DevilsPGD wrote:
<snip everything>
Firefox (once you get done downloading and installing all the add-ons and
extensions to make it work like IE) *becomes* IE.
Good marketing.
Shitty browser.
Try Opera and/or Safari.
Avoid 'Goofle' Chrome for the time being.
Those are my *opinions* having tried all.
YMMV, certainly.
WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
Moderators: DllAdmin, DLLADMIN ONLY
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
thanatoid wrote:
> Hi gang...
> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
> 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
....snip...
> 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.)
....snip...
Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor in
combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it to! It DOES use
ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like FF-- & that's just fine &
logical & normal!
....snip...
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
> Hi gang...
> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
> 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
....snip...
> 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.)
....snip...
Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor in
combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it to! It DOES use
ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like FF-- & that's just fine &
logical & normal!
....snip...
--
Thanks or Good Luck,
There may be humor in this post, and,
Naturally, you will not sue,
Should things get worse after this,
PCR
pcrrcp@netzero.net
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:rcf7055qmf108ekp5qelkj9q569d75qngv@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
>>It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be
>>desired, as I stated in the OP.
I can NOT believe I wrote "it's" - the spellchecker couldn't
catch it, of course, and neither did I proofing. DAMN. That's my
first time and it *better* be the last!
> 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.
The last 9x version takes about 5-6 seconds on my 2GHz 98SELite
machine. Opera 7.23 takes 1.5 seconds, OffByOne less than a
second.
<SNIP>
> 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.
Yeah, me too. Sometimes it's just beyond ridiculous. And we
thought FRAMES were bad!
>>> 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.
That was written before I even started looking. Let's not speak
too soon
I have mixed feelings about it, but I have to work with it a
little more. To begin with, I was not interested in the contents
of the "cache_*" files, but in what the OTHER files (named
65ShGV4iU (NO extension) were. Many of them are things which
Opera would have left in the cache as well BUT WITH file exts so
finding the flv(swf or tmp), jpg, html, or zip that I wanted
(instead of doing "save X as" every time, VERY tedious) was
almost instant. With FF I have to check the headers of EVERY
damned file. I see K-Meleon does the same thing, and I can't
STAND IT!
"Cache viewer" IS better than another plugin, "cache view" which
shows NOTHING, but an 'independent' "mozillacacheviewer" from
www.nirsoft.net may be the best. I have to play with them a
little more.
Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it /very
much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers" existed.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:rcf7055qmf108ekp5qelkj9q569d75qngv@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
>>It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be
>>desired, as I stated in the OP.
I can NOT believe I wrote "it's" - the spellchecker couldn't
catch it, of course, and neither did I proofing. DAMN. That's my
first time and it *better* be the last!
> 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.
The last 9x version takes about 5-6 seconds on my 2GHz 98SELite
machine. Opera 7.23 takes 1.5 seconds, OffByOne less than a
second.
<SNIP>
> 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.
Yeah, me too. Sometimes it's just beyond ridiculous. And we
thought FRAMES were bad!
>>> 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.
That was written before I even started looking. Let's not speak
too soon
I have mixed feelings about it, but I have to work with it a
little more. To begin with, I was not interested in the contents
of the "cache_*" files, but in what the OTHER files (named
65ShGV4iU (NO extension) were. Many of them are things which
Opera would have left in the cache as well BUT WITH file exts so
finding the flv(swf or tmp), jpg, html, or zip that I wanted
(instead of doing "save X as" every time, VERY tedious) was
almost instant. With FF I have to check the headers of EVERY
damned file. I see K-Meleon does the same thing, and I can't
STAND IT!
"Cache viewer" IS better than another plugin, "cache view" which
shows NOTHING, but an 'independent' "mozillacacheviewer" from
www.nirsoft.net may be the best. I have to play with them a
little more.
Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it /very
much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers" existed.
--
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?????
Franc Zabkar <fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote in
news:rio605h0e9ii08ufn2jjek8k0euvrtbpuo@4ax.com:
> 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
I used 9.64 (or something) for a while (I hate its "trendy" look
and stupid new "features") and I did not notice that. But I used
it for a very short time, so I might have just missed it.
There is NO hope.
WHERE is my Lynx disc!?
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:rio605h0e9ii08ufn2jjek8k0euvrtbpuo@4ax.com:
> 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
I used 9.64 (or something) for a while (I hate its "trendy" look
and stupid new "features") and I did not notice that. But I used
it for a very short time, so I might have just missed it.
There is NO hope.
WHERE is my Lynx disc!?
--
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?????
