letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:ttga05lvprilsig7ojslrh0i65k4cd6n07@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> 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.
Thanks, I will save this for future reference should I decide to
use it. AT the moment, I feel better with K-Meleon, but who the
hell knows anymore. Thank fubar I'm not into videos that much, I
just want the computer to do everything it is "supposed" to.
> By the way, I have never found a program that will play
> those MP4 videos.
VLC will, even the 9x version.
--
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?????
In article <ewPTPkM0JHA.5744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB says...
>
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember running across a site
>or forum SOMEWHERE that was either discussing the issue of a v3
>conversion or had done some further modification to v2. Whether it would
>be safe to use; the parties qualified to make the conversions; or even
>what code was being used [e.g., actual "Windows" code or perhaps a Linux
>v3 back conversion], I didn't make a link to or even save reference
>materials concerning.
>
The easiest way to run Foxfire 3 on Windows 98 is to run KernalEx (latest
version 4.0 RC 2).
According to the developer, the KernalEx installer "changes 80 bytes in
kernel32.dll to make system ready for new symbol resolve engine (KernelEx Core)
and to disable platform checks of executables. No other system files are
modified."
KernalEx project home page w/download:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/
KernalEx discussion forum:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=130936
KernalEx required Microsoft Layer for Unicode before it would install on my 98SE
machine, available at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb688166.aspx
FF3 installed without a hitch and runs reasonably well -- there's a minor issue
with special characters and a few times I saw a bit of minor interface refresh
hinkiness, but nothing that has crashed me or interfered with website function.
I've not done rigorous testing, just doing what I normally do, for a few weeks
now. It's a bit slower than FF2 but I think that's a known issue with 3 vs 2.
I guess 3 is safer, but I am tempted to go back to 2 anyway.
>
>J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
>> 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)?
>
> Don't quote me on this, but I seem to remember running across a site
>or forum SOMEWHERE that was either discussing the issue of a v3
>conversion or had done some further modification to v2. Whether it would
>be safe to use; the parties qualified to make the conversions; or even
>what code was being used [e.g., actual "Windows" code or perhaps a Linux
>v3 back conversion], I didn't make a link to or even save reference
>materials concerning.
>
The easiest way to run Foxfire 3 on Windows 98 is to run KernalEx (latest
version 4.0 RC 2).
According to the developer, the KernalEx installer "changes 80 bytes in
kernel32.dll to make system ready for new symbol resolve engine (KernelEx Core)
and to disable platform checks of executables. No other system files are
modified."
KernalEx project home page w/download:
http://sourceforge.net/projects/kernelex/
KernalEx discussion forum:
http://www.msfn.org/board/index.php?showtopic=130936
KernalEx required Microsoft Layer for Unicode before it would install on my 98SE
machine, available at:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/goglobal/bb688166.aspx
FF3 installed without a hitch and runs reasonably well -- there's a minor issue
with special characters and a few times I saw a bit of minor interface refresh
hinkiness, but nothing that has crashed me or interfered with website function.
I've not done rigorous testing, just doing what I normally do, for a few weeks
now. It's a bit slower than FF2 but I think that's a known issue with 3 vs 2.
I guess 3 is safer, but I am tempted to go back to 2 anyway.
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
Squiggles <Squiggles_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
news:gu5idb018i1@drn.newsguy.com:
> In article <ewPTPkM0JHA.5744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> says...
<SNIP>
> FF3 installed without a hitch and runs reasonably well --
> there's a minor issue with special characters and a few
> times I saw a bit of minor interface refresh hinkiness, but
> nothing that has crashed me or interfered with website
> function. I've not done rigorous testing, just doing what I
> normally do, for a few weeks now. It's a bit slower than
> FF2 but I think that's a known issue with 3 vs 2.
>
> I guess 3 is safer, but I am tempted to go back to 2
> anyway.
I am really glad you posted this since I have been worried
(although probably unnecessarily) about browsers a lot lately,
and I am aware of KernelEx and have it but have not tried it -
and according to you it works just fine, so that's encouraging.
