Hi gang...
(The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
interest in fixing the problem.
OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
works perfectly.
Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
on so many sites.
[BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
in the cache...]
Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
well.
I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
its cache which uses no file extensions.
Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????
Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
about 100. A REAL drag.
Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.
Thanks.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
Moderators: DllAdmin, DLLADMIN ONLY
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
On Thu, 7 May 2009 11:55:17 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>Hi gang...
>
>(The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
>1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
>
>I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
>FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
>intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
>flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
>Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
>interest in fixing the problem.
>
>OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
>like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
>works perfectly.
>
>Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
>almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
>on so many sites.
>
>[BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
>flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
>see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
>SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
>consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
>chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
>as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
>the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
>crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
>is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
>in the cache...]
>
>Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
>an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
>Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
>everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
>plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
>well.
>
>I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
>right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
>Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
>even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
>hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
>its cache which uses no file extensions.
>
>Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
>check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
>jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
>Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
>unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????
>
>Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
>check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
>about 100. A REAL drag.
>
>Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
>extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
>to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
>deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
>AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.
>
>Thanks.
I'm surprised you have used Opera this long. I gave it an honest try.
It's lacking in many ways. FF is far better. I'd even go so far to
say IE is better than Opera. But FF is slow to load, and does use
really odd cache file names. There's an addon program called CACHE
VIEWER that will give you the actual filemnames and allow you to open
and save cache files.
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>Hi gang...
>
>(The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
>1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
>
>I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
>FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
>intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
>flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
>Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
>interest in fixing the problem.
>
>OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
>like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
>works perfectly.
>
>Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
>almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
>on so many sites.
>
>[BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
>flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
>see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
>SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
>consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
>chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
>as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
>the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
>crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
>is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
>in the cache...]
>
>Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
>an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
>Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
>everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
>plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
>well.
>
>I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
>right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
>Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
>even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
>hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
>its cache which uses no file extensions.
>
>Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
>check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
>jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
>Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
>unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????
>
>Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
>check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
>about 100. A REAL drag.
>
>Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
>extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
>to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
>deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
>AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.
>
>Thanks.
I'm surprised you have used Opera this long. I gave it an honest try.
It's lacking in many ways. FF is far better. I'd even go so far to
say IE is better than Opera. But FF is slow to load, and does use
really odd cache file names. There's an addon program called CACHE
VIEWER that will give you the actual filemnames and allow you to open
and save cache files.
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:bae60559s0bce6bfqb982j8enkjicc09pf@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> I'm surprised you have used Opera this long.
IMO, it *IS* the best browser but it can not handle Flash, at
least on 98.
> I gave it an
> honest try. It's lacking in many ways.
Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
first or doesn't at all.
> FF is far better.
It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be desired,
as I stated in the OP.
> I'd even go so far to say IE is better than Opera.
You are about to lose credibility!
> But FF
> is slow to load
A little slower than Opera, but I use OffByOne 99% of the time
anyway. When OB1 can't handle a page, I copy the URL and open it
in Opera or FF.
> and does use really odd cache file names.
> There's an addon program called CACHE VIEWER that will give
> you the actual filemnames and allow you to open and save
> cache files.
Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is designed
FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's hidden
directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance for about 15
years.
Thanks.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:bae60559s0bce6bfqb982j8enkjicc09pf@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> I'm surprised you have used Opera this long.
IMO, it *IS* the best browser but it can not handle Flash, at
least on 98.
> I gave it an
> honest try. It's lacking in many ways.
Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
first or doesn't at all.
> FF is far better.
It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be desired,
as I stated in the OP.
> I'd even go so far to say IE is better than Opera.
You are about to lose credibility!
> But FF
> is slow to load
A little slower than Opera, but I use OffByOne 99% of the time
anyway. When OB1 can't handle a page, I copy the URL and open it
in Opera or FF.
> and does use really odd cache file names.
> There's an addon program called CACHE VIEWER that will give
> you the actual filemnames and allow you to open and save
> cache files.
Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is designed
FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's hidden
directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance for about 15
years.
Thanks.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
>first or doesn't at all.
Alright, I'll open the bidding with Firefox's extension support.
Specifically, Adblock Plus (a plugin+service that work together to
ensure a more positive browsing experience)
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
>first or doesn't at all.
Alright, I'll open the bidding with Firefox's extension support.
Specifically, Adblock Plus (a plugin+service that work together to
ensure a more positive browsing experience)
-
mike easter
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 06 May 2009, 23:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
thanatoid wrote:
> "Mike Easter"
>> Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently
>> unstable and insecure, so we have to be careful what we are
>> doing with our browsers. To that I add another
>> destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be handled
>> carefully.
>
> Knowing as much as you do, WHY do you even HAVE IE/OE on your
> machine?
W98 is like an old pet who is in poor health. OE is like a worn out old
shoe which is comfortable even if it has holes in the soles, the shoelace
is broken, and the tongue has fallen out.
I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and occasionally
K-Meleon if opera won't do something. If I can't get it done with
K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and use a linux distro with FF3.
>> And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros.
>> One of them which I've recently taken a liking to is to
>> tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE desktop session instead of XFCE,
>> which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same amount of resources as
>> Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate' in the
>> graphical tools ease of use department use significantly
>> more resources than Win98.
>
> So, what I have been hearing for years now, that Linux will do
> as much on a 486 with 64 MB RAM as XP on a 3GHz 4GB RAM machine
> is NOT true then either, huh? Fubar help us all.
You can do some things with really tiny linuxes, but you have to be a
commandline maven for that. OTOH, you can use the tools of LitePC and
make W98 really really small and graphical "Run from flash memory as small
as 8MB "
--
Mike Easter
> "Mike Easter"
>> Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently
>> unstable and insecure, so we have to be careful what we are
>> doing with our browsers. To that I add another
>> destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be handled
>> carefully.
>
> Knowing as much as you do, WHY do you even HAVE IE/OE on your
> machine?
W98 is like an old pet who is in poor health. OE is like a worn out old
shoe which is comfortable even if it has holes in the soles, the shoelace
is broken, and the tongue has fallen out.
I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and occasionally
K-Meleon if opera won't do something. If I can't get it done with
K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and use a linux distro with FF3.
>> And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros.
>> One of them which I've recently taken a liking to is to
>> tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE desktop session instead of XFCE,
>> which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same amount of resources as
>> Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate' in the
>> graphical tools ease of use department use significantly
>> more resources than Win98.
>
> So, what I have been hearing for years now, that Linux will do
> as much on a 486 with 64 MB RAM as XP on a 3GHz 4GB RAM machine
> is NOT true then either, huh? Fubar help us all.
You can do some things with really tiny linuxes, but you have to be a
commandline maven for that. OTOH, you can use the tools of LitePC and
make W98 really really small and graphical "Run from flash memory as small
as 8MB "
--
Mike Easter
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
MEB <meb-not-here@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:OZthbF3zJHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
> The problem associated with all of this discussion is
> that the FireFox
> browser for 9X was creamed by the weight of its flaws and
> vulnerabilities several months ago [shortly after its
> support ended]. It actually IS now worse than I.E. to use.
Well, that is certainly great to hear. I was under the
impression FF 9x was OK as long as you more or less knew what
being online involved, and if you did not install the dozens of
plugins - which I read were what made the now-bloated and
inconsistent browser just as bad and insecure as IE.
If anyone can comment on that, I'd appreciate it, because I am
not about to start using XP, but neither will I be installing
any other plugins for FF than Flash and one of cache viewers -
if they actually do what they claim. Otherwise they're gone.
> You can ignore these known variables or you can be
> intelligent in your
> Internet usage.
Could you be a little more specific/clarify this a little, if
you have the time and patience?