No Alternative <noalternative@REMOVETHISSTUFFoperamail.com>
wrote in news:gu0p8s$c1r$1@news.motzarella.org:
sss
> I agree it is actually safer to get into internet options
> in IE and turn the security up to high, then make
> exceptions for sites like youtube to run at medium low,
> than it is to use naked firefox 2x. The only way firefox
> on Win 9x can be that safe is to use the noscript addon.
I installed it and IMO it makes browsing virtually impossible.
It would take hours to set up all the exceptions and
permissions, and having YET ANOTHER idiotic toolbar constantly
asking for attention (AND having to actually DO something if you
want to view the pages) is a nightmare. It's gone.
I have ScriptSentry installed and I scan everything I DL and I
do not visit "questionable" sites, but even Google is
questionable. It is MOST disturbing to see SOME Google sub-sub-
sub division collecting or loading info every time I go to
practically any vaguely-commercial URL.
> Most of the threats are coming from javascript now. All
> those antivirusxp sites take advantage of javascript.
Could someone please explain this? I was under the impression
that javascript could only execute certain actions /on the
user's computer/ but could NOT, for instance, send information
out or install malware. Apparently I am wrong and that may have
been the case years ago, but progress is our friend (HAH).
Anyway, should one just disable Javascript entirely unless
they're visiting their bank or something?
Also, how does K-Meleon's "security" compare to Firefox 9x's?
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
wrote in news:gu0p8s$c1r$1@news.motzarella.org:
sss
> I agree it is actually safer to get into internet options
> in IE and turn the security up to high, then make
> exceptions for sites like youtube to run at medium low,
> than it is to use naked firefox 2x. The only way firefox
> on Win 9x can be that safe is to use the noscript addon.
I installed it and IMO it makes browsing virtually impossible.
It would take hours to set up all the exceptions and
permissions, and having YET ANOTHER idiotic toolbar constantly
asking for attention (AND having to actually DO something if you
want to view the pages) is a nightmare. It's gone.
I have ScriptSentry installed and I scan everything I DL and I
do not visit "questionable" sites, but even Google is
questionable. It is MOST disturbing to see SOME Google sub-sub-
sub division collecting or loading info every time I go to
practically any vaguely-commercial URL.
> Most of the threats are coming from javascript now. All
> those antivirusxp sites take advantage of javascript.
Could someone please explain this? I was under the impression
that javascript could only execute certain actions /on the
user's computer/ but could NOT, for instance, send information
out or install malware. Apparently I am wrong and that may have
been the case years ago, but progress is our friend (HAH).
Anyway, should one just disable Javascript entirely unless
they're visiting their bank or something?
Also, how does K-Meleon's "security" compare to Firefox 9x's?
--
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?????
DevilsPGD <DeathToSpam@crazyhat.net> wrote in
news:s8d805dc8959nt050penvf22qjf26oimtc@4ax.com:
> 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.
I don't even find the REAL world friendly, and I do not consider
banner ads etc. a significant detriment to what I consider
"killing time" to begin with. Nothing was ever annoyance-,
trouble-, or cash-free, and we were all once utopians and
idealists but I don't think many still harbor those illusions.
Nothing is perfect, and IMHO we were all better off without the
www. Now we have it, and it is making everyone's life hell, just
like TV made everyone morons.
>>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.
Thanks.
>>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.
WHEN the arrow has been clicked and became a text cursor in the
textbox. One would hope any surfer is sufficiently conscious of
performing such an action. I have never had z and x not work in
browsers that use them for navigation.
OTOH, Opera has a bunch of menu actions which one would assume
work if the cursor points at something on the page, like a link,
and NONE of them have EVER done /anything/.
Anbyway, I suppose once one decides on *A* browser, one will get
used to z/x or Alt> and Alt<, or Alt+Ctl> etc.
It's just that at this point I have a feeling that NO Windows
browser is safe and user-friendly.
> Admittedly backspace for back has the same issue, but
> backspace is a legacy key and not the primary/recommended
> navigation method.
I never used backspace, I don't think I even use it when text
editing. I use arrows (with Ctl and/or Alt) and copy, delete or
insert.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:s8d805dc8959nt050penvf22qjf26oimtc@4ax.com:
> 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.
I don't even find the REAL world friendly, and I do not consider
banner ads etc. a significant detriment to what I consider
"killing time" to begin with. Nothing was ever annoyance-,
trouble-, or cash-free, and we were all once utopians and
idealists but I don't think many still harbor those illusions.
Nothing is perfect, and IMHO we were all better off without the
www. Now we have it, and it is making everyone's life hell, just
like TV made everyone morons.
>>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.
Thanks.
>>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.
