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
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
OG wrote:
Oh crapola. I did try the Firefox newsgroup but it failed to post ! I warned you (in my response to Ross). That's why I posted here. No one could know from your starter post that you first attempted to query the Firefox (FF) newsgroup before coming here hence the suggestion to go there. Read my post for those who did not! If I restart Firefox, how do I get to the download folder ???? If YOU cannot remember where YOU chose to store a downloaded file then start using a default folder specified in the web browser. That way, you'll know where is the downloaded folder because it'll be in the same default folder. If you can't remember where you decided to store a previously downloaded file then configure Firefox (FF) to default to the same location. You can even define what is that default location, so you should be able to remember that one (when using Windows Explorer to go there instead of loading FF to then open the folder). You could even create a shortcut to that default folder on your desktop, in a toolbar in the taskbar, in the Start menu, or wherever you like. That way, you don't even have to load FF to find your previously downloaded files. Now to make matters worse, on another Win XP laptop, if I download something the Menu Downloads give me a blank screen. But it did download because Everything finds it (knowing the name of the download or keeping Everything active and sorted on Date while I do downloads.) You are looking at the *history* of your downloads. FF is not a file manager. It is not opening a Windows Explorer instance. Yes, renaming "Downloads" to Download History" would be more accurate. FF is showing you a history of what you previously downloaded. That history is independent of what is actually residing *now* in the folder within the file system. I have a history of my car repairs one of which was to replace the battery. That has happened twice. The battery that is my car now is not the one recorded in my history for the first battery change. Perhaps on that different computer you configured FF differently, like having it purge its local data upon its exit. I don't use FF 52 ESR. Since I am using Windows 7 -- one of the newsgroups to which you decided to CROSS-post with no hint in your starting post about which OS you really use -- one of the cleanup options in FF 61 is to delete the "Browsing and Download History". Well, if you purge that data on exiting FF then it won't be there the next time you load FF. I suspect that same cleanup option is available back in FF 52 ESR. Latest Firefox ESR is the Win XP compatible version supposedly. Latest download means I just downloaded Firefox ESR and installed it. What else can it mean? Geez, how about SAYING you are using FF 52 ESR. That's more detailed than saying "last version" for an OS version that you NEVER IDENTIFIED in your original post. You CROSS-posted to multiple Windows version newsgroups, so how the hell could anyone tell if you meant to ask about using FF on Windows XP or Windows 7, huh? Mozilla stopped support FF on Windows XP, so the "last version" available on that OS is Firefox 52 ESR. Mozilla still supports FF on Windows 7, so the "last version" available on that OS is FF 61. "last version" could be 52 or 61. "last version" does not say WHICH version. You never mentioned your target OS in your starter post! You cross-posted to multiple newsgroups dealing with different versions of Windows. Don't expect others to know what you don't tell them. How about *you* read your own starter post while noting to WHERE *you* chose to CROSS-post. |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
Mayayana wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote | I think 52.9 is the latest and final release for Win XP. | Yes. And 60 is the last ESR, but not supported on XP. However, OG can't be bothered to formulate his question or understand what's going on. He's one of those people who just screams, "Ahg! What's wrong!", and expects someone to solve his problem for him. I'm guessing what's wrong is that he neglected to lift the toilet seat first. PEBBAT (problem is between brains, er, butt and toilet) instead of PEBCAK (problem is between chair and keyboard). |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
In message , VanguardLH
writes: Mayayana wrote: "Bill in Co" wrote | I think 52.9 is the latest and final release for Win XP. | Yes. And 60 is the last ESR, but not supported on XP. However, OG can't be bothered to formulate his question or understand what's going on. He's one of those people who just screams, "Ahg! What's wrong!", and expects someone to solve his problem for him. I'm guessing what's wrong is that he neglected to lift the toilet seat first. PEBBAT (problem is between brains, er, butt and toilet) instead of PEBCAK (problem is between chair and keyboard). g/is/exists/g -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf "quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur". ("Anything is more impressive if you say it in Latin") |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
Mayayana wrote:
"Bill in Co" wrote I think 52.9 is the latest and final release for Win XP. Yes. And 60 is the last ESR, but not supported on XP. However, OG can't be bothered to formulate his question or understand what's going on. He's one of those people who just screams, "Ahg! What's wrong!", and expects someone to solve his problem for him. I'm guessing what's wrong is that he neglected to lift the toilet seat first. I had to go to ver 52.x for the same reason I think it was Rudy mentioned: Some sites aren't working out too well with the older versions. But at least you can use the Classic Theme Restorer add-on, if you want. When it gets to the point that even that doesn't work on some sites, we here still using Windows XP,, I expect, are going to have some big problems, unless we resort to using Chrome, and even that may become problematic in the future. Then what... (IE8 in Win XP is essentially useless now on most sites) I found an inexpensive Win 7 laptop on eBay, and I'm still trying to "adjust" to using Windows 7 in the same way (with all its virtual folders and libraries, "revamped" Start Menu, "revamped" Control Panel, and other stuff getting in the way). :-) But at least there is the free Windows 7 Classic Shell program you can install to greatly help out with the "transition", in case anybody is interested. As for trying to understand what the OP was asking, I gave up. :-) |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
In message , VanguardLH writes: Mayayana wrote: "Bill in Co" wrote | I think 52.9 is the latest and final release for Win XP. | Yes. And 60 is the last ESR, but not supported on XP. However, OG can't be bothered to formulate his question or understand what's going on. He's one of those people who just screams, "Ahg! What's wrong!", and expects someone to solve his problem for him. I'm guessing what's wrong is that he neglected to lift the toilet seat first. PEBBAT (problem is between brains, er, butt and toilet) instead of PEBCAK (problem is between chair and keyboard). g/is/exists/g Oops. Where's my coffee? |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
"Bill in Co" wrote
| I had to go to ver 52.x for the same reason I think it was Rudy mentioned: | Some sites aren't working out too well with the older versions. But at | least you can use the Classic Theme Restorer add-on, if you want. When it | gets to the point that even that doesn't work on some sites, we here still | using Windows XP,, I expect, are going to have some big problems, unless we | resort to using Chrome, and even that may become problematic in the future. | Then what... (IE8 in Win XP is essentially useless now on most sites) | You might also try using a Windows 7 userAgent in your browser. That will at least stop any spiteful wiseguys who think XP doesn't deserve to be online. I find things work fine if I enable all the crap, but it's getting hard to disable javascript on many sites. Big commercial pages are becoming medium size software programs, with 1-2 MB of heavily obfuscated javascript code and dozens of downloaded files. The bloat is multiplying at a frantic rate. More and more of the actual webpage is now embedded in code. It used to be that javascript was needed for dynamic actions, but these days it's common for the actual text of a webpage, along with the HMTL, to be converted to nonsense and then buried in javascript. On the bright side, I see nearly all pages load instantly and without irritation like popups or blocking functionality. But some sites are being very aggressive about it. I was even reading a blog on Wordpress the other day that showed as a blank page unless I disabled CSS. It used to be that web designers who knew what they were doing were expected to get their pages to show the same way in any browser. Now it's becoming the other way around: "If your browser doesn't support the latest whiz-bang and you don't let us spy on you while controlling how you access our webpage, then we don't want you!" The day may be approaching when I mainly go online only for official things, like local gov't websites. As it is now, I don't shop or bank online, anyway. On the other hand, there are so many great sites out there that work just fine. Wikipedia is fine. And I have a favorite site for looking up plants: discoverlife.org. It's an amazingly extensive website that works beautifully, with no script or even cookies required. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
R.Wieser wrote on 11/08/2018 11:24 PM:
Daniel60, if you're willing to wait a bit whilst your post get moderated, it should, eventually, appear. I have monoitored the involved newsgroups for a few weeks after posting, but never saw my post appear. For the others I either saw no other posts appear (dead groups), or no response to it. The moderator of the mozilla.support.* groups maintains that those groups are *ONLY* for posting problems with those products and/or solutions for those problems, *NOT* for general discussions, even general discussions of Firefox. I check out the mozilla.dev.apps.seamonkey newsgroup. I was not aware that FF was part of the seamonkey a suite. So thanks for the suggestion. Did you also note my suggestion about a mozilla.dev.apps.firefox newsgroup?? *THAT* is where you should be trying to post your suggestions. As David has mentioned, Firefox and SeaMonkey have diverged a bit!! And, FYI, Firefox is not part of SeaMonkey. Back, at about the year 2000, there was the Mozilla Suite. Developers thought it would be better to adopt a MSIE/Outlook situation, i.e. separate Browser and Email Agent, so Firefox and Thunderbird developed out of Mozilla Suite. Some, however, thought a Suite was better, so Mozilla Suite development continued in SeaMonkey Internet Suite. Firefox has deviated from SeaMonkey Browser! Another possibility could be irc://moznet/firefox on the irc://irc.mozilla.org/ irc server. Maybe some Firefox Devs hang out there. I'll keep that in mind a a last resort (do not like IRC much). Regards, Rudy Wiese -- Daniel |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
