How would I disable the automatic updates, and what's seamonkey?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeaMonkey

Disabling updates has been discussed frequently in this forum. See this search of past forum threads.

Hi Marc7, what does your Firefox 33 look like with Classic Theme Restorer running?

CTR has a very extensive list of appearance tweaks in its multi-panel options dialog, so if there are just a couple of things you want to change, you may find it more efficient to check that first.

To access CTR's Options button, use the Add-ons page. Either:

• Ctrl+Shift+a
• "3-bar" menu button (or Tools menu) > Add-ons

In the left column, click Extensions. Then scan down the list. Be aware that some of the lists of CTR's options are so long that there may be a scroll bar to view all of them.

SeaMonkey is a suite of internet applications. It has a browser, an email and newsgroup reader, and a chat client. There is more information here: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/ http://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/

Hey Jscher.

I haven't tried 33. The last version I used was 32.0.3 I would assume little has changed between how 32 and 33 look with classic theme restorer, a screenshot of which can be found earlier in this thread. I just knew I hated 32, and downgraded back to 28. I am considering the esr for 24. And while I'm a bit sad there's no esr for 28 (which has been by far my favorite iteration of the browser) , I do know I would have been happy to see the australis theme either removed, or made an add on for anyone who wants that look. I was far more comfortable with the original theme of 28. While Classic Theme Restorer tries to emulate this, it clearly had issues, as I mentioned in the same post on this thread with the screenshots comparing a screenshot taken from 28 with one from 32.

I honestly wish the 28 theme was the default and Australis was the optional add on. I know I'm not the only one that had this issue. There was a previous thread about it, but I'd forgotten that when I made this one. Plus, I think the previous thread had died.

Part of this drew from my dislike of the way the browser looks on windows xp. But I've also used both versions on a windows 8 machine and still had the same issue. 28 is more intuitive and feels more natural to me and I have no problem using the browser and getting from here to there on the different functions it has. Or at least the few that I need at any rate. 29 and up, specifically in the 30s? Much less so.

SeaMonkey does not look at all like Australis. It has not been gutted. You can get it here: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/

Marc,

I'm sorry that you are so unhappy with the Australis UI, but "we" have been dealing with it for a lot longer than you have. Firefox 29, released on April 29, was the first version with the new interface, so its been around for over 6 months now. Plus many of us doing support here 'tested' the Nightly versions where Australis was put together and have been dealing with it for over 2 years now.

Australis is an all new interface and isn't compatible with the Firefox 28 and older versions interface; it wasn't possible to provide both interfaces and allow the user a choice as to which one they could use.

Your choice is to stay with Firefox 28 and watch it "fall victim" to more and more exploits as time passes by, or to update Firefox and stay secure. Other choices include other Firefox-based (Gecko-based) 3rd party versions like SeaMonkey or PaleMoon. Both have a 'retro-look' UI that is similar to Firefox 28 and earlier versions, although not identical.

In closing, you should feel lucky that Mozilla even supports an unsupported operating system like WinXP, and "puts in" the work necessary to keep Firefox compatible with WinXP; Mac users haven't been as lucky.

Hi Marc7, your earlier post raised 3 specific issues:

(1) Reload - Stop button style: you said you solved this already. I've created a screenshot from Windows 7 showing this, too.

(2) Star icon in address bar - CTR has a checkbox for adding a star icon into the address bar but I didn't test that.

(3) Differences in background coloration - this is more drastic with a Windows 7 "Aero" theme, and color-related customizations I could develop may not be applicable to Windows XP, so I'm leaving that issue to others. I'm not sure it makes sense to run a known insecure version of Firefox because of different shades of gray in the toolbar area.

The general comfort on the look is one thing, to be fair. But the other issue was that even after addressing some of the issues, such as the way the stop/reload buttons weren't showing up right was the fact that at times the thing wouldn't reload a page at all. I was never able to figure that out. The other part is getting comfortable with the general way the later versions run, as just trying to customize the toolbar opens up a massive page, rather than a simple window where you can put anything you don't want and leave what you do. What makes it worse is that there are other features I didn't know what to do with in said customize page thing that left me unsure what I was doing. Likewise, there were new options and features appeared in the options section that confused me. Normally I would just leave these alone, but they would still make me wonder what they were and if I was supposed to adjust them at all.

Further, as you have mentioned, you have to do some odd stuff to make things run the way 28 does naturally. Stuff I honestly would never have thought to do if someone hadn't brought it up at all. In short, it added new hoops to run through to get the new version working and/or looking (and in this case at least, both) the way the last version I was comfortable with did. And even then, it doesn't seem to be working as smoothly as 28 did.

