J
Jeff T
Can you install pale moon browser with Windows XP ?.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
B
Bruce Hagen
Jeff T said:Can you install pale moon browser with Windows XP ?.
a.. Windows XP/Windows Vista/Windows 7/Windows 8/Server 2003 or later
a.. For Windows XP, the latest service pack is required. (XP SP3 or XP x64
SP2)
http://www.palemoon.org/
G
Gloops
CRNG wrote, on 20th March 2014 22:26 UTC + 2 :
Hello,
So, I presume the interest is not to install to many extensions in Pale
Moon, so that you keep a quick browser, and one with more functions ?
On Thu, 20 Mar 2014 15:42:46 -0500, "Jeff T" <[email protected]>
Yes, I am using the latest version of PM with WinXPpro and it works
very well. All of the FireFox extensions that I use work well with
it; and it seem to be a bit faster than FF.
Hello,
So, I presume the interest is not to install to many extensions in Pale
Moon, so that you keep a quick browser, and one with more functions ?
M
Mayayana
| > Yes, I am using the latest version of PM with WinXPpro and it works
| > very well. All of the FireFox extensions that I use work well with
| > it; and it seem to be a bit faster than FF.
| >
|
| So, I presume the interest is not to install to many extensions in Pale
| Moon, so that you keep a quick browser, and one with more functions ?
|
I also find PM a bit faster. I also use FF. Internally
they're the same thing, but it's handy having both.
I use PM for most browsing, with script, cookies and
3rd-party images disabled. I also have Download Helper,
SecretAgent and RestoreViewSource extensions installed.
It's optimized for privacy. For the occasional times when
I need to allow interactive webpages, I use FF, with script
and cookies enabled. FF has RestoreViewSource and
NoScript extensions. So for me the point of using PM
is speed and also the ability to have two different versions
of the same browser set up in entirely different ways
for convenience. (It's a pain to adjust script, cookies
and image behavior just for one website.)
| > very well. All of the FireFox extensions that I use work well with
| > it; and it seem to be a bit faster than FF.
| >
|
| So, I presume the interest is not to install to many extensions in Pale
| Moon, so that you keep a quick browser, and one with more functions ?
|
I also find PM a bit faster. I also use FF. Internally
they're the same thing, but it's handy having both.
I use PM for most browsing, with script, cookies and
3rd-party images disabled. I also have Download Helper,
SecretAgent and RestoreViewSource extensions installed.
It's optimized for privacy. For the occasional times when
I need to allow interactive webpages, I use FF, with script
and cookies enabled. FF has RestoreViewSource and
NoScript extensions. So for me the point of using PM
is speed and also the ability to have two different versions
of the same browser set up in entirely different ways
for convenience. (It's a pain to adjust script, cookies
and image behavior just for one website.)
G
Gloops
Mayayana wrote, on 21st March 2014 18:14 UTC + 2 :
Much less than in IE, considering NoScript and CookieMonster.
Oh, do you disable the images also ?
(It's a pain to adjust script, cookies
and image behavior just for one website.)
Much less than in IE, considering NoScript and CookieMonster.
Oh, do you disable the images also ?
M
Mayayana
| Much less than in IE, considering NoScript and CookieMonster.
|
Even without those it's far easier than IE, but it still
requires changing several settings.
| Oh, do you disable the images also ?
|
Yes, but only 3rd-party images. That eliminates most
ads and also stops tracking via web bugs. Some sites
end up being ugly because in some cases their images
are not coming from the same domain, but for the most
part it's fine.
I also use a HOSTS file for backup, and to block most
ads and tracking in Firefox. A small number of companies
provide the majority of ads and web-bug tracking, so it's
not hard to block most of it with a HOSTS file.
To block 3rd-party images:
setting: permissions.default.image value: 3
The setting seems to actually block all 3rd-party files.
I'm not sure, but it seems that what I see is affected if
CSS files are not on the same server as the webpage
I'm visiting.
This setting was originally in Firefox. There was a choice
to enable or disable images, but there was also a 3rd choice
to enable only images from the same domain, which is more
or less an ad-blocking setting. The Mozilla
people removed the option, claiming it was "confusing".
At the same time they renamed the prefs setting so that
only people who discovered the whole story would be able
to block 3rd-party images going forward. I think of that
change as the beginning of the end.... The start of Google's
money corrupting the Mozilla people. Since then they've
continued moving away from browser-for-the-people to
browser-for-milking-consumers design. Another notable
change was to hide cookie settings by default. Now they
even hide the javascript option.... All ads and tracking,
all the time. Of course there are options with extensions
and about:config, but I suspect that Google and their
Mozilla lackeys probably don't care much about that. Extensions
and about:config are for geeks. They're not a threat to the
tracking, data-mining and ads economy.
|
Even without those it's far easier than IE, but it still
requires changing several settings.
| Oh, do you disable the images also ?
|
Yes, but only 3rd-party images. That eliminates most
ads and also stops tracking via web bugs. Some sites
end up being ugly because in some cases their images
are not coming from the same domain, but for the most
part it's fine.
I also use a HOSTS file for backup, and to block most
ads and tracking in Firefox. A small number of companies
provide the majority of ads and web-bug tracking, so it's
not hard to block most of it with a HOSTS file.
To block 3rd-party images:
setting: permissions.default.image value: 3
The setting seems to actually block all 3rd-party files.
I'm not sure, but it seems that what I see is affected if
CSS files are not on the same server as the webpage
I'm visiting.
This setting was originally in Firefox. There was a choice
to enable or disable images, but there was also a 3rd choice
to enable only images from the same domain, which is more
or less an ad-blocking setting. The Mozilla
people removed the option, claiming it was "confusing".
At the same time they renamed the prefs setting so that
only people who discovered the whole story would be able
to block 3rd-party images going forward. I think of that
change as the beginning of the end.... The start of Google's
money corrupting the Mozilla people. Since then they've
continued moving away from browser-for-the-people to
browser-for-milking-consumers design. Another notable
change was to hide cookie settings by default. Now they
even hide the javascript option.... All ads and tracking,
all the time. Of course there are options with extensions
and about:config, but I suspect that Google and their
Mozilla lackeys probably don't care much about that. Extensions
and about:config are for geeks. They're not a threat to the
tracking, data-mining and ads economy.
G
Gloops
CRNG wrote, on 21st March 2014 19:49 UTC + 2 :
Oh, I have eleven active extensions, and several times that, that are
dis-activated because it slowed down Firefox too much. And I still get a
message that alerts me of Firefox being too slow to start.
I presume All-in-One-sidebar takes much place, but I do not realize
exactly how I should do without it. The name seems self-explanatory.
Well, I don't use many extensions; but the few that I use I have in
both PaleMoon and FireFox.
Oh, I have eleven active extensions, and several times that, that are
dis-activated because it slowed down Firefox too much. And I still get a
message that alerts me of Firefox being too slow to start.
I presume All-in-One-sidebar takes much place, but I do not realize
exactly how I should do without it. The name seems self-explanatory.
G
Gloops
I do not realize exactly how much time I should have to spend on that.
It seems if I do it will be interesting.
It seems if I do it will be interesting.