If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
micky wrote:
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:50:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53 -0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr' whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP support? Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or crashing. IME it's been doing that for years. I installed Session Manager, which doesn't stop this but gives more versatility on recovery. Although some of the options are somewhat confusing. Still, it got so bad that on my XP netbook with only 1gig RAM, I switched to Sea Monkey. It too gave not responding but only after twice as many tabs were open. On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM. With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong. 2.2 or 2.3 is about how high it gets before Not Responding, though sometimes I've had the problem at from 1.8 to tonight for the first time 2.8 gigs before it stops working, based on what Task Manager says. I don't have any more crashes at least. I also set a Firefox option to not load tabs until I open them. I forget how they phrase it. This means when restarting FF, only the one tab in each window that, I guess the one that was open when I last closed it. BUT if I go to a tab to see what it is so I can close it, if it was not loaded before** it loads when I go to it, so I've learned to right click on the tab adn then close it without ever loading it. A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked on another tab, because when I first clicked on them, they were always blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in DSL to re-download. It would be a good thing to do that if that freed up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and maybe that wasnt' true. Someone, perhaps in this NG, recommended Maxthon, which seems a promising alternative. It certainly seems to crash less often than Firefox. http://i.maxthon.com/ On a 32 bit OS, there is a limit to how much RAM a user-space application can use. And it's an "address space" issue, not a "RAM" issue as such. The executable needs both user-space addresses and kernel addresses. There is (on Windows) a normal 2GB/2GB address space split. A 32 bit process uses 32 bit addresses. After translation, if PAE was enabled, the output could be 36 bit as a physical address, but the address space limit still exists, and you have a 2GB window anywhere in a 64GB space, if PAE is turned on. The Microsoft "memory license" trims the PAE thing down to just 4GB of address space for their 32-bit OSes, rather than the 64GB value. PAE is used to hold certain attribute bits the OS needs (like NX), rather than being turned on so a 32 bit OS user can use gobs of RAM above 4GB. There is a /3GB switch for boot.ini or BCD. What this does, is change the address space split to 3GB/1GB. The kernel address range is limited. This can have some performance issues on an older OS. https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/...ystifying-3gb/ To use that, is tricky, in that the application itself has to have a flag set on the code module. The application must be "large_address_aware". I have my own little 12 line memory-filling program I wrote, and I've compiled that for "regular" 32 bit usage, "LAA" 32 bit usage, and 64 bit usage. gcc -o malloc.exe -Wl,--large-address-aware malloc.c That gives me an opportunity to test the limits on this page. https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/lib...(v=vs.85).aspx AFAIK, Photoshop is LAA, so if you used the /3GB switch, you could use more RAM on a 32-bit Windows OS. The limit may be 2GB of user-space addresses normally, but I typically see just 1.8GB before the application cannot request more RAM. (Because it would have no way to address it.) There are processes and threads. AFAIK, threads live inside a single process, so that should function as a "jail". Processes on the other hand, a program like Firefox can now run multiple processes. I presume this has an effect on "limits" for what Firefox can do or eat. While Firefox is running, it has some sort of pretty active garbage collector. I've watched in Task Manager, as a "sine wave" appears for RAM usage. As something in the browser bloats up, and is then deflated a half second later. If you were to ask the question "why can't Firefox use less RAM", it's trying, but it isn't working :-) And Firefox has its own internal telemetry (CEIP like) for reporting resource usage to the mothership. This is supposed to make Firefox developers aware of how the product performs at customer sites. Using about:memory can show you your own report if you like, but you typically won't learn anything from that. It would be like "reading the weather report for Antarctica". Paul |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 00:47:50 -0600, "Bill in Co"
wrote: pyotr filipivich wrote: Steve Hayes on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:50:04 +0200 typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following: On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53 -0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr' whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP support? Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or crashing. Someone, perhaps in this NG, recommended Maxthon, which seems a promising alternative. It certainly seems to crash less often than Firefox. http://i.maxthon.com/ I've been using PaleMoon - a Firefox "fork" Same here, you just need to get an older special build version for XP, as PaleMoon has also dropped support for XP. (Those versions are the "Atom/WinXP" versions). Yes, I looked at that, saw it, and gave PaleMoon a miss, but Maxthon seems to work fine on XP, and generally faster than Firefox. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:32:53 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Steve, Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or crashing. I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed ? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-) Where can I find it, and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages? -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