WHEN the arrow has been clicked and became a text cursor in the
textbox. One would hope any surfer is sufficiently conscious of
performing such an action. I have never had z and x not work in
browsers that use them for navigation.
OTOH, Opera has a bunch of menu actions which one would assume
work if the cursor points at something on the page, like a link,
and NONE of them have EVER done /anything/.
Anbyway, I suppose once one decides on *A* browser, one will get
used to z/x or Alt> and Alt<, or Alt+Ctl> etc.
It's just that at this point I have a feeling that NO Windows
browser is safe and user-friendly.
> Admittedly backspace for back has the same issue, but
> backspace is a legacy key and not the primary/recommended
> navigation method.
I never used backspace, I don't think I even use it when text
editing. I use arrows (with Ctl and/or Alt) and copy, delete or
insert.
--
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?????
"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
news:u6hKteD0JHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> thanatoid wrote:
>> Hi gang...
>
>> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox
>> ver 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
>
> ...snip...
>> 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.)
> ...snip...
>
> Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor
> in combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it
> to! It DOES use ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like
> FF-- & that's just fine & logical & normal!
AHA. Another strike against FF and K-Meleon. No one will
convince me z and x aren't easier to use automatically in the
long run, ie once your fingers have "learned" it.
Speaking of K-Meleon, which I am in the process of trying and
basically like quite a bit - it works very well, except NO
changes can be made and saved in the search engines section, and
***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
PROGRAM?
BTW, you are making a possibly very grave error in bringing up
the subject of "logic" and what is "normal"... But I'll keep
quiet.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:u6hKteD0JHA.1416@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl:
> thanatoid wrote:
>> Hi gang...
>
>> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox
>> ver 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)
>
> ...snip...
>> 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.)
> ...snip...
>
> Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor
> in combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it
> to! It DOES use ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like
> FF-- & that's just fine & logical & normal!
AHA. Another strike against FF and K-Meleon. No one will
convince me z and x aren't easier to use automatically in the
long run, ie once your fingers have "learned" it.
Speaking of K-Meleon, which I am in the process of trying and
basically like quite a bit - it works very well, except NO
changes can be made and saved in the search engines section, and
***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
PROGRAM?
BTW, you are making a possibly very grave error in bringing up
the subject of "logic" and what is "normal"... But I'll keep
quiet.
--
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?????
On Sat, 9 May 2009 01:26:11 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>"Cache viewer" IS better than another plugin, "cache view" which
>shows NOTHING, but an 'independent' "mozillacacheviewer" from
>www.nirsoft.net may be the best. I have to play with them a
>little more.
>
>Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it /very
>much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers" existed.
>
I didn't either until last year. I hated those useless file names in
the FF cache. Now I just look at cache viewer and forget the raw
cache format.
If you want to download .flv files, get Download Helper. I love that
thing. (another FF addon).
http://www.downloadhelper.net
Glad this helped !!!
LM
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>"Cache viewer" IS better than another plugin, "cache view" which
>shows NOTHING, but an 'independent' "mozillacacheviewer" from
>www.nirsoft.net may be the best. I have to play with them a
>little more.
>
>Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it /very
>much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers" existed.
>
I didn't either until last year. I hated those useless file names in
the FF cache. Now I just look at cache viewer and forget the raw
cache format.
If you want to download .flv files, get Download Helper. I love that
thing. (another FF addon).
http://www.downloadhelper.net
Glad this helped !!!
LM
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:9lp9059i4gbr4d1o448cu948m92727416a@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 9 May 2009 01:26:11 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it
>>/very much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers"
>>existed.
>>
>
> I didn't either until last year. I hated those useless
> file names in the FF cache. Now I just look at cache
> viewer and forget the raw cache format.
>
> If you want to download .flv files, get Download Helper. I
> love that thing. (another FF addon).
> http://www.downloadhelper.net
I did yesterday, but I guess I just couldn't be bothered to
REALLY learn how to use it - i found it incredibly
counterintuitive. Anyway, it's really for people who don't know
the file is in the cache - and now easier to find, even though
they were always the biggest files anyway, so fairly easy to ID.
The images or htm files with useful info were the big problem
since they all vary from 50-200 KB and were HELL to go through.
> Glad this helped !!!
Thank you, again.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:9lp9059i4gbr4d1o448cu948m92727416a@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 9 May 2009 01:26:11 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
<SNIP>
>>Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it
>>/very much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers"
>>existed.
>>
>
> I didn't either until last year. I hated those useless
> file names in the FF cache. Now I just look at cache
> viewer and forget the raw cache format.
>
> If you want to download .flv files, get Download Helper. I
> love that thing. (another FF addon).
