WHY no file extensions in FFox cache?????

Discussion in 'Computer Support' started by thanatoid, May 7, 2009.

  1. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    Hi gang...

    (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
    1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)

    I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
    FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
    intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
    flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
    Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
    interest in fixing the problem.

    OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
    like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
    works perfectly.

    Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
    almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
    on so many sites.

    [BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
    flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
    see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
    SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
    consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
    chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
    as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
    the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
    crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
    is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
    in the cache...]

    Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
    an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
    Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
    everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
    plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
    well.

    I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
    right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
    Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
    even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
    hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
    its cache which uses no file extensions.

    Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
    check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
    jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
    Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
    unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????

    Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
    check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
    about 100. A REAL drag.

    Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
    extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
    to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
    deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
    AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.

    Thanks.


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 7, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. thanatoid

    Mike Easter Guest

    posted to 24hshd only

    thanatoid wrote:

    > (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox ver
    > 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)


    Even tho' the Moz page for downloading FF 2.0.0.20 tries to tell you that
    your version won't run that v. FF, there's something wrong with the alert,
    because it is 'thinking about' FF 3. FF 2.0.0.20 runs fine in w98se
    without any hack.

    And, you can also run FF3 w/ W98se if you use KernelEx.

    In either case, you can run a significantly newer v. of FF than the old
    1.8 and I would.

    > Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
    > extensions on what it dumps into its cache?


    I don't have any suggestions about the cache issue except to wonder if the
    later versions act in exactly the same way.


    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, May 7, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    "Mike Easter" <> wrote in
    news::

    > posted to 24hshd only
    >
    > thanatoid wrote:
    >
    >> (The complaints and comments in this post apply to FFox
    >> ver 1.8.1.20 since I am still using 98SELite.)

    >
    > Even tho' the Moz page for downloading FF 2.0.0.20 tries to
    > tell you that your version won't run that v. FF, there's
    > something wrong with the alert, because it is 'thinking
    > about' FF 3. FF 2.0.0.20 runs fine in w98se without any
    > hack.


    I discussed this some time ago, the Mozilla page which
    supposedly has the 2.0.0.20 ver. has all the links leading to
    ver 3.whatever. Very impressive "housekeeping". (I guess it may
    be due to their alliance with MS - which I just found pout
    about - and therefore "Vista - or at least XP - or death".) I
    got this version from somewhere else - I can't remember where
    but it wasn't that easy to find.

    > And, you can also run FF3 w/ W98se if you use KernelEx.


    I've had KernelEx for a while but have not had time or the guts
    to try it. Or any great motivation - 98SE does everything I
    need.

    > In either case, you can run a significantly newer v. of FF
    > than the old 1.8 and I would.


    In spite of the idiotic version numbering (which I have
    discussed here before) this is the latest version before 3. The
    file version says "1.8.1.20: 2008121709" but the product version
    (below) says "2.0.0.20". Nice and consistent.

    >> Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put
    >> file extensions on what it dumps into its cache?

    >
    > I don't have any suggestions about the cache issue except
    > to wonder if the later versions act in exactly the same
    > way.


    I wonder too, and I do not see any reason why they would change
    something that in their view apparently makes them unique and
    better - there is simply NO explanation for this idiotic
    "feature". Anyway, I am a great believer in "older is better"
    and as a rule use 5-10 year old versions of software - it runs
    faster, better, has no useless bloat and does everything I need.
    I do not believe anything of significance has been written in
    the last 5-10 years (some games - but I am not a gamer - and
    brand new technology excepted). It's almost all super-bloated
    rewrites of stuff from the late 80's and 90's.

    Thanks for the reply.

    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 7, 2009
    #3
  4. thanatoid

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <Xns9C04825583B58thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
    <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >>> Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put
    >>> file extensions on what it dumps into its cache?

    >>
    >> I don't have any suggestions about the cache issue except
    >> to wonder if the later versions act in exactly the same
    >> way.

    >
    >I wonder too, and I do not see any reason why they would change
    >something that in their view apparently makes them unique and
    >better - there is simply NO explanation for this idiotic
    >"feature".


    Security 101: Don't place files from untrusted sources into known
    locations on the filesystem.

    In a layered security model you need to build each layer assuming that
    all other layers have been compromised. In this case, the exploit that
    is being addressed is fairly simple, you assume that the attacker has
    the ability to launch an arbitrary program on the victim's system.

