RSS feed reader

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in news:u-
:

But that doesn't prove your point, though.
I'd bet the real reason was the difference between your computer use and
his, and the respective environments.



I wasn't trying to prove a point, there are way too many imponderables for
that. About the only conclusion I can draw is that my situation was
working
for me, and his wasn't for him, so he needed to change something that I
didn't. He never argued against this either, he asked me for advice. But
as I
was using W98 there wasn't much I could give other than some strategy and
program recommendations, so I'm very aware of the limits in my scope. It
maybe proves I run a tight ship, but that's it, it's hardly a fleet...

OK. :-)

BTW, are you using KernelEx and FF? If so, which version of FF? Just
curious. I'm still debating between keeping either FF 2.0 or 3.5. :-)

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

BTW, are you using KernelEx and FF? If so, which version of FF? Just
curious. I'm still debating between keeping either FF 2.0 or 3.5. :-)


Neither... I did get KernelEx's latest last night though, and used 98guy's
Flash update link. (I assume that like the last Flash update I used, when
working, it will work equally well for OperaUSB v10.63 and FireFox v2, which
is what I'd used before Opera. I heard things about FireFox that sent me
hunting for an alyernative browser. I forgot what those things were, because
this version of Opera works well enough for me.

I suggest keeping FF v2 though. I do, I use it as backup sometimes.

Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

I heard things about FireFox that sent me
hunting for an alternative browser.

Meaning v3, specifically..

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

I heard things about FireFox that sent me
hunting for an alternative browser.

Meaning v3, specifically..

I stopped at version 3.5x, in part because of the following (although I may
end up going back to FF 2.0):

FF version 3.6 (and above) won't run java apps on Win98, according to the
KernelEx website (and I also noted when I tried 3.6 out once, it was an
issue, plus I didn't like its new looks, either).

Here is the relevant note, from the KernelEx Wiki:
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known workaround to
run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on Win ME/98."

The only glitch I've seen so far is the appearance of a thin vertical black
bar symbol at the end of the menu texts.

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either (again with the KernelEx
fix, which is necessary for Win98). I haven't been printing anything from
FF, but obviously this could be a big deal for many!

Here is the relevant note:
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine, but
printing will fail:
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

Cause: Firefox Cairo printing system uses 32-bit coordinate system and
printing extensions which are not supported by Windows 9x."

So in summary, there sure is a tradeoff!
I think the bottom line is: IF ver 2.0 works on all the websites you need,
it might be better to stick with it. But you will lose the HTML5
capability, for whichever sites use and need that (don't know which do).

"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

I heard things about FireFox that sent me
hunting for an alternative browser.

Meaning v3, specifically..

I stopped at version 3.5x, in part because of the following (although I
may end up going back to FF 2.0):

FF version 3.6 (and above) won't run java apps on Win98, according to
the KernelEx website (and I also noted when I tried 3.6 out once, it was
an issue, plus I didn't like its new looks, either).

Here is the relevant note, from the KernelEx Wiki:
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known workaround
to run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on Win ME/98."

The only glitch I've seen so far is the appearance of a thin vertical
black bar symbol at the end of the menu texts.

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either (again with the
KernelEx fix, which is necessary for Win98). I haven't been printing
anything from FF, but obviously this could be a big deal for many!

Here is the relevant note:
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine, but
printing will fail:
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

Cause: Firefox Cairo printing system uses 32-bit coordinate system and
printing extensions which are not supported by Windows 9x."

So in summary, there sure is a tradeoff!
I think the bottom line is: IF ver 2.0 works on all the websites you
need, it might be better to stick with it. But you will lose the HTML5
capability, for whichever sites use and need that (don't know which do).




I think browsers are too complex for their own good. Always have done... I
often abort a load if all I want is the text, then I'll save the linked
content as a file and have the text out of it with a text or hex editor. THAT
will print if I need to. Alternatively there is a way to get images,
usually direct from a cache, or save as MHT or whatever the complete page-as-
one-file is called for whole page in the hope that some other browser can use
it (never had to use that method as a lifeboat but it's a potentially useful
one). One neat method is to save a screenshot of the entire page, beyond the
window extents. A tool called PickPic or some such can do this. There are
others, but finding a GOOD one is less easy, as it's not an easy thing to
code, apparently, given that browsers have some very non-standard controls
that don't work like native Explorer ones.