FFox works like a marvel, although I am at great odds with many
of its design aspects, but Opera, which I have used for years,
is just not cutting it anymore. I am using ver 7.23 which is
quite old but the newer versions have all the same problems with
the Flash plugin plus they are getting bloated and the interface
and some of the stupid "helpful features" of the last version
are totally unacceptable. I also tried K-Meleon and it appears
to run as well as (and even faster than) FFox, and is in fact
very similar (they come from the "same background" so to speak).
But I have no idea of its "safety rating".
Supposedly the new FFox is excellent, so I may give it a try
with KernelEx.
I'm curious, why are you tempted to go back to 2? Faster,
simpler, just familiar, or what?
(Obligatory whine)
I hate the WWW. We were doing just fine before.
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:gu5idb018i1@drn.newsguy.com:
> In article <ewPTPkM0JHA.5744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
> says...
<SNIP>
> FF3 installed without a hitch and runs reasonably well --
> there's a minor issue with special characters and a few
> times I saw a bit of minor interface refresh hinkiness, but
> nothing that has crashed me or interfered with website
> function. I've not done rigorous testing, just doing what I
> normally do, for a few weeks now. It's a bit slower than
> FF2 but I think that's a known issue with 3 vs 2.
>
> I guess 3 is safer, but I am tempted to go back to 2
> anyway.
I am really glad you posted this since I have been worried
(although probably unnecessarily) about browsers a lot lately,
and I am aware of KernelEx and have it but have not tried it -
and according to you it works just fine, so that's encouraging.
FFox works like a marvel, although I am at great odds with many
of its design aspects, but Opera, which I have used for years,
is just not cutting it anymore. I am using ver 7.23 which is
quite old but the newer versions have all the same problems with
the Flash plugin plus they are getting bloated and the interface
and some of the stupid "helpful features" of the last version
are totally unacceptable. I also tried K-Meleon and it appears
to run as well as (and even faster than) FFox, and is in fact
very similar (they come from the "same background" so to speak).
But I have no idea of its "safety rating".
Supposedly the new FFox is excellent, so I may give it a try
with KernelEx.
I'm curious, why are you tempted to go back to 2? Faster,
simpler, just familiar, or what?
(Obligatory whine)
I hate the WWW. We were doing just fine before.
--
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 article <Xns9C0732ADA1C4thanexit@85.214.105.209>, thanatoid says...
>
>Squiggles <Squiggles_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:gu5idb018i1@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> In article <ewPTPkM0JHA.5744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> says...
>
><SNIP>
>
>> FF3 installed without a hitch and runs reasonably well --
>> there's a minor issue with special characters and a few
>> times I saw a bit of minor interface refresh hinkiness, but
>> nothing that has crashed me or interfered with website
>> function. I've not done rigorous testing, just doing what I
>> normally do, for a few weeks now. It's a bit slower than
>> FF2 but I think that's a known issue with 3 vs 2.
>>
>> I guess 3 is safer, but I am tempted to go back to 2
>> anyway.
>
>I am really glad you posted this since I have been worried
>(although probably unnecessarily) about browsers a lot lately,
>and I am aware of KernelEx and have it but have not tried it -
>and according to you it works just fine, so that's encouraging.
>
>FFox works like a marvel, although I am at great odds with many
>of its design aspects, but Opera, which I have used for years,
>is just not cutting it anymore. I am using ver 7.23 which is
>quite old but the newer versions have all the same problems with
>the Flash plugin plus they are getting bloated and the interface
>and some of the stupid "helpful features" of the last version
>are totally unacceptable. I also tried K-Meleon and it appears
>to run as well as (and even faster than) FFox, and is in fact
>very similar (they come from the "same background" so to speak).
>But I have no idea of its "safety rating".
>
>Supposedly the new FFox is excellent, so I may give it a try
>with KernelEx.
>
>I'm curious, why are you tempted to go back to 2? Faster,
>simpler, just familiar, or what?
>
FF3 is a tad slower than 2, but it really isn't by much.
I use my 98 box for my eBay business and there's a lot
of repetitive cut and paste and multiple screen steps involved
in manually listing items, so I guess I'm a bit sensitive to the
cumulative effect. I can live with it -- but actually I think what I'm
going to do is keep FF3 and upgrade my Verizon DSL a notch
instead, a kinda overdue move anyway.
I should have mentioned that KernelEx's special characters issue
is undoubtedly a more serious one for non-English language
users than for me.
