Atlantis Word Processor

On 15/02/2014 10:57 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Since that post, Firefox twice became stuck in memory and forced me to
| kill it from within the Task Manager. Essentially, the program has
| thrown away the last chance I was willing to give it.

Interesting. I haven't had even one problem
with FF or Pale Moon for years. But you seem to
be on Win7-64, while I only use Win7 for testing
software and such. I mainly use XP-32. Maybe
the 64-bit version is not as stable? I don't know.
I also don't use tabs. When I hear of people
complaining about browsers it's often the case
that they're never closing tabs during a browsing
session. I imagine that numerous open tabs
updating might be quite a strain on Firefox.

I never use more than one or two tabs at a time. It might go up to four
or five but I close them once I've read the page I was looking at. These
kinds of issues aren't anything I face regularly. I'm also aware that
the Flash plug-in will cause instability in some cases though it doesn't
seem to do that as much in IE as it does on FF. Either way, I'm tired of
wrestling with FF. Instability in it is not new to me and neither is its
incredibly high use of memory. I've used it in GNU/Linux, I've used it
on Windows and even used it on my mom's OS X. In terms of features, it's
the best browser. In terms of stability or resource use, it's not that
great. After so many years of advocating its use and donating to the
project, I'm ready to give up... especially in light of finding out how
much influence Google has on the project.

One thing I do that also might affect that is that
I set accessibility.blockautorefresh to True.
Though I didn't choose the setting for stability.
I have two other reasons: 1) It drives me crazy
when I'm reading a news article and it suddenly
reloads by itself. 2) Some sites will load a perfectly
usable page but then replace it, when they detect
I have javascript disabled, with a blank page that
says, "Sorry, this page requires javascript."

Firefox, by default, should have disabled auto-refresh. I can't imagine
where such a feature could be useful to be honest. If anything, an
auto-refresh does nothing but ensure that you are served more ads than
you would like to see.
--
Silver Slimer

On 2/15/2014 9:57 AM, Mayayana wrote: I also don't use tabs.

Huh? Only using one window all of the time or multiple windows of
Firefox? Also if you use Firefox in Metro mode (Windows 8.xx), you can't
use multiple windows, so you are stuck using tabs.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 2/13/2014 8:37 PM, Mayayana wrote:
... I would never use IE online, and would never
use Chrome at all. (I know a great deal about IE...

Just curious, so what do you know about IE? And version(s) of IE do you
know about?

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

| Huh? Only using one window all of the time or multiple windows of
| Firefox?

Multiple windows. I find it easier to keep track
of things if I have them lined up in the taskbar.
I like Notepad that way, too. For most things I
don't find a "multi-document interface" mode
desirable.

| Also if you use Firefox in Metro mode (Windows 8.xx), you can't
| use multiple windows, so you are stuck using tabs.
|

If I ever get stuck using Metro then I'll have
far bigger problems than FF tabs. And if I ever
found myself trying to use real software in the
TileCity UI.... well, I'd rather not think about that.

I hope to never deal with Win8 as a regular
machine. If I did I'd immediately install one of
the Desktop fixers. I don't want a Microsoft ID,
I don't want to use their online services and
TileCity as a Desktop UI makes no sense.

I suppose it makes sense for tablets, but
I have no use for a tablet at this point, and
probably wouldn't use it online if I did. I like to
have a big monitor with a mouse and keyboard,
and I want control over what goes in and out
if I'm online-connected.

On 2/15/2014 10:40 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| Huh? Only using one window all of the time or multiple windows of
| Firefox?

Multiple windows. I find it easier to keep track
of things if I have them lined up in the taskbar.
I like Notepad that way, too. For most things I
don't find a "multi-document interface" mode
desirable.

The use of tabs are suppose to use less resources than multiple windows.
Although I generally use tabs, I do use multiple windows too, just less
often.

| Also if you use Firefox in Metro mode (Windows 8.xx), you can't
| use multiple windows, so you are stuck using tabs.
|

If I ever get stuck using Metro then I'll have
far bigger problems than FF tabs. And if I ever
found myself trying to use real software in the
TileCity UI.... well, I'd rather not think about that.

