On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 15:54:36 -0500,
KN_____@cast.com wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Aug 2006 08:27:46 GMT, "Mozilla Champion (Dan)"
> <> wrote:
> >Well if you used an up to date verions, maybe you wouldnt have those
> >problems.
> >
> >Firefox is up to 1.5.06 now. Please update.
>
> Since when does Firefox REQUIRE an upgrade? (Or for that matter, any
> software). Whether software is purchased or free, older versions
> should continue to work when upgrades come out. I did not get a
> computer in order to install new software all the time. I bought it
> to use it, period.
>
> I have no intention of upgrading. This is an older computer with an
> older version of Windows. It SHOULD run older software. It likely
> will NOT run newer software, which is most likely nothing more than a
> bloated version of the same thing, and likely requires more memory,
> more cpu speed, and most likely WinXP.
Firefox does not require an upgrade. Old versions of Firebird still work.
It is not likely that I will be upgrading from Win 98se for a long time,
unless someone throws a practically free Pentium 4 my way. I've seen Win XP
on a Pentium III, and it almost made me cry. It was so incredibly slow and
bloated. Even with a P4, I'd probably still prefer to run Win 98se. It's so
much faster and smaller.
Firefox is one of those very rare programs that is not becoming more
bloated as newer versions come out. I don't upgrade software if the newer
version turns out to be slower. Version 1.5.0.6 runs well on a Pentium 233
with 64 megs of RAM. All versions could benefit from more speed and memory,
but 1.5.0.6 runs and is a bit more stable than the 1.0.x versions were. The
minimum system requirements have not changed for running Firefox in a long
time. One thing in Firefox 1.5.x does use a little more memory, but it's a
feature that can be turned off easily. That is the new faster cache for
going backwards and forwards through already visited pages. Even with it
on, I have not had any low memory issues so far. Since you have 8 more megs
of RAM than I do, you should have no problems. The upgrade is a bit faster
than 1.0.x was on my Pentium 233 system. You've already said that 1.0.x is
not working well. You also said that you don't prefer to use IE. Upgrading,
and fully replacing your Firefox profile might fix the problems and result
in a faster browser. At the worst, you simply remove Firefox and use IE. I
wouldn't do that without at least trying the upgrade first. You might like
it.
> I already know that upgrading
> FF will be opening a can of worms. It's not simply installing a patch
> or new .DLL file. I am well aware that all my extensions will need to
> be reinstalled, then likely I'll have to add memory, upgrade windows,
> and ultimately spend a thousand dollars for a complete new computer
> with XP, and completely start over.
Not in this case. I needed no additional memory or software to install the
newest version, and I have less memory than you. Some of my older
extensions had to be upgraded though. The Nightly Tester Tools extension,
which is very small, may be required to install some older extensions. I
had to use it the get ChromEdit to install. Nightly Tester can then be
disable until it might be needed again. I used to use AdBlock with Firefox
1.0.7, but moved to AdBlock Plus for Firefox 1.5.x. It's noticeably faster
now.
> If Mozilla did something to make their older versions crash, in order
> to force users to upgrade, I dont want anything to do with their
> software. Even Microsoft (as crooked as they are), still has older
> software that works. I still use IE 5.5, and want no part of IE 6.x.
> IE 5.5 still works (as much as I hate IE). FF 1.0 used to work fine,
> even though it did on occasion crash, but not any longer. I should
> note that it crashes most often when I go to websites with PDF files.
I hear that a lot from people. That can probably be blamed on Adobe, or its
PDF plugin. I refuse to ever install any version of Adobe or it's plugins.
I had terrible luck with them in the past. I use Foxit to display PDF
files, which is easily 50 times faster than Adobe, and it's also something
like 15 times smaller! Foxit has never crashed on me, which is a claim that
Adobe could never hope to make. Foxit is still not perfect, as the PDF
format is horrible to begin with, but Foxit runs circles around Adobe, and
doesn't crash.
> Unfortunately far too many sites use those god forsaken s.l.o.w
> things. Maybe it's because I removed Adobe reader and got Foxit.
I'll take a text file any day over the PDF crap that is so common now. I
have low vision, and it's nearly impossible to read PDF files without
increasing the font size, which requires that I have to scroll left and
right as well as up and down for everything. At least plain text and HTML
will wordwrap, eliminating the need for horizontal scrolling. PDF may be
one of the worst inventions for visually impaired people on the net -
besides being dreadfully slow. I guess some people love to read
multi-megabyte PDF files that contain no more information than a text file
of only a few kilobytes!
> Adobe reader is a prime example of bloatware that went so far as to
> become unusable. Adobe was yet another REQUIRED upgrade. Getting rid
> of it was the best thing I ever did on this computer.
I couldn't agree more.
Another potential source for trouble with systems with limited memory is
Shockwave and Flash files. Go to a page where 10 or 15 of those are running
at once, and you probably will run low on memory and possibly crash. I
normally leave *.swf blocked in my AdBlock Plus. Browsing is much faster
and less annoying that way. I only enable *.swf files if I actually intend
to look at them, which is not very often.
Similar Threads