What I especially like about the approach KernelEx takes
is that you can disable it easily temporarily for a program that
doesn't like it -- a checkbox in the properties box of the executable.
It is also claimed that you can uninstall it cleanly with the standard
Windows uninstall method, though I have not done this.
>
>Squiggles <Squiggles_member@newsguy.com> wrote in
>news:gu5idb018i1@drn.newsguy.com:
>
>> In article <ewPTPkM0JHA.5744@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>, MEB
>> says...
>
><SNIP>
>
>> FF3 installed without a hitch and runs reasonably well --
>> there's a minor issue with special characters and a few
>> times I saw a bit of minor interface refresh hinkiness, but
>> nothing that has crashed me or interfered with website
>> function. I've not done rigorous testing, just doing what I
>> normally do, for a few weeks now. It's a bit slower than
>> FF2 but I think that's a known issue with 3 vs 2.
>>
>> I guess 3 is safer, but I am tempted to go back to 2
>> anyway.
>
>I am really glad you posted this since I have been worried
>(although probably unnecessarily) about browsers a lot lately,
>and I am aware of KernelEx and have it but have not tried it -
>and according to you it works just fine, so that's encouraging.
>
>FFox works like a marvel, although I am at great odds with many
>of its design aspects, but Opera, which I have used for years,
>is just not cutting it anymore. I am using ver 7.23 which is
>quite old but the newer versions have all the same problems with
>the Flash plugin plus they are getting bloated and the interface
>and some of the stupid "helpful features" of the last version
>are totally unacceptable. I also tried K-Meleon and it appears
>to run as well as (and even faster than) FFox, and is in fact
>very similar (they come from the "same background" so to speak).
>But I have no idea of its "safety rating".
>
>Supposedly the new FFox is excellent, so I may give it a try
>with KernelEx.
>
>I'm curious, why are you tempted to go back to 2? Faster,
>simpler, just familiar, or what?
>
FF3 is a tad slower than 2, but it really isn't by much.
I use my 98 box for my eBay business and there's a lot
of repetitive cut and paste and multiple screen steps involved
in manually listing items, so I guess I'm a bit sensitive to the
cumulative effect. I can live with it -- but actually I think what I'm
going to do is keep FF3 and upgrade my Verizon DSL a notch
instead, a kinda overdue move anyway.
I should have mentioned that KernelEx's special characters issue
is undoubtedly a more serious one for non-English language
users than for me.
What I especially like about the approach KernelEx takes
is that you can disable it easily temporarily for a program that
doesn't like it -- a checkbox in the properties box of the executable.
It is also claimed that you can uninstall it cleanly with the standard
Windows uninstall method, though I have not done this.
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
On Sat, 9 May 2009 17:14:44 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:ttga05lvprilsig7ojslrh0i65k4cd6n07@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> 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.
>
>Thanks, I will save this for future reference should I decide to
>use it. AT the moment, I feel better with K-Meleon, but who the
>hell knows anymore. Thank fubar I'm not into videos that much, I
>just want the computer to do everything it is "supposed" to.
I never tried k-melon. (That's a weird name).
I am on dialup so the only way I can watch videos is to download them
first. I just let them download while I do other things, then watch
them later. Then I save thm if I like them. The nice thing about
Download helper is that I can D.L. 2 to 5 at the same time. (I dont
exceed 5 because it gets so slow on my dialup that the source will
cancel some of them).
>
>> By the way, I have never found a program that will play
>> those MP4 videos.
>
>VLC will, even the 9x version.
Hmmmmm, seems to me I installed that program once. I'm surprised it's
not opening the files...... Unless I uninstalled it????
LM
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote:
>letterman@invalid.com wrote in
>news:ttga05lvprilsig7ojslrh0i65k4cd6n07@4ax.com:
>
><SNIP>
>
>> 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.
>
>Thanks, I will save this for future reference should I decide to
>use it. AT the moment, I feel better with K-Meleon, but who the
>hell knows anymore. Thank fubar I'm not into videos that much, I
>just want the computer to do everything it is "supposed" to.
I never tried k-melon. (That's a weird name).