In short, I nearly always try to reduce anything a browser gives me to some
standard form at the FIRST opportunity. It's a strategy that usually lets me
keep stuff intact for later use. But I never did have much use for Java.
JavaScript, sure, but that's not the same.. Not sure why I never took to
Java, it's cross=ppatform, a great idea and apparently one of the few decent
standards out there, but it always seemed to me like too much. IS maybe why I
ended up biting the bullet and learning some C and Windows API. Less is most
definitely more.

Bill in Co wrote:

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known
workaround to run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on
Win ME/98."

On the more recent versions of java (version 1.6.x) they've created
something called "next generation Java Plug-in". It can be turned on or
off from the java control-panel applet (it's under the Advanced tab).

This "next-gen" thing is not compatible with win-98 (even with kernelEx)
so the check-box must be cleared.

I believe that starting with some version of Opera (10.something I
think) and (as already mentioned) version 3.6+ of firefox, that they
require the next-gen plugin to be enabled. So hence those browsers
won't have java functionality on a win-98 system.

I have JRE 1.6.0_30 currently installed on this system.

To test which version of java your system has, visit this page:

http://javatester.org/version.html

And while you're at it, visit this page to get your current flash
version and test it:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/...sh-player.html

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either

Here is the relevant note:
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine,
but printing will fail:
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

I have to admit that printing any web-page from FF 2.0.0.20 under win-98
is also hit-or miss.

But printing airline tickets and boarding passes always works ok.

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote in
m:

Lostgallifreyan wrote:
Lostgallifreyan wrote in
:

I heard things about FireFox that sent me
hunting for an alternative browser.

Meaning v3, specifically..

I stopped at version 3.5x, in part because of the following (although I
may end up going back to FF 2.0):

FF version 3.6 (and above) won't run java apps on Win98, according to
the KernelEx website (and I also noted when I tried 3.6 out once, it was
an issue, plus I didn't like its new looks, either).

Here is the relevant note, from the KernelEx Wiki:
http://kernelex.sourceforge.net/wiki/Mozilla_Firefox

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known workaround
to run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on Win ME/98."

The only glitch I've seen so far is the appearance of a thin vertical
black bar symbol at the end of the menu texts.

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either (again with the
KernelEx fix, which is necessary for Win98). I haven't been printing
anything from FF, but obviously this could be a big deal for many!

Here is the relevant note:
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine, but
printing will fail:
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

Cause: Firefox Cairo printing system uses 32-bit coordinate system and
printing extensions which are not supported by Windows 9x."

So in summary, there sure is a tradeoff!
I think the bottom line is: IF ver 2.0 works on all the websites you
need, it might be better to stick with it. But you will lose the HTML5
capability, for whichever sites use and need that (don't know which do).




I think browsers are too complex for their own good. Always have done... I
often abort a load if all I want is the text, then I'll save the linked
content as a file and have the text out of it with a text or hex editor.
THAT
will print if I need to. Alternatively there is a way to get images,
usually direct from a cache, or save as MHT or whatever the complete
page-as-
one-file is called for whole page in the hope that some other browser can
use
it (never had to use that method as a lifeboat but it's a potentially
useful
one). One neat method is to save a screenshot of the entire page, beyond
the
window extents. A tool called PickPic or some such can do this. There are
others, but finding a GOOD one is less easy, as it's not an easy thing to
code, apparently, given that browsers have some very non-standard controls
that don't work like native Explorer ones.

I have even sometimes used Print Screen to get a better printout of what's
on the screen for a few websites (i.e. paste image and print image from
within Wordpad).

In short, I nearly always try to reduce anything a browser gives me to
some
standard form at the FIRST opportunity. It's a strategy that usually lets
me
keep stuff intact for later use. But I never did have much use for Java.
JavaScript, sure, but that's not the same.. Not sure why I never took to
Java, it's cross=ppatform, a great idea and apparently one of the few
decent
standards out there, but it always seemed to me like too much. IS maybe
why I
ended up biting the bullet and learning some C and Windows API. Less is
most definitely more.

Hey, that's my saying. "Less Is More". :-)

When using FF, some sites have come up running some Java (signified by a
tray icon which appears in the tray), but I can't recall which or when now,
or what the web page would have done if I didn't have it installed.

One program that needs it that I really like is called "Click Repair", which
is probably the best automatic audio click repair program I've ever run
across (by best, I mean most transparent and generally cleanest to use).
(It comes in handy for those audio recordings with hundreds of small clicks
which would be way too tedious to remove manually). Large clicks always
have to be removed manually, however.

98 Guy wrote:
Bill in Co wrote:

"Java classic works up to version 3.5.19. There is no known
workaround to run Java applets in Firefox 3.6 and higher on
Win ME/98."

