^Also, the Video DownloadHelper (but i have not tried it).
Mozilla FireFox - just switched over to
- Thread starter free4440273
- Start date
Aces&Jacks
Retired Mod
I know one thing Firefox needs to fix. Sometimes when it updates itself it deletes the bookmarks and you have to manually replace your bookmark file from one of the backups it stores in your profile folder. It's a pain in the ass.
^Hasn't happened to me - yet 
Thanks guys for recommending FF; I downloaded a couple of weeks ago, and I can finally access links on FreeOnes....one question:I've gotten a "windows update" alert a couple of times, which I ignored...when I was still on IE, the updates would screw my computer up.....now that I'm on FF,should I go ahead and install the windows update when I'm alerted?
Windows Profile Issue (not Firefox) ...
Trust me, I've been dealing with Windows profiles since Windows NT 3.1 (1993), they've never worked correctly.
On some systems, you have to protect certain files from allowing the system to modify them (and it can only be done on NTFS filesystems).
that's a Windows profile issue, not Firefox.
Trust me, I've been dealing with Windows profiles since Windows NT 3.1 (1993), they've never worked correctly.
On some systems, you have to protect certain files from allowing the system to modify them (and it can only be done on NTFS filesystems).
^I thought it highly suspect to blame FF also
Profiles?? Tell me about it: ****** 'Roaming Profiles' are a nightmare...
Profiles?? Tell me about it: ****** 'Roaming Profiles' are a nightmare...
L3ggy
Special Operations FOX-HOUND
Firefox has its issues ...
And the overwhelming majority of those things are because Windows can't affect it.
Unfortunately, Firefox's files still are on Windows, so there are still some things Firefox is a victim of.
The Firefox team also has to constantly decide whether or not to "break" Windows automation as it conflicts with Windows security.
E.g., if they pass things off to the Windows executive, it's a "Firefox security hole," even though it's Windows'.
But if they don't pass things off to the Windows executive, it's a "Firefox compatibility issue," as MS IE blindly does.
MS IE is a perfect example, it was never designed for NT-based Windows, and still wreaks havoc on it.
I had roaming profiles on NT 3.51 in 1996, and the ****** inclusion of MS IE as a core library of every application caused profiles to bloat out of control.
Thank God Perl::Win32 came about -- I used it as the NT login script to clean up MS IE and other messes.
Firefox has its issues, but they are far less than MS IE.^I thought it highly suspect to blame FF also
And the overwhelming majority of those things are because Windows can't affect it.
Unfortunately, Firefox's files still are on Windows, so there are still some things Firefox is a victim of.
The Firefox team also has to constantly decide whether or not to "break" Windows automation as it conflicts with Windows security.
E.g., if they pass things off to the Windows executive, it's a "Firefox security hole," even though it's Windows'.
But if they don't pass things off to the Windows executive, it's a "Firefox compatibility issue," as MS IE blindly does.
That's because the majority of Microsoft's own applications aren't designed for them.
MS IE is a perfect example, it was never designed for NT-based Windows, and still wreaks havoc on it.
I had roaming profiles on NT 3.51 in 1996, and the ****** inclusion of MS IE as a core library of every application caused profiles to bloat out of control.
Thank God Perl::Win32 came about -- I used it as the NT login script to clean up MS IE and other messes.
^Login scripts still very useful, even if one is using Windows Server and GPOs: certain things that even GPOs cannot do
Microsoft utterly screwed up ...
This was especially an issue with its SMB network filesystem, which is rather stateless.
I.e., a client had no way of synchronizing with a server once it came back up, often leading to file corruption (this is unlike UNIX NFS).
At the same time, it would solve issues with traditional approaches (like UNIX NFS' "hard" v. "soft" approach, or relying on application interrupts, etc...).
Unfortunately, it was an utter screw up, not because of the design of NT, but the ignorance of Microsoft's own developers.
In the end, ironically, it's just easier to use home directories on a server, the whole "roaming profiles" concept had more issues with applications and poor designs on the application/client side.
Although it's improved drastically since the death of DOS-based Windows (95/98/Me), which is utterly network (let alone security) ignorant, it still requires many, manual clean-ups.
Ironically, the approach done over 3 decades ago, years before Microsoft's own existence -- "just works."
POSIX (UNIX) applications know they always go to a user's home directory.
POSIX (UNIX) applications don't require a "start-up" directory (which is a major issue with Windows, and why UNC paths don't work and you have to use maps to drive letters).
And there are many other, legacy Windows approaches that "just don't work" on networks, and there's really no "workaround" without breaking things.
Not surprisingly, although most people don't deal with it, Jobs utterly understood why leveraging UNIX and its approaches was a much better way to do things "underneath."
Which is why Apple "just works" using a UNIX approach, even if it doesn't look like what people think of UNIX in general.
Apple also leverages open standards quite well when it comes to networking, and builds excellent interfaces around them, whereas Microsoft still doesn't understand its own protocols.
I.e., people think the Samba set of CIFS/SMB services on UNIX is "hard" -- no, it's called "complete control" of the spagetti that Microsoft calls "Windows Networking."
If you want to emulate any form of the protocol, the only way you can do it is with Samba, Microsoft often has conflicting handshakes and even broken security implementations between not just Windows versions, but even patches.
That's why many enterprises use Samba, or an enterprise-grade appliance that implements it, instead of Windows itself -- because Microsoft honestly doesn't care to deal with its own bloated non-sense, let alone not older versions or patches of its own.
Microsoft created roaming profiles so users would not have to rely on the availability of a server for execution.^Login scripts still very useful, even if one is using Windows Server and GPOs: certain things that even GPOs cannot do
This was especially an issue with its SMB network filesystem, which is rather stateless.