I am on dialup so the only way I can watch videos is to download them
first. I just let them download while I do other things, then watch
them later. Then I save thm if I like them. The nice thing about
Download helper is that I can D.L. 2 to 5 at the same time. (I dont
exceed 5 because it gets so slow on my dialup that the source will
cancel some of them).
>
>> By the way, I have never found a program that will play
>> those MP4 videos.
>
>VLC will, even the 9x version.
Hmmmmm, seems to me I installed that program once. I'm surprised it's
not opening the files...... Unless I uninstalled it????
LM
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
letterman@invalid.com wrote in
news:k36d055537qq2dnv1ktjai5ktodsoomevb@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> I never tried k-melon. (That's a weird name).
K-Mele*O*n. As in chameleon. A cute little lizard. As in gecko,
where it all started, I believe.
> I am on dialup so the only way I can watch videos is to
> download them first.
That was my situation util last Sept when I upgraded to the
blindingly fast 512kbps for ADSL for
news:k36d055537qq2dnv1ktjai5ktodsoomevb@4ax.com:
<SNIP>
> I never tried k-melon. (That's a weird name).
K-Mele*O*n. As in chameleon. A cute little lizard. As in gecko,
where it all started, I believe.
> I am on dialup so the only way I can watch videos is to
> download them first.
That was my situation util last Sept when I upgraded to the
blindingly fast 512kbps for ADSL for
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
thanatoid wrote:
> "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.
Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day cause you to drop
one of them inadvertently into a Notepad document! You should be happy
they're gone!
> 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,
That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it wouldn't be
right to change the stuff of someone else's page -- even the page as
stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet Files) -- anyhow.
> and
> ***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
> PROGRAM?
In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause the IE
window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"-- it's underlined in
the menu choices!
Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to memorize, anyhow!
> 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.
The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
--
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
> "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.
Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day cause you to drop
one of them inadvertently into a Notepad document! You should be happy
they're gone!
> 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,
That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it wouldn't be
right to change the stuff of someone else's page -- even the page as
stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet Files) -- anyhow.
> and
> ***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
> PROGRAM?
In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause the IE
window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"-- it's underlined in
the menu choices!
Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to memorize, anyhow!
> 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.
The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
--
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?????
"PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
news:#r0035b0JHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
> Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day
> cause you to drop one of them inadvertently into a Notepad
> document! You should be happy they're gone!
Well, I'm not. But I still haven't made a decision about what
browser to use besides OB1.
AFA notepad, I don't use notepad, and I spell check everything,
and z and x especially are bound to be caught by ANY
spellchecker since they are not often used.
>> 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,
>
> That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it
> wouldn't be right to change the stuff of someone else's
> page -- even the page as stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet
> Files) -- anyhow.
No, I mean you can't add, modify details, or delete ANY search
engine. Unless that's what you meant too.
>> and
>> ***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>> closes PROGRAM?
>
> In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause
> the IE window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"--
> it's underlined in the menu choices!
I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use it.
Again,
***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
PROGRAM?
> Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to
> memorize, anyhow!
Sigh.
>> 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.
>
> The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
Yes they do, z is to the left of x, and x is to the right of z !
Left is back, right is forward, unless you're Jewish!
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:#r0035b0JHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
<SNIP>
> Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day
> cause you to drop one of them inadvertently into a Notepad
> document! You should be happy they're gone!
Well, I'm not. But I still haven't made a decision about what
browser to use besides OB1.
AFA notepad, I don't use notepad, and I spell check everything,
and z and x especially are bound to be caught by ANY
spellchecker since they are not often used.
>> 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,
>
> That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it
> wouldn't be right to change the stuff of someone else's
> page -- even the page as stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet
> Files) -- anyhow.
No, I mean you can't add, modify details, or delete ANY search
engine. Unless that's what you meant too.
>> and
>> ***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>> closes PROGRAM?
>
> In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause
> the IE window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"--
> it's underlined in the menu choices!
I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use it.
Again,
***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
PROGRAM?
> Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to
> memorize, anyhow!
Sigh.
>> 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.
>
> The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
Yes they do, z is to the left of x, and x is to the right of z !
Left is back, right is forward, unless you're Jewish!
--
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 <t5udnQw8EvETKpnXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@supernews.com> Steve
<invalid@invalid.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>So the problem has been fixed in this instance. are you saying NoScript
>is no longer trustworthy even after the fix and apology?