On the more recent versions of java (version 1.6.x) they've created
something called "next generation Java Plug-in". It can be turned on or
off from the java control-panel applet (it's under the Advanced tab).

This "next-gen" thing is not compatible with win-98 (even with kernelEx)
so the check-box must be cleared.

I believe that starting with some version of Opera (10.something I
think) and (as already mentioned) version 3.6+ of firefox, that they
require the next-gen plugin to be enabled. So hence those browsers
won't have java functionality on a win-98 system.

Right.
And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was written
specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform, like Firefox (it's kind
of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC). I've found it to be a bit faster in
loading than FF, which makes sense. But FF may be a bit more compatible for
all websites, as might be expected.

I have JRE 1.6.0_30 currently installed on this system.

To test which version of java your system has, visit this page:

http://javatester.org/version.html

And while you're at it, visit this page to get your current flash
version and test it:

http://helpx.adobe.com/flash-player/...sh-player.html

Oh, and that FF 3.5 allegedly can't print, either

Here is the relevant note:
"You can't print from Firefox. Print Preview dialog may work fine,
but printing will fail:
* only some parts or blank page may be printed
* program may hang or crash

I have to admit that printing any web-page from FF 2.0.0.20 under win-98
is also hit-or miss.

Well, that's not encouraging to hear, but I bet it works better than it
would if trying to do it in FF 3.5, for the reasons already mentioned.
Since I don't have a printer hooked up to the Win98 computer now I can't
confirm this.

But printing airline tickets and boarding passes always works ok.

Good to hear.

Bill in Co wrote:

And ditto for "Pale Moon", which is quite similar to FF, but was
written specifically for Windows, and is not cross-platform,
like Firefox (it's kind of an offshoot of Firefox, IIRC).

I've messed a little with Palemoon, but found that I got the white-line
across bitmapped images while scrolling a page up and down (just like in
FF 3.x) so I didn't pursue it.

I've also tried a browser called "Avant" - which if I recall is based on
the IE rendering engine. At the time I had an older version of
KernelEx, and it almost worked (it seemed to fully load, but it then
crashed the system). If anyone is so inclined, and has the time, might
want to try it and see if they can get it working.

"Bill in Co" wrote in news:Wf-
:

I have even sometimes used Print Screen to get a better printout of what's
on the screen for a few websites (i.e. paste image and print image from
within Wordpad).


I use the PrtScr button a lot (and Alt+PrtScr for small windows.) The tools
that take long page screenshots basically do the same thing, copying a bitmap
from the screen buffer, based on some co-ordinates. They just scroll the page
enough to get a new sample, and splice the samples together. It's just that
browsers use nonstandard scroll controls that aren't so easily controlled as
native controls, and 'smooth scrolling' is especially bad because the image
must settle before the copy is taken. Sample size has a big impact on the
performance of the tool, as does memory handling. I might code one because
it's a very good test of several important principles, and I never found one
that worked as I wanted it. And there may never be one that works for
everything. At those times, manual PrtScr and splicing our own large images
is the only way. I built up a large local map once, by first getting a load
of Google Map satellite image tiles for high res, batch-shrinking and
sharpening them for better visibility, then scripting a large HTML file that
tiled the output files to rebuild the map in a browser. I then used PicPIck
to scroll it and make long vertical strips. I finished by splicing each of
those in PaintShop till I had a huge single image. I used them in a progream
I made in wxLua, called ChartGPS, which shows a track in a way that lets a
single glance determine speed and direction, overlaying a very detailed image
of the terrotory. It's ideal for cross-country run mapping, but would easily
scale up to hiking, biking, sailing routes, hot air balloons etc. I will
probably try to port it to C and native API at some point.

Re click removal, I always do it by hand, as the results are second to none,
but I only do it when the audio justifies it. I can't see so well now so I
might not do it again unless I use a screen that has larger pixels. It took
ten times as long as some auto-tool, but it was like comparing 10% with
99.999999%, there really is no contest. Small means nothing when you have the
fast view and zoom controls of Sound Forge. One moment it's like viewing the
ground from a jetpack, the next you're on it like a scanning tunelling
microscope. Scale changes really are no obstacle, it's just a question of
whether it's worth the time. I have imagined processes that might help
automate it, but it's partly integration in the time domain by eye, and
partly differentiation in frequency domain by ear. Combing those in code well
enough to beat the human brain might be enough to win a Nobel prize for
advances in forensic examination and augmentation of human senses by machine
aid, and even if in the unlikely event I manageed it, it would take longer to
run on my machines than doing it myself!