Yet another palemoon review:

[frostknight]

https://windowsreport.com/pale-moon-browser-review/

This is from a website that is actually still active and it looks like a mostly good review to me.

[vannilla]

It is incorrect in some parts, but it's a surprisingly neutral and objective review of the browser. In fact, I'm shocked by how "proper" (for a lack of better word) this article is!

[frostknight]

It is incorrect in some parts, but it's a surprisingly neutral and objective review of the browser. In fact, I'm shocked by how "proper" (for a lack of better word) this article is!

Yeah exactly.

Seems more than a few articles that tell some truth about palemoon. Not the majority, but better than I thought at least, And this one is surprising given its a windows website. That is the last thing I expected from a windows website.

[jobbautista9]

This review feels like it's written by an LLM (at least for the most part, I do see a few typos here and there, though it could be possible they've asked a chatbot about Pale Moon which paraphrased from its outdated available information which then got paraphrased by the author). It should've been easy to see that there is an official Mac version of the browser if one simply went to the Downloads page.

The parts about start.me and the Flash protected mode tool are pretty strange. They're not really considered part of the browser...

This [permission manager] functionality is not unique to Pale Moon; however, other browsers do not permit you to control specific site settings to the same extent.

Chrome, for example, lets you define cookie policy on a global level, and you can keep a list of websites that aren’t authorized to store site data. However, such unique site or cookie data handling rules cannot be defined for the individual domains.

Not sure what they mean here. Chrome does allow site-specific (down to the subdomain) permission settings like Pale Moon, including the storage of cookies. I suppose the only thing Chrome can't do is blocking and allowing third-party cookies for each site, but they should've mentioned that specifically instead if they meant that.

Pale Moon is not as mainstream as many other browsers, but it stands out in customization, which is why many people may want it as a browser option.

And I really wish they actually demonstrated that part because customization (or rather the very ease of it both for casual and power users) really is its strongest point. They could've installed any complete theme from the add-ons site and took a screenshot to show how much radically different the browser can look like (from the toolbar items to the dialog windows to even the error pages) in a few clicks. The convenience of an installable package (or xpi) compared to having to copy-paste CSS into some obscure directory (which you won't even know if it still works or not until you restart the browser! Compare that to an XPI where you know whether you can use it or not at the moment of installation) is very underappreciated in my opinion. Maybe even install my Website Navigation Bar to add a toolbar from the days of the Mozilla Suite (okay I know I'm just shamelessly plugging my own add-on here but to be fair they are doing similar with that Opera One ad ), and the Window Menu to add a menu to the menu bar (or appmenu button's menus). Or even just move the downloads button to the status bar (and this toolbar is nowhere mentioned in the article. Sad!)...

[frostknight]

This review feels like it's written by an LLM (at least for the most part, I do see a few typos here and there, though it could be possible they've asked a chatbot about Pale Moon which paraphrased from its outdated available information which then got paraphrased by the author). It should've been easy to see that there is an official Mac version of the browser if one simply went to the Downloads page.

So its outdated, at least its not friggin negative like so many others.

[palidaluna]

https://windowsreport.com/pale-moon-browser-review/

is an AI-genrated Nonsense & Bullshit Review, judge Yourself:

?️ Quick Tip:

Despite Pale Moon’s emphasis on privacy, it is still crushed. Switching to a different browser, such as Opera One, may be just what you need.

[UCyborg]

What about this one?

https://www.xda-developers.com/pale-moon-privacy-browser/

May be more like a blog post.

Mentioned extensions, I suppose we really don't have AI writing assistant. Todoist, may be some options in the classic addon archive, would need to take time to test. GoFullPage may be replaced with FireShot.

How come all these people trip over the Pale Moon's UI?

[Moonchild]

How come all these people trip over the Pale Moon's UI?

Probably because they ignore what's on the first run page:full theming to completely redefine it.

[UCyborg]

H also mentioned the option for the menus reminiscent of Microsoft Office. Old MS Office, MS Office doesn't have such menus since Office 2007. Making comparison to LibreOffice would be more reflecting of current reality.

[frostknight]

Probably because they ignore what's on the first run page:full theming to completely redefine it.

I hate the ui on a lot of modern stuff, Though your web browser is actually doable.

I am glad you still work on this version of firefox. The firefox that isn't over the top and ugly as hell.

[Moonchild]

I am glad you still work on this version of firefox.

Please don't call it "a version of Firefox", ignoring many years of independent development.

[frostknight]

Please don't call it "a version of Firefox", ignoring many years of independent development.

I merely meant it used to be firefox. You are correct, it has changed very drastically removing lots of trash that mozilla put in, like telemtetry and data collection and other crap.

My bad.