Next version of Windows is...

On 10/10/2014 9:34 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/10/14 5:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

(big chops this time)

To some extent that is correct, but using percentages also has its
"gotchas", especially when trying to make a site functional between
phone-sized and wall-sized screens.

I remember, in the HTML 4 class, there was a mention of a tag
"mobile", meaning the page would detect a phone or similar, and to
display a different version of the web page.

This is a style sheet command for assigning different style options to
better accommodate mobile devices. It is essentially still a
device-specific process, as you must create those style components.
HTML4 predates the iPhone, it was aimed at text-based phones and early
tablets so it has limited use today.

If you kept the design as simple as possible, is it that much more
work to maintain it? No bad design issues, no whiz-bang eye candy,
etc.

If it's a text-only site, it's not all that much extra work. But, how
often do you see a text-only site? Most businesses don't want to even
consider that option, but they also don't want to pay the significant
cost of making their on-line presence compatible with the variety of
devices and screen sizes that exist today.

snip

MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it
doesn't
surprise me in the least that they try to make the information
relevant to
the system accessing their page.

Didn't it ever occur to them that just because they are accessing the
knowledge base with some other computer to fix their Windows
computer? An omission at the best, rather arrogant at the worst.

There are work-arounds, but it's incumbent on the user to know them.
Most folks capable of fixing a Windows computer can find them.
Meanwhile, if sitting in a board room discussion on which way to go, I
can easily imagine MS deciding that they'll serve more users better by
restricting the content to things directly relevant to the system that
accesses the site. There is a *lot* of info in the Knowledge Base, and
most of it is version-specific. To the point at hand, HTML issues have
nothing to do with MS beyond users of IE, and that will also be
version-specific.

(another big whack...)

Yes, it is much worse for Linux, which is something that Linux
trolls are in complete denial about.

G Yep. You may be watching my discussion with a Linux fan about
indirect funding of open source products. He/she doesn't seem to be
able to grasp the indirect concept. There is no free lunch.

snip

It's when
you want to mix and match you have problems. But then those problems
exist for Windows too. I've a broke friend who would like to do just
simple, plain, basic scanning on her Windows 7 laptop. I've got 3
perfectly good scanners sitting on a shelf. None of them have a
Win 7 driver.

That makes them not-so-perfectly good...

Nah, they're still perfectly good. They just don't fit, like that
alternator from the '95 Ford that doesn't fit the 2010 Ford.

Point(s) taken.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/10/2014 11:30 AM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:15:58 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

Roderick Stewart wrote:
As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with
regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your
local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was.
However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the
existence of a router.

While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example,
wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without
providing any additional ethernet connections.

I have Uverse and the 'modem' they gave me has a built-in router, access
point, and switch. In addition, each set top box has an Ethernet connection
that can be used to connect one (or more, with a switch) additional
device(s).

OK... however, two friends of mine got Uverse recently, and theirs have
none of that. So, perhaps it's an option? Point being that it is
possible to have WiFi without built-in ethernet capabilities, and in
such cases the "personal cloud" drives can be an attractive option,
since to install them, one just has to place the drive near the WiFi
service and press the WPS buttons. ;-)
--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/10/2014 7:34 AM, Roderick Stewart wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 06:15:58 -0500, "Neil Gould"
wrote:

As you say, connection to the internet is not really an issue with
regard to the method of connecting any local network drives to your
local network. I never meant to give the impression that it was.
However, the existence of a local wireless network implies the
existence of a router.

While that used to be the case, it is becoming less so. For example,
wireless offerings such as AT&T "UVerse" are expanding home wifi use without
providing any additional ethernet connections. Printers and other
peripherals are also wifi enabled, so they don't need an ethernet port.

They still need a network presence, whether by ethernet or wireless,
so *something* needs to award them local IP addresses and route the
traffic. If not a router, what will do this?

The real answer is "it depends", but in the strictest sense it *is* the
"router" doing this work, but the "router" may just be the modem and it
may not have ethernet ports. Most can be configured to provide the local
IP addresses to devices that "log in" to it.

It
takes a savvy user to add that functionality to add a router to those
systems and manage the connections, while all it takes to connect a
"personal cloud" drive is to place it near the wifi box and press a button.

I'm surprised to learn that there are a significant number of computer
networks where you'd need to add a router. In most cases I'd expect
there to be one already there. Who these days has a computing device
of any sort at home without an internet connection?

