If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: Bill in Co wrote: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: I think I missed your response on this one, John: [] I thought you liked the older versions, like me? :-) FF11?? What's so good about the newer FF11? (I still have version FF ver 3.5 installed). I too was (am) uneasy about Firefox's upgrade rate (though it seems to have stopped for a moment - I just checked, and 11.0 is still up to date; AFAICR, it's been 11 for some time). Trouble is, I could never see an obvious point at which to stop it upgrading, and now am reluctant to go back, lest something (and yes, I don't know what!) I've grown used to working. You also might consider Pale Moon, which was coded for Windows, and not a bunch of OS's as is FF. At any rate, Pale Moon seems quicker to load for me. Yes, I keep hearing of it, mostly from people who're happy with it (or, it might be that it's always the same person, possibly you!). It's just lethargy on my part, and reluctance to learn (however small the differences) yet another browser. Pale Moon IS essentially Firefox, but it is compiled *only* for windows. You can read more about it before taking the mini-plunge (although I hesitate to call it much of a plunge). Lots of comments on it are in cnet.com and fileforum.com. I've been using Pale Moon in place of Firefox for most all of my "non-IE" web browsing. But I'm still mostly using IE. (you can have them both (Pale Moon and Firefox) installed if you want. (and I still do, but NOT version 11, of anything :-) |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
In message , Bill in Co
writes: [] Pale Moon IS essentially Firefox, but it is compiled *only* for windows. [] (a) But surely when they compile Firefox for Windows, it doesn't get other code? (b) even if it does, does that do anything other than at worst slow it down (and I haven't really noticed anything particularly slow about it)? (you can have them both (Pale Moon and Firefox) installed if you want. (and [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf .... current law enforcement approaches to stem the flow of drugs only manage to seize about one per cent of the drug imports... - Professor David Nutt (31 July-6 August 2010) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: [] Pale Moon IS essentially Firefox, but it is compiled *only* for windows. [] (a) But surely when they compile Firefox for Windows, it doesn't get other code? (b) even if it does, does that do anything other than at worst slow it down (and I haven't really noticed anything particularly slow about it)? As I understood it, it was specifically designed and compiled for Windows, so that no other or extra (perhaps some generic code) was added or used that would be needed for some other OS's. But I don't know the details. Does that make any sense (granted, it would help if I knew a bit more about it :-) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Bill in Co writes: [] Pale Moon IS essentially Firefox, but it is compiled *only* for windows. [] (a) But surely when they compile Firefox for Windows, it doesn't get other code? (b) even if it does, does that do anything other than at worst slow it down (and I haven't really noticed anything particularly slow about it)? As I understood it, it was specifically designed and compiled for Windows, so that no other or extra (perhaps some generic code) was added or used that would be needed for some other OS's. But I don't know the details. Does that make any sense (granted, it would help if I knew a bit more about it :-) I can see that _might_ make it a bit more efficient: as to whether it makes it behave any differently, other than perhaps faster (though as I've said I'm not aware of the browser itself being slow anyway), that would depend on whether the "generic" code does anything that isn't actually required. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf .... current law enforcement approaches to stem the flow of drugs only manage to seize about one per cent of the drug imports... - Professor David Nutt (31 July-6 August 2010) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Bill in Co writes: [] Pale Moon IS essentially Firefox, but it is compiled *only* for windows. [] (a) But surely when they compile Firefox for Windows, it doesn't get other code? (b) even if it does, does that do anything other than at worst slow it down (and I haven't really noticed anything particularly slow about it)? As I understood it, it was specifically designed and compiled for Windows, so that no other or extra (perhaps some generic code) was added or used that would be needed for some other OS's. But I don't know the details. Does that make any sense (granted, it would help if I knew a bit more about it :-) I can see that _might_ make it a bit more efficient: as to whether it makes it behave any differently, other than perhaps faster (though as I've said I'm not aware of the browser itself being slow anyway), that would depend on whether the "generic" code does anything that isn't actually required. Well, Pale Moon loads ("boots up") considerably quicker than Firefox, at least over here. In that sense, it acts like a lighter version of FF. If the generic code is less streamlined than code written specifically for windows, I can see how that could make the difference. An analogy, albeit a perhaps weak one, would be to compare