Steve,
Where can I find it, Have you already tried to google for it ? You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of firefox". Try it yourself. :-) and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages? By switching the updating off in the preferences of Firefox ? In my version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to "never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown into google again gives that answer as the first result. Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve them yourself, didn't you ...:-( Regards, Rudy Wieser "Steve Hayes" wrote in message ... On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:32:53 +0200, "R.Wieser" wrote: Steve, Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or crashing. I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed ? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-) Where can I find it, and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages? -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
Steve Hayes wrote:
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:32:53 +0200, "R.Wieser" wrote: Steve, Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or crashing. I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed ? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-) Where can I find it, and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages? Even if the GUI didn't have controls, there are other ways. https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1003777 about:config app.update.auto - false app.update.enabled - false app.update.silent - false user.js // turn off application updates: user_pref("app.update.enabled", false) Occasionally, Firefox has a setting which is *not* listed in about:config, but you can add an entry yourself. It's going to be pretty difficult to figure out what to add, unless you get lucky in a Google search. Even reading the source code, you might have a hard time finding the hidden gems. There's around 150000 files in there, and I computed it would take a lifetime to read all of them, even with an Evelyn Wood speed reading course :-) And if you think that's "awesome", Chromium by comparison has more than twice that many files. ******* You can scroll through this stuff, until you find the version you want. http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/ For example, if I wanted version 12... 15MB EXe file http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/fire...tup%2012.0.exe A more current one... 42MB EXE file http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/fire...p%2053.0.3.exe Paul |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53
-0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr' whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP support? Bill I should have added,somewhere in this thread that I am no longer getting in win10 or afaicr XP, "Script is stuck in loop" errors. This might be partly because I turned off flash and I have to approve its use every time a program really needs it, which is rarely. And I approve it only for one use, not repeated use by a high level domain (which I believe is what "Allow and Remember" does) But someone I asked poiuted out that there are script errors that don't involve flash, and I was getting some of those even after I took the step in the previous paragraph. So since I'm not getting those anymore, it must be that Firefox was improved. I haven't read their version notes to see if they claim to have solved this problem, but it's sure great not to have it. The only extensions I am using in win10 (and even fewer in XP. I can check if you want, but like I say, I think it's FF that has been improved.) are 5: Youtube video and audio downloader, which I don't think ever worked for me, but surely I never use it. Sqlite manager, which I think I used once, I forget why. Session manager, which I already mentioned, which is more versatile and powerful about restoring closed tabs and windows, but which isnt' perfect. One time I lost all my tabs and I have no idea how. Taking a global bookmark once in a while is a good idea, but bookmarks don't include previous or next urls for a tab, like Recently Closed Tabs does. So that's a reason I rarely run a string of urls in the same tab, and I'm more likely to open a new tab, so there will be a tab for each thing when I save a bookmark. Cntrl-shift-D saves all your tabs and all your windows in bookmarks, even though that's not listed in the dropdowns afaik. Reload Every, which was an attempt to get banks etc. from closing the window I was lokoing at, just because I don't do anything for a few minutes. It works but I don't think it's enough to outsmart some or all webistes. NoSquint Plus, added recently to let me enlarge one tab without affecting others. Not sure how or if it works yet. That's all in win10, nothing to prevent script errors and yet I don't have them. And I'm pretty sure I don't have them in XP. I don't know how long I would have to browse the web to know for sure? |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 03:46:54