Make no mistake, I am very appreciative of the fact that Firefox has continued to support XP, however, I also believe that making something look so radically different and adding in multiple issues that one has to go in and manually adjust just to get comfortable with it is kind of a bad trade off. Now I have been, admittedly, very lucky in that I go to so few websites that whatever exploits might be available in 28 will probably not be an issue for me. I am considering jumping to the last 24 esr, as I know it will have a similar look to 28 and has security up to date with the early 30s.

I have tried seamonkey recently, but I haven't found myself feeling comfortable with it. I've never heard of palemoon, though I will give it a try as well. But again, I just wonder why firefox thought such a drastic change to the UI and having to do multiple things to adjust the system that not everyone will know to do, or even think of, was a good idea. I'm not knocking you guys, please keep that in mind. I just think that maybe you might have gone a bit overboard with the changes you made while making the newer and more secure versions.

One thing you do mention is that Seamonkey has a similar look to 28. That's true. And it even has an option to switch themes. I would like to point out that while I'm not particularly fond of either of Seamonkey's themes, I do think it was a nice touch, having that as something one could select, rather than having Australis as the default and needing to load an entirely different theme, one which doesn't entirely fit the idea of restoring the classic look without, again, having to learn odd tricks that not everyone would know if they aren't particularly computer savvy (I include myself in the non-savvy category, as I really know very little about computers in general, as far as their inner workings or the inner workings of most programs beyond what they're supposed to enable the average person to do.) .

Again, please don't take it as a knock or anything. I'm not trying to upset anyone here. I'm simply trying to explain the issues I've had. I do know that the general look and setup of everything from 29 up has seen other people respond in a similar manner (as evidenced, again, by a previous thread on a similar vein as this. I tried 29 and 32, disliked the feel of both, and had felt forced to revert to 28 when 32 started doing odd things with the reloading of pages and the like. 29 had similar issues for me, even before I learned of the one or two tricks to try to help it feel like its predecessor) . I have to wonder why you guys stuck with Australis as the default setup at all, given that people disliked it enough that a Classic Theme Restorer needed to be made. Wouldn't that have been a good general indicator of the way people thought of the new look and concept, that it might have been worth returning to the look of 24-28 as the default? I understand that you guys clearly liked the new look and functions, but I'm not sure that everyone else did. Having stuck with it since 29, I can see that you're hoping to get people to like it. But if I could make a suggestion, for future releases, would it be possible for users to choose ahead of time which version of the interface they'd like, similar to how Seamonkey works, rather than trying to reskin an interface and then having to fix all these other things in it that cause them frustration with the new interface that they might not know how to adjust? I know you said it wasn't possible to make it something that could be done up till now, but is it possible that you could find a way to do so? I realize it would present extra hassle in developing the newer versions, but at the same time, it would offer users of the browser a means to decide a little bit about what their general experience with the browser is.

I hope that you will take this suggestion under advisement, and that I haven't upset too many people with this. It wasn't my intention to do anything other than call attention to the issues I've had and see if there was a way to prevent those issues from recurring in future versions. I have enjoyed Firefox since at least version 3, and when 24-28 came around, I found them the best versions of the interface that had been presented and came to love them. I understand why you wanted to try a new interface concept, but it's caused me and at least a few other people some frustration (again, see the other threads out there regarding the new look and setup of the interface), and I don't know how good a thing it is to continue to present that interface as the default in perpetuity. I apologize if I've caused any frustration for you guys (it was never my intent to do so), and hope you will at least consider the suggestions and comments I've made on the subject.

Edit: As a brief aside, I just checked Palemoon, and apparently it doesn't support XP anymore. I'm not sure if Seamonkey does either, since I've only used it on my local library's windows 8 machine.

System requirements for SeaMonkey: http://www.seamonkey-project.org/doc/system-requirements

Well, I'm at the local library today and trying the 24.8.1 esr. Honestly I can find no difference between it's look and interface from that of 28.0 And that's actually a good thing since with security up to version 32 (if an earlier post in this thread by Cor-El is accurate), it would allow me more leeway before having to update to something using Australis. So I think I may well look into the 24 esr. I am honestly surprised that firefox didn't develop an esr for 28 though, given that I'm sure someone had to have known that some people might balk at the new interface for various reasons.