    Are you safer if the attacker can also load their own executable on the
    user's system in a known location in a format that the operation system
    will happily execute, or are you safer with the attacker being unable to
    locate their payload, and even if they can, being unable to execute it?

    The cache is not meant to be accessed by users directly, so the user
    experience is not considered, rather, the cache is meant to be accessed
    by the browser to improve the browsing experience.
    DevilsPGD, May 7, 2009
    #4
  5. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    DevilsPGD <> wrote in
    news::

    <SNIP>

    > Security 101: Don't place files from untrusted sources into
    > known locations on the filesystem.
    >
    > In a layered security model you need to build each layer
    > assuming that all other layers have been compromised. In
    > this case, the exploit that is being addressed is fairly
    > simple, you assume that the attacker has the ability to
    > launch an arbitrary program on the victim's system.
    >
    > Are you safer if the attacker can also load their own
    > executable on the user's system in a known location in a
    > format that the operation system will happily execute, or
    > are you safer with the attacker being unable to locate
    > their payload, and even if they can, being unable to
    > execute it?
    >
    > The cache is not meant to be accessed by users directly, so
    > the user experience is not considered, rather, the cache is
    > meant to be accessed by the browser to improve the browsing
    > experience.


    Well, I must admit what you say here makes perfect sense, still,
    it reminds me of MS's attempts to make a "safe" (HAAAR) and
    idiot-proof OS. If people know how to manage their computers and
    how to be protected, they shouldn't be forced to dig through
    layers of directories designed to keep the clueless a little
    safer. I believe if well-designed malware /really/ wants to find
    something, it will. And you shouldn't allow malware into your
    system to begin with, and I have been quite successful with that
    - one virus (in an email from a clueless friend) in 15 years.

    And "the cache" MAY originally (like 15 years ago) have been
    intended to "improve the browsing experience" but with today's
    computer and internet transfer speeds, it is really quite
    unnecessary. Why do most browsers programs offer to empty the
    whole cache, or "refresh" every x seconds/minutes? I use the
    cache because I find it annoying to "save" whatever I want to
    save when I can just get it from the cache later. In Opera it's
    child's play. In IE it is one of the reasons to never use it,
    although not the main one. In FFox it's a nightmare due to no
    file extensions, and that was my main complaint.

    Still, I appreciate your post since it gave me a new angle to
    look at /this/ particular aspect of FFox's design - and it's not
    bad, AND, as you know, it can be modified fairly easily.

    Thanks.


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 7, 2009
    #5
  6. thanatoid

    Guest

    On Thu, 7 May 2009 11:55:17 +0000 (UTC), 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.)
    >
    >I can hardly believe I'm doing this, but I am going to be using
    >FFox a lot because while Opera is supremely configurable and
    >intelligently designed and I have been using it for years, the
    >flash plugin and one other DLL crash it all the time and the
    >Opera forums make it disturbingly clear that Opera has zero
    >interest in fixing the problem.
    >
    >OTOH, I installed the latest 98 ver. Flash plugin and FFox runs
    >like a dream. The design is stupid, but it is very fast and
    >works perfectly.
    >
    >Bizarre, but there you are. Opera, the BEST browser becomes
    >almost unusable, since stupid flash content (unfortunately) is
    >on so many sites.
    >
    >[BTW, I feel I must report that I ran across a site which is ALL
    >flash (it would crash Opera before it even loaded, and you would
    >see NOTHING in OB1), http://www.skinnydipswimwear.com, and it is
    >SO well designed that I am almost contemplating being willing to
    >consider rethinking my anti-flash stance... But maybe the cute
    >chicks in bikinis have something to do with it as well... Also,
    >as much as I hate to say this, FFox saved all the images from
    >the all-flash site which Opera never did - assuming it didn't
    >crash to begin with... I have NO idea how they did that... Flash
    >is flash and jpg is jpg... But maybe some embedded jpg's DO go
    >in the cache...]
    >
    >Anyway, I basically hate FFox. I hate the fact you have to paste
    >an URL and THEN hit Enter (I have NOT found an alternative -
    >Opera's Ctl-D (in the older versions, they seem to like changing
    >everything except their incomprehensible attitude to the flash
    >plugin) was SO convenient, and it's easier with OffByOne as
    >well.
    >
    >I hate the fact z or x don't take you back or forward. (Yes, alt
    >right or left arrow /does/ make sense, but why confuse things?
    >Opera AND OffByOne use z and x, and I would NOT be surprised if
    >even IE did. But FFox HAS to be different /and/ annoying as
    >hell.) I also hate its idiotic data paths, and I especially hate
    >its cache which uses no file extensions.
    >
    >Unless I go through the tedious "save file as", I have to later
    >check every file in the cache to see which might be the html or
    >jpg or zip or flv that I want to keep. Fortunately, Total
    >Commander makes it very easy, but it's still a lot of idiotic
    >unnecessary clicking. WHY no extensions, FFox ????
    >
    >Of course, file sizes are an indication, so I don't have to
    >check (in an average session) 300 files, but I do have to check
    >about 100. A REAL drag.
    >
    >Does ANYONE have an idea how to make stupid Firefox put file
    >extensions on what it dumps into its cache? Someone told me how
    >to customize the cache path so it is not buried 4 or 5 levels
    >deep in the Win directory (thanks again, although memory fails
    >AFA your name) so perhaps someone will know how to do this.
    >
    >Thanks.