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:OZthbF3zJHA.1372@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
> The problem associated with all of this discussion is
> that the FireFox
> browser for 9X was creamed by the weight of its flaws and
> vulnerabilities several months ago [shortly after its
> support ended]. It actually IS now worse than I.E. to use.
Well, that is certainly great to hear. I was under the
impression FF 9x was OK as long as you more or less knew what
being online involved, and if you did not install the dozens of
plugins - which I read were what made the now-bloated and
inconsistent browser just as bad and insecure as IE.
If anyone can comment on that, I'd appreciate it, because I am
not about to start using XP, but neither will I be installing
any other plugins for FF than Flash and one of cache viewers -
if they actually do what they claim. Otherwise they're gone.
> You can ignore these known variables or you can be
> intelligent in your
> Internet usage.
Could you be a little more specific/clarify this a little, if
you have the time and patience?
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
"Mike Easter" <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in
news:76hfjjF1c9ne8U1@mid.individual.net:
<SNIP>
> W98 is like an old pet who is in poor health. OE is like a
> worn out old shoe which is comfortable even if it has holes
> in the soles, the shoelace is broken, and the tongue has
> fallen out.
Not a bad analogy but a little cruel. I think. I am perfectly
satisfied with my 98SELite setup - I have Lite just for the 95
shell, I kept IE for chm files but I would NEVER use IE or OE
(which I did not install) online.
> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
that's a big no no!
> If I
> can't get it done with K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and
> use a linux distro with FF3.
I'll have to try K-Meleon.
I am getting very frustrated with browsers. WHY are there 5,000
text editors but only about 10 browsers for Windows, none of
them REALLY satisfactory? (The IE modifiers don't count, of
course, not that THEY are satisfactory either.)
<SNIP>
> You can do some things with really tiny linuxes, but you
> have to be a commandline maven for that. OTOH, you can use
> the tools of LitePC and make W98 really really small and
> graphical "Run from flash memory as small as 8MB "
While I DO own a 486 with 32 MB of RAM I don't think it will
ever be turned on again, although it works perfectly. Anyway, it
was a theoretical question. If and when I start messing with
Linux it will be on a decent machine.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:76hfjjF1c9ne8U1@mid.individual.net:
<SNIP>
> W98 is like an old pet who is in poor health. OE is like a
> worn out old shoe which is comfortable even if it has holes
> in the soles, the shoelace is broken, and the tongue has
> fallen out.
Not a bad analogy but a little cruel. I think. I am perfectly
satisfied with my 98SELite setup - I have Lite just for the 95
shell, I kept IE for chm files but I would NEVER use IE or OE
(which I did not install) online.
> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
that's a big no no!
> If I
> can't get it done with K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and
> use a linux distro with FF3.
I'll have to try K-Meleon.
I am getting very frustrated with browsers. WHY are there 5,000
text editors but only about 10 browsers for Windows, none of
them REALLY satisfactory? (The IE modifiers don't count, of
course, not that THEY are satisfactory either.)
<SNIP>
> You can do some things with really tiny linuxes, but you
> have to be a commandline maven for that. OTOH, you can use
> the tools of LitePC and make W98 really really small and
> graphical "Run from flash memory as small as 8MB "
While I DO own a 486 with 32 MB of RAM I don't think it will
ever be turned on again, although it works perfectly. Anyway, it
was a theoretical question. If and when I start messing with
Linux it will be on a decent machine.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
-
mike easter
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 06 May 2009, 23:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
thanatoid wrote:
> "Mike Easter"
>> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
>> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
>
> Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
> that's a big no no!
I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE wrangler' who can
use OE configured and handled securely. I don't let OE use IE's rendering
engine except under very specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.
>> If I
>> can't get it done with K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and
>> use a linux distro with FF3.
>
> I'll have to try K-Meleon.
The system requirements for the latest v. 1.5 2008 Aug are in the release
notes http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/Rel ... quirements
--
Mike Easter
> "Mike Easter"
>> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
>> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
>
> Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
> that's a big no no!
I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE wrangler' who can
use OE configured and handled securely. I don't let OE use IE's rendering
engine except under very specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.