I hope to never deal with Win8 as a regular
machine. If I did I'd immediately install one of
the Desktop fixers. I don't want a Microsoft ID,
I don't want to use their online services and
TileCity as a Desktop UI makes no sense.

I totally understand that. ;-)

I suppose it makes sense for tablets, but
I have no use for a tablet at this point, and
probably wouldn't use it online if I did. I like to
have a big monitor with a mouse and keyboard,
and I want control over what goes in and out
if I'm online-connected.

Well you do know that many tablets can be docked, right? Then you can
have external monitors, mice, keyboards, etc. And when you want to watch
a movie or something, just lift it out of the dock and take anywhere you
would like. Most of the time, I use my tablets this way.

Also if you hate Windows 8.xx, they also have tablets running XP, Vista,
and 7 too. I use them (hard to find a new one now). And if you want a
large screen docked tablet, I forget exactly what they are called, but
they are basically 17 inch and larger screen tablets with docks. And
they are generally meant to run as a desktop, with the occasional short
portable use.

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

| ... I would never use IE online, and would never
| use Chrome at all. (I know a great deal about IE...
|
| Just curious, so what do you know about IE? And version(s) of IE do you
| know about?
|

First is the problem that it's tied deeply into
Windows. The higher level internet APIs are actually
part of IE. (And of course it supports COM components
or ActiveX.) That makes it less safe by design and results
in the update problem: Updating IE means updating
internet libraries. There have been problems in the past
with IE updates. (I actually stopped using IE online when I
updated from IE4 to IE5 in Win98 and it started running
in slow motion. I never figured out what was wrong. I
had to switch to Netscape.) And there's also the problem
of limited OS support. At this point IE is a niche product,
with very limited support even among Windows versions.
On XP I don't think I can run later than IE8.

Next is the problem of settings. Especially security
settings. I've dealt with those for a long time, mostly
as a "compulsive handyman". The security settings alone
are so messed up that I wrote a utility to offer some
basic control to people who are stuck with IE for some
reason:

http://www.jsware.net/jsware/iemd.php5

But it's a losing battle.
Last I checked, security settings alone had ballooned
into something like 60 options, with no help and little
documentation. There's no chance of most people
even controlling something like script or ActiveX
themselves, much less the more obscure options.
The settings apply to 5 zones, one of which can't
be seen in the Settings window. Each setting,
in each zone, can be affected by up to 8 different
Registry settings, only one of which is reflected in
the Settings window.
IE is designed so that corporate IT people can control
employee behavior without employees knowing it or
being able to do anything about it.

I've also worked a lot with the IE DOM because I do
some web design. (Every version of IE is incompatible
with the last in that regard.)

And I do a lot with HTAs, which are basically IE
webpages used as simple script-based software programs.
An HTA is just a webpage running in an IE browser
window with no security restrictions. The IE DOM is
wonderfully flexible and extensive. Using script and
HTML/CSS it's possible to make very involved software
as an HTA.

I've also written related softwa

* A mime filter that provides the ability to edit pages
in IE *before* they're loaded in the window. (Note
that any software with access to your Registry could
install a mime filter and take complete control over
what appears in the IE browser window.)

* Broswer extensions and BHOs

* An Explorer Bar, which is for Windows Explorer, but
since IE is tied into Explorer, it's actually for both. I
have to specifically design it not to load in IE.
(That tie-in is itself a problem, a residue of the Active
Desktop project that was instigated in connection with
the Netscape court case. MS tied IE into Windows so
that they couldn't be forced to not pre-install it. "Look,
judge, we can't take it out. It's inside all the folders!")

Those software options are another example of the
unique position of IE. On Windows it provides wonderful
otpions for customization and software. But online those
options become a problem. IE's flexibility dates to a time
before security was a big issue. Over the years everything
from sleazy corporate toolbars to nasty malware has taken
advantage of the options to write shell extensions for IE,
often with intimate ties into the Windows OS.