> http://www.downloadhelper.net
I did yesterday, but I guess I just couldn't be bothered to
REALLY learn how to use it - i found it incredibly
counterintuitive. Anyway, it's really for people who don't know
the file is in the cache - and now easier to find, even though
they were always the biggest files anyway, so fairly easy to ID.
The images or htm files with useful info were the big problem
since they all vary from 50-200 KB and were HELL to go through.
> Glad this helped !!!
Thank you, again.
--
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?????
On Sat, 9 May 2009 05:17:59 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:9lp9059i4gbr4d1o448cu948m92727416a@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 9 May 2009 01:26:11 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
>> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>>Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it
>>>/very much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers"
>>>existed.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't either until last year. I hated those useless
>> file names in the FF cache. Now I just look at cache
>> viewer and forget the raw cache format.
>>
>> If you want to download .flv files, get Download Helper. I
>> love that thing. (another FF addon).
>> http://www.downloadhelper.net
>
>I did yesterday, but I guess I just couldn't be bothered to
>REALLY learn how to use it - i found it incredibly
>counterintuitive. Anyway, it's really for people who don't know
>the file is in the cache - and now easier to find, even though
>they were always the biggest files anyway, so fairly easy to ID.
>The images or htm files with useful info were the big problem
>since they all vary from 50-200 KB and were HELL to go through.
>
>> Glad this helped !!!
>
>Thank you, again.
Using Download helper is really easy.
Go to this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWDc9oyB ... re=related
When the video starts loading. Right click on the 3 rotating colored
circle icon on the top bar of FF.
Scroll down to MEDIA. You'll see "Cute Puppy" and "HQ18 Cute Puppy".
Then LEFT click on which one you want (the HQ one is a larger file in
MP4 format, while the regular one is a .FLV file.
When you left click on one of them you'll get a "SAVE AS" box,
Choose your default download folder and click on SAVE.
That's it !!!!
It works this way on all video files, except some of those news media
sites (because they block you from saving their videos). Some youtube
vids do NOT have the HQ files.
By the way, I have never found a program that will play those MP4
videos.
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:9lp9059i4gbr4d1o448cu948m92727416a@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 9 May 2009 01:26:11 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
>> <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>
><SNIP>
>
>>>Still, you got me on the right track and I appreciate it
>>>/very much/. I had NO idea at all that "cache viewers"
>>>existed.
>>>
>>
>> I didn't either until last year. I hated those useless
>> file names in the FF cache. Now I just look at cache
>> viewer and forget the raw cache format.
>>
>> If you want to download .flv files, get Download Helper. I
>> love that thing. (another FF addon).
>> http://www.downloadhelper.net
>
>I did yesterday, but I guess I just couldn't be bothered to
>REALLY learn how to use it - i found it incredibly
>counterintuitive. Anyway, it's really for people who don't know
>the file is in the cache - and now easier to find, even though
>they were always the biggest files anyway, so fairly easy to ID.
>The images or htm files with useful info were the big problem
>since they all vary from 50-200 KB and were HELL to go through.
>
>> Glad this helped !!!
>
>Thank you, again.
Using Download helper is really easy.
Go to this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWDc9oyB ... re=related
When the video starts loading. Right click on the 3 rotating colored
circle icon on the top bar of FF.
Scroll down to MEDIA. You'll see "Cute Puppy" and "HQ18 Cute Puppy".
Then LEFT click on which one you want (the HQ one is a larger file in
MP4 format, while the regular one is a .FLV file.
When you left click on one of them you'll get a "SAVE AS" box,
Choose your default download folder and click on SAVE.
That's it !!!!
It works this way on all video files, except some of those news media
sites (because they block you from saving their videos). Some youtube
vids do NOT have the HQ files.
By the way, I have never found a program that will play those MP4
videos.
-
mike easter
- Posts: 6
- Joined: 06 May 2009, 23:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
Bill in Co. wrote:
> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
>>>> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
This part means that I don't use IE (specifically IE6SP1 the last
available for 98se) as a browser. It/ that IE/ is integrated into the
98se OS on this machine I'm using right now and I haven't used any tools
such as LitePC (98lite) to remove it. That IE has OE as an integrated
part of it, specifically 6.00.2800.1106
>> 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?
Mostly by not opening things with OE which require IE html rendering,
except under 'controlled' circumstances.
> They're tied together
> behind the scenes (AFAIK) - (share DLLs, etc).
That is correct.
> I bet you can't use or
> install OE without IE being present on your system, so some of its
> engine is being used..
IE is present on the system. OE is configured to use IE in a restricted
mode, which restricted mode is custom configured to be very restricted.