Yes. A fix and an apology doesn't fix the inherent bad judgment that
was demonstrated here.
I also wouldn't trust a security guard to guard my building after he
helped some other thieves break into a neighbouring building even if he
did apologize and replace that building's locks.
<invalid@invalid.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>So the problem has been fixed in this instance. are you saying NoScript
>is no longer trustworthy even after the fix and apology?
Yes. A fix and an apology doesn't fix the inherent bad judgment that
was demonstrated here.
I also wouldn't trust a security guard to guard my building after he
helped some other thieves break into a neighbouring building even if he
did apologize and replace that building's locks.
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <ee1lM0D0JHA.5764@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl> MEB
<meb-not-here@hotmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
> Ah,, wait a minute since you're here, are you attempting to say that
>it is Okay to break a site?
> And this would be within acceptable *functionality* standards?
Yes, if it's doing what it is designed to do.
I've floated between Adblock Plus, Flashblock and NoScript for years,
using different combinations depending on my tolerance and mood, using
overlapping whitelists to control what functionality is available to
different sites.
All three intentionally and willfully break sites as a function of their
design.
I run AdBlock Plus because it removes advertisements, knowing full well
that it may negatively impact websites' functionality -- If nothing
else, the ads don't appear.
I know of other sites that have functionality that is broken by AdBlock
Plus too (UsedCalgary.com's photo galleries disappear, for example)
I run Flashblock because it removes Flash, most of which I find
annoying. However, because from a website's point of view it looks like
I have Flash, some sites break when they rely upon a "hidden" flash
element to kick off other functionality.
I know webmasters who intentionally deliver ads in ways that are similar
to content to make blocking one without blocking the other difficult or
impossible, and it inevitably results in either AdBlock or the site not
functioning as expected.
Since I choose to prefer the risk of blocked content in exchange for
viewing websites the way I choose rather then the way the author
chooses, I do use various solutions that offer me greater control over
my browsing experience.
> You seem to be taking a "side" here, which would actually appear as
>unacceptable.
I'm actually trying my best to stay neutral. I used both AdBlock Plus
and NoScript in the past, and I'm somewhat saddened to see NoScript
removed from that arsenal of tools.
However, the way I see it is this: NoScript specifically added
obfuscated code designed to interfere with AdBlock Plus. Twice. In
both cases, the behaviour wasn't documented, and couldn't be disabled or
reconfigured, and wasn't within the documented scope of the product.
If one of NoScript's features was "displays ads on NoScript's website"
then I would have no problem at all with NoScript's behaviour.
Ultimately, AdBlock Plus did it's job, it did everything in it's power
to block ads and it left the user in control by offering a whitelist,
NoScript tool the trojan horse route, pretending to do one thing while
doing other arguably malicious activities not necessary to accomplish
the primary purpose.
<meb-not-here@hotmail.com> was claimed to have wrote:
> Ah,, wait a minute since you're here, are you attempting to say that
>it is Okay to break a site?
> And this would be within acceptable *functionality* standards?
Yes, if it's doing what it is designed to do.
I've floated between Adblock Plus, Flashblock and NoScript for years,
using different combinations depending on my tolerance and mood, using
overlapping whitelists to control what functionality is available to
different sites.
All three intentionally and willfully break sites as a function of their
design.
I run AdBlock Plus because it removes advertisements, knowing full well
that it may negatively impact websites' functionality -- If nothing
else, the ads don't appear.
I know of other sites that have functionality that is broken by AdBlock
Plus too (UsedCalgary.com's photo galleries disappear, for example)
I run Flashblock because it removes Flash, most of which I find
annoying. However, because from a website's point of view it looks like
I have Flash, some sites break when they rely upon a "hidden" flash
element to kick off other functionality.
I know webmasters who intentionally deliver ads in ways that are similar
to content to make blocking one without blocking the other difficult or
impossible, and it inevitably results in either AdBlock or the site not
functioning as expected.
Since I choose to prefer the risk of blocked content in exchange for
viewing websites the way I choose rather then the way the author
chooses, I do use various solutions that offer me greater control over
my browsing experience.
> You seem to be taking a "side" here, which would actually appear as
>unacceptable.