-0500, VanguardLH wrote: micky wrote: On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM. 1 GB + 4 GB = 5 GB. Really? Bet what you did was /remove/ the 1 GB module and put in four 1 GB, two 2 GB, or one 4 GB module. This is my desktop. In the previuos snipped paragraph I said that my netbook had only 1 GB. With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong. "Windows XP" without any bitwidth qualifier means the 32-bit version, Yes, that's what I meant. not the 64-bit version based off Windows 2003 Server, crippled to XP functionality, and with the XP desktop. With Windows XP 32-bit, you only get 3 GB for user-mode processes. However, that's for ALL user-mode processes. Any particular 32-bit user-mode process can only access a maximum of 2 GB: 2^(32-1). The OS sucks up the other 1 GB. The OS is 64-bit, but I had trouble with the 64-bit version of FF so I'm using 32-bit there. Right now, Task Manager says I'm using 82% of the 8 GB, and FF is using 2.45 GB. I've read what you say about the maximum being 2 GB, but Task Manager says it's more. ?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier http://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/T...it-really-mean A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked on another tab, Why? "Because" started the next sentence. All that downloading to put the page in the cache and then just toss it away? I don't know the internals, but maybe the page was put on the HDD. because when I first clicked on them, they were always blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in DSL to re-download. But not too little time to copy from the HDD. It would be a good thing to do that if that freed up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and maybe that wasnt' true. There are add-ons to unload tabs, like OneTab. There was another one but been too long since I last looked at it. I'll look into OneTab. It might help. Even if it slows things down, if it prevents freezing that's a net gain in time. Thanks. Doesn't Session Manager have that (session save state)? Since you're using it, you're confusing its functions that it adds that Firefox doesn't. I don't think I'm confusing anything. I gave a short synopsis of thjat part of Session Manager that seemed relevant here. Since Session Manager claims to duplicate the session manager in Tab Mix Plus, I'm guess Tab Mix Plus also has a session manager. Yes, I think so. The author mentions Tab Mix Plus (I think it was) and there is an option to convert from TabMixPlus. But what I read 3 or 4 years ago was that SM was better. |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 05:10:45
-0400, Paul wrote: While Firefox is running, it has some sort of pretty active garbage collector. I've watched in Task Manager, as a "sine wave" appears for RAM usage. As something in the browser bloats up, Sounds interesting. I'll try to do that. and is then deflated a half second later. If you were to ask the question "why can't Firefox use less RAM", it's trying, Well at least it's trying. That's all I asked of my 12-year old nephew. but it isn't working :-) And Firefox has its own internal telemetry (CEIP like) for reporting resource usage to the mothership. This is supposed to make Firefox developers aware of how the product performs at customer sites. Using about:memory can show you your own report if you like, but you typically won't learn anything from that. It would be like "reading the weather report for Antarctica". As is often the case, it will take me a while to digest the rest of your post. |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
micky wrote:
VanguardLH wrote: micky wrote: With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong. "Windows XP" without any bitwidth qualifier means the 32-bit version, Yes, that's what I meant. The OS is 64-bit, but I had trouble with the 64-bit version of FF so I'm using 32-bit there. You are posting in a Windows XP newsgroup. When queried for bitwidth, you said you were using Windows XP 32-bit. Now you say you are using the 64-bit version of Windows XP. Which is it? You first mentioned your laptop and then your desktop. Is the laptop running 32-bit WinXP and the desktop running 64-bit WinXP? 64-bit WinXP has always been more flaky as it is a frankenjob OS. 32-bit applications that run on 32-bit WinXP fail on 64-bit WinXP. 64-bit applications that run on 64-bit Windows 2003 Server fail on 64-bit WinXP. 64-bit WinXP was Microsoft trying to catch up but late on providing a 64-bit platform and did so poorly. The 2 GB max user-mode memory space per process and 3 GB memory for all user-mode processes is a limitation of the 32-bit version of Windows XP (or any 32-bit version of Windows). A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked on another tab, Why? "Because" started the next sentence. You were describing an effect, not the cause. Firefox isn't unloading the tabs. More likely the add-on(s) you installed are doing that unless the real problem is a very slow drive or something slowing down access to the web cache. Have you tried rebooting Windows into its safe mode (with networking) and load Firefox in its safe mode to retest if the momentary delay on refocusing on a tab still results in a lag in repainting the page? This won't resolve hardware issues but will eliminate startup programs and addons from causing the problem. I don't know the internals, but maybe the page was put on the HDD. If that's the storage medium in your computer then that is where the web cache is stored. Go to about:cache to see Firefox's cache statistics. If there are cached entries, you'll see a link to list them. If you don't want Firefox to purge its local data (cookies, web cache, DOM storage, etc) upon its exit so all that data lingers around until your next Firefox session, you can use an add-on to let you determine if and when to purge Firefox's local data during a Firefox session. I do not have Firefox retain any local data after a web session. I have Firefox purge ALL of its local data upon exit. It would be a good thing to do that if that freed up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and maybe that wasnt' true. There are add-ons to unload tabs, like OneTab. There was another one but been too long since I last looked at it. I'll look into OneTab. It might help. Even if it slows things down, if it prevents freezing that's a net gain in time. Thanks. My recollection of OneTab is that you had to select a tab to unload. You clicked on its toolbar icon to unload tabs and provide a list to let you reload them. It's also a legacy extension which means it won't survive with FF57; however, you're on Windows XP which means the latest you can use there is FF52ESR. I've never used Session Manager (also a legacy extension) to know if it has an auto-unload feature for tabs. It certainly has a tons of features. Tab Suspender says it will automatically unload inactive tabs. Obviously an unloaded tab will take time to reload; however, some of the web page will be in the web cache and not have to get re-retrieved. There are several tab auto-unload extensions. I've never used any of them. An unloaded tab (if YOU choose to unload them) will take time to re-retrieve the page again from the server when you focus on the unloaded tab. A cached web page should be nearly instantly repainted when you refocus on an unloaded tab and a still-loaded tab should already still be painted so there is no lag to show that tab. That there is a lag to show the web page (whether to re-retrieve from server or reread the web cache) means something unloaded the tab. With tons of tabs open, could be that Firefox is unloading the oldest tabs to conserve on memory (not disk space for the web cache). It only has so much system RAM it gets to use. Some tweaks you can try: - In about:config, set network.prefetch-next = False. When Firefox loads a page, it also goes out to all the linked resources in a web page to shove them into its web cache. All that downloading takes bandwidth (and more than you intended when selecting a specific web page to visit) which means more time. The downloading is in the background so you're supposed to not see it but you are loading LOTS of tabs and each of those pages could be pre-fetching content. It also defeats ad and tracking blockers by retrieving a resource that you would've blocked if it had been retrieved by the current document (web page). Pre-fetching resources means you touched those resources which can then track from where you came. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_p...and_criticisms - Every tab has its own history. When you use the same tab to visit other pages or sites, like clicking on hyperlinks or using the address bar, a history is maintained during the life of that tab. That's why you can click on the Back button to look at history for a tab. The default history for a tab is 50 entries. Do you really need to revisit something that far back? If so then why are you opening so many tabs? More history is a load on Firefox to maintain per tab. In about:config, set browser.sessionHistory.max_entries to 10 (instead of the default of 50) to reduce load on Firefox for history. - What is the value for the browser.cache.memory.enable setting? See http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.enable. True makes Firefox reload pages faster. - While Mozilla added a new HTTP cache (aka cache2) that is supposed to be faster and more streamlined (seems mostly the latter as it helps halts in Firefox but doesn't seem to do much for increasing speed), they decided for some reason to disable it by default. Go into about:config and check the browser.cache.use_new_backend setting. Mine is 0 (disabled). Change to 1 to enable. This was introduced back around 2014. I don't know why it is not enabled by default. Seems an overly long time to still be considered an experiment. NOTE: I went into about:cache and the disk cache location is the cache2 folder. My guess Mozilla went full ahead on their new cache it is ignored. - Make sure the Flash plug-in is configured for "Ask to Activate" to NOT start playing streamed Flash content in a web page until YOU allow it. You don't need to be loading tons of tabs, especially in the background where you won't see them, to have Flash playing in many of them. Or just disable the Flash plug-in (improve security, make sites use HTML5 video if they have both content types). - If you don't even want HTML5 video to start playing and consume bandwidth for a tab opened in the background, go into about:config and change media.autoplay.enabled to False. However, some sites won't let you manually start playing their video as they provide no user controls in the UI for their player. Don't remember the domain but users complained about some movie site not letting them manually start playing the movie videos there. For those sites that provide no user controls (buttons for Play, Pause, etc), sometimes you can right-click on the video to select Play. Even when there is a Play button shown, sometimes it requires clicking it twice. If you want to disable auto-play for HTML5 video only for background tabs (i.e., you configured Firefox to open new tabs in the background), set media.block-play-until-visible to True (unnecessary if already media.autoplay.enabled is False). - Check if Electrolysis (e10s) is enabled. This is the new multi-process scheme for Firefox. Go to about:support and search on "multiprocess". If it is "1/1" then it is enabled. If it is "0/1" then you have an add-on that interferes with the use of e10s. I replaced all my legacy add-ons with WE (WebExtension) version, except for uMatrix that I'm still waiting for its WE release (its beta version is unuable due to uncontrollable scrolling of its table); however, even with legacy uMatrix I'm getting "1/1". You should also see in Options - General tab a new Performance section where the number of content processes can be specified. Mozilla is starting with 1 (although it may differ depending on your hardware). Going higher means more memory consumption by Firefox. Mine is at 1. I've read where some folks have changed it to 4. For some info, see: https://www.ghacks.net/2017/05/27/fi...ent-processes/, https://www.ghacks.net/2016/02/15/ch...