programs written directly in Assembler, VS those resulting from the compiled, higher level languages, like C (or even much worse, Basic, Cobol, Pascal, etc). There is no question in terms of efficiency - and speed. (That said, I can't imagine someone coding all of Microsoft Word in Assembler, but if they did, it would load up and run at lightning speed, LOL). And you could probably even run it comfortably on a 50 or 100 MHz CPU. :-) |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I can see that _might_ make it a bit more efficient: as to whether it makes it behave any differently, other than perhaps faster (though as I've said I'm not aware of the browser itself being slow anyway), that would depend on whether the "generic" code does anything that isn't actually required. Well, Pale Moon loads ("boots up") considerably quicker than Firefox, at least over here. In that sense, it acts like a lighter version of FF. Yes, loading time might be somewhere where the difference would be noticeable. I usually load Firefox while I'm doing something else, but the odd time I forget, the time to load _is_ very noticeable. If the generic code is less streamlined than code written specifically for windows, I can see how that could make the difference. An analogy, albeit a perhaps weak one, would be to compare programs written directly in Assembler, VS those resulting from the compiled, higher level languages, like C (or even much worse, Basic, Cobol, Pascal, etc). There is no question in terms of efficiency - and speed. (That said, I can't imagine someone coding all of Microsoft Word in Assembler, but if they did, it would load up and run at lightning speed, LOL). And you could probably even run it comfortably on a 50 or 100 MHz CPU. :-) Indeed (-:! Increases in processor power have definitely encouraged drops in compiler efficiency (and the willingness to code for efficiency). Wasn't DOS 3.3 the last one mostly coded in assembler? -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "Look, if it'll help you to do what I tell you, baby, imagine that I've got a blaster ray in my hand." "Uh - you _have_ got a blaster ray in your hand." "So you shouldn't have to tax your imagination too hard." (Link episode) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.)
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] I can see that _might_ make it a bit more efficient: as to whether it makes it behave any differently, other than perhaps faster (though as I've said I'm not aware of the browser itself being slow anyway), that would depend on whether the "generic" code does anything that isn't actually required. Well, Pale Moon loads ("boots up") considerably quicker than Firefox, at least over here. In that sense, it acts like a lighter version of FF. Yes, loading time might be somewhere where the difference would be noticeable. I usually load Firefox while I'm doing something else, but the odd time I forget, the time to load _is_ very noticeable. If the generic code is less streamlined than code written specifically for windows, I can see how that could make the difference. An analogy, albeit a perhaps weak one, would be to compare programs written directly in Assembler, VS those resulting from the compiled, higher level languages, like C (or even much worse, Basic, Cobol, Pascal, etc). There is no question in terms of efficiency - and speed. (That said, I can't imagine someone coding all of Microsoft Word in Assembler, but if they did, it would load up and run at lightning speed, LOL). And you could probably even run it comfortably on a 50 or 100 MHz CPU. :-) Indeed (-:! Increases in processor power have definitely encouraged drops in compiler efficiency (and the willingness to code for efficiency). Wasn't DOS 3.3 the last one mostly coded in assembler? I don't know, but perhaps someone here does. But even later than when DOS 3.3 came out, I think several windows applications were also coded in Assembler, too. But somewhere along the line, I'm pretty sure that went out the window (except, perhaps, for some critical speed subroutines). Coding in assembler is just too tedious. :-) (that said, I really admire those who could do it well, and get it right) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.) [Now reminiscences.]
In message , Bill in Co
writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] efficiency). Wasn't DOS 3.3 the last one mostly coded in assembler? I don't know, but perhaps someone here does. But even later than when DOS 3.3 came out, I think several windows applications were also coded in Assembler, too. But somewhere along the line, I'm pretty sure that went out the window (except, perhaps, for some critical speed subroutines). Coding in assembler is just too tedious. :-) (that said, I really admire those who could do it well, and get it right) I'm still blown away by a little .com file I have that simulates an open fire - flames - on the screen. It's all of 453 bytes. I don't remember where I got it. -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf `The wireless telegraph is not difficult to understand. The ordinary telegraph is like a very long cat. You pull the tail in New York, and it meows in Los Angeles. The wireless is the same, only without the cat.' Attributed to Albert Einstein 1879-1955 (Computing, 1999-12-16). |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browserthoughts.) [Now reminiscences.]
