Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Saving Pictures Wednesday, January 16, 2008 at 8:28 pm Posted by Steve (23811 messages posted) Can Happen when the Temporary Internet folder gets to Full. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 5:50 am Posted by The TOOLMAN (4 messages posted) Steve, that fixed it... Thats the first time in years that has ever happened to me. I guess thats why I didn't know what to do. Thank You very much. Ronnie B. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Thursday, January 17, 2008 at 6:15 pm Posted by Steve (23811 messages posted) Except for Vista, have seen that Internet Explorere bug in most versions of Windows. The best fix is to use a Better Browser, like Firefox.:) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Friday, January 18, 2008 at 4:44 am Posted by Keith Stanier (1655 messages posted) I've had this very rarely with IE where it wants to save as a bmp not a jpg and my temporary internet files are full. I think its a lot to do with the web site, what format they use for their pictures. You can always save then as a bmp and covert them later. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Friday, January 18, 2008 at 7:30 am Posted by Steve (23811 messages posted) It does require something like a damaged file, like a ActiveX or Java object according to a Microsoft knowledge base article, but still it is a common occurrence in Internet Explorer. This forum has a huge amount of old threads on the topic, especially in the XP Forum. I have not seen any new Threads started since IE7 came out, but these days a lot of Users have utilities like ccleaner that clean the junk out of these folders regularly, so I think that has something to do with the drop in the subject matter. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 7:03 pm Posted by Arminius (334 messages posted) I think there may be more than one cause of this problem. If emptying out the temporary internet files folder worked for THE TOOLMAN then that's good. As I have stated in another thread I empty out my temporary internet files folder regularly so it never gets very full, yet I have the same problem from time to time. I use a workaround by saving the page as a complete web page and retrieving the image from the folder that is created. As an experiment try saving one of the jpg's of Bogart and Bacall on this page by right-clicking on it using Internet Explorer: http://www.enteringthemindseye.com/boldventure.html Now try saving one of the images from this page using IE: http://www.decoderringtheatre.com/ I have no problem saving the Bogart and Bacall images as jpg's but I can only save the images on the Decoder Ring Theater page as bmp's when I right-click on them. In order to save the images as jpg's I need to save the entire page first and then retrieve the jpg from the folder that is created. That says to me it is the way the page is coded moreso than anything else. I wonder if the same thing happens with Firefox? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 8:42 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) |I wonder if the same thing happens with Firefox? | Arminius I wondered when someone was going to mention a 21st Century browser. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Saturday, January 19, 2008 at 11:33 pm Posted by Arminius (334 messages posted) Hi gewg, I have been reading this forum regularly for over a year and I anticipated that kind of comment. When I leave a dirty plate in the kitchen sink over night I can just about guarantee my wife is going to say something about it the next morning. :) I tried Firefox briefly on my old Win98FE installation some years ago before I scrapped it and did not see the advantage of it. Besides, it has a reputation for being a resource hog. When I installed Win 98SE I just didn't bother with Firefox, it was a case of six of one or half a dozen of the other. While IE may have security vulnerablities on paper I have not experienced any serious problems with it myself. I don't keep personal details on the computer, I don't do online banking, and buy things online only very rarely (only once or twice a year). As of a month ago I changed ISPs and the new plan required Win 2000 or higher. I was told Microsoft no longer licensed the ISP's tech support people to distribute support files for Win 98 so they adjusted the system requirements for their plans accordingly. (Read: Microsoft-induced forced upgrades.) Rather than argue with them or pass up a generous plan I went along with it and installed Win 2000 on my internet box. I still use 98SE on my other two boxes which are not connected. In the short term IE patches are still being released for IE6sp1 on Win 2000. I have to say Win 2000 provides a smoother ride while surfing the web than Win 98 ever did. If you are concerned about security issues online, a patched Win 2000 has much to recommend it over Win 98. All that said, I might give Firefox another try. So how did you go saving those pictures? [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 1:09 pm Posted by Steve (23811 messages posted) The Problem of saving picture files as only bmps doesn't happen with Firefox, or Opera. It is a Internet Explorer Bug. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures -- The *Modern Browser* solution (et al) Sunday, January 20, 2008 at 3:30 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) |Hi gewg, |I have been reading this forum regularly for over a year |and I anticipated that kind of comment. | Arminius | It doesn't cost anyone a dime to step into the current century and leave behind Internet Exploder's WELL-DOCUMENTED security flaws as well as abandoning IE's ancient, clunky lack of abilities (exacerbated by M$ crippling its latest stuff so that will NOT run under W98 as well as by the **No more IE updates for W98 users** thing). Both http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/ and http://www.opera.com/download/index.dml?platform=windows are gratis (ZERO COST). Mozilla browsers are also libre (free as in speech). My preference is Firefox's big brother, the SeaMonkey suite (mainly for its integral HTML editor). http://www.mozilla.org/projects/seamonkey/ |I tried Firefox briefly on my old Win98FE installation some years ago |[...]and did not see the advantage of it. | It's obvious that you didn't try any extensions. They make web surfing a joy--instead of a chore in a minefield. More below. |Besides, it has a reputation for being a resource hog. | Now, THAT is true. In addition, I have to shut down my Gecko browser more often than I would like because of its imperfect memory usage. It's a work in progress--but patches are put out constantly (in stark contrast to M$'s No Mas attitude WRT IE6 & W98). Opera is much cleaner WRT memory usage. ...and IE benefits in the statistical comparison of resource use from its being entwined with the entrails of Windoze (a security flaw). http://www.google.com/search?q=define:chimera I also rejected Firefox (in favor of the Gecko suite). One big reason was I found it impossible to do what *I* consider *basic* configuration thru Firefox's menu (I had been using the suite since v1.2 in 2002 and went back). I find SeaMonkey's DOM Inspector is very handy as well. |While IE may have security vulnerablities on paper | Yes, Internet Exploder's vulnerablities have been documented FOR YEARS cache of http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/323070 Those security holes CONTINUE to be widely exploited with simple scripts. CERT gave **the solution** on that page as well (USE A NON-M$ BROWSER). Micros~1 Internet-related tools SUCK. Professional Web developers universally despise Microsoft editors and browsers. They are PURPOSELY BROKEN: cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish |I have not experienced any serious problems with it myself. |I don't keep personal details on the computer, I don't do online banking[...] | It is very telling about the cluelessness of a business when it insists on having people use the LEAST SECURE MECHANISM (IE & ActiveX) to access their financial data. Your lack of serious infection is testament to YOUR CAUTIOUS BEHAVIOR rather than a decision to use The World's Least Secure Browser (and an ancient version of it at that). Luck also plays a part. While YOU aren't having problems[1], a multitude of posts on this site (and others) testify to widespread infections from the the gaping security holes in M$ software --with Internet Exploder being the most obvious entry portal. |[New ISP doesn't support Win98] (Read: Microsoft-induced forced upgrades.) | Definition of the Internet: "A homogeneous network with a hetrogeneous infrastructure". IOW, it's about **UNIVERSAL protocols**. Translation: It's not supposed to matter what you run. I noted earlier this week http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1199853459 that ISP software is unnecessary and is universally crap. |Rather than argue with them or pass up a generous plan |I went along with it and installed Win 2000 on my internet box. | See the link directly above for **what exactly** you need from an ISP. (There should be no reason you can't connect to ANY ISP using Linux, OS X, etc. Packets are packets; see "homogeneous", above.) Of course, NT-based is more stable and more secure than DOS-based --and of the NT-based OSes, W2k is acknowledged as the least obnoxious (no Product Activation, no WGA, no DRM).[2] |[...]IE patches are still being released for IE6sp1 on Win 2000. |I have to say Win 2000 provides a smoother ride while surfing the web |than Win 98 ever did. |If you are concerned about security issues online, |a patched Win 2000 has much to recommend it over Win 98. | The security experts told us YEARS AGO that the 1st step in security is STOP USING INTERNET EXPLORER. |All that said, I might give Firefox another try. | 21st Century capabilities add to your Web experience. cache of http://www.intertwingly.net/blog/2007/08/23/Intermittent-IE-failures cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics#Native_support As previously noted, extensions make A HUGE DIFFERENCE. NoScript (or PrefBar or another extension that implements this) is your first step so you always know *which* scripts are running on your box. For annoyance abatement: AdBlock Plus[3], FlashBlock, NukeAnything Enhanced, (actually, look at PrefBar or Mnenhy before looking at other narrowly-targeted extensions). To kick your personalized Web experience into overdrive: cache of http://greasemonkey.mozdev.org/index2.html There are some pages that