>> If I
>> can't get it done with K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and
>> use a linux distro with FF3.
>
> I'll have to try K-Meleon.
The system requirements for the latest v. 1.5 2008 Aug are in the release
notes http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/Rel ... quirements
--
Mike Easter
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
"Mike Easter" <MikeE@ster.invalid> wrote in
news:76hi1vF1d1slkU1@mid.individual.net:
<SNIP>
> I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE
> wrangler' who can use OE configured and handled securely.
> I don't let OE use IE's rendering engine except under very
> specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.
Got it.
Well, I /don't/ understand the technical part, but I understand
that OE is OK - in the hands of someone really knowledgeable. I
didn't know that was possible at all.
<SNIP>
> The system requirements for the latest v. 1.5 2008 Aug are
> in the release notes
> http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/Rel ... #requireme
> nts
For once, I'm ahead of you
DL'd and release notes page saved. Will try later tonight.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:76hi1vF1d1slkU1@mid.individual.net:
<SNIP>
> I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE
> wrangler' who can use OE configured and handled securely.
> I don't let OE use IE's rendering engine except under very
> specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.
Got it.
Well, I /don't/ understand the technical part, but I understand
that OE is OK - in the hands of someone really knowledgeable. I
didn't know that was possible at all.
<SNIP>
> The system requirements for the latest v. 1.5 2008 Aug are
> in the release notes
> http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/Rel ... #requireme
> nts
For once, I'm ahead of you
DL'd and release notes page saved. Will try later tonight.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
-
bill in co.
- Posts: 33
- Joined: 04 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
Mike Easter wrote:
> thanatoid wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
>>> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
>>
>> Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
>> that's a big no no!
>
> I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE wrangler' who can
> use OE configured and handled securely. I don't let OE use IE's rendering
> engine except under very specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.
How do you NOT let OE use IE's rendering engine? They're tied together
behind the scenes (AFAIK) - (share DLLs, etc). I bet you can't use or
install OE without IE being present on your system, so some of its engine is
being used..
> thanatoid wrote:
>> "Mike Easter"
>
>>> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
>>> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
>>
>> Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
>> that's a big no no!
>
> I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE wrangler' who can
> use OE configured and handled securely. I don't let OE use IE's rendering
> engine except under very specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.
How do you NOT let OE use IE's rendering engine? They're tied together
behind the scenes (AFAIK) - (share DLLs, etc). I bet you can't use or
install OE without IE being present on your system, so some of its engine is
being used..
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
On Thu, 7 May 2009 19:56:09 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:bae60559s0bce6bfqb982j8enkjicc09pf@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> I'm surprised you have used Opera this long.
>
>IMO, it *IS* the best browser but it can not handle Flash, at
>least on 98.
>
>> I gave it an
>> honest try. It's lacking in many ways.
>
>Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
>first or doesn't at all.
>
I dont know the history all that well, but Opera only has one feature
that is not on FF, and that is the "fit the screen" ability. This
feature is one of the only reasons I even have Opera installed.
>> FF is far better.
>
>It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be desired,
>as I stated in the OP.
I used to think adding those addons was a big hassle, but it's really
not that hard. Now, using that "about:config" is a challenge and I
avoid that as much as possible. But what else is wrong with the
design? My biggest complaint is the long time it takes to load.
>
>> I'd even go so far to say IE is better than Opera.
>
>You are about to lose credibility!
>
I use FF most of the time, but IE is my second choice. We all have
our own likes and dislikes. To me, Opera is very clumbsy, whereas FF
and IE are easy to use.
>> But FF
>> is slow to load
>
>A little slower than Opera, but I use OffByOne 99% of the time
>anyway. When OB1 can't handle a page, I copy the URL and open it
>in Opera or FF.
I have OB1 installed too. I rarely use it, but it comes in handy once
and awhile when I get to sites with too much script garbage or sites
that could be a risk. However, most of the time when i get to a site
like that, I just leave the site.