    I'm surprised you have used Opera this long. I gave it an honest try.
    It's lacking in many ways. FF is far better. I'd even go so far to
    say IE is better than Opera. But FF is slow to load, and does use
    really odd cache file names. There's an addon program called CACHE
    VIEWER that will give you the actual filemnames and allow you to open
    and save cache files.
    , May 7, 2009
    #6
  7. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    wrote in
    news::

    <SNIP>

    > I'm surprised you have used Opera this long.


    IMO, it *IS* the best browser but it can not handle Flash, at
    least on 98.

    > I gave it an
    > honest try. It's lacking in many ways.


    Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
    first or doesn't at all.

    > FF is far better.


    It works very well, but it's design leaves a lot to be desired,
    as I stated in the OP.

    > I'd even go so far to say IE is better than Opera.


    You are about to lose credibility! ;-)

    > But FF
    > is slow to load


    A little slower than Opera, but I use OffByOne 99% of the time
    anyway. When OB1 can't handle a page, I copy the URL and open it
    in Opera or FF.

    > and does use really odd cache file names.
    > There's an addon program called CACHE VIEWER that will give
    > you the actual filemnames and allow you to open and save
    > cache files.


    Now THERE'S some useful info. I hope this program is designed
    FOR FFox, and not to find cached things in IE's hidden
    directories which has been somewhat of an annoyance for about 15
    years.

    Thanks.

    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 7, 2009
    #7
  8. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    thanatoid <> wrote in
    news:Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209:

    > 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.


    Sigh... Most are just that...

    This is the only one so far that supposedly works with FFox.
    But..."

    ==================

    Author: Tim Johnson
    Price: 25$
    Size: 30.00 MB
    Description:
    Cache View is a viewer for the Netscape, Mozilla, Firefox,
    Opera, and Internet Explorer caches. Cache View runs on Windows.

    ==================

    THIRTY MB's? That's more than the fucking browser!

    (...)

    OK, I found the FFox plugin... 24 KB is more like it...

    Thanks very much!

    (Just seeing some other ones as well, looks promising, one
    should be /just/ right. Thanks again, you have solved a minor
    nightmare for me.)


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 7, 2009
    #8
  9. thanatoid

    VanguardLH Guest

    thanatoid wrote:

    > ... the Mozilla page which supposedly has the 2.0.0.20 ver. has all
    > the links leading to ver 3.whatever. Very impressive "housekeeping".
    > (I guess it may be due to their alliance with MS - which I just
    > found pout about - and therefore "Vista - or at least XP - or
    > death".) I got this version from somewhere else - I can't remember
    > where but it wasn't that easy to find. ...


    Other than Mozilla using the system calls in Windows for their product
    to run there, what is this Microsoft alliance to which you allude? I
    know that Google dumps $57M per year into Mozilla but I haven't heard
    about Microsoft funding any development at Mozilla.

    http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/30/AR2009043002508.html
    http://www.pcworld.com/businesscent...gle_deal_produces_91_of_mozillas_revenue.html

    Mozilla sold out to Google. I don't know about a sellout by them to
    Microsoft (which would be at odds regarding future competing plans by
    Google and Microsoft regarding cloud computing).
    VanguardLH, May 7, 2009
    #9
  10. thanatoid

    DevilsPGD Guest

    In message <Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
    <> was claimed to have wrote:

    >Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
    >first or doesn't at all.


    Alright, I'll open the bidding with Firefox's extension support.