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:02:57 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John)
wrote: In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] efficiency). Wasn't DOS 3.3 the last one mostly coded in assembler? I don't know, but perhaps someone here does. But even later than when DOS 3.3 came out, I think several windows applications were also coded in Assembler, too. But somewhere along the line, I'm pretty sure that went out the window (except, perhaps, for some critical speed subroutines). Coding in assembler is just too tedious. :-) (that said, I really admire those who could do it well, and get it right) I'm still blown away by a little .com file I have that simulates an open fire - flames - on the screen. It's all of 453 bytes. I don't remember where I got it. here? http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/fire/Fire.html -- [dash dash space newline 4line sig] Albi CNU |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Why does Wikipedia keep begging for foreign fonts? (Now browser thoughts.) [Now reminiscences.]
"Harry Vaderchi" wrote in newsp.wcrs7jxz1r0rdn@dell3100:
On Sat, 14 Apr 2012 12:02:57 +0100, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: In message , Bill in Co writes: J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote: [] efficiency). Wasn't DOS 3.3 the last one mostly coded in assembler? I don't know, but perhaps someone here does. But even later than when DOS 3.3 came out, I think several windows applications were also coded in Assembler, too. But somewhere along the line, I'm pretty sure that went out the window (except, perhaps, for some critical speed subroutines). Coding in assembler is just too tedious. :-) (that said, I really admire those who could do it well, and get it right) I'm still blown away by a little .com file I have that simulates an open fire - flames - on the screen. It's all of 453 bytes. I don't remember where I got it. here? http://thestarman.pcministry.com/asm/fire/Fire.html There's a nicer one, it starts low, and grows a bit, it looks fairly realistic too. It might be what John Gilliver has. I remember it, there's also a watery one, and various keygens have some amazing coding, long mandala-like audio that never seems to loop, complete withj graphics, all coming out of a few tens of KB at most. Even C can be effective and small though. I'm workign on porting a DX7 editor I made in wxLua. When compiled by TCC, and UPX'ed, it weighs just 22 KB. It's nearly complete, puts up a tabcontrol with four pages full of DIY spincontrols, (wxLua provides them natively, the API doesn't, you have to combine two controls to make them). The editor can detect voice and bank files, allows auditioning of a voice in a bank, or another bank, prior to saving, and has edit and recall buffers, and a compare more with muting, and a config system, a 424x240 pixel bitmap plus several small bitmaps for a toolbar, and an internal data copying system. it will also have MIDI capability built in, but I haven't added that yet because although I figured out how, first, the orginal I'm porting from didn't and I want to get the port right first, and it's already a lot more capable than that was (a 28K wxLua script) It's the kind of tool that mostly comes in a program a few hundred K in size, if not more. I got it small because the C language and use of the Win32 API to bypass all the bloated MFC or .NET or other controls and class libraries lets me add only the code I need most. I chose to write my own common functions, including string and file functions, which also helps. It's been a long steep climb but from hating C, I have come to love it, there's an elegance to pointer arithmetic and dereferencing that makes people normally used to array handling feel like they are suddenly able to walk through walls and go anywhere so long as they don't get lost trying. I don't know if I'll take to ASM but I have had a look at it, using DOS's Debug.exe, same as used for that Fire page Harry linked to (I saved that too, for looking at some time if I get the urge). One thing I did see last month was that ASM and Win32 API calls can be directly combined in ways that can make very small and powerful tools. I think Martin Pesch's MP3DirectCut and 1by1 tools might be built that way. I suspect that if I learn more about compiling I might get C to make files almost as small as ASM, because one thing I aim for is to write C code so it works as close as I know how, to the way the CPU does it. The compiler can help but it works better if it doesn't have to try to rewrite everything we send to it too much. I'm not taking it to extremes, no matter how obsessive I get though, because ASM is extremely dependent on specific hardware, especially the CPU itself, and C isn't, or ideally, should not be. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
printing in foreign language win 98 | memcneely | Printing | 3 | May 12th 06 04:15 PM |
foreign language | SP | General | 4 | November 18th 05 06:26 AM |
Foreign characters | BAnders | Setup & Installation | 1 | April 5th 05 08:04 PM |
Foreign language fonts not displayed properly | VG | General | 1 | August 17th 04 07:17 PM |
Foreign Language Character Sets | General | 3 | June 24th 04 07:40 AM |