Good to see

It is good to see users still posting to this group.

Andy

In message , Andy
writes:
It is good to see users still posting to this group.

Andy

Plenty of people still using XP; I for one find my XP machine suffices
for most of my requirements. (I do have a 7 one, but rarely turn it on -
mainly for Skype and to do TeamViewer support, and both of those are
more that that machine has more powerful hardware than anything
OS-specific.) For me, most of the time, XP "just works"; about the only
time it doesn't is with some web pages, and even that's mainly due to my
choice of browser (Firefox 2x) than the OS.

(There's also the fact that the email/news client I use - Turnpike -
doesn't run under 64-bit systems, and having been using it for so many
years I'm reluctant to change [would probably be to Thunderbird if I had
to].)

Backing up (imaging for OS and copying data [Macrium 5 and SyncToy in my
case]) from time to time of course, but then one should do that whatever
the OS.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
It is good to see users still posting to this group.

Andy

Plenty of people still using XP; I for one find my XP machine suffices
for most of my requirements. (I do have a 7 one, but rarely turn it on -
mainly for Skype and to do TeamViewer support, and both of those are
more that that machine has more powerful hardware than anything
OS-specific.) For me, most of the time, XP "just works"; about the only
time it doesn't is with some web pages, and even that's mainly due to my
choice of browser (Firefox 2x) than the OS.

And that browser issue can probably be mitigated, John, by using a newer
version of FF with the Classic Theme Restorer add-on. With this add-on, you
can get close to the old classic look, whilst being more compatible with
some newer web pages. So I finally bit the bullet and went up to FF version
36, but have stopped there. I think they keep adding things I have no
interest in. :-)
But it is true that the HTML5 stuff is in vogue now, so who knows where this
will end up. There are days, though, that I'm tempted to go back to FF 28,
just to see how that would work out (the last pre-Australis version of FF).

All that said, I, probably like you, I still prefer the older classic
browser version, and as a consequence, use Pale Moon for almost all of my
routine web browsing, not Firefox (and it seems faster to load, at least
initially).

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
It is good to see users still posting to this group.

Andy

Plenty of people still using XP; I for one find my XP machine suffices
[]
OS-specific.) For me, most of the time, XP "just works"; about the only
time it doesn't is with some web pages, and even that's mainly due to my
choice of browser (Firefox 2x) than the OS.

And that browser issue can probably be mitigated, John, by using a newer
version of FF with the Classic Theme Restorer add-on. With this add-on, you

And I could use Windows 7 or 8 (or possibly even 10) with Classic Shell,
or Stardate (-:, and it/they would look like XP.

can get close to the old classic look, whilst being more compatible with
some newer web pages. So I finally bit the bullet and went up to FF version
36, but have stopped there. I think they keep adding things I have no
interest in. :-)

So you've stopped too, albeit at a later version than my 26.

But it is true that the HTML5 stuff is in vogue now, so who knows where this

Indeed. I just don't go to those web pages. For the rare occasions where
I really need to, I have a few other browsers - mainly Chrome.

will end up. There are days, though, that I'm tempted to go back to FF 28,
just to see how that would work out (the last pre-Australis version of FF).

(-:

All that said, I, probably like you, I still prefer the older classic
browser version, and as a consequence, use Pale Moon for almost all of my
routine web browsing, not Firefox (and it seems faster to load, at least
initially).

I tried Pale Moon too; I probably didn't give it enough time.

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're plumbing shallows we didn't know existed here" - Jeremy Paxman (as
quizmaster of "University Challenge"), 1998 (when losing team suddenly put on a
spurt by showing knowledge of things like the Eurovision Song Contest ...)

[Default] On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:51:44 +0000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:

All that said, I, probably like you, I still prefer the older classic
browser version, and as a consequence, use Pale Moon for almost all of my
routine web browsing, not Firefox (and it seems faster to load, at least
initially).

I tried Pale Moon too; I probably didn't give it enough time.


My chief complaint about Firefox is that it tries to remember tabs on
closed windows, or after freezes, but eventually it loses whole
windows' worth. Some I find again, and some I'm sure I never find.

Asking on the Firefox newsgroup didnt' get any good answers.

Does Pale Moon handle that better?

Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

In message , Micky
writes:
[Default] On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:51:44 +0000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
I tried Pale Moon too; I probably didn't give it enough time.


My chief complaint about Firefox is that it tries to remember tabs on
closed windows, or after freezes, but eventually it loses whole
windows' worth. Some I find again, and some I'm sure I never find.

Ah. I only ever (intentionally, anyway) have one FF window open, though
with lots of tabs.

Asking on the Firefox newsgroup didnt' get any good answers.

Does Pale Moon handle that better?

I didn't give it long enough to be able to answer - though given the
above probably wouldn't be able to anyway.

Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

Probably. I _think_ I still have it at its defaults, so haven't really
looked; I really only use it for things FF 26 won't work properly with,
like Google Maps.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

After a typical day at the BBC you want something to take your mind off work,
although in the end, decent people being eaten alive by heartless monsters
running amok proved no distraction. - Eddie Mair, RT 2015/7/4-10

On 1/17/2016 12:21 AM, Micky wrote:
[Default] On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:51:44 +0000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:

All that said, I, probably like you, I still prefer the older classic
browser version, and as a consequence, use Pale Moon for almost all of my
routine web browsing, not Firefox (and it seems faster to load, at least
initially).

I tried Pale Moon too; I probably didn't give it enough time.


My chief complaint about Firefox is that it tries to remember tabs on
closed windows, or after freezes, but eventually it loses whole
windows' worth. Some I find again, and some I'm sure I never find.

Does it lose history too?

Asking on the Firefox newsgroup didnt' get any good answers.

Does Pale Moon handle that better?

Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Micky
writes:
[Default] On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:51:44 +0000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:
[]
I tried Pale Moon too; I probably didn't give it enough time.


My chief complaint about Firefox is that it tries to remember tabs on
closed windows, or after freezes, but eventually it loses whole
windows' worth. Some I find again, and some I'm sure I never find.

Ah. I only ever (intentionally, anyway) have one FF window open, though
with lots of tabs.

Asking on the Firefox newsgroup didnt' get any good answers.

Does Pale Moon handle that better?

I didn't give it long enough to be able to answer - though given the
above probably wouldn't be able to anyway.

Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

Probably. I _think_ I still have it at its defaults, so haven't really
looked; I really only use it for things FF 26 won't work properly with,
like Google Maps.

Now THAT is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by "won't work
properly" on Google maps (FF version 26), but am guessing you mean you can't
zoom in and out and/or move ariound the maps with your mouse? Since FF
version 28 was the last pre-Australis version (IIRC), you might consider
giving it a shot - that's not much of an upgrade and you'd have nothing to
lose. I wonder what other sites are problematic, and even if its a function
of the version of FF, or perhaps something else?

[Default] On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 05:29:15 -0800, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general mike wrote:

On 1/17/2016 12:21 AM, Micky wrote:
[Default] On Sun, 17 Jan 2016 00:51:44 +0000, in
microsoft.public.windowsxp.general "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
wrote:

In message , Bill in Co
writes:

All that said, I, probably like you, I still prefer the older classic
browser version, and as a consequence, use Pale Moon for almost all of my
routine web browsing, not Firefox (and it seems faster to load, at least
initially).

I tried Pale Moon too; I probably didn't give it enough time.


My chief complaint about Firefox is that it tries to remember tabs on
closed windows, or after freezes, but eventually it loses whole
windows' worth. Some I find again, and some I'm sure I never find.

Does it lose history too?

No.

Maybe I know why you're asking.

Are you going to suggest that I can find my lost tabs by looking in
the history???

I've tried that but it's a really hard chore, since some of my tabs go
back days , and I have loads of tabs I've opened and closed in the
meantime. And I don't always recognize a lost tab when I see it in
the history.

I didn't invent sessionstore. They did, so I'm sure they want it to
work, but it's been years and they've made changes but it still fails
frequently .

One thing I've done is increase the number of Recently Closed Windows
and Recently Closed Tabs it will store. The default is 3 each, iirc.
This means that if you close a window to save RAM, when you close your
4th window, it kicks the first one closed off the list, gone forever.
So I've made it 20, but then they changed the rule about what is a
window for this list. Now anything in a separate box is a window,
like if you enlarge an ebay picture, or the window that plays radio
for Listen Live, etc. etc. It used to be these didnt' make it to the
list.

So what would be good is if I could edit the list of windows and get
rid of these. I believe it's all stored in sessionstore.js and it's
not formatted so it will be hard to edit wihoout fouling it up, and
probalby can't be done with FF is open (and I need it to be open to
see the list in formatted form, to remind myself what I want to do. )

One time years ago I increased the number to 60, but it became clear
that setting it at 60 didn't really make it 60. I don't know what the
actual maximum that functions correctly is.