I understand that most users would install WiFi to access the internet,
but they really are two separate things. For example, I have 3 different
WiFi setups, and one of them is an intranet that *can't* access the
internet.

The speed of access is determined by the wifi, not the drive, so unless you
have an ethernet connector on your tablet or phone, it will be the same
whether using a "personal cloud" drive or an HD connected to a router.

Quite so, but if the drive is connected to a router by wireless, there
will be two wireless links between it and any wireless smartdevice,
rather then one if it's feasible to connect the drive by cable. This
can have an effect on performance.

The drive, printer, etc. simply appears as a device on the network and
the communication is at the speed of the WiFi. The speed doesn't improve
for a drive connected via ethernet cable but accessed via WiFi.
--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/10/14 10:37 AM, Neil wrote:
On 10/10/2014 9:34 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/10/14 5:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

More snipping. LOL

MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it
doesn't
surprise me in the least that they try to make the information
relevant to
the system accessing their page.

Didn't it ever occur to them that just because they are accessing the
knowledge base with some other computer to fix their Windows
computer? An omission at the best, rather arrogant at the worst.

There are work-arounds, but it's incumbent on the user to know them.
Most folks capable of fixing a Windows computer can find them.
Meanwhile, if sitting in a board room discussion on which way to go, I
can easily imagine MS deciding that they'll serve more users better by
restricting the content to things directly relevant to the system that
accesses the site. There is a *lot* of info in the Knowledge Base, and
most of it is version-specific. To the point at hand, HTML issues have
nothing to do with MS beyond users of IE, and that will also be
version-specific.

What would those work arounds be? I'm not talking about the "Fix it for
me" links not being available. I'm talking about a simple explanation
of what the problem consists of, and how to fix it manually.

And how does the restricted user learn of those work arounds?
Nonexistent help files? LOL

The only work around I ever found was to bitch and moan to MS about not
being able to get help using their system. Then they gave me the answer.

And how do you serve users better by restricting access to knowledge and
help? "Good grief, Charlie Brown". I'm there seeking answers to a
Microsoft issue. What difference does it make what tool I'm using to
find the answer? Worse, and I don't know the answer to this, if you are
looking for a Windows 8 question using a Vista computer, and the answer
does not apply to Vista, will they keep you from finding an answer?

This attitude of companies and web page designers telling me what I want
to know or do at their site just pi$$es me off. Tell me how this is
good PR and encourages you to use their product.

To use another auto analogy, this is like driving to the Honda dealer in
a Ford, to get an answer to a Honda question, and they won't give it to
me because I drove up in a Ford. :-)

I get pi$$ed just talking about it. LOL

Pretty soon, everything will be whacked, and one of us will post a
blank message. G


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 10/10/2014 1:11 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/10/14 10:37 AM, Neil wrote:
On 10/10/2014 9:34 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/10/14 5:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

More snipping. LOL

MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it
doesn't
surprise me in the least that they try to make the information
relevant to
the system accessing their page.

Didn't it ever occur to them that just because they are accessing the
knowledge base with some other computer to fix their Windows
computer? An omission at the best, rather arrogant at the worst.

There are work-arounds, but it's incumbent on the user to know them.
Most folks capable of fixing a Windows computer can find them.
Meanwhile, if sitting in a board room discussion on which way to go, I
can easily imagine MS deciding that they'll serve more users better by
restricting the content to things directly relevant to the system that
accesses the site. There is a *lot* of info in the Knowledge Base, and
most of it is version-specific. To the point at hand, HTML issues have
nothing to do with MS beyond users of IE, and that will also be
version-specific.

What would those work arounds be?
(whack!)

The only work around I ever found was to bitch and moan to MS about not
being able to get help using their system. Then they gave me the answer.

Glad you found one of the work-arounds! 8-D

And how do you serve users better by restricting access to knowledge and
help? "Good grief, Charlie Brown". I'm there seeking answers to a
Microsoft issue. What difference does it make what tool I'm using to
find the answer? Worse, and I don't know the answer to this, if you are
looking for a Windows 8 question using a Vista computer, and the answer
does not apply to Vista, will they keep you from finding an answer?