I do apologize, again, as my comments aren't intended to upset anyone, and hope that my suggestions in my immediately previous post will be taken under advisement. I understand why you guys thought people might like Australis. But the only analogy I can think of for the frustration I feel towards the interface (both in look and functionality) is to compare it to both Windows Vista and Windows 8. (And to a lesser extent, 8.1, which did receive mildly better reception.) I hate to even make this comparison as I feel that both of those OSes are an insult to everyone. But it does seem to fit.

A little history on why I found the changes so jarring and unwelcome, if I may: I got into Firefox around....I honestly forget the version. But I started using it somewhere around 2007-8. Prior to that I had been using Opera, and after a virus infection, about the only good thing the company that fixed the machine (and fixed I use very loosely) was to put Firefox on it. I admit it took a mild amount of getting used to, but with each successive version, I got to like it more and more. By 24, I believed that the developers had found a phenomenal interface for the browser, and I absolutely adored 28.0, as it seemed to tweak the very few issues 24 had had (mostly with tvtropes.org and a few other sites) and yet never had to make anything particularly frustrating for users. version 29, however, was where the other shoe dropped for me. Between the drastic change of the look, the changes in the general interface and options and the like, I ran back almost immediately to 28.0, which I was both comfortable with and knew (for the most part) how to adjust if anything felt wrong or off. Usually thanks to the help menu.

When 32.0 rolled around, I tried upgrading again, once I learned of Classic Theme Restorer. However I quickly learned that despite the name, it did little more than provide a skin to change the look of 32 to resemble 24-28. Unfortunately, this was about all that it did, as even after getting help on here on how to fix some of the issues, such as the ability to at least partially customize the buttons, I learned that the new interface remained, rather than returning to the classic theme interface. To say the least I found this irredeemably frustrating, especially since the new browser began having issues where if a page would not load properly, or else was a website where if you added something to it you would need to hit reload to see the changes, the new browser, in addition to confusing me as to how to adjust it to run similarly to 24-28, would not reload the pages properly, and in some cases would not do so at all. The reload button wouldn't even light up to indicate it was possible to reload it, and even the odd extra reload button inside the URL bar (something that immediately vanishes if you customize the buttons so that you can have the reload button with the forward, backward, home, and whatever other buttons you choose to have in versions 24-28) wouldn't work. Add to this that at times even when it did reload at all, the URL itself would go missing, the page would still refuse to properly reload, and the like, etc. etc. I again returned to 28.0 (I would have gone to 28.1, as it is at least marginally less vulnerable to exploits at the moment., but the old website that offers you the list of older versions doesn't have a listing for 28.0.1 for some reason. Had there been a 28.0.2 or 28.0.3 available, I would have jumped to one of those instead since there would be less likelihood of exploits for them at the moment) and have largely stuck with it since.

As I say, I am testing the 24.8.1 ESR right now on my library's machine, and it seems to run more or less perfectly, looking very much like 24-28, and with the same interface I have been most comfortable with. I will probably jump to this in a few days since it is more secure than 28— again, this is according to cor-el, a moderator, earlier on this thread, it has security up to 32.0.3— although the library is using windows 8. However since the ESR and 28 both seem to run the same on 8 as on XP, I am reasonably confident that it will work properly on my XP machine.

I did look into Pale Moon, as I said the other day, however I learned two things almost immediately: 1) It does not support XP (aside from some odd side build that is not intended for desktops or laptops, but rather for netbooks, and as such I won't risk my machine on it) and 2) it is running a bad rip off of version 18 of Firefox. Now while I am well aware that the reason pale moon exists is due to what can best be described as a kind of internet backlash against Australis (Wikipedia even says flat out Pale Moon was created as a response to the dislike for Australis by users of the browser), it seems that they went too far in the other direction.

I won't even get into "Waterfox", which frankly just smacks of trying to rip you guys off altogether.

Seamonkey, again, I did try this on the library's windows 8 machine and while it doesn't look a thing like Australis, it instead looks almost like it's trying to resurrect Netscape, which I find just flat out weird. (Though I still use Netscape Composer to write my fan fiction since it's easier to do that and then just put the new webpage in the fiction creator in the two fiction websites I frequent, so I guess I'm not one to talk.)

The one thing Seamonkey does do, which I suggested and still do suggest Firefox consider (though to be fair, again, I do understand why this might be a long time coming, if ever) is finding a way so that users of the browser can choose which version of the interface and appearance they want. I have genuinely come to love Firefox in general, but versions 29-33.1 have left me feeling incredibly frustrated, due to both interface, the way it handles pages, and general appearance. I stick with Firefox due to it being, in my opinion, the best choice out of all possible browsers, and have stuck with 28 out of not only a certain level of comfort that it provides in addition to being reasonably easy to understand and navigate the interface if I need to have something adjusted, but due to the fact that 28 protected me from one of my own goof-ups, when I accidentally mistyped the address for youtube into it, by blocking an apparently infected site that the mistyped URL would have otherwise lead to, so I suppose I feel a certain loyalty to that version in general— and while I'm here let me also offer my profuse thanks to Firefox's developers for that feature, as I would have lost my only computer to infection otherwise— however had the new interface and appearance not been implemented with 29 on up, I would have had no problem upgrading to the most current versions.