    Specifically, Adblock Plus (a plugin+service that work together to
    ensure a more positive browsing experience)
    DevilsPGD, May 8, 2009
    #10
  11. thanatoid

    MEB Guest

    DevilsPGD wrote:
    > In message <Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209> thanatoid
    > <> was claimed to have wrote:
    >
    >> Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
    >> first or doesn't at all.

    >
    > Alright, I'll open the bidding with Firefox's extension support.
    >
    > Specifically, Adblock Plus (a plugin+service that work together to
    > ensure a more positive browsing experience)
    >
    >


    The problem associated with all of this discussion is that the FireFox
    browser for 9X was creamed by the weight of its flaws and
    vulnerabilities several months ago [shortly after its support ended]. It
    actually IS now worse than I.E. to use.
    You can ignore these known variables or you can be intelligent in your
    Internet usage. Hackers LOVE users who think they know more than the
    hacker does... as EVERY known vulnerability is publicly posted on
    Mozilla, its rather ignorant to think even basic hackers will not use
    those vulnerabilities.


    --
    ~
    --
    MEB
    http://peoplescounsel.org/ref/windows-main.htm
    Windows Diagnostics, Security, Networking
    http://peoplescounsel.org
    The *REAL WORLD* of Law, Justice, and Government
    _______
    MEB, May 8, 2009
    #11
  12. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    VanguardLH <> wrote in
    news:gtvgo5$r2l$:

    > thanatoid wrote:
    >
    >> ... the Mozilla page which supposedly has the 2.0.0.20
    >> ver. has all the links leading to ver 3.whatever. Very
    >> impressive "housekeeping". (I guess it may be due to
    >> their alliance with MS - which I just found pout


    Instead of ver 16 (or 19) of Omnipage why doesn't someone over
    there develop an intelligent spell checker. Damn!

    >> about -
    >> and therefore "Vista - or at least XP - or death".) I got
    >> this version from somewhere else - I can't remember where
    >> but it wasn't that easy to find. ...

    >
    > Other than Mozilla using the system calls in Windows for
    > their product to run there, what is this Microsoft alliance
    > to which you allude? I know that Google dumps $57M per
    > year into Mozilla but I haven't heard about Microsoft
    > funding any development at Mozilla.


    I don't know about "funding" per se but a few days ago I was
    told by someone in this (or the 98) group that Mozilla and MS
    are buddies now. I thought Mozilla was a major part of the "end
    the MS monopoly" movement. Of course, you can't take anything
    you read here or anywhere else as truth or as lies or as
    anything in between, fubar knows what is really happening
    anywhere.

    And how does the $57M "dump" relate to Google Chrome, or have
    they given up on it? Maybe soon we'll have "SilverFox"...
    Shudder... (Now, where is my CD-R with Lynx on it...?)

    > http://www.scroogle.org/mozilla.html
    > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04
    > /30/AR2009043002508.html
    > http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/154198/google_
    > deal_produces_91_of_mozillas_revenue.html


    Nice of you to provide, but it's really not of that much
    interest to me. I wish TV and computers had never been invented,
    to tell you the truth.

    > Mozilla sold out to Google. I don't know about a sellout
    > by them to Microsoft (which would be at odds regarding
    > future competing plans by Google and Microsoft regarding
    > ,).


    Well, at this point I just might hate Google more than MS, so
    death to the evil 3! (Adobe is the third.)



    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 8, 2009
    #12
  13. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    DevilsPGD <> wrote in
    news::

    > In message <Xns9C0497FEC9859thanexit@85.214.105.209>
    > thanatoid <> was claimed to have
    > wrote:
    >
    >>Name ONE feature another browser has that Opera didn't have
    >>first or doesn't at all.

    >
    > Alright, I'll open the bidding with Firefox's extension
    > support.
    >
    > Specifically, Adblock Plus (a plugin+service that work
    > together to ensure a more positive browsing experience)


    Well, I surrender, mainly because I'm too lazy, and also, the
    more I work with FF, the more I get used to it (after nearly 10
    years of Opera and OffByOne - which still remains my browser of
    choice).

    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. 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).

    The "no z or x for navigation" is inexcusable, I don't care what
    else it may or may not have.

    And I have yet to test the cache viewer plugins.

    The reviews on the page
    https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865
    sure made for interesting reading though.

    TTYTH, I am beginning to feel that NO browser is full-featured
    (ie handles Flash and Java crap and /doesn't/ crash) AND runs
    fast AND is secure AND follows years-old standards in kbd
    shortcuts. It's the 10+ various shortcuts for "save file as"
    nightmare all over again.

    (All and sundry - /please/ restrain yourselves from informing me
    that there are several Linux browsers that fulfill all those
    requirements and work just great. SIGH.)


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 8, 2009
    #13
  14. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    MEB <> wrote in
    news::

    <SNIP>

    > The problem associated with all of this discussion is
    > that the FireFox
    > browser for 9X was creamed by the weight of its flaws and
    > vulnerabilities several months ago [shortly after its
    > support ended]. It actually IS now worse than I.E. to use.


    Well, that is certainly great to hear. I was under the
    impression FF 9x was OK as long as you more or less knew what
    being online involved, and if you did not install the dozens of
    plugins - which I read were what made the now-bloated and
    inconsistent browser just as bad and insecure as IE.

    If anyone can comment on that, I'd appreciate it, because I am
    not about to start using XP, but neither will I be installing
    any other plugins for FF than Flash and one of cache viewers -
    if they actually do what they claim. Otherwise they're gone.

    > You can ignore these known variables or you can be
    > intelligent in your
    > Internet usage.


    Could you be a little more specific/clarify this a little, if
    you have the time and patience?



    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 8, 2009
    #14
  15. thanatoid

    Mike Easter Guest

    thanatoid wrote:

    > TTYTH, I am beginning to feel that NO browser is full-featured
    > (ie handles Flash and Java crap and /doesn't/ crash) AND runs
    > fast AND is secure AND follows years-old standards in kbd
    > shortcuts. It's the 10+ various shortcuts for "save file as"
    > nightmare all over again.
    >
    > (All and sundry - /please/ restrain yourselves from informing me
    > that there are several Linux browsers that fulfill all those
    > requirements and work just great. SIGH.)


    Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently unstable and
    insecure, so we have to be careful what we are doing with our browsers.
    To that I add another destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be
    handled carefully.

    And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros. One of them which
    I've recently taken a liking to is to tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE desktop
    session instead of XFCE, which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same amount of
    resources as Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate' in the
    graphical tools ease of use department use significantly more resources
    than Win98.


    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, May 8, 2009
    #15
  16. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    "Mike Easter" <> wrote in
    news::

    > thanatoid wrote:
    >
    >> TTYTH, I am beginning to feel that NO browser is
    >> full-featured (ie handles Flash and Java crap and
    >> /doesn't/ crash) AND runs fast AND is secure AND follows
    >> years-old standards in kbd shortcuts. It's the 10+ various
    >> shortcuts for "save file as" nightmare all over again.
    >>
    >> (All and sundry - /please/ restrain yourselves from
    >> informing me that there are several Linux browsers that
    >> fulfill all those requirements and work just great. SIGH.)

    >
    > Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently
    > unstable and insecure, so we have to be careful what we are
    > doing with our browsers. To that I add another
    > destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be handled
    > carefully.


    Knowing as much as you do, WHY do you even HAVE IE/OE on your
    machine?

    > And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros.
    > One of them which I've recently taken a liking to is to
    > tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE desktop session instead of XFCE,
    > which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same amount of resources as
    > Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate' in the
    > graphical tools ease of use department use significantly
    > more resources than Win98.


    So, what I have been hearing for years now, that Linux will do
    as much on a 486 with 64 MB RAM as XP on a 3GHz 4GB RAM machine
    is NOT true then either, huh? Fubar help us all.


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 8, 2009
    #16
  17. thanatoid

    Mike Easter Guest

    thanatoid wrote:
    > "Mike Easter"


    >> Those of us who run W98 are using an OS which is inherently
    >> unstable and insecure, so we have to be careful what we are
    >> doing with our browsers. To that I add another
    >> destabilizer, namely OE QuoteFix which has to be handled
    >> carefully.

    >
    > Knowing as much as you do, WHY do you even HAVE IE/OE on your
    > machine?


    W98 is like an old pet who is in poor health. OE is like a worn out old
    shoe which is comfortable even if it has holes in the soles, the shoelace
    is broken, and the tongue has fallen out.

    I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and occasionally
    K-Meleon if opera won't do something. If I can't get it done with
    K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and use a linux distro with FF3.