* You can search the K.B. using Event error message info
* You can search using a description of the problem (less effective)
* You can set up your computer to prevent browser-sniffing (too much of
a hassle)

--
best regards,

Neil

On 10/10/14 12:54 PM, Neil wrote:
On 10/10/2014 1:11 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/10/14 10:37 AM, Neil wrote:
On 10/10/2014 9:34 AM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/10/14 5:28 AM, Neil Gould wrote:

More snipping. LOL

MS' site is to serve MS users, many of whom are not techies, so it
doesn't
surprise me in the least that they try to make the information
relevant to
the system accessing their page.

Didn't it ever occur to them that just because they are accessing the
knowledge base with some other computer to fix their Windows
computer? An omission at the best, rather arrogant at the worst.

There are work-arounds, but it's incumbent on the user to know them.
Most folks capable of fixing a Windows computer can find them.
Meanwhile, if sitting in a board room discussion on which way to go, I
can easily imagine MS deciding that they'll serve more users better by
restricting the content to things directly relevant to the system that
accesses the site. There is a *lot* of info in the Knowledge Base, and
most of it is version-specific. To the point at hand, HTML issues have
nothing to do with MS beyond users of IE, and that will also be
version-specific.

What would those work arounds be?
(whack!)

The only work around I ever found was to bitch and moan to MS about not
being able to get help using their system. Then they gave me the answer.

Glad you found one of the work-arounds! 8-D

And how do you serve users better by restricting access to knowledge and
help? "Good grief, Charlie Brown". I'm there seeking answers to a
Microsoft issue. What difference does it make what tool I'm using to
find the answer? Worse, and I don't know the answer to this, if you are
looking for a Windows 8 question using a Vista computer, and the answer
does not apply to Vista, will they keep you from finding an answer?

* You can search the K.B. using Event error message info

If you mean searching on the error number you may get with a pop up,
true. But, when you open that KB article, the sections on how to
solve/fix it are not available if you aren't using Windows.

* You can search using a description of the problem (less effective)

Yep, but you run into the same problem above.

* You can set up your computer to prevent browser-sniffing (too much of
a hassle)

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things. Going back to
Outlook glacially slow for email, thinking about switching to Maxthon
for browsing. I'd go with Pale Moon, but a Mac version isn't available.
I think they have a beta version, but not interested in being a beta
tester. :-)


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:43:50 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(

I disagree with your assertion. There may be an odd exception here or there,
but for the most part add-ons stop working because the add-on author hasn't
allowed his/her add-on to work with browser versions newer than X, whatever
X may be. In those cases, you can simply edit the add-on and reload it or go
get the updated version. Either approach is very simple.

For the most part, however, add-ons aren't broken by new versions of the
Mozilla product, which is quite fortunate for the health of that entire
ecosystem. Just think of the chaos and malcontent that would ensue if what
you were claiming were true. Fortunately, it's not.

On 10/12/14 1:51 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:43:50 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(

I disagree with your assertion. There may be an odd exception here or there,
but for the most part add-ons stop working because the add-on author hasn't
allowed his/her add-on to work with browser versions newer than X, whatever
X may be. In those cases, you can simply edit the add-on and reload it or go
get the updated version. Either approach is very simple.

But, it doesn't always, and I'm tired of having to deal with it. As
I've said many times, I'm not interested in being someone's beta tester
(been there, done that), I want the program to work, and work reliably.
Tired of 2 steps forward and 1 step back, I don't have that kind of
time anymore. :-(

For the most part, however, add-ons aren't broken by new versions of the
Mozilla product, which is quite fortunate for the health of that entire
ecosystem. Just think of the chaos and malcontent that would ensue if what
you were claiming were true. Fortunately, it's not.

It's been going on for quite awhile, one of the reasons I turned off
automatic updating for both FF and TB. You get version X the way you
want, they create X+1, and the updates tells you Y number of add-ons are
no longer compatible. And they haven't been updated by the authors.
Many just are never updated. :-(

As I said, I've got better things to do that deal with fixing a problem
someone else created. Add-ons are a nice thing in theory, but at some
point, it gets old dealing with the same issues over and over and over
again.

I guess you haven't read any of the posts I've made about HTML
composition in Thunderbird. And now issues are showing up in text only
composition. :-(

Besides, the issue of Mozilla's core programming changes causing add-on
failures has been beaten to death in the Mozilla newsgroups. No reason
to rehash them here.