>
>> and does use really odd cache file names.
>> There's an addon program called CACHE VIEWER that will give
>> you the actual filemnames and allow you to open and save
>> cache files.
>
>Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is designed
>FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's hidden
>directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance for about 15
>years.
>
Glad you found this addon useful (after you found the right one).
It's not for IE at all, just for FF.
>Thanks.
LM
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:bae60559s0bce6bfqb982j8enkjicc09pf@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> I'm surprised you have used Opera this long.
>
>IMO, it *IS* the best browser but it can not handle Flash, at
>least on 98.
>
>> I gave it an
>> honest try. It's lacking in many ways.
>
>Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
>first or doesn't at all.
>
I dont know the history all that well, but Opera only has one feature
that is not on FF, and that is the "fit the screen" ability. This
feature is one of the only reasons I even have Opera installed.
>> FF is far better.
>
>It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be desired,
>as I stated in the OP.
I used to think adding those addons was a big hassle, but it's really
not that hard. Now, using that "about:config" is a challenge and I
avoid that as much as possible. But what else is wrong with the
design? My biggest complaint is the long time it takes to load.
>
>> I'd even go so far to say IE is better than Opera.
>
>You are about to lose credibility!
>
I use FF most of the time, but IE is my second choice. We all have
our own likes and dislikes. To me, Opera is very clumbsy, whereas FF
and IE are easy to use.
>> But FF
>> is slow to load
>
>A little slower than Opera, but I use OffByOne 99% of the time
>anyway. When OB1 can't handle a page, I copy the URL and open it
>in Opera or FF.
I have OB1 installed too. I rarely use it, but it comes in handy once
and awhile when I get to sites with too much script garbage or sites
that could be a risk. However, most of the time when i get to a site
like that, I just leave the site.
>
>> and does use really odd cache file names.
>> There's an addon program called CACHE VIEWER that will give
>> you the actual filemnames and allow you to open and save
>> cache files.
>
>Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is designed
>FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's hidden
>directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance for about 15
>years.
>
Glad you found this addon useful (after you found the right one).
It's not for IE at all, just for FF.
>Thanks.
LM
-
franc zabkar
- Posts: 9
- Joined: 24 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
On Thu, 7 May 2009 11:55:17 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
>extensions on what it dumps into its cache?
FWIW, the latest versions of Opera also omit extensions from cached
files.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> put finger to keyboard and composed:
>Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
>extensions on what it dumps into its cache?
FWIW, the latest versions of Opera also omit extensions from cached
files.
- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.
-
no alternative
- Posts: 1
- Joined: 07 May 2009, 23:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
On Thu, 07 May 2009 17:58:59 -0700, Mike Easter wrote:
>
> Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently unstable and
> insecure, so we have to be careful what we are doing with our browsers.
> To that I add another destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be
> handled carefully.
>
> And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros. One of them
> which I've recently taken a liking to is to tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE
> desktop session instead of XFCE, which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same
> amount of resources as Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate'
> in the graphical tools ease of use department use significantly more
> resources than Win98.
Have you tried u-lite. It is ubuntu with an lxde desktop. http://u-
lite.org
--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org
>
> Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently unstable and
> insecure, so we have to be careful what we are doing with our browsers.
> To that I add another destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be
> handled carefully.
>
> And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros. One of them
> which I've recently taken a liking to is to tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE
> desktop session instead of XFCE, which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same
> amount of resources as Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate'
> in the graphical tools ease of use department use significantly more
> resources than Win98.
Have you tried u-lite. It is ubuntu with an lxde desktop. http://u-
lite.org
--
http://english-158465906205.spampoison.com
http://u-lite.org
-
mike easter
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 06 May 2009, 23:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
No Alternative wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> which I've recently taken a liking to is to tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE
>> desktop session instead of XFCE, which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same
>> amount of resources as Win98.
> Have you tried u-lite. It is ubuntu with an lxde desktop.
