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

In message , thanatoid
writes:
[]
Nope. IE6 doesn't use "z" or "x", either, neither alone nor
in combination with any control key-- & I wouldn't want it
to! It DOES use ALT+Arrow Key to go back/forward just like
FF-- & that's just fine & logical & normal!

AHA. Another strike against FF and K-Meleon. No one will
convince me z and x aren't easier to use automatically in the
long run, ie once your fingers have "learned" it.
[]
It's just what one has got used to - one gets very cross when such isn't
there! I miss the Alt-G, B (go, back) from Netscape!

If you use several prog.s, you soon learn the 'strokes for each - and I
find I don't _often_ get them mixed up, though "mark unread" being
ctrl-K ("keep", I think, though it has another keep function [on F8!])
in Turnpike and context-then-N in Outlook (which I have to use at work)
do catch me out occasionally.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
** http://www.soft255.demon.co.uk/G6JPG-PC/JPGminPC.htm for ludicrously
outdated thoughts on PCs. **

"I have learned to use the word `impossible' with the greatest caution."
- Werner von Braun

Bill in Co. wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:

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

This part means that I don't use IE (specifically IE6SP1 the last
available for 98se) as a browser. It/ that IE/ is integrated into the
98se OS on this machine I'm using right now and I haven't used any tools
such as LitePC (98lite) to remove it. That IE has OE as an integrated
part of it, specifically 6.00.2800.1106

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

How do you NOT let OE use IE's rendering engine?

Mostly by not opening things with OE which require IE html rendering,
except under 'controlled' circumstances.

They're tied together
behind the scenes (AFAIK) - (share DLLs, etc).

That is correct.

I bet you can't use or
install OE without IE being present on your system, so some of its
engine is being used..

IE is present on the system. OE is configured to use IE in a restricted
mode, which restricted mode is custom configured to be very restricted.
OE is normally configured to read in plaintext. Sometimes I want OE to
use IE's rendering engine. Under those circumstances I always examine the
message source so that I know its contents and structure before allowing
IE's rendering engine to go into operation.


--
Mike Easter

Bill in Co. wrote:
Mike Easter wrote:

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

This part means that I don't use IE (specifically IE6SP1 the last
available for 98se) as a browser. It/ that IE/ is integrated into the
98se OS on this machine I'm using right now and I haven't used any tools
such as LitePC (98lite) to remove it. That IE has OE as an integrated
part of it, specifically 6.00.2800.1106

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

How do you NOT let OE use IE's rendering engine?

Mostly by not opening things with OE which require IE html rendering,
except under 'controlled' circumstances.

They're tied together
behind the scenes (AFAIK) - (share DLLs, etc).

That is correct.

I bet you can't use or
install OE without IE being present on your system, so some of its
engine is being used..

IE is present on the system. OE is configured to use IE in a restricted
mode, which restricted mode is custom configured to be very restricted.
OE is normally configured to read in plaintext. Sometimes I want OE to
use IE's rendering engine. Under those circumstances I always examine the
message source so that I know its contents and structure before allowing
IE's rendering engine to go into operation.


--
Mike Easter

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
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.

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

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
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.

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

wrote in
:

SNIP

Using Download helper is really easy.
Go to this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWDc9...eature=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?

wrote in
:

SNIP

Using Download helper is really easy.
Go to this site:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VWDc9...eature=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?

In article , MEB says...

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
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.

In article , MEB says...

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , MEB
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.

Squiggles wrote in
:

In article , 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?