I'm actually trying my best to stay neutral. I used both AdBlock Plus
and NoScript in the past, and I'm somewhat saddened to see NoScript
removed from that arsenal of tools.
However, the way I see it is this: NoScript specifically added
obfuscated code designed to interfere with AdBlock Plus. Twice. In
both cases, the behaviour wasn't documented, and couldn't be disabled or
reconfigured, and wasn't within the documented scope of the product.
If one of NoScript's features was "displays ads on NoScript's website"
then I would have no problem at all with NoScript's behaviour.
Ultimately, AdBlock Plus did it's job, it did everything in it's power
to block ads and it left the user in control by offering a whitelist,
NoScript tool the trojan horse route, pretending to do one thing while
doing other arguably malicious activities not necessary to accomplish
the primary purpose.
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
In message <Xns9C05CFEAAC8A4thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>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:
>>
>>>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.
I'm confused here, we're talking about Opera, right?
I just fired up Opera 9.63 and z/x don't appear to navigate forward or
back. (I haven't tested 9.64 yet, it's downloading now though)
Holding the mouse over the "Back" button shows a tooltip indicating the
keyboard action is Alt+Left.
As far as I can tell not even Opera is making up their own standard
anymore, whereas every browser I've got (Firefox 3.5 beta, 3.0,
SeaMonkey, Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8, Opera, Safari, Chrome) *all*
uses Alt-Left and Alt-Right as the standard for back and forward
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.
What happens if you hit the URL bar, type "google.com" and hit enter,
can you then start typing a search query, does the text end up in
Google's textbox or do you have to select the Search text box?
In every browser I've ever used, the keyboard focus is already set on
the search box by Google, typing "zoology" and ending up on the previous
page would be unexpected behaviour.
<waiting@the.exit.invalid> was claimed to have wrote:
>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:
>>
>>>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.
I'm confused here, we're talking about Opera, right?
I just fired up Opera 9.63 and z/x don't appear to navigate forward or
back. (I haven't tested 9.64 yet, it's downloading now though)
Holding the mouse over the "Back" button shows a tooltip indicating the
keyboard action is Alt+Left.
As far as I can tell not even Opera is making up their own standard
anymore, whereas every browser I've got (Firefox 3.5 beta, 3.0,
SeaMonkey, Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8, Opera, Safari, Chrome) *all*
uses Alt-Left and Alt-Right as the standard for back and forward
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.
What happens if you hit the URL bar, type "google.com" and hit enter,
can you then start typing a search query, does the text end up in
Google's textbox or do you have to select the Search text box?
In every browser I've ever used, the keyboard focus is already set on
the search box by Google, typing "zoology" and ending up on the previous
page would be unexpected behaviour.
Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns9C07F21D9A2F0thanexit@85.214.105.209:
> (...) But I still haven't made a decision about
> what browser to use besides OB1.
I have. OB1 for almost everything, if I need javascript, Opera,
if I need flash, FFox 2.20.
This was getting totally ridiculous.
<SNIP>
> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use
> it. Again,
> ***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
> closes PROGRAM?
I see the brand new 1.5.3 version makes Ctl-W close the window.
I just LOVE it when programs change shortcuts with every minor
upgrade. Not to mention logically. But I'm done with it anyway.
Of course, NOTHING will ever match the butcher job Adobe did on
PageMaker (on or two of you may remember that once-great
program) and which is one of the main reasons I hate Adobe,
besides them successfully shoving Photoshop down everybody's
throat like MS shoves MS Office down everybody's throat.
"Bleat... BLEAT!"
--
Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
news:Xns9C07F21D9A2F0thanexit@85.214.105.209:
> (...) But I still haven't made a decision about
> what browser to use besides OB1.
I have. OB1 for almost everything, if I need javascript, Opera,
if I need flash, FFox 2.20.
This was getting totally ridiculous.
<SNIP>
> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use
> it. Again,
> ***WHAT*** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
> closes PROGRAM?
I see the brand new 1.5.3 version makes Ctl-W close the window.
I just LOVE it when programs change shortcuts with every minor
upgrade. Not to mention logically. But I'm done with it anyway.
Of course, NOTHING will ever match the butcher job Adobe did on
PageMaker (on or two of you may remember that once-great
program) and which is one of the main reasons I hate Adobe,
besides them successfully shoving Photoshop down everybody's
throat like MS shoves MS Office down everybody's throat.