--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:32:17 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/12/14 1:51 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:43:50 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(

I disagree with your assertion. There may be an odd exception here or there,
but for the most part add-ons stop working because the add-on author hasn't
allowed his/her add-on to work with browser versions newer than X, whatever
X may be. In those cases, you can simply edit the add-on and reload it or go
get the updated version. Either approach is very simple.

But, it doesn't always, and I'm tired of having to deal with it. As
I've said many times, I'm not interested in being someone's beta tester
(been there, done that), I want the program to work, and work reliably.
Tired of 2 steps forward and 1 step back, I don't have that kind of
time anymore. :-(

1. It doesn't always what?
2. I don't get the beta tester comment.


For the most part, however, add-ons aren't broken by new versions of the
Mozilla product, which is quite fortunate for the health of that entire
ecosystem. Just think of the chaos and malcontent that would ensue if what
you were claiming were true. Fortunately, it's not.

It's been going on for quite awhile, one of the reasons I turned off
automatic updating for both FF and TB. You get version X the way you
want, they create X+1, and the updates tells you Y number of add-ons are
no longer compatible. And they haven't been updated by the authors.
Many just are never updated. :-(

That hasn't been my experience, but I'd offer the following advice if you're
running into situations like that. First, if it's an add-on that provides
functionality that you can't live without, edit it yourself! At least try,
since it only takes a minute or two. Second, if you don't want to mess with
it yourself and the author hasn't provided an updated version, it's usually
because lots of better options have become available. Go get one of them. I
really don't know what you're complaining about.


As I said, I've got better things to do that deal with fixing a problem
someone else created. Add-ons are a nice thing in theory, but at some
point, it gets old dealing with the same issues over and over and over
again.

I guess you haven't read any of the posts I've made about HTML
composition in Thunderbird. And now issues are showing up in text only
composition. :-(

Are you still talking about add-ons? I don't use TB, so I can't comment on
it.


Besides, the issue of Mozilla's core programming changes causing add-on
failures has been beaten to death in the Mozilla newsgroups. No reason
to rehash them here.

I've been using Firefox almost since it's inception some 12 years ago, and I
can count the number of times an add-on has been disabled by a new version
of the browser on one hand with (I think) 2 fingers left over, so I'm
definitely not seeing what you're reporting.

I initially responded to your post because I thought you were grossly
exaggerating, but you appear to be serious so now I'm ready to chalk it up
to your choice of add-ons, which must be very different from what I use.

On 10/12/14 9:11 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 18:32:17 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/12/14 1:51 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:43:50 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(

I disagree with your assertion. There may be an odd exception here or there,
but for the most part add-ons stop working because the add-on author hasn't
allowed his/her add-on to work with browser versions newer than X, whatever
X may be. In those cases, you can simply edit the add-on and reload it or go
get the updated version. Either approach is very simple.

But, it doesn't always, and I'm tired of having to deal with it. As
I've said many times, I'm not interested in being someone's beta tester
(been there, done that), I want the program to work, and work reliably.
Tired of 2 steps forward and 1 step back, I don't have that kind of
time anymore. :-(

1. It doesn't always what?

Editing the add-on does not always work.

2. I don't get the beta tester comment.

It seems to be the user that gets to find out what does and doesn't
work. IMO, that should have been done before the update was released.


For the most part, however, add-ons aren't broken by new versions of the
Mozilla product, which is quite fortunate for the health of that entire
ecosystem. Just think of the chaos and malcontent that would ensue if what
you were claiming were true. Fortunately, it's not.

It's been going on for quite awhile, one of the reasons I turned off
automatic updating for both FF and TB. You get version X the way you
want, they create X+1, and the updates tells you Y number of add-ons are
no longer compatible. And they haven't been updated by the authors.
Many just are never updated. :-(

That hasn't been my experience, but I'd offer the following advice if you're
running into situations like that. First, if it's an add-on that provides
functionality that you can't live without, edit it yourself! At least try,
since it only takes a minute or two. Second, if you don't want to mess with
it yourself and the author hasn't provided an updated version, it's usually
because lots of better options have become available. Go get one of them. I
really don't know what you're complaining about.

I'm not a programmer, and I don't want to be editing some aspect of a
program to make it work. I'm also tired of going through the list of
add-ons trying once again to find something that works.