    >> And, yes. I also run a lot of different linux distros.
    >> One of them which I've recently taken a liking to is to
    >> tweak Xubuntu into an LXDE desktop session instead of XFCE,
    >> which 'Lubuntu' uses about the same amount of resources as
    >> Win98. Most linux distros which are 'adequate' in the
    >> graphical tools ease of use department use significantly
    >> more resources than Win98.

    >
    > So, what I have been hearing for years now, that Linux will do
    > as much on a 486 with 64 MB RAM as XP on a 3GHz 4GB RAM machine
    > is NOT true then either, huh? Fubar help us all.


    You can do some things with really tiny linuxes, but you have to be a
    commandline maven for that. OTOH, you can use the tools of LitePC and
    make W98 really really small and graphical "Run from flash memory as small
    as 8MB "



    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, May 8, 2009
    #17
  18. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    "Mike Easter" <> wrote in
    news::

    <SNIP>

    > W98 is like an old pet who is in poor health. OE is like a
    > worn out old shoe which is comfortable even if it has holes
    > in the soles, the shoelace is broken, and the tongue has
    > fallen out.


    Not a bad analogy but a little cruel. I think. I am perfectly
    satisfied with my 98SELite setup - I have Lite just for the 95
    shell, I kept IE for chm files but I would NEVER use IE or OE
    (which I did not install) online.

    > I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
    > occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.


    Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
    that's a big no no!

    > If I
    > can't get it done with K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and
    > use a linux distro with FF3.


    I'll have to try K-Meleon.

    I am getting very frustrated with browsers. WHY are there 5,000
    text editors but only about 10 browsers for Windows, none of
    them REALLY satisfactory? (The IE modifiers don't count, of
    course, not that THEY are satisfactory either.)

    <SNIP>

    > You can do some things with really tiny linuxes, but you
    > have to be a commandline maven for that. OTOH, you can use
    > the tools of LitePC and make W98 really really small and
    > graphical "Run from flash memory as small as 8MB "


    While I DO own a 486 with 32 MB of RAM I don't think it will
    ever be turned on again, although it works perfectly. Anyway, it
    was a theoretical question. If and when I start messing with
    Linux it will be on a decent machine.


    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 8, 2009
    #18
  19. thanatoid

    Mike Easter Guest

    thanatoid wrote:
    > "Mike Easter"


    >> I don't use IE at all. My current browsers are Opera and
    >> occasionally K-Meleon if opera won't do something.

    >
    > Well, according to the headers, you use OE for Usenet, and
    > that's a big no no!


    I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE wrangler' who can
    use OE configured and handled securely. I don't let OE use IE's rendering
    engine except under very specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.

    >> If I
    >> can't get it done with K-Meleon, I flip my KVM switch and
    >> use a linux distro with FF3.

    >
    > I'll have to try K-Meleon.


    The system requirements for the latest v. 1.5 2008 Aug are in the release
    notes http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/ReleaseNotes15#requirements



    --
    Mike Easter
    Mike Easter, May 8, 2009
    #19
  20. thanatoid

    thanatoid Guest

    "Mike Easter" <> wrote in
    news::

    <SNIP>

    > I use OE frequently for both mail and news. I am an 'OE
    > wrangler' who can use OE configured and handled securely.
    > I don't let OE use IE's rendering engine except under very
    > specific circumstances, never 'recklessly'.


    Got it.
    Well, I /don't/ understand the technical part, but I understand
    that OE is OK - in the hands of someone really knowledgeable. I
    didn't know that was possible at all.

    <SNIP>

    > The system requirements for the latest v. 1.5 2008 Aug are
    > in the release notes
    > http://kmeleon.sourceforge.net/wiki/ReleaseNotes15#requireme
    > nts


    For once, I'm ahead of you ;-)
    DL'd and release notes page saved. Will try later tonight.



    --
    Lots of theoretical butchers are alleged and other bloody eyes
    are suitable, but will Pam secure that?
    thanatoid, May 8, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Nobody

    File extensions in cache

    Nobody, Dec 6, 2003, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    662
    Ed Mullen
    Dec 7, 2003
  2. Paul
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    449
  3. no_one@no_where.invalid

    Cleaning C partition FFox, Tbird, Sbird

    no_one@no_where.invalid, Mar 16, 2006, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    394
    no_one@no_where.invalid
    Mar 16, 2006
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    599
  5. Karl Engel

    Unwabted bookmark toolbar in FFox

    Karl Engel, Jan 22, 2007, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    367
    Old Gringo
    Jan 23, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page