-firefox-uses/. You have to disable the "Use recommended" option to see the separate options for hardware/GPU acceleration and content process limit. Mozilla recommends changing from the recommended default only if you have more than 8 GB of system RAM. My desktop is 8 GB. I'll try it at 4 for awhile to see if I notice any performance gain. If not, back to 1. Changing this value requires a restart of Firefox. More content processes means more memory consumption, something you already noted having a problem. - I usually exit Firefox when I'm not using it. Some folks want to leave it running it all the time; i.e., the Web is their primary use of their computer. When Firefox is left running but you minimize it (to do something else, God forbid), it does not reliniquish any of its resources, like GUI objects. That means it uses as much memory whether its window is display or when hidden (and all you have is the taskbar button). To reduce memory consumption when you hide its window, create a new Boolean variable named config.trim_on_minimize and set to True. See: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize. Since I don't leave Firefox running when I'm not using it, this setting is inapplicable to me. - How big is the web cache (Options - Advanced - Network - Cached Web Content)? The idea is to locally cache the web pages so they can get reloaded quicker than having to re-retrieve them from the server. For me, I purge everything on exit from Firefox so I don't need a huge web cache. I configured it to 500MB maximum. I would've set it to zero since I have an always-on high-speed broadband connection but some web cache is okay per Firefox session. The bigger the web cache to more time to maintain it. There is also the problem of having to check if the page has been modified since the content was stored in the web cache, and not all pages provide a Modified datestamp or it is never updated which results in re-downloading the page anyway. Then there is all that head seeking on the hard disk. If you have an SSD, a web cache means more wear that shortens its life. For a fast Internet connection and since I changed to an SSD for the OS partition, I'll go back to disabling the web cache (set the override from 500MB to zero) which also means less time to do the purge on exit. I actually prefer the web browser retrieve a web page anew instead of having to piece together what is current versus what is old to then now what has to be retrieved that is changed. I get a new web page upon visit. I still have to allow DOM Storage (aka Offline Website Data) because I've hit too many sites that require it for their page to be functional but it does get purged on Firefox's exit. - Go to about:memory and click on "Minimize memory usage". That is only a very temporary solution. If there's nothing available to free then there won't be any reduction. - Is hardware (GPU) acceleration enabled in Firefox? It can speed up Firefox but only at web sites that use graphical rendering (e.g., online 3D games). It can cause Firefox to crash because either the hardware (GPU's firmware) or especially the video driver won't support it. You could enable it to see if you get faster page rendering in Firefox. You could disable it to see if those Firefox crashes go away. |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
micky wrote:
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53 -0400, "Bill Cunningham" wrote: I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr' whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP support? Bill I should have added,somewhere in this thread that I am no longer getting in win10 or afaicr XP, "Script is stuck in loop" errors. The possibilities: 1) Script is stuck in loop. CPU goes to 100% on one core. Firefox detects a lack of response to user input, as there must be an issue with the script. Scripts will always get stuck in loops. They're "computer programs" and it's dead-easy to write "1: GOTO 1" in any language. 2) The only way to stop that, is have a scheduler inside the browser, and reduce the priority (number of ticks) that the errant script gets. This isn't always a fix, since one script may control a second script, that actually displays content. If the first script is stuck, fiddling the priority does not correct the "stupid programming" in the first script. For example, if a Google script doesn't get what it wants (store a EverCookie), then it could loop like that on purpose. Changing the priority so the rest of the browser remains responsive, is merely a "bandaid on stoopid". Letting Javascript into a computer, is like letting malware into a computer. It can be well coded, poorly coded, or whatever. While we hope Javascript is a "box" that prevents stuff from escaping, the history of computing to date, shows no such "box" really works. Software can detect it is in a VM. Software can escape from a VM. Functionality has always won out over security - that's why the browser has 30 different ways to store cookies. Obviously, somebody wanted a cookie on your browser, and was willing to pay someone to put it there. Only the "official" cookie, has an easy means of cleaning ("delete history" thing). DOM storage does not. Why did they invent DOM storage ? Why did we need DOM storage ? "OMG Cookies!!!" :-) Paul |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
Steve Hayes on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:21:19 +0200
typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following: http://i.maxthon.com/ I've been using PaleMoon - a Firefox "fork" Same here, you just need to get an older special build version for XP, as PaleMoon has also dropped support for XP. (Those versions are the "Atom/WinXP" versions). Yes, I looked at that, saw it, and gave PaleMoon a miss, but Maxthon seems to work fine on XP, and generally faster than Firefox. Hmmm - may have tot take a look at it. I like palemoon cause it is close to what I'd gotten used to. Transfer of bookmarks is the deal killer for me. -- pyotr filipivich Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing? |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:57:51 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Steve, Where can I find it, Have you already tried to google for it ? You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of firefox". Try it yourself. :-) and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages? By switching the updating off in the preferences of Firefox ? In my version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to "never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown into google again gives that answer as the first result. Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve them yourself, didn't you ...:-( Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have been there, done that? Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for? -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
Steve,
Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have been there, done that? You did not need to, it was all readily available on the web. Seven words, and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you needed. You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to present everything to you on a silver platter. :-( Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for? Nope. For stuff like this we are here for *after* you have put your own effort into finding a solution yourself, not before. Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: "Steve Hayes" wrote in message ... On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:57:51 +0200, "R.Wieser" wrote: Steve, Where can I find it, Have you already tried to google for it ? You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of firefox". Try it yourself. :-) and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages? By switching the updating off in the preferences of Firefox ? In my version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to "never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown into google again gives that answer as the first result. Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve them yourself, didn't you ...:-( Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have been there, done that? Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for? -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:37:39 +0200, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Steve, Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have been there, done that? You did not need to, it was all readily available on the web. Seven words, and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you needed. You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to present everything to you on a silver platter. :-( Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for? Nope. For stuff like this we are here for *after* you have put your own effort into finding a solution yourself, not before. Regards, Rudy Wieser Go and troll somewhere else. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
firefox
Steve,
Go and troll somewhere else. :-D Lazy and expecting others to do all the work, and forcefully rejecting being told so. How old are you, 12 ? Kiddo, does your mother still allow you to ask where the plates and cutlery are, even though you know very well they are placed in the confines of the kitchen ? Cause thats how you're behaving. Knowing how and where to get stuff, but still expecting others to fetch it for you. And a bit of a warning: this attitude gets old very quickly. Just as you mother got wise to it and told you to move your own ass, the people who you now use will start to simply ignore you because of it (I know I will). And than comes the day you *really* need help, and noone responds anymore .... Regards, Rudy Wieser -- Origional message: "Steve Hayes" wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:37:39 +0200, "R.Wieser" wrote: Steve, Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have been there, done that? You did not need to, it was all readily available on the web. Seven words, and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you needed. You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to present everything to you on a silver platter. :-( Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for? Nope. For stuff like this we are here for *after* you have put your own effort into finding a solution yourself, not before. Regards, Rudy Wieser Go and troll somewhere else. -- Steve Hayes http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm http://khanya.wordpress.com |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|