Again, I would love to see it be possible for users to be able to decide which interface to use, as well as what theme. I imagine there are plenty of people who do like Australis. But I am equally sure there are just as many who don't. The fact that a Classic Theme Restorer (which again, seems to be only a skin to cover the appearance of the browser, rather than actually restoring the classic interface) and Pale Moon exist is proof of that. Seamonkey might be a nice alternative (and was at one point run by Mozilla, who are responsible for Firefox as well, though it seems ownership, or at least development of Seamonkey, has since changed hands), but it still isn't Firefox, which again, I feel is the best browser available. The one thing that Seamonkey seems to do that I would like to see Fiorefox do, is allow the choice to be there for users for the interface and theme. To be honest, I would have loved it if the classic interface and appearance was the default, while the Australis appearance was the available theme skin, but that's just me.

I apologize for the somewhat rambling nature of this post, but I felt I should make a more thorough explanation of my issues with 29 on up and my reasons for having stuck with 28 (though again, I may soon jump to 24.8.1 ESR) for as long as I have, as well as to reiterate and hopefully do so with more clarity, my suggestions for making Firefox more accessible to those who still wish to use it without having to worry about the frustrations of the new interface from here out, even though I realize it may not be entirely possible to implement them right away, if at all.

Edit: Thanks for the info on Seamonkey's requirements, Finitarry. :)

Neither Waterfox or Pale Moon are a "rip-off" of Firefox, they are 3rd party or "unbranded" versions [formerly known as "community builds"] which are built from Firefox code according to the open-source licensing rules as set out by Mozilla. The code is free for anyone to use, as long as they use their own name and graphics so as to not violate the Mozilla and Firefox trademarks.

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/foundation/trademarks/community-edition-policy/

Ahh. My bad then. I apologize for the confusion. I didn't know Firefox's code was on open source.

Hey Edmeister,

Had a quick question about a comment you made earlier in the thread. You mentioned that 'Mac users "haven't been as lucky" when mentioning that Firefox has been continuing to support XP. Am I right in assuming this to mean that some versions of Mac haven't seen continued support? If so, which ones? My cousin has a mac, and I believe he uses Firefox (though I might be wrong about that) and at some point in the near future, he's giving it to his sister, who will in turn be sending it my way next year. The machine is...I think three years old. Should I let them know that Mavericks might see an end to support in the near future? (I THINK he's using mavericks at the moment. It's the version right before Yosemite, I believe that he has.) In the meantime I'm hoping to get a Windows 7 laptop from them around the holidays secondhand. Though I'll probably keep my old XP tower till it dies.

In any case, thanks again for the help thus far. I am pretty sure I'm jumping to the ESR for 24.8.1 in a few days, as soon as I figure out why youtube's been acting so odd. (There's another thread about that running.) Long story short, up till two days ago, youtube was working fine but I had recently added some new filters to adblock plus and now clickable annotated links to videos in youtube are for some reason not working on my XP machine. The problem briefly persisted on the windows 8 machine I'm working on at present.) Any thoughts on what I should do?

Finally, has there been any thought given to my earlier suggestion in a previous post on this page of the thread regarding the interface and appearance of Firefox for future editions? I realize it was a lot to ask for to be considered, but I do think it would help, especially for those of us who do find themselves frustrated with the Australis interface, but otherwise love Firefox and would prefer to keep using it rather than having to go to third parties.

I believe only Mac OS 10.6 and onward are now supported.

Over the past few years Mac OSX support for 10.4 and PPC CPU's ended, then a bit later support ended for 10.5 - both of which I believe were released during the 'reign' of WinXP.

Currently Mac OS X 10.6 is the oldest support version. http://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/33.0/system-requirements/

With the amount of time Mozilla has invested in Australis and the fact that the desktop market is shrinking [both is quantity of devices being used and in % of website visits], coupled with the rapid rise in the mobile device market - IMO Mozilla would be very foolish to waste their time trying to go back to the old UI used before Firefox 29 came out just for a few desktop users who are resistant to change.

What's done, is done - so be it, even if that decision bring the end of Firefox - which I doubt.