The add-on idea sounds great at the outset, it lets many people
contribute. The downside is, too many of the add-ons no longer work for
whatever reason. I know about the setting in add-ons that extend the
version number the add-on will be compatible with, but I don't want to
have do that for X number of add-ons. I want it to just work so I can
use the computer, not tinker like the reputation of old English cars.
My interest in tinkering and fiddling disappeared some years ago.

Which is why I'm still using a 5.5 year old Mac, it just works, and....
never mind, tired of talking about it.


As I said, I've got better things to do that deal with fixing a problem
someone else created. Add-ons are a nice thing in theory, but at some
point, it gets old dealing with the same issues over and over and over
again.

I guess you haven't read any of the posts I've made about HTML
composition in Thunderbird. And now issues are showing up in text only
composition. :-(

Are you still talking about add-ons? I don't use TB, so I can't comment on
it.

In this case, no. It's the standard composition window. I have no
add-ons that affect the composition windows, either HTML or text.


Besides, the issue of Mozilla's core programming changes causing add-on
failures has been beaten to death in the Mozilla newsgroups. No reason
to rehash them here.

I've been using Firefox almost since it's inception some 12 years ago, and I
can count the number of times an add-on has been disabled by a new version
of the browser on one hand with (I think) 2 fingers left over, so I'm
definitely not seeing what you're reporting.

I used to get it a lot. Now, I just don't look for and/or add many new
add-ons. And I'm not automatically updating anymore, either. The ones
I do have tend to be security related, such as AdBlock, Ghostery, etc.

Which add-ons get broken is probably anyone's guess. I don't doubt you
at all when you say you don't see the issues I see. And, I came to the
conclusion some time ago that some issues may be OS related, but I've no
proof of that. And I don't have the time for that kind of
troubleshooting anymore.

There may be some light at the end of the "no time" tunnel in order to
get Outlook set up for email, then look for a newsreader, and TB will be
history. Pale Moon has a Mac beta, but I may not go that way. In
looking for an alternative Windows browser for a friend, I tried
Maxthon. For speed on this Mac, the version of FF I have installed
isn't even close to Maxthon.

I initially responded to your post because I thought you were grossly
exaggerating, but you appear to be serious so now I'm ready to chalk it up
to your choice of add-ons, which must be very different from what I use.

I'm just genuinely tired of having to repeat the same steps over and
over again. I want to accomplish more with my limited time these days
than having to redo all the tweaks to make the program comfortable for
me. I don't mind making changes for security reasons and bug fixes.
But I can't tell you how many themes I've had to abandon because they
aren't compatible with the latest version of TB or FF.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 12/10/2014 8:43 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(



Absolutely. I (and many others) have complained in the Mozilla
newsgroups for years that their constant unnecessary updates of the GUI
were a total waste of resources, and *very*annoying. Eventually there
was a partial change when they produced the ESR releases which were only
changed once a year except for security updates. Intended for enterprise
use, and hidden away from normal down-loaders, they came too late for
most of the extension writers. Many of them gave up the battle to keep
their extensions updated, so there are now only a tiny number of
extensions compared with what there used to be. Many of the users that
Mozilla had worked so hard to get on board gave up and jumped ship.

The reason, sadly, is the same reason that explains why long standing
bugs don't get fixed, whilst new bells and whistles appear every five
minutes - Mozilla are only interested in trying to appear as trendy as
Google and to keep up with Chrome. The developers will only work on what
they think is fun, and since Mozilla don't pay them, they can't insist
on things being fixed before they add any more new toys. This applies
more to Thunderbird than Firefox - Thunderbird has more long standing
problems than Firefox. However, the latest Firefox versions will lose
them more users than any other - a fairly major and totally unnecessary
change to the interface has really messed things up from a usability
point of view. I'm still on Firefox 24.8.1 ESR version, but soon I'll
have to decide whether to upgrade or not - when the security updates dry
up. Since the interface has had it's flexibility removed and it has been
dumbed down to suit the kids, I may just abandon it and use Internet
Explorer 11 - these days its lack of flexibility is not such a problem
now Firefox is nearly the same. Internet Explorer 11 is 64bit, Firefox
still haven't got a 64 bit version, and Internet Explorer is secure
enough now. It's major advantage now, though, is that it rarely changes.

--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

Don't drink and rive - you'll spill most of it!

On 10/13/14 2:48 AM, Bob Henson wrote:
On 12/10/2014 8:43 PM, Ken Springer wrote:
On 10/12/14 1:33 PM, Char Jackson wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2014 18:21:48 -0600, Ken Springer
wrote:

I'd forgotten about this. I use Firefox, and there's an add-on to tell
sites you're using a different browser, but I don't know if it works any
more. Mozilla keeps breaking add-ons with each new version of FF and
Thunderbird, and I'm disgusted having to redo things.

I'm guessing Mozilla has little to nothing to do with your add-ons. At
least, that's the case here with the dozen or so that I've been using for
eons.

While Mozilla doesn't develop the add-ons, their programming breaks
them. And the user who installs them pays the price. :-(



Absolutely. I (and many others) have complained in the Mozilla
newsgroups for years that their constant unnecessary updates of the GUI
were a total waste of resources, and *very*annoying.

Yep, I read the Mozilla newsgroups. Have you noticed how no one
mentions the increasing popularity of Firefox? Could it be the fact
that its use is declining?

Eventually there
was a partial change when they produced the ESR releases which were only
changed once a year except for security updates. Intended for enterprise
use, and hidden away from normal down-loaders, they came too late for
most of the extension writers. Many of them gave up the battle to keep
their extensions updated, so there are now only a tiny number of
extensions compared with what there used to be. Many of the users that
Mozilla had worked so hard to get on board gave up and jumped ship.

It's really depressing too, when you go to the add-ons web site, and
here's all these add-ons that could add functionality to both programs,
but they are greyed out because they don't work with the newer versions.
:-(

The reason, sadly, is the same reason that explains why long standing
bugs don't get fixed, whilst new bells and whistles appear every five
minutes - Mozilla are only interested in trying to appear as trendy as
Google and to keep up with Chrome. The developers will only work on what
they think is fun,

This seems to be a core problem with open source software, which is FF
and TB. If the devs don't want to work on the problems, or add features
users and potential users are looking for, they simply won't, and may
tell you to go away and leave them alone.

Which is sad, really, since open source is a great idea. But, too many
do not take a professional approach to development and users
desires/needs, and I don't think any of it will ever replace quality
commercial products until a professional view is taken.

and since Mozilla don't pay them, they can't insist
on things being fixed before they add any more new toys. This applies
more to Thunderbird than Firefox - Thunderbird has more long standing
problems than Firefox. However, the latest Firefox versions will lose
them more users than any other - a fairly major and totally unnecessary
change to the interface has really messed things up from a usability
point of view. I'm still on Firefox 24.8.1 ESR version, but soon I'll
have to decide whether to upgrade or not - when the security updates dry
up. Since the interface has had it's flexibility removed and it has been
dumbed down to suit the kids, I may just abandon it and use Internet
Explorer 11 - these days its lack of flexibility is not such a problem
now Firefox is nearly the same. Internet Explorer 11 is 64bit, Firefox
still haven't got a 64 bit version, and Internet Explorer is secure
enough now. It's major advantage now, though, is that it rarely changes.

I haven't looked at Pale Moon as of yet, but I probably will. I've
never felt "comfortable" with Internet Explorer from day 1 years ago.
Not from a security aspect, just the "look and feel" of it. Kind of
like how you get in a particular car, and you know almost immediately
it's not for you.

I've noticed more and more browsers, including IE, now have a selection
of add-ons. Not as many as FF, but there's AdBlock, Ghostery, etc.
available. But for speed, Maxthon seem to be the fastest for me, but
some of the dialogue boxes may give you pause until you figure out how
it works.



--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.8.5
Firefox 25.0
Thunderbird 24.6.0
"My brain is like lightning, a quick flash
and it's gone!"

On 13/10/2014 4:25 PM, Ken Springer wrote:

I haven't looked at Pale Moon as of yet, but I probably will. I've
never felt "comfortable" with Internet Explorer from day 1 years ago.
Not from a security aspect, just the "look and feel" of it. Kind of
like how you get in a particular car, and you know almost immediately
it's not for you.


I might have a look at it again, but it doesn't work with Roboform (or
didn't when I last looked) and that's a deal breaker for me. Waterfox,
the 64bit port of Firefox, is very good, but despite the fact it is
supposed to work with Roboform, it didn't hen I last tried it. Maybe,
I'll try them again.


--
Bob Tetbury, Gloucestershire, UK

It's not the pace of life that concerns me, it's the sudden stop at the end.