"Bleat... BLEAT!"
--
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 wrote:
> In message <t5udnQw8EvETKpnXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@supernews.com> Steve
> <invalid@invalid.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>So the problem has been fixed in this instance. are you saying
>>NoScript is no longer trustworthy even after the fix and apology?
>
> Yes. A fix and an apology doesn't fix the inherent bad judgment that
> was demonstrated here.
If they really fixed it & said 10 Hail Mary's & 4 Our Father's, they
should be fine now-- forgive them!
> I also wouldn't trust a security guard to guard my building after he
> helped some other thieves break into a neighbouring building even if
> he did apologize and replace that building's locks.
That's a far more serious transgression & merits time in purgatory-- bad
comparison!
--
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
> In message <t5udnQw8EvETKpnXnZ2dnUVZ_oNi4p2d@supernews.com> Steve
> <invalid@invalid.com> was claimed to have wrote:
>
>>So the problem has been fixed in this instance. are you saying
>>NoScript is no longer trustworthy even after the fix and apology?
>
> Yes. A fix and an apology doesn't fix the inherent bad judgment that
> was demonstrated here.
If they really fixed it & said 10 Hail Mary's & 4 Our Father's, they
should be fine now-- forgive them!
> I also wouldn't trust a security guard to guard my building after he
> helped some other thieves break into a neighbouring building even if
> he did apologize and replace that building's locks.
That's a far more serious transgression & merits time in purgatory-- bad
comparison!
--
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?????
---- Original Message ----
From: "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
> news:#r0035b0JHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day
>> cause you to drop one of them inadvertently into a Notepad
>> document! You should be happy they're gone!
>
> Well, I'm not. But I still haven't made a decision about what
> browser to use besides OB1.
>
> AFA notepad, I don't use notepad, and I spell check everything,
> and z and x especially are bound to be caught by ANY
> spellchecker since they are not often used.
I'm still against it on the grounds "z" & "x" may do something different
or even dangerous in some future app you may someday acquire!
>>> 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,
>>
>> That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it
>> wouldn't be right to change the stuff of someone else's
>> page -- even the page as stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet
>> Files) -- anyhow.
>
> No, I mean you can't add, modify details, or delete ANY search
> engine. Unless that's what you meant too.
I see. There is phenomenal search engine control using QuickSearch in
IE6. I can type "g" followed by search criteria in any Address Bar for
Google to be invoked. "av" is for Alta Vista-- & there are 10 others! I
can even add more to the list! QuickSearch I guess came with IE6, as I
can't recall that I downloaded or installed it separately.
>>> and
>>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>>> closes PROGRAM?
>>
>> In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause
>> the IE window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"--
>> it's underlined in the menu choices!
>
> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use it.
> Again,
Hmph!
> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
> PROGRAM?
Why can't you just use the close buttons? Oops, I see I misread earlier.
Alt-F4 & Ctrl-Alt-F4 do shut down an IE6 Window or the program as you
actually did say-- but just use the buttons!
>> Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to
>> memorize, anyhow!
>
> Sigh.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
>
> Yes they do, z is to the left of x, and x is to the right of z !
>
> Left is back, right is forward, unless you're Jewish!
Once, maybe, when there was no such thing as arrow keys, maybe I'd agree
about "z" & "x"-- but those days are long since gone! Forget it!
> --
> Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
> are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
> thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9C07F21D9A2F0thanexit@85.214.105.209:
>
>> (...) But I still haven't made a decision about
>> what browser to use besides OB1.
>
> I have. OB1 for almost everything, if I need javascript, Opera,
> if I need flash, FFox 2.20.
> This was getting totally ridiculous.
Someday I may download that OB1 just to see why you like it so much.
> <SNIP>
>
>> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use
>> it. Again,
>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>> closes PROGRAM?
>
> I see the brand new 1.5.3 version makes Ctl-W close the window.
> I just LOVE it when programs change shortcuts with every minor
> upgrade. Not to mention logically. But I'm done with it anyway.
Put a finger in your ears: Ctrl-W works in IE6 too.