OE is normally configured to read in plaintext. Sometimes I want OE to
use IE's rendering engine. Under those circumstances I always examine the
message source so that I know its contents and structure before allowing
IE's rendering engine to go into operation.
--
Mike Easter
> Mike Easter wrote:
>>>> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
>>>> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.
This part means that I don't use IE (specifically IE6SP1 the last
available for 98se) as a browser. It/ that IE/ is integrated into the
98se OS on this machine I'm using right now and I haven't used any tools
such as LitePC (98lite) to remove it. That IE has OE as an integrated
part of it, specifically 6.00.2800.1106
>> 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?
Mostly by not opening things with OE which require IE html rendering,
except under 'controlled' circumstances.
> They're tied together
> behind the scenes (AFAIK) - (share DLLs, etc).
That is correct.
> I bet you can't use or
> install OE without IE being present on your system, so some of its
> engine is being used..
IE is present on the system. OE is configured to use IE in a restricted
mode, which restricted mode is custom configured to be very restricted.
OE is normally configured to read in plaintext. Sometimes I want OE to
use IE's rendering engine. Under those circumstances I always examine the
message source so that I know its contents and structure before allowing
IE's rendering engine to go into operation.
--
Mike Easter
-
"j. p. gilliver
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 22 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <OlKr1Q5zJHA.6132@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, Bill in Co.
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> writes:
[]
>> 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..
>
>
Certainly, you can't install OE 6 without IE 6 - it isn't available
separately, and I don't think anyone has separated them. However, I
believe earlier versions of OE (not sure about which number) _were_
downloadable separately. (Whether they were truly standalone software,
i. e. whether they would run without [presumably the matching version
of] IE being present, I do not know; I've always used Turnpike for mail
for myself, and installed Pegasus/Eudora/Thunderbird for others.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun
<not_really_here@earthlink.net> writes:
[]
>> 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..
>
>
Certainly, you can't install OE 6 without IE 6 - it isn't available
separately, and I don't think anyone has separated them. However, I
believe earlier versions of OE (not sure about which number) _were_
downloadable separately. (Whether they were truly standalone software,
i. e. whether they would run without [presumably the matching version
of] IE being present, I do not know; I've always used Turnpike for mail
for myself, and installed Pegasus/Eudora/Thunderbird for others.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun
-
"j. p. gilliver
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 22 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <#38ikM4zJHA.2084@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl>, MEB
<meb-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> You COULD be using version 3 and its updates, but you would have to
>compile it yourself from source code [its a standalone browser which
>could be compiled WITHOUT newer unsupported aspects from secondary
>sources, e.g., not supported in 9X].
>
Has anyone done this (for '9x)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun
<meb-not-here@hotmail.com> writes:
[]
> You COULD be using version 3 and its updates, but you would have to
>compile it yourself from source code [its a standalone browser which
>could be compiled WITHOUT newer unsupported aspects from secondary
>sources, e.g., not supported in 9X].
>
Has anyone done this (for '9x)?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun
-
"j. p. gilliver
- Posts: 32
- Joined: 22 Mar 2009, 00:00
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <Xns9C05CFEB9CC2thanexit@85.214.105.209>, thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes:
[]
>> Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor
>> in combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it
>> to! It DOES use ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like
>> FF-- & that's just fine & logical & normal!
>
>AHA. Another strike against FF and K-Meleon. No one will
>convince me z and x aren't easier to use automatically in the
>long run, ie once your fingers have "learned" it.
[]
It's just what one has got used to - one gets very cross when such isn't
there! I miss the Alt-G, B (go, back) from Netscape!
If you use several prog.s, you soon learn the 'strokes for each - and I
find I don't _often_ get them mixed up, though "mark unread" being
ctrl-K ("keep", I think, though it has another keep function [on F8!])
in Turnpike and context-then-N in Outlook (which I have to use at work)
do catch me out occasionally.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> writes:
[]
>> Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor
>> in combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it
>> to! It DOES use ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like
>> FF-- & that's just fine & logical & normal!
>
>AHA. Another strike against FF and K-Meleon. No one will
>convince me z and x aren't easier to use automatically in the
>long run, ie once your fingers have "learned" it.
[]
It's just what one has got used to - one gets very cross when such isn't
there! I miss the Alt-G, B (go, back) from Netscape!
If you use several prog.s, you soon learn the 'strokes for each - and I
find I don't _often_ get them mixed up, though "mark unread" being
ctrl-K ("keep", I think, though it has another keep function [on F8!])
in Turnpike and context-then-N in Outlook (which I have to use at work)
do catch me out occasionally.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **
"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun