Best OS? [Archive]

August 31st 15, 11:00 AM

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Twain
> wrote:

>I thought it would be an interesting topic of what you consider
>to be the best OS systems of the past and or present and the
>features and/or characteristics you liked/disliked.
>
>Windows 95,97,98, XP, Vista, Win 7,8 or the Apple MAC
>OS systems?
>
>Robert

Windows98SE is by far is the best. I still use it and am using it right
now.

I'd rate XP-SP3 as second best. I have not used anything above XP, and
really dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x
up their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
one too.

I dont know much about Apple/Mac other than using one briefly in the mid
90s at work. It did the job and was fairly easy to understand. I'd like
to get one soon!

Then there's Linux. I've played with it, but it dont take me long to
find it too complicated and pretty useless, other than to access my hard
drive when I cant get XP to work, or to backup the locked files in XP.

And, I still like DOS. It was limited what it could do, but I always
like using it, and still do like to play around with it at times.

And no one mentioned IBM's OS2 (which was not too bad, but it was
abandoned). It had great potential.

By the way, there's no such thing as Windows97, you skipped Windows ME
and Windows 2000.

It should read like this:

Windows 1 2 3.0 3.1 3.11 95 98 98SE ME 2000 XP (Sp 1, 2, and 3)
Vista Win7 Win8.0 8.1 and Win10.

Comment:
Microsoft cant count..... They skipped Windows 9. If they ever smuggle
an Apple computer in their offices, they'll realize that they skipped
Windows 9. Therefore, as of right now, Windows 10 is really windows 9.
(I figured that out using Windows 98, which is the second newest OS, if
you go by the numbers, but Win 2000 is the newest of all).

LOOK AT THIS:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows

Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]

August 31st 15, 03:42 PM

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 05:00:06 -0500, wrote:

> Windows98SE is by far is the best. I still use it and am using it right
> now.
>
> I'd rate XP-SP3 as second best. I have not used anything above XP, and
> really dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x
> up their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
> one too.

So, even though you've never used anything above XP, you're an expert
on all of those newer versions and know that nothing is any better
than 98SE.

[email protected]

September 1st 15, 01:31 AM

On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 07:42:10 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" >
wrote:

>On Mon, 31 Aug 2015 05:00:06 -0500, wrote:
>
>
>> Windows98SE is by far is the best. I still use it and am using it right
>> now.
>>
>> I'd rate XP-SP3 as second best. I have not used anything above XP, and
>> really dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x
>> up their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
>> one too.
>
>
>So, even though you've never used anything above XP, you're an expert
>on all of those newer versions and know that nothing is any better
>than 98SE.

For those who like BLOAT, they have many to choose from now!

J. P. Gilliver (John)

September 1st 15, 04:03 PM

In message >,
writes:
>On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Twain
> wrote:
>
>>I thought it would be an interesting topic of what you consider
>>to be the best OS systems of the past and or present and the
>>features and/or characteristics you liked/disliked.
>>
>>Windows 95,97,98, XP, Vista, Win 7,8 or the Apple MAC
>>OS systems?

For many (I was going to say most, but can't prove that) people, there
comes/came a point at which their computer was able to do all they
wanted it to. They _tend_ to then see little advantage in the next
version (of Windows) after the one they're using when they reach(ed) the
sweet spot, and certainly none in any further versions. They might move
forward one or at most two, to get something new they want.
>>
>>Robert
>
>Windows98SE is by far is the best. I still use it and am using it right
>now.

I still _like_ it, but its poor support for USB was what let it down for
me. "Soporific's 10th anniversary edition" (which came out about 2008,
as you might expect) looked very promising then, but wasn't a Microsoft
product, and unfortunately included some cracked commercial software.
>
>I'd rate XP-SP3 as second best. I have not used anything above XP, and

My "sweet spot" came within that range - as I suspect did a lot of
people's, simply because it held sway for so long. Those of us who
remember DOS and '9x wish that XP hadn't _defaulted_ to NTFS, sometimes
(it will _run_ fine under FAT32).

For me, XPSP3 doesn't prevent me doing anything I want on my
computer(s), apart from some web pages won't work [with browsers that
work under XP], and that's only going to be an increasing problem - but
that's going to apply to whatever OS you try to settle on.

>really dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x

I have a 7 computer (mainly to provide support to friends, mostly blind
ones), and I use 7 at work. _For the things I want to do_ (both at home
and at work), I find the differences trivial (a very few things nicer, a
very few things more tedious): nothing really stands out one way or the
other.

>up their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
>one too.

I have only _used_ 8 (I don't know if it was .1 or not) for about half
an hour, on the computer of someone who had been used to previous
versions (XP IIRR); I found some of the default settings irritating, but
classic shell improved those. But that's not really long enough to give
it a fair run. 10 does sound as if there's rather too much spying etc.,
but that's mostly as written by people here and in 7 (crosspost added),
so perhaps biased? What I _haven't_ heard is any clear _advantage_ it
offers, but then what obligation have its supporters to tell us such
things? It's here, and the others are gone, so such effort is not their
responsibility (nor anyone's, I guess). (Similarly, among the "8 with
classic shell is just like 7/Vista/XP" statements, I've seen very few
statements that would answer "so why move to it rather than stay with
7/Vista/XP then" [other than "I had to, new computer came with it"]. but
again, why should any 8-liker waste their time explaining that.)
>
>I dont know much about Apple/Mac other than using one briefly in the mid
>90s at work. It did the job and was fairly easy to understand. I'd like
>to get one soon!

Me neither. Comparing hardware specifications, they do seem a lot more
expensive to me (not just a little, like Sony PCs, but more a factor of
3 or 4, which surely _must_ outweigh any improved software efficiency),
but a lot of people do seem to like them. I rather feel I'd resent the
lack of fine control though.
>
>Then there's Linux. I've played with it, but it dont take me long to
>find it too complicated and pretty useless, other than to access my hard
>drive when I cant get XP to work, or to backup the locked files in XP.

(I use Macrium for backup - which may have Linux underneath, I don't
know. Since I boot from it to backup, Windows isn't running, so the
concept of locked files is irrelevant.)
>
>And, I still like DOS. It was limited what it could do, but I always
>like using it, and still do like to play around with it at times.

Ditto. I still use Xtree Gold occasionally! (Sadly doesn't work under
7-64.)
>
>And no one mentioned IBM's OS2 (which was not too bad, but it was
>abandoned). It had great potential.
>
Or Be, and many others ...
>
>
>By the way, there's no such thing as Windows97, you skipped Windows ME
>and Windows 2000.
>
>It should read like this:
>
>Windows 1 2 3.0 3.1 3.11 95 98 98SE ME 2000 XP (Sp 1, 2, and 3)
>Vista Win7 Win8.0 8.1 and Win10.

3.x had "for Workgroups"; 95 has at least one second iteration (OSR was
it?); you've left out XP-64 and Server 2008; there will always be missed
ones. (Oh, and you've missed the entire NT strand.)
>
>Comment:
>Microsoft cant count..... They skipped Windows 9. If they ever smuggle
>an Apple computer in their offices, they'll realize that they skipped
>Windows 9. Therefore, as of right now, Windows 10 is really windows 9.

There are the public marketing names, and the internal numbers, anyway.
I think 3 was 3, NT was 4, 7 (and 8?) was/were 6 ...

>(I figured that out using Windows 98, which is the second newest OS, if
>you go by the numbers, but Win 2000 is the newest of all).

(-:
>
>LOOK AT THIS:
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_Microsoft_Windows
>
>
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

Ask not for whom the bell tolls; let the machine get it

Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]

September 1st 15, 08:50 PM

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:03:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:

> In message >,
> writes:
> >On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Twain
> > wrote:
> >
> >>I thought it would be an interesting topic of what you consider
> >>to be the best OS systems of the past and or present and the
> >>features and/or characteristics you liked/disliked.
> >>
> >>Windows 95,97,98, XP, Vista, Win 7,8 or the Apple MAC
> >>OS systems?
>
> For many (I was going to say most, but can't prove that) people, there
> comes/came a point at which their computer was able to do all they
> wanted it to. They _tend_ to then see little advantage in the next
> version (of Windows) after the one they're using when they reach(ed) the
> sweet spot, and certainly none in any further versions.

Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.

As an example of what I mean, yesterday RadarLove said "Windows98SE is
by far is the best. I still use it and am using it right now.I'd rate
XP-SP3 as second best. I have not used anything above XP, and really
dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x up
their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
one too."

As far as I'm concerned, that's a completely nonsensical statement
that does nothing but show his ignorance, That's why I replied "So,
even though you've never used anything above XP, you're an expert
on all of those newer versions and know that nothing is any better
than 98SE."

Bill in Co

September 1st 15, 09:13 PM

Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:03:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> > wrote:
>
>> In message >,
>> writes:
>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Twain
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought it would be an interesting topic of what you consider
>>>> to be the best OS systems of the past and or present and the
>>>> features and/or characteristics you liked/disliked.
>>>>
>>>> Windows 95,97,98, XP, Vista, Win 7,8 or the Apple MAC
>>>> OS systems?
>>
>> For many (I was going to say most, but can't prove that) people, there
>> comes/came a point at which their computer was able to do all they
>> wanted it to. They _tend_ to then see little advantage in the next
>> version (of Windows) after the one they're using when they reach(ed) the
>> sweet spot, and certainly none in any further versions.
>
>
> Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
> and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
> tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.

True, But another viewpoint is that some people have tried some new
"features" in various software and have found them to be more cumbersome or
annoying. Of course, that varies with the individual, and his or her own
needs and desires.

One example might be the Office Ribbon that was introduced in the later
versions of Office: whether that is a new "feature" or not - is still a bit
debatable, by many.

Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web pages
(and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
obfuscation?

The answer to all of these really depends on the wants and needs of the
user. Being able to use long filenames, on the other hand, instead of
just the 8.3, I think we'd all agree was a good "feature". :-)

[email protected]

September 2nd 15, 05:23 AM

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:13:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
> wrote:

>>
>> Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
>> and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
>> tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.
>
>True, But another viewpoint is that some people have tried some new
>"features" in various software and have found them to be more cumbersome or
>annoying. Of course, that varies with the individual, and his or her own
>needs and desires.
>
Win98se is and always has been all I need or want. I like it because its
simple to use and easy to fix if things screw up. I still find it the
easiest OS to use. I really hated XP at first because of all the excess
stuff that it does, and it took me years to learn how to remove most of
the annoyances. I have disabled most of that stuff, but there are still
things that go on beneath the surface - hidden ****, that annoys me.
That whole Docs and Settings folder idea sucks big time, because I cant
just copy the whole damn thing ro back it up, and that is where much of
my personal stuff exists. I recently had to restore an older registry,
and it was a messy operation, I lost some newly installed stuff, like
some FF extensions. Win98 just goes to dos, inserts the older registry
nd dont mess up programs. But I've learned to like XP because I have to.
I have to because of the internet. Because win98 does EVERYTHING I need
on a computer, except for the lack of browser support.

>One example might be the Office Ribbon that was introduced in the later
>versions of Office: whether that is a new "feature" or not - is still a bit
>debatable, by many.
>
>Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web pages
>(and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
>obfuscation?
>

Web pages are a damn nightmare these days. I wanted some simple text
info regarding an auto repair this weekend and fought with some damn
websites with nothing but moving **** and other annoyances going on, and
when the page loaded, some stupid popup overlayed the page with some
"sign up" crap. That actual page, only needed to show th text article
and maybe a few pictures. I disabled JS, turned off pictures, and turned
on flash block. I finally got ****ed and shut the computer off and did
the repair without any advice.

It's the web that is causing all the chaos for everything. If I just
stopped using web browsers, and only did offline stuff and online only
did email and usenet, I'd be fine.

These idiot web programmers are FORCING is to endure all this crap. All
I want to do is USE my computer, not have to keep upgrading and
relearning it. MS an Firefox have gone insane with updates and I'm real
fed up with it.

>The answer to all of these really depends on the wants and needs of the
>user. Being able to use long filenames, on the other hand, instead of
>just the 8.3, I think we'd all agree was a good "feature". :-)

There I agree. Win 3.x was lousy!

[email protected]

September 2nd 15, 07:07 AM

On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:13:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
> wrote:

>Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 16:03:47 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> In message >,
>>> writes:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 07:59:04 -0700 (PDT), Mark Twain
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I thought it would be an interesting topic of what you consider
>>>>> to be the best OS systems of the past and or present and the
>>>>> features and/or characteristics you liked/disliked.
>>>>>
>>>>> Windows 95,97,98, XP, Vista, Win 7,8 or the Apple MAC
>>>>> OS systems?
>>>
>>> For many (I was going to say most, but can't prove that) people, there
>>> comes/came a point at which their computer was able to do all they
>>> wanted it to. They _tend_ to then see little advantage in the next
>>> version (of Windows) after the one they're using when they reach(ed) the
>>> sweet spot, and certainly none in any further versions.
>>
>>
>> Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
>> and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
>> tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.
>
>True, But another viewpoint is that some people have tried some new
>"features" in various software and have found them to be more cumbersome or
>annoying. Of course, that varies with the individual, and his or her own
>needs and desires.
>
>One example might be the Office Ribbon that was introduced in the later
>versions of Office: whether that is a new "feature" or not - is still a bit
>debatable, by many.
>
>Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web pages
>(and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
>obfuscation?
>
>The answer to all of these really depends on the wants and needs of the
>user. Being able to use long filenames, on the other hand, instead of
>just the 8.3, I think we'd all agree was a good "feature". :-)
>

The "Feature" that keeps me from liking 7 (and I assume 8/10) is the
network security password. It makes connecting computers unnecessarily
complicated. You can't seem to get to a W/98 machine at all, not even
to use a printer. I have seen work arounds but nothing that seems to
work very well.

[email protected]

September 2nd 15, 07:39 AM

On Tue, 01 Sep 2015 23:23:49 -0500, wrote:

>I have to because of the internet. Because win98 does EVERYTHING I need
>on a computer, except for the lack of browser support.
>
>

I also need the NTFS support for a lot of things I do so W/98 is not
going to be my main OS.
I do still have a W/98 machine going tho.

J. P. Gilliver (John)

September 2nd 15, 08:47 AM

In message >,
writes:
>On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:13:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
> wrote:
[]
>easiest OS to use. I really hated XP at first because of all the excess
>stuff that it does, and it took me years to learn how to remove most of
>the annoyances. I have disabled most of that stuff, but there are still
TweakUI does a lot in one package (and from Microsoft too [one of the
sensible behind-the-scenes parts, along with the other "PowerToys"]);
XPlite _looks_ like it might do even more, though I've not tried it.
(98lite was excellent.)
>things that go on beneath the surface - hidden ****, that annoys me.
>That whole Docs and Settings folder idea sucks big time, because I cant

The whole multi-user stuff does; for home users, it should have been
possible at first use to tell it "this is _my_ computer and I will be
the only user".
[]
>>Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web pages
>>(and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
>>obfuscation?
>>
If you mean the little symbols that link to twitter, facebook, and about
half a dozen similar (and allegedly do some tracking too), Ghostery is
very good at blocking those (while letting you through as a one-off if
you find you have to).
[snip rant re popovers, about which I agree!]
[]
>>The answer to all of these really depends on the wants and needs of the
>>user. Being able to use long filenames, on the other hand, instead of
>>just the 8.3, I think we'd all agree was a good "feature". :-)
>
>There I agree. Win 3.x was lousy!
>
Hmm. I find I still try to use 8.3 for any file and directory names _I_
create, though I use the names as supplied if the file originates
elsewhere. (You're still using 8.3 underneath - I think even in 7.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The main and the most glorious achievement of television is that it is killing
the art of conversation. If we think of the type of conversation television is
helping to kill, our gratitude must be undying. (George Mikes, "How to be
Inimitable" [1960].)

mike[_10_]

September 2nd 15, 09:11 AM

On 9/1/2015 11:07 PM, wrote:

> The "Feature" that keeps me from liking 7 (and I assume 8/10) is the
> network security password. It makes connecting computers unnecessarily
> complicated. You can't seem to get to a W/98 machine at all, not even
> to use a printer. I have seen work arounds but nothing that seems to
> work very well.
>

This should let you access win7 from a wide variety of machines.
I had to do it to get my Dell PDA to access my machine.

Open Registry Editor, navigate to
HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\System\CurrentControlSet\Contro l\Lsa\

Create LMCompatibilityLevel (DWord) and set the value to 1

Using the same username and password on all your machines
makes networking go very much more smoothly.

My notes have this:

Override everyone permissions and replace with "authenticated users".
[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Policies\System]
"LocalAccountTokenFilterPolicy"=dword:00000000

IIRC, it overrides whatever you set thru the gui.
Don't remember the value to turn it off, but it should be googlable.

[email protected]

September 2nd 15, 10:04 AM

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 08:47:59 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
> wrote:

>>easiest OS to use. I really hated XP at first because of all the excess
>>stuff that it does, and it took me years to learn how to remove most of
>>the annoyances. I have disabled most of that stuff, but there are still
>TweakUI does a lot in one package (and from Microsoft too [one of the
>sensible behind-the-scenes parts, along with the other "PowerToys"]);
>XPlite _looks_ like it might do even more, though I've not tried it.
>(98lite was excellent.)
>>things that go on beneath the surface - hidden ****, that annoys me.
>>That whole Docs and Settings folder idea sucks big time, because I cant
>
I use TweakUi
I never used XPlite, but did use 98lite, and I have not had IE in win98
for many years.

>The whole multi-user stuff does; for home users, it should have been
>possible at first use to tell it "this is _my_ computer and I will be
>the only user".
>
[101% AGREED] You got that one right.

I still cant understand that whole mess in the Docs and Sets folder,
where there are duplicates and triplicates of the same files under what
category. Is is Admin, or My Name, or Guest, or (what the ****)???

I'm the ONLY user. I am Myself AND Admin. There are no guests or any
other categories. Just ONE user.

Why do I need all those confusing categories and how much drive space is
wasted duplicating files???

And what files are in the D and S folder, that are so important that
they disrupt me from copying that whole D and S folder to a backup
drive? I know that there are system files in the Windows folder that
cant copy, but why are they also in the D and S folder?

Why do I have to boot to Linux to backup that folder?

[]
>>>Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web pages
>>>(and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
>>>obfuscation?
>>>
>If you mean the little symbols that link to twitter, facebook, and about
>half a dozen similar (and allegedly do some tracking too), Ghostery is
>very good at blocking those (while letting you through as a one-off if
>you find you have to).
>[snip rant re popovers, about which I agree!]
>[]
In Firefox, I have Facebook Blocker (addon)
I have over 30 entries in my hosts file to block facebook.
I still see the stupid symbols, but they do nothing.

I'd like to shoot the a$$holes that put those popovers on webpages.

Mayayana

September 2nd 15, 01:55 PM

| My "sweet spot" came within that range - as I suspect did a lot of
| people's, simply because it held sway for so long. Those of us who
| remember DOS and '9x wish that XP hadn't _defaulted_ to NTFS, sometimes
| (it will _run_ fine under FAT32).
|

I was able to overcome that on an OEM machine,
though I don't remember the details now. Maybe I
made a disk image and then had that write to FAT32?
I'm not sure. In any case, I agree. I now use mainly
XP SP3 on FAT32. I stayed with Win98 for a very long
time. It was simpler and more cooperative; also more
moldable. But there are usually *some* benefits with
new versions: XP is faster on the same hardware and
can handle a lot more software in memory. (I've heard
that even Win10 has a silver lining in terms of memory
use.)

The whole NTFS/user restrictions thing is an unnecessary
obstacle for SOHo users, but it's turned out to be a sly
move by Microsoft. In the name of security they found
the perfect device to take control of the system while
advertising it as an improvement. (Bill Gates must have
torn at his hair watching Lord Jobs sucker his customers
into limited lock-in while Microsoft had already designed
their OS to go on generic hardware and to be deeply
controllable. But they finally fixed that "bug". :)

Now that people are used to being locked out of their
own computers and being told that it's due to "superior
design", it's an almost subtle change for MS to step into
the admin role.

One thing I'm inclined to note: An OS for the average
person is not the same as an OS for a person who's
handy. I like XP OK because most of what I don't like
is fixable. That's less true with Win7 and more true with
Win98. In general, the approach over the years from
Microsoft has been to lock down the system and force
standardization of the UI. But for the vast majority of
people who can't change things, or don't realize they
can, Win98 had a billboard full of ads on the Desktop,
while XP has a UI that looks like a bad Fischer Price toy
and eats memory; the XP Find utility is good only
at showing cartoons of tailwagging dogs; System File
Protection refuses to let people delete most files, including
even such things as sample multimedia files and games.

I barely recall all of the harassing, hair-pulling
parts of XP, but for most people those are all immutable
features. If they're still using XP and haven't entirely
given up on Find (renamed Search to make it seem "webby")
then they probably came to terms with that inane dog
cartoon and still see it.

Win7 is just even more of the same: One has to spend
more time and be more handy in order to get things as
desired and to stop the file restrictions. And each version
is ultimately less fixable than the last. With Win8 I gave
up after trying the beta. With Win10 I have no intention
of ever using it, unless MS get hammered in a lawsuit and
are somehow forced to behave themselves.... I'm not
holding my breath for that. (I wonder if US citizens and
gov't would be as blase about Win10 spying (and Win7/8
backported spying) if the product were made in Europe.
Japan? Russia? China?)

Mark Lloyd[_2_]

September 2nd 15, 03:32 PM

On 09/01/2015 02:50 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:

[snip]

> Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
> and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
> tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.
>
> As an example of what I mean, yesterday RadarLove said "Windows98SE is
> by far is the best.

Now it's making sense why people never showed much interest in ME. It's
such a small improvement over 98SE they might not have noticed. The only
improvement I can think of now is that ME supports USB storage devices
without the need for a separate driver.

> I still use it and am using it right now.I'd rate
> XP-SP3 as second best.

I'd pick 2000, the last version before the anti-usability "feature"
known (inappropriately) as "product activation". It also had a
less-intrusive UI.

> I have not used anything above XP, and really
> dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x up
> their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
> one too."

Yes, 8 and later are to be avoided.

[snip]

--
114 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 for 1
day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"It takes the shingles from the widow's cottage to put paint on the
house of God." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And
Other Essays_]

Ken Blake, MVP[_4_]

September 2nd 15, 03:42 PM

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:32:56 -0500, Mark Lloyd >
wrote:

> On 09/01/2015 02:50 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
> > and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
> > tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.
> >
> > As an example of what I mean, yesterday RadarLove said "Windows98SE is
> > by far is the best.

Please be very careful with your attributions. Yes, what's quoted
above is what I wrote. But the quotes below are by RadarLove, not by
me, and I strongly disagree with them.

> Now it's making sense why people never showed much interest in ME. It's
> such a small improvement over 98SE they might not have noticed. The only
> improvement I can think of now is that ME supports USB storage devices
> without the need for a separate driver.
>
> > I still use it and am using it right now.I'd rate
> > XP-SP3 as second best.
>
> I'd pick 2000, the last version before the anti-usability "feature"
> known (inappropriately) as "product activation". It also had a
> less-intrusive UI.
>
> > I have not used anything above XP, and really
> > dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x up
> > their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
> > one too."
>
> Yes, 8 and later are to be avoided.
>
> [snip]
>
> --
> 114 days until the winter celebration (Friday December 25, 2015 for 1
> day).
>
> Mark Lloyd
> http://notstupid.us/
>
> "It takes the shingles from the widow's cottage to put paint on the
> house of God." [Lemuel K. Washburn, _Is The Bible Worth Reading And
> Other Essays_]

Bill in Co

September 2nd 15, 04:37 PM

Mark Lloyd wrote:
> On 09/01/2015 02:50 PM, Ken Blake, MVP wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> Very true! Many people don't know what new features a new version has,
>> and even if they know the names of the new features, having never
>> tried them, they have no idea of the value of the new features.
>>
>> As an example of what I mean, yesterday RadarLove said "Windows98SE >> is
>> by far is the best.
>
> Now it's making sense why people never showed much interest in ME. It's
> such a small improvement over 98SE they might not have noticed. The only
> improvement I can think of now is that ME supports USB storage devices
> without the need for a separate driver.

It was even more than that as I recall (as to why there was not much
interest in ME). The added USB support was great - no denial there!. But
the removal of some of the DOS stuff and DOS capabilities in running some
programs, wasn't so nice, although I understand their reasons for doing so.
In fact, didn't they make it very difficult to boot up into DOS mode, or
even remove that capability in ME? (I can't recall now for sure).

mike[_10_]

September 2nd 15, 04:44 PM

On 9/2/2015 5:55 AM, Mayayana wrote:
snip
With Win10 I have no intention
> of ever using it, unless MS get hammered in a lawsuit and
> are somehow forced to behave themselves.... I'm not
> holding my breath for that.

I'll bet there were a lot of people saying that when
the automobile appeared. At some point, the horse
became an unacceptable transportation option.

If you want to use windows, there will come a day when
you have to use windows 10 or its successor.
M$ will do their best to make that day come sooner than
later. Bend over and smile...resistance is futile...all your
base are belong to us...it won't hurt as much if
you just relax ;-)

I wouldn't count on linux bailing us out.
My money is on the hackers...

Bill in Co

September 2nd 15, 04:47 PM

John, I've added some line breaks between various responders below to make
it easier to read - hope you don't mind. :-).

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message >,
> writes:
>
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:13:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
>> > wrote:
> []
>> easiest OS to use. I really hated XP at first because of all the excess
>> stuff that it does, and it took me years to learn how to remove most of
>> the annoyances. I have disabled most of that stuff, but there are still
>
> TweakUI does a lot in one package (and from Microsoft too [one of the
> sensible behind-the-scenes parts, along with the other "PowerToys"]);
> XPlite _looks_ like it might do even more, though I've not tried it.
> (98lite was excellent.)

TweakUI is one way to go. The other way is just to keep adding some
specific registry hacks to solve each of the annoyances, which is what I
have done. The problem often is I can't remember which ones, although I
have been trying to document it better now. :-)

>> things that go on beneath the surface - hidden ****, that annoys me.
>> That whole Docs and Settings folder idea sucks big time, because I cant
>
> The whole multi-user stuff does; for home users, it should have been
> possible at first use to tell it "this is _my_ computer and I will be
> the only user".
> []

That would have been great! I'm guessing MS just decided it wasn't worth
the effort in coding for that.

>>> Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web
>>> pages
>>> (and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
>>> obfuscation?
>>>
> If you mean the little symbols that link to twitter, facebook, and about
> half a dozen similar (and allegedly do some tracking too), Ghostery is
> very good at blocking those (while letting you through as a one-off if
> you find you have to).
> [snip rant re popovers, about which I agree!]
> []
>>> The answer to all of these really depends on the wants and needs of the
>>> user. Being able to use long filenames, on the other hand, instead of
>>> just the 8.3, I think we'd all agree was a good "feature". :-)
>>
>> There I agree. Win 3.x was lousy!
>>
> Hmm. I find I still try to use 8.3 for any file and directory names _I_
> create, though I use the names as supplied if the file originates
> elsewhere. (You're still using 8.3 underneath - I think even in 7.)

I know they're underneath there, and occasionally that comes in handy!
But I have gladly succumbed to using longer directory and file names, as
they are much more "self documenting". :-)

Bill in Co

September 2nd 15, 04:58 PM

Mayayana wrote:
>> My "sweet spot" came within that range - as I suspect did a lot of
>> people's, simply because it held sway for so long. Those of us who
>> remember DOS and '9x wish that XP hadn't _defaulted_ to NTFS,
>> sometimes (it will _run_ fine under FAT32).

? I thought Gilliver wrote that, but maybe I'm having a senior moment.

> I was able to overcome that on an OEM machine,
> though I don't remember the details now. Maybe I
> made a disk image and then had that write to FAT32?
> I'm not sure. In any case, I agree. I now use mainly
> XP SP3 on FAT32. I stayed with Win98 for a very long
> time. It was simpler and more cooperative; also more
> moldable. But there are usually *some* benefits with
> new versions: XP is faster on the same hardware and
> can handle a lot more software in memory. (I've heard
> that even Win10 has a silver lining in terms of memory
> use.)

+1 on the simpler and more cooperative bit for Win98SE.
And each succeeding OS gets less and less that way.

> The whole NTFS/user restrictions thing is an unnecessary
> obstacle for SOHo users.

Agreed!

> One thing I'm inclined to note: An OS for the average
> person is not the same as an OS for a person who's
> handy. I like XP OK because most of what I don't like
> is fixable. That's less true with Win7 and more true with
> Win98. In general, the approach over the years from
> Microsoft has been to lock down the system and force
> standardization of the UI. But for the vast majority of
> people who can't change things, or don't realize they
> can, Win98 had a billboard full of ads on the Desktop,
> while XP has a UI that looks like a bad Fischer Price toy
> and eats memory; the XP Find utility is good only
> at showing cartoons of tailwagging dogs; System File
> Protection refuses to let people delete most files, including
> even such things as sample multimedia files and games.
>
> I barely recall all of the harassing, hair-pulling
> parts of XP, but for most people those are all immutable
> features. If they're still using XP and haven't entirely
> given up on Find (renamed Search to make it seem "webby")
> then they probably came to terms with that inane dog
> cartoon and still see it.

One of the first things you HAD to do when setting up XP was change that
Start Menu back (away from Fischer Price) to the Classic Start Menu, AND
install either Agent Ransack, or its big brother FileLocator Pro, to replace
the useless MS search function.

Mike Easter

September 2nd 15, 06:58 PM

wrote:
> But I've learned to like XP because I have to. I have to because of
> the internet. Because win98 does EVERYTHING I need on a computer,
> except for the lack of browser support.

So, how to you solve the browser support issue if your OSes are XP or
W98? Presumably you are using Firefox or Chrome with XP.

--
Mike Easter

J. P. Gilliver (John)

September 2nd 15, 11:42 PM

In message >, Bill in Co
> writes:
>Mayayana wrote:
>>> My "sweet spot" came within that range - as I suspect did a lot of
>>> people's, simply because it held sway for so long. Those of us who
>>> remember DOS and '9x wish that XP hadn't _defaulted_ to NTFS,
>>> sometimes (it will _run_ fine under FAT32).
>
>? I thought Gilliver wrote that, but maybe I'm having a senior moment.

(I did indeed - count the ">" signs for confirmation. My name's John
BTW.)
[]
>+1 on the simpler and more cooperative bit for Win98SE.
>And each succeeding OS gets less and less that way.
>
>> The whole NTFS/user restrictions thing is an unnecessary
>> obstacle for SOHo users.

Agreed on the multi-user bits. I personally prefer FATxx to NTFS for
other reasons too, but there are those who'd argue it (NTFS) does have
other advantages. (I have yet to be convinced but don't understand it
well enough to comment completely.)
>
>Agreed!
>
>> One thing I'm inclined to note: An OS for the average
>> person is not the same as an OS for a person who's

An OS for the average person is probably just one that doesn't get in
the way of what they want to do: they probably have only a hazy idea
what an OS _is_ and does. As such, they don't care what OS they're
using, until it _does_ get in the way.
[]
>> I barely recall all of the harassing, hair-pulling
>> parts of XP, but for most people those are all immutable
>> features. If they're still using XP and haven't entirely
>> given up on Find (renamed Search to make it seem "webby")
>> then they probably came to terms with that inane dog
>> cartoon and still see it.
>
>One of the first things you HAD to do when setting up XP was change that
>Start Menu back (away from Fischer Price) to the Classic Start Menu, AND

(Not just XP. When someone came to my work PC recently, he commented on
how ancient a version of Windows I must be using: however, I was using
the same corporate-imposed Windows 7 he and everyone else was - just I'd
selected themes, turned off candy, etc. to the extent that it _looked_
like something ancient [windows having square corners, three
identical-size buttons for minimise/maximise/close, etcetera].)

>install either Agent Ransack, or its big brother FileLocator Pro, to replace
>the useless MS search function.
>
>
I have "Search Everything", though I will admit I only switched to it
recently. It's just so _fast_.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

freedom of speech is useless if nobody can hear you.
-- David Harris -- Author, Pegasus Mail Dunedin, May 2002.

Bill in Co

September 3rd 15, 12:41 AM

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message >, Bill in Co
> > writes:
>> Mayayana wrote:
>>>> My "sweet spot" came within that range - as I suspect did a lot of
>>>> people's, simply because it held sway for so long. Those of us who
>>>> remember DOS and '9x wish that XP hadn't _defaulted_ to NTFS,
>>>> sometimes (it will _run_ fine under FAT32).
>>
>> ? I thought Gilliver wrote that, but maybe I'm having a senior moment.
>
> (I did indeed - count the ">" signs for confirmation. My name's John
> BTW.)
> []

Yes, I know, and I probably should have used that instead. Sorry. :-)

>> +1 on the simpler and more cooperative bit for Win98SE.
>> And each succeeding OS gets less and less that way.
>>
>>> The whole NTFS/user restrictions thing is an unnecessary
>>> obstacle for SOHo users.
>
> Agreed on the multi-user bits. I personally prefer FATxx to NTFS for
> other reasons too, but there are those who'd argue it (NTFS) does have
> other advantages. (I have yet to be convinced but don't understand it
> well enough to comment completely.)
>>
>> Agreed!
>>
>>> One thing I'm inclined to note: An OS for the average
>>> person is not the same as an OS for a person who's
>
> An OS for the average person is probably just one that doesn't get in
> the way of what they want to do: they probably have only a hazy idea
> what an OS _is_ and does. As such, they don't care what OS they're
> using, until it _does_ get in the way.
> []
>>> I barely recall all of the harassing, hair-pulling
>>> parts of XP, but for most people those are all immutable
>>> features. If they're still using XP and haven't entirely
>>> given up on Find (renamed Search to make it seem "webby")
>>> then they probably came to terms with that inane dog
>>> cartoon and still see it.
>>
>> One of the first things you HAD to do when setting up XP was change that
>> Start Menu back (away from Fischer Price) to the Classic Start Menu, AND
>
> (Not just XP. When someone came to my work PC recently, he commented > on
> how ancient a version of Windows I must be using: however, I was using
> the same corporate-imposed Windows 7 he and everyone else was - just I'd
> selected themes, turned off candy, etc. to the extent that it _looked_
> like something ancient [windows having square corners, three
> identical-size buttons for minimise/maximise/close, etcetera].)

THAT is funny. Ancient means bad, huh? LOL. So many folks are of the
mindset that NEW is great, almost by definition. For those with a brain, I
don't think so, at least in a lot of cases. (and I could point to some such
new "changes" in society today, sociologically speaking, but will refrain
myself).

>> install either Agent Ransack, or its big brother FileLocator Pro, to
>> replace
>> the useless MS search function.
>>
>>
> I have "Search Everything", though I will admit I only switched to it
> recently. It's just so _fast_.

I think I'll give it a try. I've usually been against such indexing apps,
but if you want a super fast search, realize that's the only way you can get
it. I just have bad memories of some of some software's indexing services
that I recall turning off, because I thought it was a bit intrusive.

[email protected]

September 3rd 15, 05:02 AM

On Wed, 2 Sep 2015 09:32:56 -0500, Mark Lloyd > wrote:

>Now it's making sense why people never showed much interest in ME. It's
>such a small improvement over 98SE they might not have noticed. The only
>improvement I can think of now is that ME supports USB storage devices
>without the need for a separate driver.
>
>> I still use it and am using it right now.I'd rate
>> XP-SP3 as second best.
>
>I'd pick 2000, the last version before the anti-usability "feature"
>known (inappropriately) as "product activation". It also had a
>less-intrusive UI.

The one bad thing about Win98 is the poor USB capability, and even with
some addons, it just can not handle a 1TB USB portable HD. I have
Win2000 as a dual boot, so I can copy, move or backup my files to a
portable drive. Yes, Win2000 was and still is a decent OS. But 2000 wont
run newer browsers anymore either.

[email protected]

September 3rd 15, 11:02 AM

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 07:42:01 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP" >
wrote:

>
>Please be very careful with your attributions. Yes, what's quoted
>above is what I wrote. But the quotes below are by RadarLove, not by
>me, and I strongly disagree with them.
>
WRONG.
Only the ones with THREE >> > at the beginning are from me, and I have a
right to my opinion as much as you. However I think you are just a
whiner with an overinflated ego. And that too is my opinion!

>
>> Now it's making sense why people never showed much interest in ME. It's
>> such a small improvement over 98SE they might not have noticed. The only
>> improvement I can think of now is that ME supports USB storage devices
>> without the need for a separate driver.
>>
>> > I still use it and am using it right now.I'd rate
>> > XP-SP3 as second best.
>>
>> I'd pick 2000, the last version before the anti-usability "feature"
>> known (inappropriately) as "product activation". It also had a
>> less-intrusive UI.
>>
>> > I have not used anything above XP, and really
>> > dont care to, except possibly to try Win7. They can shove Win8.x up
>> > their a$$, and from what I've heard about Win10, they can shove that
>> > one too."
>>
>> Yes, 8 and later are to be avoided.
>>
>> [snip]

[email protected]

September 3rd 15, 11:56 AM

On Sat, 29 Aug 2015 17:59:49 +0100, Linux User
> wrote:

>Experts on Windows newsgroups are recommending Ubuntu as replacement for
>Microsoft Windows. Apparently, Microsoft has started spying on ordinary
>Windows users.
>
>

Yep, it appears that Windows 10 does spy on users. But Linux is not the
answer. There's a reason that Linux is only used by less than 5% of
world computer users. It's never been user friendly and is 100 times
harder to use than Windows. Plus it cant run any familiar programs.

And when you consider that there are around 100 different types of
Linux, how come none of them have ever been developed to mimic windows
XP or Win98, or Win7, etc.... ??? And have the ability to run Windows
programs directly....

Simple solution to the spying.... DONT USE WINDOWS 10.
Stick with XP or 7 or anything older!
Just because MS makes their bloated OSs, dont mean we have to use them!
MS might think they can bully us to use their latest crap by making
their older OSs obsolete, but we dont have to follow like sheep!

Until people tell MS they're not happy, MS will continue to work AGAINST
US.

Mayayana

September 3rd 15, 02:45 PM

| Websites are not about content. They're about selling you something
| or otherwise extracting $$$ from your presence. Except for hobby, look
| how smart I am, sites
| that run on high-octane EGO, nothing is free. Somebody
| has to pay to keep the lights on and the computers updated and the
| person typing housed and fed.

I think that's a bit cynical. I have a website where
I give things away for free. I was inspired by the
early Internet, where lots of people were sharing things
that others might find useful. I started out with a
sort of philosophy links website, then created a tech
website for Windows programming and scripting. Part
of the reason for that is so that I know where to
look when I forget that I already solved some problem
in the past. :) I sell some stuff, but mostly I give it
away. There are no ads or funny business. It costs me
$8.95/month, plus the domain cost, and I get unlimited
free email accounts at my own domain, that don't spy
on me, so I don't have to put up with sleazeball webmail
like gmail/yahoo/hotmail. And much of what I've
accomplished that I share online was helped along by
other people sharing what they had and knew, for free.

Of course there's plenty of egoism to go around, but
there's also a truly awesome array of resources that
people have simply made available. (The founder of
Craigslist has still not made any effort to "monetize"
his operation beyond the basics.)

It actually costs very little to run a website. Less in
a month than many people spend at Starbucks in a day.
You can do it. Think of something you have expertise in,
set up a site, and share the wealth with people who
need what you know. Or just share things that inspire
you. Google may prefer that you see links to commercial
sites showing their Doubleclick ads, and that *is* a problem,
but to a great extent, the Internet is still what *we*
make it. If all you see is "Miracle Mile" flashing lights
and Buy Now buttons, that's partially your own fault. I
almost never see any of that stuff online. I see almost no
ads. Rarely do I see popups. But I do find useful things.

Last week I was able to research epoxy products
for filling holes in PVC boards, then find a store to
buy the stuff. When I need to do work on my truck
I can usually find a youtube video from someone who's
done it. This morning I saw an article about "synthetic
marijuana", called K2, in the NYT. More than half a page,
yet they never explained what they meant by that
term! So I went online. Ten or fifteen years ago it
would have been nearly impossible to answer that simple
question: What is this K2?

mechanic

September 3rd 15, 02:48 PM

On Wed, 02 Sep 2015 23:02:42 -0500, wrote:

> Yes, Win2000 was and still is a decent OS. But 2000 wont
> run newer browsers anymore either.

There's some clue there in the name. Win2000 is fifteen years out of
date - an age in Internet time. Security, privacy and performance in
2000 were of a different era.

Mayayana

September 3rd 15, 03:19 PM

| > Yes, Win2000 was and still is a decent OS. But 2000 wont
| > run newer browsers anymore either.
|
| There's some clue there in the name. Win2000 is fifteen years out of
| date - an age in Internet time. Security, privacy and performance in
| 2000 were of a different era.

Not so much, really. I use mostly XP, just two
years newer than 2000. I have almost the latest
version of Firefox. And Win7 is already about 5
years old. But most things have not changed in
a big way. Most software that runs on 2000 also
runs on Win10. Most software still supports XP -
14 years old. (Though a lot of software won't
support 2000 anymore.)

There are sometimes support issues. For instance,
Microsoft came out with gdiplus.dll a few years ago
for better graphics options, and it needed to be
installed on older systems. But the main reason that
things like browsers don't support Win2000 is simply
because they don't have to. The customer base is tiny
and Microsoft has already blown them off.

I have Paint Shop Pro 5 and 16 -- probably 15
years apart. Not really such a big difference. I use
PSP5 mostly. PSP 16 is bloated and overproduced.
It takes maybe 15 seconds just to load! But it has
a few useful things, like better image sharpening.

Security and privacy? You're better off on 2000
with a firewall than on newer systems. Malware
targets the current product. Privacy has become
increasingly more difficult as Microsoft restricts
access and tacks on new services. Online privacy
has almost no connection at all to OS version. It
has to do with cookies, script, HOSTS file, iframes,
web bug images ....things that haven't changed
substantially since the 90s. (The best firewall/ad
blocker I ever saw was At Guard -- The year was
1999. The OS was Windows '98. :)

Performance: In a limited way that is a factor. For
people who like the latest games, running on top
of the latest DirectX, with a dual CPU, blah, blah,
blah, the latest machine is usually the best. But
for people who work, communicate and go online,
there's very little to recommend Win7 or 10 over
Win2000, so long as the software and hardware you
need will work.

Bill in Co

September 3rd 15, 03:48 PM

Mayayana wrote:
>> Websites are not about content. They're about selling you something
>> or otherwise extracting $$$ from your presence. Except for hobby, look
>> how smart I am, sites
>> that run on high-octane EGO, nothing is free. Somebody
>> has to pay to keep the lights on and the computers updated and the
>> person typing housed and fed.
>
> I think that's a bit cynical.

If you look at what is going on in the world today, and are thoughtful, it
is very hard NOT to be a bit cynical. That includes both online AND
offline. It's not so much the technology, per se, but people's misuse and
abuse of it.

> I have a website where
> I give things away for free. I was inspired by the
> early Internet, where lots of people were sharing things
> that others might find useful. I started out with a
> sort of philosophy links website, then created a tech
> website for Windows programming and scripting. Part
> of the reason for that is so that I know where to
> look when I forget that I already solved some problem
> in the past. :) I sell some stuff, but mostly I give it
> away. There are no ads or funny business. It costs me
> $8.95/month, plus the domain cost, and I get unlimited
> free email accounts at my own domain, that don't spy
> on me, so I don't have to put up with sleazeball webmail
> like gmail/yahoo/hotmail. And much of what I've
> accomplished that I share online was helped along by
> other people sharing what they had and knew, for free.

These exceptions, few as they are, are indeed worthwhile.
Wikipedia is another nice exception, and I've even sent them some small
donations.

> Of course there's plenty of egoism to go around...

Exactly. Seems even moreso these days. Just look at the political scene.

Bill in Co

September 3rd 15, 03:59 PM

Wolf K wrote:
> On 2015-09-02 23:58, wrote:
>> In most cases, OLD is better in my opinion. Older stuff was made better,
>> which is why so many old cars still run.
>
> What do you mean by "older cars"? 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? Older
> than that?
>
> Oh, I remember the cars from the 50s and 60, and the amount of
> maintenance they needed. Ring and valve jobs. Transmission replacements.
> Head gaskets that blew every other year or less. Main bearings that wore
> out within 30K miles or so. Ever replace a needle valve on a carburetor?
> I have. Also did a brake job once, never again. And tires that blew so
> often you really did need to know how to change a wheel.
>
> Back then, people used to buy a new(er) car every two or three years.
> Why? To avoid the upcoming repairs. Nowadays cars last a lot longer.
>
> The few older cars that "still run" do so because they've been rescued
> and received major repairs.

This is true. I have to concede that (in this one case, at least), older is
NOT better. The new cars are indeed more reliable (even though you can't
work on them as well as before). Ditto for medicines.

Bill in Co

September 3rd 15, 04:04 PM

Wolf K wrote:
> On 2015-09-02 23:58, wrote:
> [...]
>> As far as computers, I thought they were supposed to make life easier.
>> That is no longer the case. I waste more time trying to maintain,
>> install, upgrade, repair, etc the computer than I ever spent driving to
>> the library, or doing math with a pencil and paper. [...]
>
> Well, if you insist in using an old OS and ancient hardware, you have to
> expect that. Just like those old farm machines that can be made to
> work/run. But only if you ware willing to spend the time and have the
> skills. I'd hate to try to farm with that ancient machinery, I would be
> spending as much time maintaining it as using it. Or even more time.

Well, not necessarily, so long as the older OS and computer does what you
need. :-) How many really need a newer OS or computer for their work or
pleasure? (unless, perhaps, you're in a corporate environment)

mike[_10_]

September 3rd 15, 04:53 PM

On 9/3/2015 6:45 AM, Mayayana wrote:
> | Websites are not about content. They're about selling you something
> | or otherwise extracting $$$ from your presence. Except for hobby, look
> | how smart I am, sites
> | that run on high-octane EGO, nothing is free. Somebody
> | has to pay to keep the lights on and the computers updated and the
> | person typing housed and fed.
>
> I think that's a bit cynical. I have a website where
> I give things away for free. I was inspired by the
> early Internet, where lots of people were sharing things
> that others might find useful. I started out with a
> sort of philosophy links website, then created a tech
> website for Windows programming and scripting. Part
> of the reason for that is so that I know where to
> look when I forget that I already solved some problem
> in the past. :) I sell some stuff, but mostly I give it
> away. There are no ads or funny business. It costs me
> $8.95/month, plus the domain cost,

You are low maintenance...it only takes $10/month to stroke
your ego ;-)

I just spent some time on youtube looking at stuff.
There's a wealth of useful info buried in all those terabytes
of crap. It may be free for the posters, but someone has to
pay for all those servers and the people to maintain the system.
That cost has to be borne somewhere. I expect youtube doesn't
consider itself a charity. Somehow, you and I have to subsidize
those videos of Suzy's cats.

Websites are cluttered with "teasers" designed to get you to
click and go somewhere where they can monetize your presence.
Turns out that the article isn't nearly as interesting as the
teaser, but "made you look/click."

No way could you afford to distribute your material.
You rely on others to provide the services. They have
to pay people to get stuff done. It ain't free. To believe
so is naive.

The world runs on $$$. The internet is all about indirectly turning your
free contribution into $$$ to run the system and buy someone
a yacht. Considering how the world works
is something lost on most people.

Think back to the internet before the likes of google.
They made it a much more useful place for us.
And they're paid handsomely for it. Calling it
sleazeball is less than charitable.

So, yes, I'm REALISTIC...

and I get unlimited
> free email accounts at my own domain, that don't spy
> on me, so I don't have to put up with sleazeball webmail
> like gmail/yahoo/hotmail. And much of what I've
> accomplished that I share online was helped along by
> other people sharing what they had and knew, for free.

I help people wherever I can for FREE.
Here in the newsgroups, it's likely that you'll meet with
people who delight in claiming how you're wrong, without
attempting to describe what's right. Major PITA.
>
> Of course there's plenty of egoism to go around, but
> there's also a truly awesome array of resources that
> people have simply made available. (The founder of
> Craigslist has still not made any effort to "monetize"
> his operation beyond the basics.)
>
> It actually costs very little to run a website. Less in
> a month than many people spend at Starbucks in a day.
> You can do it. Think of something you have expertise in,
> set up a site, and share the wealth with people who
> need what you know. Or just share things that inspire
> you. Google may prefer that you see links to commercial
> sites showing their Doubleclick ads, and that *is* a problem,
> but to a great extent, the Internet is still what *we*
> make it. If all you see is "Miracle Mile" flashing lights
> and Buy Now buttons, that's partially your own fault. I
> almost never see any of that stuff online. I see almost no
> ads. Rarely do I see popups. But I do find useful things.
>
> Last week I was able to research epoxy products
> for filling holes in PVC boards, then find a store to
> buy the stuff. When I need to do work on my truck
> I can usually find a youtube video from someone who's
> done it. This morning I saw an article about "synthetic
> marijuana", called K2, in the NYT. More than half a page,
> yet they never explained what they meant by that
> term! So I went online. Ten or fifteen years ago it
> would have been nearly impossible to answer that simple
> question: What is this K2?
>
The internet is truly a magical place.
But it runs on $$$. We don't pay for it
directly. The $$$ come from those sleazy activities
we bitch so much about. Would be interesting to see
the calculations on what it would cost per web search
if all the sleazy activity stopped and we paid the
actual burdened cost of the search directly. The number
of frivolous searches would plunge and the per-search cost would
skyrocket to cover the infrastructure.

The recent frenzy about M$ spying in win10
is a change in the landscape.
I understand how Google can make a buck off tracking what
I search. And I can block the results of most of that.
I use their free service and have no expectation of privacy.

M$ has the ability, and my implicit agreement in the TOS,
to go INSIDE my PC without notification and EXTRACT
whatever they want in a manner that I can't detect or block.
And I pay my ISP for the data allowance
for M$ to steal from me.
And I must endure their incessant update delays as they
become even more invasive.
I find that UNACCEPTABLE!

If they broke down my door and took
stuff from my house, they'd go to jail... if I didn't
shoot 'em first.

If you came to my house and held me prisoner and forced
me to endure a free complete remodel to be exactly what I want,
you'd still go to jail.

Somebody at M$ deserves some time in jail. And maybe a nominal
fine of $1 per intrusion.
>

Nil[_5_]

September 3rd 15, 10:23 PM

On 03 Sep 2015, wrote in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general:

> However I think you are
> just a whiner with an overinflated ego.

Oh, the irony, coming from you whose every post is a new yet redundant
whine about how the world isn't to your liking.

Give it a rest.

Ken Springer[_2_]

September 4th 15, 02:35 AM

On 9/2/15 1:47 AM, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message >,
> writes:
>> On Tue, 1 Sep 2015 14:13:57 -0600, "Bill in Co"
>> > wrote:
> []
>> easiest OS to use. I really hated XP at first because of all the excess
>> stuff that it does, and it took me years to learn how to remove most of
>> the annoyances. I have disabled most of that stuff, but there are still
> TweakUI does a lot in one package (and from Microsoft too [one of the
> sensible behind-the-scenes parts, along with the other "PowerToys"]);
> XPlite _looks_ like it might do even more, though I've not tried it.
> (98lite was excellent.)
>> things that go on beneath the surface - hidden ****, that annoys me.
>> That whole Docs and Settings folder idea sucks big time, because I cant
>
> The whole multi-user stuff does; for home users, it should have been
> possible at first use to tell it "this is _my_ computer and I will be
> the only user".

I don't remember my XP Home version very well, but couldn't you
essentially say that by simply not entering a password when powered up
for the first time?

>>> Another example: the plethora of social widgets appearing on many web pages
>>> (and some software) nowadays. Is that a "new feature", or is it more
>>> obfuscation?
>>>
> If you mean the little symbols that link to twitter, facebook, and about
> half a dozen similar (and allegedly do some tracking too), Ghostery is
> very good at blocking those (while letting you through as a one-off if
> you find you have to).
> [snip rant re popovers, about which I agree!]
> []
>>> The answer to all of these really depends on the wants and needs of the
>>> user. Being able to use long filenames, on the other hand, instead of
>>> just the 8.3, I think we'd all agree was a good "feature". :-)
>>
>> There I agree. Win 3.x was lousy!
>>
> Hmm. I find I still try to use 8.3 for any file and directory names _I_
> create, though I use the names as supplied if the file originates
> elsewhere. (You're still using 8.3 underneath - I think even in 7.)
>

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Mayayana

September 4th 15, 03:19 AM

| > The whole multi-user stuff does; for home users, it should have been
| > possible at first use to tell it "this is _my_ computer and I will be
| > the only user".
|
| I don't remember my XP Home version very well, but couldn't you
| essentially say that by simply not entering a password when powered up
| for the first time?
|

You can do that to avoid login, but XP didn't
make it easy. It's designed for multi-user. Standard
software, from MS Word to Firefox, is designed
to default to AppData\current-user-documents.
(And there are still 4 or 5 users even when there's
only one real account. The only thing more nonsensical
and convoluted than the XP app data folder mess
is the NT6 app data folder mess.)

The Desktop is also buried in App Data, though I
use C:\Windows\Desktop. I don't remember how
I made that change, but it wasn't difficult. I save
most things to the Desktop first, so I didn't want
it buried down in app data.

System File Protection also started with XP. Even
when installed on FAT32, SFP prevented control
over many files, and not just system files. Again,
SFP could be disabled, but it requires a "secret
tweak".

All of that is oriented toward functionality needed
by corporate employees with no right to do anything
but save Word docs in their personal folder.

Ken Springer[_2_]

September 4th 15, 04:30 AM

On 9/3/15 8:19 PM, Mayayana wrote:
> | > The whole multi-user stuff does; for home users, it should have been
> | > possible at first use to tell it "this is _my_ computer and I will be
> | > the only user".
> |
> | I don't remember my XP Home version very well, but couldn't you
> | essentially say that by simply not entering a password when powered up
> | for the first time?
> |
>
> You can do that to avoid login, but XP didn't
> make it easy. It's designed for multi-user. Standard
> software, from MS Word to Firefox, is designed
> to default to AppData\current-user-documents.
> (And there are still 4 or 5 users even when there's
> only one real account. The only thing more nonsensical
> and convoluted than the XP app data folder mess
> is the NT6 app data folder mess.)

Besides the needs of the corporate users users you mentioned below, I
don't think having the home version also support multiusers is/was a
wrong decision. I think the problem is/was lack of knowledge by the
average home user.

I think the biggest advantage of multiple users is it offers better
protection from Daughter or Son from downloading something that would
wreak havoc with your system.

I'm the only user of the 'puters here, and run all of them with an
administrator account w/ a password. If I were to follow my own advice,
I'd have a second standard account that I would use to actually get
something done. But I'm too lazy to follow my own advice! LOL

> The Desktop is also buried in App Data, though I
> use C:\Windows\Desktop. I don't remember how
> I made that change, but it wasn't difficult. I save
> most things to the Desktop first, so I didn't want
> it buried down in app data.
>
> System File Protection also started with XP. Even
> when installed on FAT32, SFP prevented control
> over many files, and not just system files. Again,
> SFP could be disabled, but it requires a "secret
> tweak".
>
> All of that is oriented toward functionality needed
> by corporate employees with no right to do anything
> but save Word docs in their personal folder.
>
>

--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 36.0.4
Thunderbird 31.5
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

Andy Burns[_3_]

September 4th 15, 07:36 AM

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:

> I still try to use 8.3 for any file and directory names _I_
> create, though I use the names as supplied if the file originates
> elsewhere. (You're still using 8.3 underneath - I think even in 7.)

The 8.3 name is stored as an alternate name, not the name you or the O/S
uses if you refer to the long name, you can switch the short names off
on NTFS if you don't have any 16bit programs.

<https://support.microsoft.com/en-us/kb/210638#mt1>

[email protected]

September 4th 15, 11:38 AM

On Thu, 3 Sep 2015 10:19:32 -0400, "Mayayana" >
wrote:

> Not so much, really. I use mostly XP, just two
>years newer than 2000. I have almost the latest
>version of Firefox. And Win7 is already about 5
>years old. But most things have not changed in
>a big way. Most software that runs on 2000 also
>runs on Win10. Most software still supports XP -
>14 years old. (Though a lot of software won't
>support 2000 anymore.)

If you were running the original XP, the newer browsers would not work
either, but with XP SP3, I can run all the latest versions of Firefox
(as far as I know). I have not gone above FF 28. since they developed
that crappy new (whatever it's called). On Win2000, FF 6.x is all I can
use and have it be stable.

Mayayana

September 4th 15, 01:40 PM

| Besides the needs of the corporate users users you mentioned below, I
| don't think having the home version also support multiusers is/was a
| wrong decision. I think the problem is/was lack of knowledge by the
| average home user.
|
| If I were to follow my own advice,
| I'd have a second standard account that I would use to actually get
| something done.

But there's no excuse for *forcing* multi-user. For
the vast majority of people it's entirely irrelevant.
People end up with their files in a circuitous folder
hierarchy where they have no chance of ever finding
those files. If there were a function to encourage
people to create one or more storage folders from
the start that could serve as a lesson in how Explorer
works, and people would know how to find their files,
whether there are multiple users or not.
There's no reason that MS couldn't do that with
the initial setup, leading people through a convenient
file system design that makes sense for them.

The corporate model assumes no one will ever venture
into C drive. (They don't have permission, anyway!)
But they might log in from a different workstation
and want to work on their docs. It's two entirely
different models of computer usage.

I think the security model that you think you should
follow is also an inappropriate carryover from corporate.
On corporate intranets, the network is trusted and
the people using the computers are not. For SOHo
it's the opposite: The person using the computer is
trusted but the network is not. The former is like a
public building with an open front door but with locks
on everything inside. The latter is like a home -- open
inside but with a locked front door. It's no accident
that SOHo people don't use lackey mode for security.
It's a pain in the neck. It's not appropriate to the usage.
And it's not much help in the long run. A lot of common
bugs are "permission elevation" bugs. Lackey mode is
not designed for *your* security. It's designed to prevent
you from changing software and settings.

Imagine having every door in your house locked,
with "child-safe" locks on every kitchen cabinet. Great
if you have young kids. A pain in the neck if you don't.
Meanwhile, Microsoft does nothing to help you get a
good front door lock: Script, ActiveX, cross-site scripting
all operating in the browser; spyware 3rd-party cookies
enabled by default; file sharing; Skype; networking
services enabled by default; (Remote Registry service
is insane!) Any "Tom, Dick or Harry" process allowed to
call home without even notification..... It's all corporate
model, inappropriate and dangerous for SOHo systems.
Now the system is being locked down and Microsoft are
using that corporate model as an excuse to impose
themselves as your IT dept, all the while chanting "better
security".

There might be some cases where people actually set up
users, but even then it's for customizing the Desktop, not
for security. (In XP everyone is admin by default, anyway.)

This topic used to come up a lot in programming groups
I frequent. When NT6 started with the enforced corporate
model, shareware authors were having trouble getting used
to it. Corporate developers would sniff and say impatiently
that, "It's always been this way. You just haven't been
designing your software properly!"

I found that for most things the best solution was to
store program settings in the program folder, and to make
one subfolder there with no restrictions. That way the
security model is respected but doesn't get in the way.
Any user can adjust settings and the settings are easy
to find if one wants to back them up. I can also do any
kind of file writing I need to in "my own space" within
my program folder, without running into Windows
restrictions or having "virtualization" throw a wrench into
the works, because I've created free folders within
my program folder.

In rare cases there may be several people using a
program with different settings, but in actual usage, in
the vast majority of SOHo cases, there are not. Dad or
Junior is the techie in the house and everyone else
follows their lead. Likewise in an office; one person is
typically more handy. They're the one to install my
software and set it up with optimum settings.

And I always leave it to the person using the
software to decide where to put things. If I saved files
in My Documents, the way MS Office does, the person
would never find their files. If I leave it to them to pick
a destination then they'll get confused *once* and then
know where their files are from then on. Again, it's their
computer. They're not corporate employees borrowing
equipment. So hiding everything from them really doesn't
make sense for either security or usability.

Mayayana

September 4th 15, 02:01 PM

| If you were running the original XP, the newer browsers would not work
| either, but with XP SP3, I can run all the latest versions of Firefox
| (as far as I know).

Yes, you need SP3 for just about anything.

| I have not gone above FF 28. since they developed
| that crappy new (whatever it's called). On Win2000, FF 6.x is all I can
| use and have it be stable.
|

I recently installed FF 36, for signed extensions,
because my video Download Helper in Pale Moon
stopped working. But the new DH5 didn't work,
either! And it's overproduced. Now they seem
to both be working, so I haven't had to use FF 36
very much.

I only use FF in rare cases where I need to enable
script and/or cookies and/or iframes and/or referrer,
etc. And I have NoScript installed there. That's easier
than changing all the settings in PM for one-time
usage. I find FF 36 isn't too bad. They break something
regularly. Then I need a new extension to fix it. But at
least it works after I get through repairing the latest
damage. :)

I'm not convinced that newer browsers are all that
much better. For newer CSS/HTML/script they make
a difference, but for security, not so much. There are
always 0-day exploits out there that will compromise
the latest version. And anyone regularly enabling
javascript is a sitting duck. People don't want to hear
that, but it's the facts. There was an issue I posted
about here just a couple of weeks ago -- thousands of
sites infested with malware that was attacking the
latest version of IE. That was a classic case. The attack
depended on script and iframes, both of which should
be banned, but both of which are increasingly used for
corporate spyware. Religious updating doesn't help in
those cases. What *would* help is to disable scripting
and frames.

Unfortunately, scripting is becoming more ubiquitous
when it should be getting phased out. Lately I've
been seeing sites that use the "hash-bang" (#!) technique
to load the entire page dynamically. There's nothing but
Google analytics spyware on the landing page. They then
have an entirely different set of pages that they give to
search engine crawlers!
Last week I went to read an article at Forbes.com. The
page was all white with a small black frown in the middle. :)
Sense of humor? Maybe.

I looked at the source code. The entirety of the page HTML
was encoded in a javascript string, which in turn was buried
in hokey pseudo-JSON. Why? I don't know. Maybe to force
people to enable javascript? Oddly, though, they didn't
display a message to that effect. That's a case where script
disabled is a problem, yet the HTML was entirely vanilla.
You could have read the page fine with IE4, once it was
fished out of the javascript mess.

Bill in Co

September 4th 15, 05:15 PM

Mayayana wrote:
>> Besides the needs of the corporate users users you mentioned below, I
>> don't think having the home version also support multiusers is/was a
>> wrong decision. I think the problem is/was lack of knowledge by the
>> average home user.
>>
>> If I were to follow my own advice,
>> I'd have a second standard account that I would use to actually get
>> something done.
>
> But there's no excuse for *forcing* multi-user. For
> the vast majority of people it's entirely irrelevant.
> People end up with their files in a circuitous folder
> hierarchy where they have no chance of ever finding
> those files. If there were a function to encourage
> people to create one or more storage folders from
> the start that could serve as a lesson in how Explorer
> works, and people would know how to find their files,
> whether there are multiple users or not.
> There's no reason that MS couldn't do that with
> the initial setup, leading people through a convenient
> file system design that makes sense for them.

I'm betting one reason this was done was it was simpler to code from their
viewpoint. Plus, if they're supporting the product, it would be one less
variable for MS to worry about (since it was universal).

> The corporate model assumes no one will ever venture
> into C drive. (They don't have permission, anyway!)
> But they might log in from a different workstation
> and want to work on their docs. It's two entirely
> different models of computer usage.
>
> I think the security model that you think you should
> follow is also an inappropriate carryover from corporate.
> On corporate intranets, the network is trusted and
> the people using the computers are not. For SOHo
> it's the opposite: The person using the computer is
> trusted but the network is not. The former is like a
> public building with an open front door but with locks
> on everything inside. The latter is like a home -- open
> inside but with a locked front door. It's no accident
> that SOHo people don't use lackey mode for security.
> It's a pain in the neck. It's not appropriate to the usage.
> And it's not much help in the long run. A lot of common
> bugs are "permission elevation" bugs. Lackey mode is
> not designed for *your* security. It's designed to prevent
> you from changing software and settings.
>
> Imagine having every door in your house locked,
> with "child-safe" locks on every kitchen cabinet. Great
> if you have young kids. A pain in the neck if you don't.
> Meanwhile, Microsoft does nothing to help you get a
> good front door lock: Script, ActiveX, cross-site scripting
> all operating in the browser; spyware 3rd-party cookies
> enabled by default; file sharing; Skype; networking
> services enabled by default; (Remote Registry service
> is insane!) Any "Tom, Dick or Harry" process allowed to
> call home without even notification..... It's all corporate
> model, inappropriate and dangerous for SOHo systems.
> Now the system is being locked down and Microsoft are
> using that corporate model as an excuse to impose
> themselves as your IT dept, all the while chanting "better
> security".
>
> There might be some cases where people actually set up
> users, but even then it's for customizing the Desktop, not
> for security. (In XP everyone is admin by default, anyway.)
>
> This topic used to come up a lot in programming groups
> I frequent. When NT6 started with the enforced corporate
> model, shareware authors were having trouble getting used
> to it. Corporate developers would sniff and say impatiently
> that, "It's always been this way. You just haven't been
> designing your software properly!"
>
> I found that for most things the best solution was to
> store program settings in the program folder, and to make
> one subfolder there with no restrictions. That way the
> security model is respected but doesn't get in the way.
> Any user can adjust settings and the settings are easy
> to find if one wants to back them up. I can also do any
> kind of file writing I need to in "my own space" within
> my program folder, without running into Windows
> restrictions or having "virtualization" throw a wrench into
> the works, because I've created free folders within
> my program folder.
>
> In rare cases there may be several people using a
> program with different settings, but in actual usage, in
> the vast majority of SOHo cases, there are not. Dad or
> Junior is the techie in the house and everyone else
> follows their lead. Likewise in an office; one person is
> typically more handy. They're the one to install my
> software and set it up with optimum settings.
>
> And I always leave it to the person using the
> software to decide where to put things. If I saved files
> in My Documents, the way MS Office does, the person
> would never find their files. If I leave it to them to pick
> a destination then they'll get confused *once* and then
> know where their files are from then on. Again, it's their
> computer. They're not corporate employees borrowing
> equipment. So hiding everything from them really doesn't
> make sense for either security or usability.

But forcing the use of My Documents had at least a couple of advantages that
I can see: one being from MS support issues (since it was a consistent
place for everyone), and the other being that System Restore does not
monitor this folder, unlike all the others, as I recall, so it's a safe
place to store your documents and files, even if you invoke a System
Restore.

Bill in Co

September 4th 15, 05:19 PM

Mayayana wrote:
>> If you were running the original XP, the newer browsers would not work
>> either, but with XP SP3, I can run all the latest versions of Firefox
>> (as far as I know).
>
> Yes, you need SP3 for just about anything.
>
>> I have not gone above FF 28. since they developed
>> that crappy new (whatever it's called). On Win2000, FF 6.x is all I can
>> use and have it be stable.
>>
>
> I recently installed FF 36, for signed extensions,
> because my video Download Helper in Pale Moon
> stopped working.

Did you ever try any newer builds of Pale Moon? As I recall, you were still
using ver 24.7, and there are some newer XP builds as we've talked about.

Bill in Co

September 4th 15, 05:22 PM

Wolf K wrote:
> On 2015-09-03 11:04, Bill in Co wrote:
>> Wolf K wrote:
>>> On 2015-09-02 23:58, wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> As far as computers, I thought they were supposed to make life easier.
>>>> That is no longer the case. I waste more time trying to maintain,
>>>> install, upgrade, repair, etc the computer than I ever spent driving to
>>>> the library, or doing math with a pencil and paper. [...]
>>>
>>> Well, if you insist in using an old OS and ancient hardware, you have to
>>> expect that. Just like those old farm machines that can be made to
>>> work/run. But only if you ware willing to spend the time and have the
>>> skills. I'd hate to try to farm with that ancient machinery, I would be
>>> spending as much time maintaining it as using it. Or even more time.
>>
>> Well, not necessarily, so long as the older OS and computer does what you
>> need. :-) How many really need a newer OS or computer for their work
>> or pleasure? (unless, perhaps, you're in a corporate environment)
>>
>
> I'll quote Shakespeare at you:
>
> O, reason not the need! (King Lear)
>
> :-)

Thank you for that. :-) Quite refreshing!

Mayayana

September 4th 15, 07:43 PM

| Did you ever try any newer builds of Pale Moon? As I recall, you were
still
| using ver 24.7

I still have 24.7. I didn't understand what the
atom difference really was, and it turns out they're
going to discontinue that, anyway. I figure PM
24.7 is fine for the foreseeable future. It's only
about a year old. Any halfway competent webmaster
is not expecting to be able to assume that everyone
visiting can handle brand new versions of CSS/HTML.
(Most sites where I check the source code are
still accomodating IE7.) There are some problem
sites, like Google. (From what I hear.) But I send
a UA string that says I'm on a recent version of
FF with Win7.

As I was saying above, I find the big problem
is script-dependent pages. I can't remember ever
visiting a page that used newer protocols than my
browser could handle.

I'm also increasingly wary of newer changes. For
instance, HTML 5 is supposed to support in-browser
media players. I'm not sure that any actually exist
yet. But it seems like a bad idea to me. Just one
more unnecessary executable to provide vulnerable
bugs. I don't allow any Adobe plugins and don't
currently have any media plugins, nor do I want
them. If there's audio or video that I can't download
then I probably don't want it. I certainly don't want
unrequested audio/video running on a webpage. But
there's a general trend toward bloated, commercial,
multimedia spyware webpages that don't "degrade
gracefully". (Which is to say that they don't work
at all unless you enable all the script/flash/etc.)

Bill in Co

September 4th 15, 08:21 PM

Mayayana wrote:
>> Did you ever try any newer builds of Pale Moon? As I recall, you were
>> still using ver 24.7
>
> I still have 24.7. I didn't understand what the
> atom difference really was, and it turns out they're
> going to discontinue that, anyway.

OK, good to know. I didn't know this. I'm guessing they might also
discontinue the special XP build, too?
(as I recall, there were two versions: the atom build, and the XP build).

> I figure PM
> 24.7 is fine for the foreseeable future. It's only
> about a year old. Any halfway competent webmaster
> is not expecting to be able to assume that everyone
> visiting can handle brand new versions of CSS/HTML.
> (Most sites where I check the source code are
> still accomodating IE7.) There are some problem
> sites, like Google. (From what I hear.) But I send
> a UA string that says I'm on a recent version of
> FF with Win7.

Could you tell me what that UA string was again? I can't recall now.
(But I'm using XP, not Win7, so I suppose that needs to be in there).

> As I was saying above, I find the big problem
> is script-dependent pages. I can't remember ever
> visiting a page that used newer protocols than my
> browser could handle.

Well, at least not yet. But I fear the day is coming.
For what it's worth, I stopped at PM ver 25.2.1 because I don't trust the
newer and newer versions (Moonchild wants to strictly conform to web
standards, and some sites can become problematic).

> I'm also increasingly wary of newer changes.

I'm with you on that, even moreso, globally.
(But that's a philosophical issue with me, anyways. :-)

> For instance, HTML 5 is supposed to support in-browser
> media players. I'm not sure that any actually exist
> yet. But it seems like a bad idea to me. Just one
> more unnecessary executable to provide vulnerable
> bugs. I don't allow any Adobe plugins and don't
> currently have any media plugins, nor do I want
> them. If there's audio or video that I can't download
> then I probably don't want it. I certainly don't want
> unrequested audio/video running on a webpage. But
> there's a general trend toward bloated, commercial,
> multimedia spyware webpages that don't "degrade
> gracefully". (Which is to say that they don't work
> at all unless you enable all the script/flash/etc.)

Yes, and that IS a big problem.

Mayayana

September 4th 15, 09:05 PM

| OK, good to know. I didn't know this. I'm guessing they might also
| discontinue the special XP build, too?
| (as I recall, there were two versions: the atom build, and the XP build).
|
I don't know. I haven't really kept track. I'm regarding
PM as done.... hoping maybe K-Meleon will re-blossom
to pick up the slack at some point. :)

| Could you tell me what that UA string was again? I can't recall now.
| (But I'm using XP, not Win7, so I suppose that needs to be in there).
|

Here's a good one:

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/38.0

That's FF 38 on Win7-64. Your OS is none of their
business. Win7 sticks out less than XP. It's the browser
that matters. If you use an IE UA they might give
you a page that doesn't work, but as long as your
UA says FF (or something with gecko) the rest
shouldn't matter.

Mayayana

September 5th 15, 07:38 PM

| Think back to the internet before the likes of google.
| They made it a much more useful place for us.
| And they're paid handsomely for it. Calling it
| sleazeball is less than charitable.
|

I use descriptions like that with specific purpose.
Fifteen years ago there was a company with a cute
name, run by a couple of cute geeks. They made
search work well and they talked in idealistic terms.
Everybody loved them. That cute Google was going
to save the Web and usher in a golden age of
information, communication and values.

That was then.

Now they're one of the biggest companies in the
world, owned mainly by Wall St investors, easily the
biggest advertising company and spyware operator
online. They're currently being charged with altering
search results in their own favor. They claim the right
to rifle through your private correspondence and keep
copies. They were caught stealing wifi data with their
streetview vans and denied it. Eric Schmidt, the former
CEO, famously (and creepily) said that people who
want privacy are suspicious and that, besides, you
have no right to privacy under the Patriot Act:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A6e7wfDHzew

So Schmidt would like to tell us he's a patriot, not
a sleazeball. (The last refuge of the soundrel....)

Google brought us great search and they've also
destroyed it, to a great extent. By weighting incoming
links they've nearly eliminated small, non-commercial
websites from view. By starting their own ad company
and insisting on doing targetted ads (requiring spyware)
they've undercut their own trustworthiness. This is
not the same Google that opened up the Web. To a
dangerous extent they own the Web. Yahoo and Bing
do almost no business compared to Google.

When Google came out with GMail I watched with
surprise as hordes of tech-sophisticated people signed
up, proud to be "insiders" who had been "invited to
beta test" gmail. In other words, the veneer of cute,
idealistic company long outlasted the reality of it, even
in tech circles. I'm not sure companies like Google (and
Apple, for that matter) are so much worse than others,
but they have a lot of power and the public has granted
them an entirely inappropriate trust. So I take the chance
to point out that they're a sleazeball operation because
so many people don't realize it and it simply doesn't get
said enough. These companies spend billions on their
public image, including planted press releases. The actual
facts don't get much press.

[email protected]

September 8th 15, 07:50 PM

On Fri, 4 Sep 2015 09:01:07 -0400, "Mayayana" >
wrote:

> I recently installed FF 36, for signed extensions,
>because my video Download Helper in Pale Moon
>stopped working. But the new DH5 didn't work,
>either! And it's overproduced. Now they seem
>to both be working, so I haven't had to use FF 36
>very much.

Apparently "Video Download Helper" has stopped working for everyone.
Mine quit too, and I searched for comments on it, read their blog, etc.
It appears it no longer works and they have not fixed it. They may even
be shutting it down, for some reason they dont want to continue
producing it. I dont recall all the details.

Even though I've used VDH for years, it's failed badly recently, and I
just removed it and found another program to do the same thing which
works fine. VDH was one of the most popular add-ons for FF, but
apparently they are not making enough money on it and it is no longer
being supported.

Mayayana

September 9th 15, 12:22 AM

| Apparently "Video Download Helper" has stopped working for everyone.

Did you miss my last line? Both are now working
for me. V. 4 in PM and v. 5 in FF. I don't enable
script or cookies, so I don't know whether that
might make a difference.

I changed to later FF with VDH5. It didn't work.
I waited. Sometimes Google breaks them. But then
a week or so later I accidentally used the v. 4 again
in PM and it was fine! If you care you might want
to try it again. Periodically google breaks it and then
there's a wait while the author updates it.

| Even though I've used VDH for years, it's failed badly recently, and I
| just removed it and found another program to do the same thing which
| works fine.

What program is that? Does it work with script
disabled?

[email protected]

September 9th 15, 02:57 AM

On Tue, 8 Sep 2015 19:22:55 -0400, "Mayayana" >
wrote:

>| Apparently "Video Download Helper" has stopped working for everyone.
>
> Did you miss my last line? Both are now working
>for me. V. 4 in PM and v. 5 in FF. I don't enable
>script or cookies, so I don't know whether that
>might make a difference.
>
> I changed to later FF with VDH5. It didn't work.
>I waited. Sometimes Google breaks them. But then
>a week or so later I accidentally used the v. 4 again
>in PM and it was fine! If you care you might want
>to try it again. Periodically google breaks it and then
>there's a wait while the author updates it.
>
Ok, maybe they fixed it again. It's been 2 or 3 weeks since I last tried
and finally removed it after reading those blogs.

>| Even though I've used VDH for years, it's failed badly recently, and I
>| just removed it and found another program to do the same thing which
>| works fine.
>
>What program is that? Does it work with script
>disabled?
>

Flash Video Downloader - Youtube HD Download [4K] 7.5.1

It even downloads most music videos that VDH would not download. I like
it better now, and it dont have all the dumb ads and stuff that VDH has
had for awhile now.

I dont know if it works with scripts disabled, I pretty much just use my
laptop to download videos and files, so I just leave it enabled on that
computer. On my Win98 machine, I almost MUST keep scripts disabled or i
constantly get script errors on the old browsers.