I haven't used IE 10/11. I actually tried to install IE10
on my Win7 test machine but couldn't get it to work. So
I don't know much about webpage compatibility in IE 10/11.
But I have no reason to think any of the above details
has changed. Though they could have become worse. In
general, IE has become more complicated and thus more
of a security problem with each version. But the basics
tend to stay the same because MS needs to maintain
backward compatibility for corporate customers as much
as possible. As I said above, IE is a corporate software
product. It was never meant to serve the needs of the
individual.

The other day I saw an article about a new exploit in
IE 10 that uses IFRAMES, Flash, and presumably script.

http://www.zdnet.com/new-internet-ex...ry-7000026354/

To me that's a great example of typical security problems.
IFRAMES shouldn't even exist anymore, now that there
are scrolling DIVs. Flash shouldn't be running unless
needed for a particular page. Ditto with script. For
anyone using IE, to think about taking control of even
one of those items is probably not realistic. Several of
the vast array of security settings relate to script.
Flash in IE is an ActiveX control. (Another handful of
confusing security settings.) And last I knew IE had
no way to block IFRAMES at all. (Which is part of
why I wrote a mime filter. I have a blind friend who
used to be limited to IE.)

Silver Slimer wrote:
On 15/02/2014 9:38 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| No matter how many times I change, I usually go back to Firefox (with
| all of its blatant flaws) as a result of its support for HTTPS
| Everywhere and Ghostery. Those two add-ons improve the browsing
| experience tremendously and it's very hard to ignore that. I don't know
| how far Google's involvement in developing Firefox goes but I'll have to
| hope that their lack of respect for peoples' privacy doesn't influence
| the code too greatly.

I read your post and then went to look at today's
tech news and found this:

http://www.zdnet.com/mozilla-clarifi...on-7000026335/

Mitchell Baker, head of Mozilla, trying to justify
ads in Firefox. She has a hard time even acknowledging
that they're ads, preferring to cast them as useful
features for Firefox fans. Further on she explains that
the ads are part of a plan to finance Firefox OS. It
seems to be an interesting pickle: Mozilla is becoming
corrupted as it turns toward a services approach and
removes customizing functionality that interferes with
commercialism. On the other hand, Baker has a point.
An increasing number of people just want easy services
and don't much care about software options. And I
suppose that if I ever decide to buy a "smart phone",
I'd rather have one with Firefox OS than Windows,
Android, or Apple iOS.... but only assuming that Firefox
OS doesn't end up commercializing in the process of
becoming Firefox OS.

Since that post, Firefox twice became stuck in memory and forced me to
kill it from within the Task Manager. Essentially, the program has
thrown away the last chance I was willing to give it.

There are two places you can look.

Flash uses hardware acceleration. If the Flash plugin is involved,
you could try disabling hardware acceleration. Flash has a control
panel in the control panels area, as well as a preference pane in
a Flash movie window.

In addition, some browsers now include hardware acceleration for
regular web content. IE has this. Firefox may have it by now as
well. You can try disabling that.

In the case of Adobe and Flash, it took a fairly long time before
the bug reports died down on the hardware acceleration feature.
This is because there are many generations of hardware, and it's
almost like writing custom code for everything, to work around issues.
The staff involved likely lost all their hair in the process.

It's a theory in another thread, for a Facebook user, but
I haven't heard back whether it helped or not. Some users only
experience browsers freezing, when viewing Facebook.

There is apparently a movie player plugin for browsers, which
has also been known to freeze things. (I.e. Something other
than Flash.)

Browser stability is a user-assisted feature. Turn the right
knobs, never see a problem.

Paul

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:38:51 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


I would like to install it in VM program here, just haven't gotten to
it. HP had a competing desktop environment called HP New Wave. I'd
like to find a copy of that, as well as DesqView. I do have a copy of
Norton Desktop, and actually installed it at work, on a government
computer. Really liked it over Windows for Workgroups.