> http://u-lite.org
No, that was going to be awkward on the computer of interest. u-lite's
method is a network install using the Ub mini.iso. I wanted to go another
different direction.
Shae Smittle is unhappy about the way the lxde/ubuntu project has gotten
away from him. A lite version of Ub started work in 2005 under others and
evolved into 'ubuntu-lite' just about the time Canonical started cracking
down on too many *buntu/s which weren't being derived under the canonical
aegis. That crackdown led to a distowatch article and the namechange to
u-lite.
Now, in spite of u-lite's willingness to cooperate with canonical,
Shuttleworth and pals recognize the significant benefits of a *buntu
distro which is significantly leaner than xubuntu and also the wonderful
progress being made by the lxde team and its leading coder, so it looks
like there is going to be a genuine canonical lxde desktop 'buntu, but it
isn't going to be led by the u-lite people.
--
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>> which I've recently taken a liking to is to tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE
>> desktop session instead of XFCE, which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same
>> amount of resources as Win98.
> Have you tried u-lite. It is ubuntu with an lxde desktop.
> http://u-lite.org
No, that was going to be awkward on the computer of interest. u-lite's
method is a network install using the Ub mini.iso. I wanted to go another
different direction.
Shae Smittle is unhappy about the way the lxde/ubuntu project has gotten
away from him. A lite version of Ub started work in 2005 under others and
evolved into 'ubuntu-lite' just about the time Canonical started cracking
down on too many *buntu/s which weren't being derived under the canonical
aegis. That crackdown led to a distowatch article and the namechange to
u-lite.
Now, in spite of u-lite's willingness to cooperate with canonical,
Shuttleworth and pals recognize the significant benefits of a *buntu
distro which is significantly leaner than xubuntu and also the wonderful
progress being made by the lxde team and its leading coder, so it looks
like there is going to be a genuine canonical lxde desktop 'buntu, but it
isn't going to be led by the u-lite people.
--
Mike Easter
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <Xns9C04C9825D4EFthanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>I only have 512kbps and even I don't care about banner ads and
>pop-ups - and Opera CAN block pop-ups in about 4 or 5 different
>ways.
The point of adblock isn't to save bandwidth, it's about making surfing
the tubes a more friendly experience.
>But OK, as I use FF more I see it does have some nice
>stuff. What bothers me is the stuff it DOESN'T have, like the
>equivalent of "paste and go" in Opera (or perhaps I haven't
>found it yet).
I had an extension for that at one point, but I didn't find it to be
particularly useful as I usually have to clean up punctuation around the
URL. I can see the utility though if you copy from clean sources, take
a look for an extension...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3201 might do what you
want.
>The "no z or x for navigation" is inexcusable, I don't care what
>else it may or may not have.
The problem with using z and x for navigation is that it creates an
inconsistent user experience since z and x will only work some of the
time, but not on any page that points the cursor toward a textbox.
Admittedly backspace for back has the same issue, but backspace is a
legacy key and not the primary/recommended navigation method.
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>I only have 512kbps and even I don't care about banner ads and
>pop-ups - and Opera CAN block pop-ups in about 4 or 5 different
>ways.
The point of adblock isn't to save bandwidth, it's about making surfing
the tubes a more friendly experience.
>But OK, as I use FF more I see it does have some nice
>stuff. What bothers me is the stuff it DOESN'T have, like the
>equivalent of "paste and go" in Opera (or perhaps I haven't
>found it yet).
I had an extension for that at one point, but I didn't find it to be
particularly useful as I usually have to clean up punctuation around the
URL. I can see the utility though if you copy from clean sources, take
a look for an extension...
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/3201 might do what you
want.
>The "no z or x for navigation" is inexcusable, I don't care what
>else it may or may not have.
The problem with using z and x for navigation is that it creates an
inconsistent user experience since z and x will only work some of the
time, but not on any page that points the cursor toward a textbox.
Admittedly backspace for back has the same issue, but backspace is a
legacy key and not the primary/recommended navigation method.