seem silly or unnecessary for users who say something similar to, I don't care about looks as long as my software is functional in the way I want.

But think that in consistency in the look of software, is not a bad thing, and something worth aiming for.

"Edit" is italic and grey because it's not an active menu item

Yes, but why italic as well? It is a well-known software convention that greyed-out means clicking here does nothing. The italic style ads no extra information to the user and looks odd. If no other "modern" software does this, I can't understand why Pale Moon does. (Just because that's how Firefox might have done it eons ago, is not a great reason for today.)

Side question. Why can't holding the mouse over the "Edit" label make the extra menu pop-out. Just like the "Print" and "Developer Tools" items do. Of course, I only use the clipboard keyboard shortcuts, but making other users hit the little triangle with the mouse seems unnecessarily difficult.

The AppMenu icons are partially taken from system/toolkit theming... etc The "fuzzy" edge for the toolbar icons is on purpose... etc

If there are technical reasons, then it is what it is. All I know is that my screen is 1920 by 1080 which is not unusual, and I am used to (spoilt by?) seeing crisp or at the very least, consistent icons in other programs, with my windows screen at 100%.

What do you find particularly offensive to your design spirit with it?

To be fair, I never said the default main menu was ugly or anything like that. And also, my replies have largely been in response to several comments in opposition to, or questioning the claim that Pale Moon is "out-dated".

And so I suppose the two-pane, two-tone menu reflects the out-datedness of the Pale Moon interface. I am not saying it is wrong, but seriously, has anybody installed software from the last 10 years or so, that uses this sort of main menu?

I imagine that except for fans of nostalgia, nobody is really expecting to install a browser in 2025 and see something like that. Again, it isn't wrong, but it does offend my design sensibilities when anybody tries to claim that the default Pale Moon look doesn't give off strong outdated vibes.

[Moonchild]

Just because that's how Firefox might have done it eons ago, is not a great reason for today.

That's fair, but it also means that it is what most users expect. And since they threw an absolute tantrum over the single pixel gap between tabs for better visual separation, I've been reluctant to make many visual changes to the UI.
I'll consider making some changes for the next milestone (v34) Issue #1992

Why can't holding the mouse over the "Edit" label make the extra menu pop-out.

Because it's not an active menu entry. One follows from the other. The edit menu is also a special case with its 3 mini buttons in it.

All I know is that my screen is 1920 by 1080 which is not unusual, and I am used to (spoilt by?) seeing crisp or at the very least, consistent icons in other programs, with my windows screen at 100%.

I run at 1920x1200@100% myself and I do not find the toolbar buttons to be "not crisp". In fact, I find them a little clearer than what e.g. edge shows:

toolbar1.png

And they are consistent within the theme. So I really don't understand the complaint.

but it does offend my design sensibilities when anybody tries to claim that the default Pale Moon look doesn't give off strong outdated vibes.

Well look at "modern" design then. Most of it is mobile-first, minimal lines, monochrome or at best single flat color. Using overly-long hamburger menus because mobiles don't have the screen real estate for anything else but scrolling panes. I just don't see how that improves upon what ewe have now. You can call it outdated if you want, but it is not -- it is a stylistic choice from a desire to keep at least some color in the UI and retain some elegance while remaining functional.
It's also not like we're using aliased crude gifs or what not, and the "vibes" you get may just be because it's "not like everything else". But does different mean outdated?

[dchmelik]

it does offend my design sensibilities when anybody tries to claim that the default Pale Moon look doesn't give off strong outdated vibes.

I'm sure it offends desktop users even more when portable PC users push for their styles to become normal on desktop, where they're worse. Those styles are pure counter-intuitive garbage made by oppressive megacorporations with little/no design sense that have been taking GUIs backwards. If they used several menu icons it'd still be much faster than trying to go through all previous menus in one after an extra step, with many existent shortcuts no longer noted.

Well look at "modern" design then. Most of it is mobile-first [...]

And are these PCs 'mobile: capable of motion on their own': would they be mobile for people such as the late famous disabled professor Dr Stephen Hawking? 'Portable'.

minimal lines, monochrome or at best single flat color. [...]

And too much grey or medium blue on white, which my college professors in late 1990s gave failing grade for if you used that tone/colour writing on white: portable PC GUI idiots not even up to basic readability standards. I have 20/20 vision and top 1/10,000 to 1/1,000,000 visual skills according to brain test I took (lifelong artist) but even I have trouble seeing gray-on-white on less intense or smaller pixel monitors... sometimes appears virtually invisible (then computer part manufacturer websites imitating this bad style claim just 'check your OS').

Using overly-long hamburger menus because mobiles don't have the screen real estate for anything else but scrolling panes. I just don't see how that improves upon what [we] have now. [...]

I use portable PCs a little (including UNIX/GNU/Linux laptops with Pale Moon) but as far as that garbage Android (& iOS) goes, I'm unsure what you mean, but take possible implication it's much less than improvement.

You can call it outdated if you want, but it is not -- it is a stylistic choice from a desire to keep at least some color in the UI [...]

Not outdated, right, but haha, 'some colour' when describing portable is lack of style (as you said, pushing monochrome... as if it's 1970) as if you went somewhere in earlier USSR or China with rows of identical gray buildings under smog... sometimes simplicity is nice, but on portable PCs, overdone. Pale Moon isn't too simplistic in this way (I temporarily misread like you were still talking about portable).

and retain some elegance while remaining functional. [...]

More elegant, functional than portable PCs.

It's also not like we're using aliased crude gifs or what not, and the "vibes" you get may just be because it's "not like everything else". But does different mean outdated?

Of course not. As scholarch philosopher-scientist-mathematicians Socrates & Plato said maybe 2400 years ago, newer isn't always better. In fact, it's often worse. What we saw shifting from 1800s craftsmanship to 1900s manufacturing then extreme manufacturing--now copied in software--is that quality went down. You throw out machines these days with barely a year warranty that used to last half a lifetime. You and your team are expert craftsmen, regardless if you maybe sped up development slightly (I prefer waterfall over agile methods).

[Lucio Chiappetti]

It looks like to me that this thread has strayed off its subject, or at least to my expectations based on the subject title (what I expected were recommendations for an alternate browser to use for those websites not compatible with Pale Moon, while preserving a similar privacy protection).
Since it has strayed, I could just add my 2 euro-cents.

it does offend my design sensibilities when anybody tries to claim that the default Pale Moon look doesn't give off strong outdated vibes.

I'm sure it offends desktop users even more when portable PC users push for their styles to become normal on desktop, where they're worse.

Frankly I do not care a damn (cit.) about vibes. I'm pretty happy with Pale Moon (I moved to it when FF went Australis).
I do not get the difference from desktop to portable PC ... I have a Linux desktop and a Linux laptop and I get exactly the same look for everything, not just the browser (I use a niche window manager, fvwm, not any of the major DE)

Using overly-long hamburger menus because mobiles don't have the screen real estate for anything else but scrolling panes. I just don't see how that improves upon what [we] have now. [...]

I use portable PCs a little (including UNIX/GNU/Linux laptops with Pale Moon) but as far as that garbage Android (& iOS) goes, I'm unsure what you mean,

I do not like the hamburger menus (which hide things) in briwssr like chrome, as well in websites which use themn for navigation.
I have no experience with smartphones, I do not want nor need to have one. Besides other things their screen are too small. I have a dumb cell phone to make and receive phone calls. When travelling I take a laptop and a router with me. And if I cannot connect for a few hours I feel absolutelly normal.

You can call it outdated if you want, but it is not -- it is a stylistic choice from a desire to keep at least some color in the UI [...]

Not sure about why colour got in the discussion. My personal Pale Moon look (Linux GTK2) has all black over gray text buttons (no icons, in general I do not like "unexplainable" icons and can suffer them only if accompained by a text tooltip).

Of course not. As scholarch philosopher-scientist-mathematicians Socrates & Plato said maybe 2400 years ago, newer isn't always better. In fact, it's often worse.

Yes, I often say that "modern is not always progress". "Progress" (pro-gredior) means making a step forward. "Modern" ("moderno" in my mother tongue) sounds to me associated with "moda" (i.e. "fashion" hence "fashionable") ... although such etimology is probably incorrect.

I feel quite upset when a website tells me I'm not using a "modern" browser, or a mail HTML message tells me I'm not using a "modern" mailer (I actually hate mail messages which are composed of a useful text part and a useless HTML attachment repetition of the same and have a procmail filter to strip the latter off). When really needed I can just fire off a browser from my terminal-oriented mailer.
And yes, for the three main daily usage things (browser, mail user agent and window manager) I do like to use non-modern ones (Pale Moon, Alpine and fvwm).
May add to it a;lso the text editor (THE, the Hessling editor).

[Falna]

Just because that's how Firefox might have done it eons ago, is not a great reason for today.

That's fair, but it also means that it is what most users expect. And since they threw an absolute tantrum over the single pixel gap between tabs for better visual separation, I've been reluctant to make many visual changes to the UI.
I'll consider making some changes for the next milestone (v34) Issue #1992

I think that would be a positive step.

[suzyne]

But does different mean outdated?

Leaning into the fashionable part of the word's meaning, actually, I think it does. The perpetuation of an interface inherited from the Firefox browser in 2011 is almost that definition of outdated.

If nobody is building browsers that look like Firefox 4.0 (I went to oldversion.com to check what it looked like) that is what being unfashionable is all about.

Outdated doesn't have to be about better or worse, or "I like the old look more so it's not outdated."

I've been reluctant to make many visual changes to the UI. I'll consider making some changes for the next milestone

I appreciate this comment, but presumably you wouldn't do it just because of my comments? I would feel guilty with you doing more work on this aspect of Pale Moon because nobody else seems to care at all. 

since they threw an absolute tantrum over the single pixel gap between tabs

If everybody else is comfortable with a mishmash of icons with an inconsistent use of glossy highlights, different icons for the same function, meaningless variations in the use of colour vs shades of grey, then I don't want to be responsible for triggering any trouble.

Clipboard_08-22-2025_02.png

[Moonchild]

Leaning into the fashionable part of the word's meaning, actually, I think it does.

Then we just have to agree to disagree.

If everybody else is comfortable with a mishmash of icons with an inconsistent use of glossy highlights, different icons for the same function, meaningless variations in the use of colour vs shades of grey

It's not inconsistent in terms of color/grey/highlights. The same shallow gradients are used everywhere. The toolbar icons all have the same design style. There are some things that adapt based on which operating system you're running on (i.e. it will look different on Windows 7 vs 8 vs 10) to keep some level of integration with the OS.
The AppMenu icons are the only ones that are the odd ones out and I plan to change that.

The fact your toolbar background is flat white without an accent colour probably adds to your impression of fuzziness but as I explained that's necessary for lightweight themes.
Once again though, as my initial reply to the OP, that still stands: if you don't like it, use a different theme. That's what Pale Moon is all about.

[suzyne]

It's not inconsistent in terms of color/grey/highlights.

Not with the colouring. Reload and History are colour, while New Window and Download aren't for me. Could that be something to do with "some things that adapt based on which operating system you're running on"?

The AppMenu icons are the only ones that are the odd ones out and I plan to change that.

That would be a welcome change!

Once again though, as my initial reply to the OP, that still stands: if you don't like it, use a different theme. That's what Pale Moon is all about.

And as I have said too, all my observations are based on what the Pale Moon default looks like. The image attachment in my previous reply is a fresh profile with the default theme.

That flat white is what I get the first time I open the browser, isn't that what everybody sees after installing on Windows (even if it's 7, 10 or 11)?

Yes, I love the way I can use themes, and I don't use the default, but all my feedback is about first impressions only, not how customisable Pale Moon is.

[Michaell]

I appreciate that my opinions probably seem silly or unnecessary for users who say something similar to, I don't care about looks as long as my software is functional in the way I want.

Yes. I don't understand why you more or less just started using PM recently and now you're telling us how it should be designed. I'm surprised Moonchild is listening. Probably because you're a woman. He shoots the rest of us down quickly. And I've been here since 2012 so I know (several different user accounts).

I imagine that except for fans of nostalgia, nobody is really expecting to install a browser in 2025 and see something like that. Again, it isn't wrong, but it does offend my design sensibilities when anybody tries to claim that the default Pale Moon look doesn't give off strong outdated vibes.

Try Seamonkey if you want to see old. Compare it to Mozilla Suite if you can find that. And yes, there are still dedicated users (Rube who is here too may have something to say about it).

More comments to follow.

[Michaell]

If nobody is building browsers that look like Firefox 4.0 (I went to oldversion.com to check what it looked like) that is what being unfashionable is all about.

If we could get a Firefox 3.6 fork that had all the current functionality needed to use the web, you can bet a lot of us would be happy using it. Users have to settle for what works. And Pale Moon is the best choice.

because nobody else seems to care at all.

That's mostly true - we like it the way it is for the most part. If we do dare to suggest some change it has very little chance of being implemented (unless it's a functional thing) so we've learned not to bother.

[Michaell]

That flat white is what I get the first time I open the browser, isn't that what everybody sees after installing on Windows (even if it's 7, 10 or 11)?

This is default look or close to it for me (but that's not what my use version looks like.)

PM.jpg

[suzyne]

This is default look or close to it for me (but that's not what my use version looks like.)

That's interesting, I just assumed that how Pale Moon looks after I do an install, would be the same for other Windows users. Happy to be shown to be shown as wrong and mistaken!

It sounds like you would prefer that Pale Moon and the forum to be a more exclusive club for those who fondly remember and used Firefox back from its beginnings or at least from early 2010s.

I am not really sure how to best respond to your other comments, but can I ask you how long i should wait before I earn the right to make comments and express opinions that may be different from yours and the us that you refer to?

[Moonchild]

I'm surprised Moonchild is listening. Probably because you're a woman. He shoots the rest of us down quickly. And I've been here since 2012 so I know (several different user accounts).

What kind of a left-field remark is that? Why would being a woman (assumed, anyway) make a difference for me?

I just think it's important to engage with remarks that do address points of improvement in design, but at the same time I've always been clear which I indicated here too, that the response from the user base has pushed me to not take on UI changes without at least careful thought, because of the response from the very user base I've been trying to help. That engagement isn't "telling us how it should be designed" either, it's just a discussion. Since it's been mostly me who has worked on what we inherited theme-wise from Mozilla for the default look&feel, of course it'd be me who responds. And I'm happy to admit it if something is "off" that should be looked into for improvement.

[frostknight]

I hate form-over-function! It's as simple as that.

I agree with you there completely. Its such an idiotic idea. This is also why I crap on proprietary operating systems like windows, apple and google.

also redhat's idea of what linux should be too.

[Mæstro]

Since it's been mostly me who has worked on what we inherited theme-wise from Mozilla for the default look&feel, of course it'd be me who responds. And I'm happy to admit it if something is "off" that should be looked into for improvement.

I think many users dread the imagined possibility of being treated the way Mozilla had when introducing Australis a dozen years ago. The difference which they miss is that Mozilla’s shifts were user-irreversible, while yours would not be. There are themes that can make Pale Moon look identical to Firefox 2 or 3, and any changes to the default interface, logically, would not affect these at all. No such theme has ever been developed for Firefox 4–28, simply because the default theme has already met the same need. If somebody (not necessarily you) were to offer such an early 2010s Firefox theme, I hope the opposition to any changes in the default interface would subside. One could perhaps draw a loose analogy to the time you separated tab groups into an extension.

[Lucio Chiappetti]

the response from the user base has pushed me to not take on UI changes without at least careful thought, because of the response from the very user base I've been trying to help.

While thanking you infinitely for your effort in developing and maintaining Pale Moon, I'd like to stress that in my opinion as an user UI look-and-feel is the last and less prioritary item to be addressed. If it ain't broke don't change, and if one has achieved what for him is "perfect", one would be upset by changes (specially forced changes). I've set up my UI (thanks to PM customizability) with menu bar on top, then simplified navigation bar, a custom bar, bookmarks toolbar, tabs on bottom, main area, status bar. All with text and no icons. And I'm 98% happy with it.

The 2% I could not be happy is that the items in the custom bar (which collects the buttons from add-ons) are not always perfectly aligned, but I guess one should blame add-on developers, and anyhow it is a minor aesthetic imperfection I could live with.

My personal list of perceived priorities (as an user) in development-and-maintenance effort is:

1. compatibility with existing websites (even if the need arises from (poor) site design or googlisms) ... which is surely and unfortunately lot of work
2. security and privacy (well, that's mostly hidden from the user view, but I guess it is lot of work too)
3. improved functionalities
4. customizability of functionalities and UI via add-ons

As you see, changes to the core UI is not even in the list.
And the motivations for items 1 and 2 are mainly of external origin (struggle to keep up with a changing web).
Concening item 3 the only area I may not be happy, and which derives, I guess, from original FF design, is what I call MIME type association (Tools->Preferences->Application) ... but I guess the cases I may feel uncomfortable are also of external origin (web site MIME "announcement", or OS i/f ?)

[Moonchild]

Of course all that makes sense but that isn't the question here. The UI "look and feel" can't really be "broken" as its mostly subjective, especially when you keep the principles of intuitive interfacing in mind when making design decisions.

Similarly, while functionality clearly has priority, discarding discussions about design out of hand as a result is also not right.

[Michaell]

Well, if you're considering design changes, one thing I'd like is to be able to move buttons out of url box (maybe even to another toolbar). I'd like to keep the url as the only thing inside the url box (except the security section on the left). Buttons inside the text box never made sense to me, plus I like to put buttons in an order or position that suits me. Here' s what I currently have (all from extensions except bookmarks and RSS; reload & stop moved out by changing the order; drop down arrow and right arrow should stay):

pmurlbarbuttons.jpg

[RealityRipple]

protip: geoflag has a toolbar button. If you add it to the toolbar, it will not be in the address bar.

[Michaell]

Thanks. Hadn't tried because I thought I'd have two.
The reason I suggested addressing it in the browser is I doubt it's practical to get all extension developers to provide us a choice.

p.s. I turned RSS in urlbar off in config and added the button. So, some are addressable, but not all.
p.p.s. I also used the option for qrThis to disable the button in urlbar until I need it (hopefully I can remember).