Daniel60,
The moderator of the mozilla.support.* groups maintains that ... Too bad that that isn't made clear in those newsgroups themselves. Did you also note my suggestion about a mozilla.dev.apps.firefox newsgroup?? No such newsgroup exists. Therse is exactly *one* newsgroup with "firefox" in its name, and it is aimed at people using the product, not at any kind of programmer. In other words, its of no use to me. Firefox has deviated from SeaMonkey Browser! Lets hope they are enough of the same that the devs could give me a bit of a pointer. Heck, even knowing how SeaMonkey deals with it is more than I currently have. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
On 08/11/2018 02:06 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
Mark Lloyd wrote: On 08/11/2018 11:55 AM, OG wrote: [snip] Latest Firefox ESR is the Win XP compatible version supposedly. Latest download means I just downloaded Firefox ESR and installed it. What else can it mean? AFAIK, the latest ESR is 60, released at the same time as 52.8. OG wrote: Why is there no way to open the last download folder after a firefox My FF has one. "Tools downloads", right click, 'open containing folder'. You could also open the folder yourself. I think 52.9 is the latest and final release for Win XP. It is. From what I've seen there will be a 2-minor-version overlap in ESR versions, so 60ESR comes out at the same time as 52.9ESR. 60ESR works fine on Windows 7, and this is a Win 7 group. BTW, If Mozilla decided too change the rules, and make a 52.10, that should be published at the same time as 62. BTW2, I do have a XP installation, for several reasons, including checking on the latest versions of browsers that run in XP (so I can put this information on my webpage). It's also a way to run older MSIE. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "[Belief in] the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficuent imagination, a derelection of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulty and wonders of the real." |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Latest Firefox ESR
On 08/11/2018 02:32 PM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] I'm guessing what's wrong is that he neglected to lift the toilet seat first. So it's not just women with that problem :-) |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
On 08/11/2018 02:32 PM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] I'm guessing what's wrong is that he neglected to lift the toilet seat first. I never understood that problem. It seems a lot easier to LOOK where you're sitting than to try to manipulate others, and blame them for your problem. That reminds me of another situation, when I lived in Ft. Worth. I was waiting for a bus one day, when it had rained the night before. For some reason bus stop benches usually have a slightly concave surface, which had collected water. I was sitting on the dry end. I man came over and sat down. Somehow he blamed me for his wet butt. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "[Belief in] the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficient imagination, a dereliction of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulty and wonders of the real." |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
On 08/11/2018 04:30 PM, Bill in Co wrote:
[snip] I had to go to ver 52.x for the same reason I think it was Rudy mentioned: Some sites aren't working out too well with the older versions. But at least you can use the Classic Theme Restorer add-on, if you want. When it gets to the point that even that doesn't work on some sites, we here still using Windows XP,, I expect, are going to have some big problems, unless we resort to using Chrome, and even that may become problematic in the future. There's Linux. A free OS that won't run MSIE, but it does run the latest Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. Then what... (IE8 in Win XP is essentially useless now on most sites) Yes. IE8 is definitely an old browser. The normal Javascript on my webpage works in nearly all browsers: Firefox down to .7, Opera down to 7, etc.. It won't work on IE below 9. I have to use a limited version for IE5-8. M$ left out some important stuff. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "[Belief in] the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficuent imagination, a derelection of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulty and wonders of the real." |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
On 08/11/2018 05:23 PM, Mayayana wrote:
[snip] You might also try using a Windows 7 userAgent in your browser. That will at least stop any spiteful wiseguys who think XP doesn't deserve to be online. Somebody could be doing that, although I would be going by browser, not OS version. I find things work fine if I enable all the crap, but it's getting hard to disable javascript on many sites. I make my personal website to be usable without JS, although I know that's very different from junky commercial sites. Big commercial pages are becoming medium size software programs, with 1-2 MB of heavily obfuscated javascript code and dozens of downloaded files. The bloat is multiplying at a frantic rate. More and more of the actual webpage is now embedded in code. It used to be that javascript was needed for dynamic actions, but these days it's common for the actual text of a webpage, along with the HMTL, to be converted to nonsense and then buried in javascript. On the bright side, I see nearly all pages load instantly and without irritation like popups or blocking functionality. But some sites are being very aggressive about it. I was even reading a blog on Wordpress the other day that showed as a blank page unless I disabled CSS. There's been several times when I wanted to read something, and it would let me read a couple of seconds before a "disable your adblocker" popup got in the way. So far, it's been easier and better to disable Javascript instead. I'm talking about pages that are mostly text, after you disable the junky-looking ads. It used to be that web designers who knew what they were doing were expected to get their pages to show the same way in any browser. Now it's becoming the other way around: "If your browser doesn't support the latest whiz-bang and you don't let us spy on you while controlling how you access our webpage, then we don't want you!" On pages that don't display right (often blank or messy text), I usually find the problem to be some security/privacy setting or addon, compined with one of these badly written code. In one case, I had to disable "Tracking Protection" in order to see a "text only" page. The day may be approaching when I mainly go online only for official things, like local gov't websites. As it is now, I don't shop or bank online, anyway. On the other hand, there are so many great sites out there that work just fine. Wikipedia is fine. And I have a favorite site for looking up plants: discoverlife.org. It's an amazingly extensive website that works beautifully, with no script or even cookies required. -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "[Belief in] the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficuent imagination, a derelection of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulty and wonders of the real." |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
On 08/11/2018 03:26 PM, R.Wieser wrote:
[snip] Newsflash: We here are *humans*. We do *not* posess any mind-reading capabilities. If you have a problem and want us to provide a solution you need to provide as much relevant info in with it as possible. Expecting us to just grab the info from your mind will NOT work. There is an old saying: at least 50% of (the quality of) the answer is directly dependant on (the quality of)the question (bad questions get bad answers). I first got a home computer in 1982. Soon after, people started asking me for help. I got a lot of vague problem statements. One was "it doesn't print". The user would refuse to give any more information. IIRC, later, I found that the user had tried once, using one particular (unstated) program and never thought to try anything else (not even the printer's self test). Also I never learned what model printer. [snip] -- Mark Lloyd http://notstupid.us/ "[Belief in] the supernatural was the recourse of an insufficuent imagination, a derelection of duty, a childish evasion of the difficulty and wonders of the real." |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
Latest Firefox ESR
"Mark Lloyd" wrote
| On pages that don't display right (often blank or messy text), I usually | find the problem to be some security/privacy setting or addon, compined | with one of these badly written code. I'm talking about two kinds of very specific blocks. One is to embed the actual content in javascript. The other is to do something like cover the page with a big gray block,then remove it on load using script. I've seen the actual code for these things. Putting a block on top of at least part of the page has become very common. Here's one of the former I got in an email recently: https://express.google.com/product/8...1271_118724597 I'd never heard of "Google Express". Apparently it's a shopping site. I see only white at that link. Looking at the source code I see that even the text on the page has been embedded in script. And much of that has been obfuscated by converting to Base64 or converting individual characters to numeric values. I was able to fish out just enough text for me to be able to figure out what the page was about and find a functional equivalent. Interestingly, the Google page seemed to be only a hijacking of this page, to get Googlite suckers to buy through Google: https://www.overstock.com/Baby/Safet...9/product.html The latter problem can be very complicated. Often it's one or more items set to display: none;. Or conversely, it's something like a big rectangle with a high z-order that covers the content. Those tricks are recognizable by the fact that View - Page Style - No Style makes them go away. But both tricks are meant to make the page break with javascript disabled. I've never actually seen a message to disable my ad blocker because I don't allow script. I've also never used an ad blocker. I just use a HOSTS file and haven't seen ads for ages. Though for most daily browsing I also block 3rd-party images. If there were any honest ads that were actually on the pages I'm visiting, I'd see them. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|