I.e., a client had no way of synchronizing with a server once it came back up, often leading to file corruption (this is unlike UNIX NFS).
At the same time, it would solve issues with traditional approaches (like UNIX NFS' "hard" v. "soft" approach, or relying on application interrupts, etc...).
Unfortunately, it was an utter screw up, not because of the design of NT, but the ignorance of Microsoft's own developers.
In the end, ironically, it's just easier to use home directories on a server, the whole "roaming profiles" concept had more issues with applications and poor designs on the application/client side.
Although it's improved drastically since the death of DOS-based Windows (95/98/Me), which is utterly network (let alone security) ignorant, it still requires many, manual clean-ups.
Ironically, the approach done over 3 decades ago, years before Microsoft's own existence -- "just works."
POSIX (UNIX) applications know they always go to a user's home directory.
POSIX (UNIX) applications don't require a "start-up" directory (which is a major issue with Windows, and why UNC paths don't work and you have to use maps to drive letters).
And there are many other, legacy Windows approaches that "just don't work" on networks, and there's really no "workaround" without breaking things.
Not surprisingly, although most people don't deal with it, Jobs utterly understood why leveraging UNIX and its approaches was a much better way to do things "underneath."
Which is why Apple "just works" using a UNIX approach, even if it doesn't look like what people think of UNIX in general.
Apple also leverages open standards quite well when it comes to networking, and builds excellent interfaces around them, whereas Microsoft still doesn't understand its own protocols.
I.e., people think the Samba set of CIFS/SMB services on UNIX is "hard" -- no, it's called "complete control" of the spagetti that Microsoft calls "Windows Networking."
If you want to emulate any form of the protocol, the only way you can do it is with Samba, Microsoft often has conflicting handshakes and even broken security implementations between not just Windows versions, but even patches.
That's why many enterprises use Samba, or an enterprise-grade appliance that implements it, instead of Windows itself -- because Microsoft honestly doesn't care to deal with its own bloated non-sense, let alone not older versions or patches of its own.
^AFA, you are being 'difficult' - again :1orglaugh
That shouldn't make a difference at all. In fact I think most of the "Windows Genuine Advantage", (as if that had any truth to it), jargon is to keep Microsoft with their hands in your PC. Update alerts are to help Microsoft look good because after all these years, they still can't get the bugs out.
^I second that; there is no clear-cut answer; use your own discretion. FWIW I 'ignore' all Microsoft 'updates' - get your wretched hands off my PC :1orglaugh.
Some updates are useful and important particularly the security fixes.Best thing is to see what they are and then decide whether or not to install them.I don't ever use Internet Explorer so never install anything to do with it.
^^
And I don't use IE also.
And I don't use IE also. Mis-identification of the "root cause" ...
You're trying to use Windows Address Book (WAB), which has several, purposely incompatible formats.
Microsoft's entire strategy is to purposely change formats, sometimes incompatibly 2 versions back.
They have done this with MS Word "DOC" format for no less than 5 versions now.
They do it even with the (non-standard) Rich Text Format (RTF) which not only has newer versions, but Microsoft embeds "DOC" attributes in so it's not RTF when you export from Word.
Trust me, they do all this not merely to prevent compatibility, but to ***** you to buy their software and, more importantly, updates to their software (for even those that own older software).
Your problem isn't with Firefox, but relying on not even non-open, but relying on not even "proprietary" software.
"Proprietary" standards and software means the vendor values the format and software, and maintains it long-term.
Microsoft does not do that, unlike Adobe, Oracle, Corel and many of the other, rather significant software houses.
Microsoft is concerned with maintaining a lock on the distribution channel and existing share, not innovation.
Their entire approach to not just proprietary, but unmaintained (long-term) software, is how they keep people upgrading and staying away from other software.
There is only one exit from that issue.
And that is to put your data in open standard formats, WAB is not one of them.
AFA, you're mis-identifying the "root cause."
You're trying to use Windows Address Book (WAB), which has several, purposely incompatible formats.
Microsoft's entire strategy is to purposely change formats, sometimes incompatibly 2 versions back.
They have done this with MS Word "DOC" format for no less than 5 versions now.
They do it even with the (non-standard) Rich Text Format (RTF) which not only has newer versions, but Microsoft embeds "DOC" attributes in so it's not RTF when you export from Word.
Trust me, they do all this not merely to prevent compatibility, but to ***** you to buy their software and, more importantly, updates to their software (for even those that own older software).
Your problem isn't with Firefox, but relying on not even non-open, but relying on not even "proprietary" software.
"Proprietary" standards and software means the vendor values the format and software, and maintains it long-term.
Microsoft does not do that, unlike Adobe, Oracle, Corel and many of the other, rather significant software houses.
Microsoft is concerned with maintaining a lock on the distribution channel and existing share, not innovation.
Their entire approach to not just proprietary, but unmaintained (long-term) software, is how they keep people upgrading and staying away from other software.
There is only one exit from that issue.
And that is to put your data in open standard formats, WAB is not one of them.
Unfortunately ...
It has been like that since Visual Studio 4.0 in the mid-'90s when MS IE DLLs became the cornerstone of MFC like WinForms and Networking.
Then again, as I always say, MS Office itself would be classified as a "root exploit" on a UNIX system.
Unfortunately MS IE patches fix core exploits in all major Windows software, including virtually all applications (not just Microsoft's).
It has been like that since Visual Studio 4.0 in the mid-'90s when MS IE DLLs became the cornerstone of MFC like WinForms and Networking.
Then again, as I always say, MS Office itself would be classified as a "root exploit" on a UNIX system.
Similar threads
- Locked