You might find a suitable version of Desqview at:

http://vetusware.com/manufacturer/Qu...ck/?author=438

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 08:51:02 +1100, Monty wrote:

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 09:38:51 -0700, Ken Springer
wrote:


I would like to install it in VM program here, just haven't gotten to
it. HP had a competing desktop environment called HP New Wave. I'd
like to find a copy of that, as well as DesqView. I do have a copy of
Norton Desktop, and actually installed it at work, on a government
computer. Really liked it over Windows for Workgroups.

You might find a suitable version of Desqview at:

http://vetusware.com/manufacturer/Qu...ck/?author=438




DESQview! Quarterdeck! (and also QEMM) It's been so many years that I
had entirely forgotten their names. And I had no idea that any of that
was still available.

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:42:39 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:


You might find a suitable version of Desqview at:

http://vetusware.com/manufacturer/Qu...ck/?author=438

DESQview! Quarterdeck! (and also QEMM) It's been so many years that I
had entirely forgotten their names. And I had no idea that any of that
was still available.

Older toys for older boys :-)

On Sun, 16 Feb 2014 11:17:04 +1100, Monty wrote:

On Sat, 15 Feb 2014 15:42:39 -0700, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote:


You might find a suitable version of Desqview at:

http://vetusware.com/manufacturer/Qu...ck/?author=438

DESQview! Quarterdeck! (and also QEMM) It's been so many years that I
had entirely forgotten their names. And I had no idea that any of that
was still available.

Older toys for older boys :-)



You got that right. g I'm 76.

On 15 Feb 2014, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

DESQview! Quarterdeck! (and also QEMM) It's been so many years
that I had entirely forgotten their names. And I had no idea that
any of that was still available.

Back in the '80s we bought tons of QEMM licenses because we needed to
run a DOS app in Windows 3.0 and Windows for Workgroups. DOS Himem
couldn't get enough stuff into high memory for us to to it, but with
QEMM we could eke it out.

Trying to configure stuff to work together using autoexec.bat and
config.sys was a real challenge. I was good at it back in the day, but
I've forgotten all that now.

On 2/15/2014 6:49 PM, Nil wrote: On 15 Feb 2014, "Ken Blake, MVP"
wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

DESQview! Quarterdeck! (and also QEMM) It's been so many years
that I had entirely forgotten their names. And I had no idea that
any of that was still available.

Back in the '80s we bought tons of QEMM licenses because we needed to
run a DOS app in Windows 3.0 and Windows for Workgroups. DOS Himem
couldn't get enough stuff into high memory for us to to it, but with
QEMM we could eke it out.

Trying to configure stuff to work together using autoexec.bat and
config.sys was a real challenge. I was good at it back in the day, but
I've forgotten all that now.

Hmm... there was no Windows 3.0 in the 80's. Windows 3.0 was released in
May 1990. Moreover, there was not any Windows for Workgroups 3.0. Just
3.1 (10/1/1992) and 3.11 (11/2/1993).

Windows for Workgroups Version History
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/126746

--
Bill
Gateway M465e ('06 era) - Thunderbird v24.3.0
Centrino Core2 Duo T5600 1.83GHz - 4GB - Windows XP SP2

On 2/15/2014, Nil posted:
On 15 Feb 2014, "Ken Blake, MVP" wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

DESQview! Quarterdeck! (and also QEMM) It's been so many years
that I had entirely forgotten their names. And I had no idea that
any of that was still available.

Back in the '80s we bought tons of QEMM licenses because we needed to
run a DOS app in Windows 3.0 and Windows for Workgroups. DOS Himem
couldn't get enough stuff into high memory for us to to it, but with
QEMM we could eke it out.

Trying to configure stuff to work together using autoexec.bat and
config.sys was a real challenge. I was good at it back in the day,
but I've forgotten all that now.

I've forgotten all that too.

IMO, that's a *good* thing!

--
Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

On 15 Feb 2014, BillW50 wrote in
alt.comp.os.windows-8:

Hmm... there was no Windows 3.0 in the 80's. Windows 3.0 was
released in May 1990. Moreover, there was not any Windows for
Workgroups 3.0. Just 3.1 (10/1/1992) and 3.11 (11/2/1993).

I typed '80s but I meant '90s.