I am one of those who is resistant to change, too. [Hell, I have a 30 year old car, that I bought new in October of 1984, as a 35th birthday present for myself. Business was good that year!] I still use an old Firefox 2.0.0.20 a few times a week for surfing specific websites, due to a couple extensions that were never updated beyond Firefox 2.0. Also, I am still using Firefox 28 for most of the day, but almost everyday I come across a website that just doesn't work as it used to, as good as I would like it to work or think it should work. So I copy and paste the URL into a Firefox 33 (or 34, 35, or 36) version I have been testing; lo and behold it works like it should.

Heh. I can understand that. I understand, again, that Firefox invested a lot in Australis, but as I did mention above, I think it seemed to be a bad trade off. It looks fancy and all that, but overall, the interface is what frustrates the heck out of me. I have never had any issues with 28 (barring this recent thing with Youtube, and I can't tell if that's just because Adblock plus has glitched up in their latest update, or what, since it seems that clickable links in YouTube videos has restored itself properly on windows 8 though it did briefly have the same issue I did on XP) for the most part, which is why I use it. I did explain my issues with 29-33 above. As I explained, the appearance is the least issue of the ones I pointed out. However in the long run, I do prefer 28 over anything besides the 24.8.1 ESR, which I did test on the windows 8 machine. It's pretty much identical to 28 aside from the added security it supposedly has. (Cor-El claimed it had similar protections to 32.0.3, so that's made it tempting) Once I figure out Youtube's issue, I'll probably jump to it. I haven't decided honestly.

The interface changes were the biggest and most frustrating thing aside from pages not loading properly and then not reloading properly in the later versions. I think had Firefox retained the old interface, just with new features, it wouldn't have been that much of an issue, since appearances can be reskinned through add-ons.

Again, I do appreciate you guys taking the time to listen, if nothing else, and to provide information when you can. As much as the market is shrinking (I'm terrified and amused all at once of the idea that one day we may all be wearing those odd glasses things to do all our websurfing) I do still firmly believe that the older interface is still viable, for users on laptops and tablets as much as on desktops. I am resistant to change to some extant and I make no denial of that. However, that isn't necessarily because I think change in general is bad simply for being different, but rather because some changes are bad, no matter how well intentioned they may be. Again, I used the examples of Vista and 8/8.1 They were intended to be changes that Windows hoped would please consumers. Instead, XP was kept alive because Vista was so badly received for how much they tried to change things, so much so that even when 7 came out, many of us stuck with XP even then. Now with Windows 8 crashing and burning and 8.1 only barely better received, Windows is trying to do what they did with 7, trying to bring back certain touches of familiarity with the newer stuff in the form of Windows 10. Personally, I think that they should just use what they knew worked and code in new functions that they want to present to users, instead of trying to make everything different and flashy.

Now I'm not saying Firefox has gotten that bad— not yet at any rate, thank God— but I do believe Australis was too much of a case of trying to make things new and different, without stopping to consider if 'new and different' was really the issue that needed to be addressed. From the look to the interface itself, the new version of Firefox, as I said before, frustrates me to no end. But I hope to see something more akin to what I'm used to in later versions. Even if it's just something as simple as tweaking the interface to be more akin to what it was while still running the Australis features would be fine. I could more or less live with that. But having to do a bunch of odd things to make the thing run like I want it to (and for a guy who doesn't really know computers that's difficult in and of itself) and still not having it work properly is why I continue to prefer 28 to any of the newer editions. It's not as bad as the learning curve for Windows 8, but it is still far more than I can regularly cope with, and would like to see that change. Again, if Firefox could find a way to allow users to choose their interface and look, I think a lot of people who have refrained from updating to newer versions of Firefox might see to doing so.

Then again, that could just be me being a bit too set in my ways. But it's how I feel.

ANY WAY TO UNINSTALL THE NEW VERSION AND GO BACK TO THE OTHER. I HATE THIS,K IT HAS SCREWED UP THE LOOK OF ALL MY PICTURES LOOKS LIKE SOMEBODY SAT ON THEM SQUASHED DOWN AND WIDE RIDICULOUS. HATE IT HATE IT HATE IT SOO UPSET!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ABOUT TO USE A DIFFERENT BROWSER NOW I HAVE GONE TO TOOLS ETC TRIED TO MAKE IT RIGHT AND NOTHING IS MAKING MY PICTURES LOOK LIKE THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO. THIS IS NOT A GOOD THING, WHOEVER MADE THIS ONE FAILED MISERABLY! PLEASE HELP