Anotehr suggestion was group bookmarks, but when you make those, you
only get the url that is showing now. But Previously Closed Windows
and whatever they call it when you shut down the computer and saves
your current windows included not just what is showing now but all the
Back urls and any Forward ones too.

More than you wanted to know, right?

Asking on the Firefox newsgroup didnt' get any good answers.

Does Pale Moon handle that better?

Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

On Saturday, January 16, 2016 at 5:04:13 AM UTC-6, J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Andy
writes:
It is good to see users still posting to this group.

Andy

Plenty of people still using XP; I for one find my XP machine suffices
for most of my requirements. (I do have a 7 one, but rarely turn it on -
mainly for Skype and to do TeamViewer support, and both of those are
more that that machine has more powerful hardware than anything
OS-specific.) For me, most of the time, XP "just works"; about the only
time it doesn't is with some web pages, and even that's mainly due to my
choice of browser (Firefox 2x) than the OS.

(There's also the fact that the email/news client I use - Turnpike -
doesn't run under 64-bit systems, and having been using it for so many
years I'm reluctant to change [would probably be to Thunderbird if I had
to].)

Backing up (imaging for OS and copying data [Macrium 5 and SyncToy in my
case]) from time to time of course, but then one should do that whatever
the OS.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'evidence'. Professor Edzart Ernst, prudential
magazine, AUTUMN 2006, p. 13.

I dual boot, mostly to Linux Puppy.

Also use Macrium Reflect.

Linux has no disk imagers comparable to what Windows has.
And what they have is very slow.

Andy

In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Micky
writes:
[]
Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

Probably. I _think_ I still have it at its defaults, so haven't really
looked; I really only use it for things FF 26 won't work properly with,
like Google Maps.

Now THAT is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by "won't work
properly" on Google maps (FF version 26), but am guessing you mean you can't
zoom in and out and/or move ariound the maps with your mouse? Since FF

No, I mean I don't see the map imagery - either map or "satellite"
[actually low-flying aircraft of course], just the "furniture" (the +
and - icons, the yellow man, the search box, the nine-squares icon,
etcetera). The majority of the window is plain light grey with white
graph-paper-like markings.

version 28 was the last pre-Australis version (IIRC), you might consider
giving it a shot - that's not much of an upgrade and you'd have nothing to
lose. I wonder what other sites are problematic, and even if its a function
of the version of FF, or perhaps something else?

Probably something else, indeed. Other sites that are problematic:
google images (I just get a lot of grey rectangles), several sites that
host images (I get the framework but not the images), www.bbc.co.uk (I
get lots of vertical stripes; some BBC pages work fine though), bing
mapping, ... but for example ebay, Amazon, and some utilities sites I
pay bills on work fine ...

--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

The first banjo solo I played was actually just a series of mistakes. In fact
it was all the mistakes I knew at the time. - Tim Dowling, RT2015/6/20-26

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Bill in Co
writes:
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , Micky
writes:
[]
Chrome? I didn't like that Chrome had so few preferences compared to
FFox. Is that still true?

Probably. I _think_ I still have it at its defaults, so haven't really
looked; I really only use it for things FF 26 won't work properly with,
like Google Maps.

Now THAT is interesting. I'm not sure what you mean by "won't work
properly" on Google maps (FF version 26), but am guessing you mean you
can't
zoom in and out and/or move ariound the maps with your mouse? Since FF

No, I mean I don't see the map imagery - either map or "satellite"
[actually low-flying aircraft of course], just the "furniture" (the +
and - icons, the yellow man, the search box, the nine-squares icon,
etcetera). The majority of the window is plain light grey with white
graph-paper-like markings.

version 28 was the last pre-Australis version (IIRC), you might consider
giving it a shot - that's not much of an upgrade and you'd have
nothing to
lose. I wonder what other sites are problematic, and even if its a
function
of the version of FF, or perhaps something else?

Probably something else, indeed. Other sites that are problematic:
google images (I just get a lot of grey rectangles), several sites that
host images (I get the framework but not the images), www.bbc.co.uk (I
get lots of vertical stripes; some BBC pages work fine though), bing
mapping, ... but for example ebay, Amazon, and some utilities sites I
pay bills on work fine ...



A couple possibilities. Firefox uses hardware acceleration. You
might see if disabling that, makes things work better. The other
option, described here, is an HTML5 rendering problem, with
browsers that have not-fully-mature HTML5 multimedia.

https://code.google.com/p/gmaps-api-...detail?id=7246

As you would expect, there is a hodge-podge of controls in the
browser ("about:config"), lots of experiments to do etc.

Paul