> Of course, NOTHING will ever match the butcher job Adobe did on
> PageMaker (on or two of you may remember that once-great
> program) and which is one of the main reasons I hate Adobe,
> besides them successfully shoving Photoshop down everybody's
> throat like MS shoves MS Office down everybody's throat.
PageMaker I know was around long ago -- even maybe for my Commodore
machines -- but I was never a user of it. I never used the NET back
then. Even today I don't author a site. Let it go.
> "Bleat... BLEAT!"
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
From: "thanatoid" <waiting@the.exit.invalid>
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.win98.gen_discussion
Sent: Monday, May 11, 2009 12:48 AM
Subject: Re: WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????
> "PCR" <pcrrcp@netzero.net> wrote in
> news:#r0035b0JHA.1092@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl:
>
> <SNIP>
>
>> Using stray letters w/o even a control key may one day
>> cause you to drop one of them inadvertently into a Notepad
>> document! You should be happy they're gone!
>
> Well, I'm not. But I still haven't made a decision about what
> browser to use besides OB1.
>
> AFA notepad, I don't use notepad, and I spell check everything,
> and z and x especially are bound to be caught by ANY
> spellchecker since they are not often used.
I'm still against it on the grounds "z" & "x" may do something different
or even dangerous in some future app you may someday acquire!
>>> 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,
>>
>> That's a regrettable failing of IE6 too. But I guess it
>> wouldn't be right to change the stuff of someone else's
>> page -- even the page as stored in TIFs (Temporary Internet
>> Files) -- anyhow.
>
> No, I mean you can't add, modify details, or delete ANY search
> engine. Unless that's what you meant too.
I see. There is phenomenal search engine control using QuickSearch in
IE6. I can type "g" followed by search criteria in any Address Bar for
Google to be invoked. "av" is for Alta Vista-- & there are 10 others! I
can even add more to the list! QuickSearch I guess came with IE6, as I
can't recall that I downloaded or installed it separately.
>>> and
>>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>>> closes PROGRAM?
>>
>> In IE6, Alt-F brings up the File Menu. Then, "C" will cause
>> the IE window to close. But one needn't memorize that "C"--
>> it's underlined in the menu choices!
>
> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use it.
> Again,
Hmph!
> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4 closes
> PROGRAM?
Why can't you just use the close buttons? Oops, I see I misread earlier.
Alt-F4 & Ctrl-Alt-F4 do shut down an IE6 Window or the program as you
actually did say-- but just use the buttons!
>> Ctle-Alt-F does nothing-- but it's a little large to
>> memorize, anyhow!
>
> Sigh.
>
>>> 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.
>>
>> The arrow keys point perfectly-- "Z" & "X" don't!
>
> Yes they do, z is to the left of x, and x is to the right of z !
>
> Left is back, right is forward, unless you're Jewish!
Once, maybe, when there was no such thing as arrow keys, maybe I'd agree
about "z" & "x"-- but those days are long since gone! Forget it!
> --
> Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
> are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
> thanatoid <waiting@the.exit.invalid> wrote in
> news:Xns9C07F21D9A2F0thanexit@85.214.105.209:
>
>> (...) But I still haven't made a decision about
>> what browser to use besides OB1.
>
> I have. OB1 for almost everything, if I need javascript, Opera,
> if I need flash, FFox 2.20.
> This was getting totally ridiculous.
Someday I may download that OB1 just to see why you like it so much.
> <SNIP>
>
>> I don't care WHAT does what in IE since I will never use
>> it. Again,
>> **WHAT** is with Alt-F4 closes WINDOW and Ctl-Alt-F4
>> closes PROGRAM?
>
> I see the brand new 1.5.3 version makes Ctl-W close the window.
> I just LOVE it when programs change shortcuts with every minor
> upgrade. Not to mention logically. But I'm done with it anyway.
Put a finger in your ears: Ctrl-W works in IE6 too.
> Of course, NOTHING will ever match the butcher job Adobe did on
> PageMaker (on or two of you may remember that once-great
> program) and which is one of the main reasons I hate Adobe,
> besides them successfully shoving Photoshop down everybody's
> throat like MS shoves MS Office down everybody's throat.
PageMaker I know was around long ago -- even maybe for my Commodore
machines -- but I was never a user of it. I never used the NET back
then. Even today I don't author a site. Let it go.
> "Bleat... BLEAT!"
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