load for me in a tiny fraction of what is required with ancient browsers; this is because I have all the useless junk blocked. Not having useless crap taking up screen space is nice as well. |So how did you go saving those pictures? | I try to stay away from sites constructed by complete idiots http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.enteringthemindseye.com/boldventure.html but the other page gave me no problems. (Again: using a Gecko-based browser.) When I *do* have a problem with images because of an anal-retentive site owner who defeats right-click, SeaMonkey (nee Mozilla Suite) does all I ever need: File; Edit Page (The integral HTML Editor--nee Netscape Composer--opens). In the HTML Editor: Mark & copy some text near the image; Switch to (HTML) Source mode; Search for the text; Look for the IMG tag or JPG extension near that to get the image's URL. Put that into the Address Bar of your browser. Bingo! ----------- Often, just asking for the Image Properties in the WYSIWYG mode of the Editor will give the image's URL. ----------- Some SeaMonkey users do View; Page Info; Media to find the image URLs. ========== If those don't get you there, Httracker or WGET can download an entire page or site as files. [1] WRT the **Works fine for me** comments that come from IE users, I'm constantly reminded of the old gem: "Data" is not the plural of "anecdote" --Robert L. Park, PhD A fundamental of The Scientific Method is **accounting for ALL the data points**: browser VERSIONS, software running concurrently, and PEBKAC. [2] ...and comparing M$ OSes to Unix-like OSes is like comparing the Wright Flyer to NCC-1701D. [3] The latest version of Opera also has an (INTEGRAL) Block Content feature --showing it to be a MODERN browser. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Saving Pictures -- The *Modern Browser* solution (et al) Monday, January 21, 2008 at 9:31 am Posted by Arminius (334 messages posted) Ok gewg, you made your case. You talked me into installing a different browser. I decided to give Opera a try. You covered a lot of ground. I'll just leave a few comments about some of the things you wrote. "I also rejected Firefox (in favor of the Gecko suite)." -I noticed some of the recent Linux releases are abandoning Firefox in favor of Gecko as well. "Definition of the Internet: "A homogeneous network with a hetrogeneous infrastructure". IOW, it's about **UNIVERSAL protocols**. Translation: It's not supposed to matter what you run." -The lack of "support for Win 98" by my ISP goes beyond that. It means no technical support in the event of hardware problems for the modem or the Netgear Wi-fi adapter that were included in the package despite the fact that Win 98SE drivers for these hardware devices are readily available from the manufacturers website. Using Win 98 would make it harder to make a warranty claim in event of hardware failure. I would have to demonstrate that the hardware did not function on one of the OS's "supported" by the ISP, Win 2000, XP, or Vista. And just to give you an idea of what I am dealing with, one of my ISP's tech support people didn't know that Win 2000 was on their supported OS's list until I told him and he checked. I was later told by another, they rarely ever come across a customer who uses Win 2000. "I noted earlier this week http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1199853459 that ISP software is unnecessary and is universally crap." -At least they got that part right. They installed little more than the hardware drivers. "I try to stay away from sites constructed by complete idiots http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.enteringthemindseye.com/boldventure.html but the other page gave me no problems. (Again: using a Gecko-based browser.)" -I think "complete idiots" is a bit harsh. I would say "complete amateurs", I have been downloading mp3s from that site for over two years and would not have posted the link if I had reason to believe there were any dangers at that site. It is a family home page that belongs to some nice folks who do a respectable job but are not experts. "When I *do* have a problem with images because of an anal-retentive site owner who defeats right-click, SeaMonkey (nee Mozilla Suite) does all I ever need: File; Edit Page (The integral HTML Editor--nee Netscape Composer--opens)." -I figured out how to fix right-click problems by trial and error. I just save the web page, open it in a text editor, and edit out the offending code. Thanks for the detailed dissertation. Well, I already noticed one bug in Opera, not being able to copy text from the web page and paste it elsewhere. Arminius [Reply or follow-up to this message] Good browsers, good HTML tools, good companies, good HTML pages Monday, January 21, 2008 at 12:45 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) |You talked me into installing a different browser. I decided to give Opera a try. | Arminius | Opera is solid and efficient (it's my backup) but you won't get the amazing abilities that come with Gecko's (user-created) extensions. (Ah, the power of open source software.) ||I also rejected Firefox (in favor of the Gecko suite). || gewg_ || |I noticed some of the recent Linux releases are abandoning Firefox | I think you are wrong there (not the 1st time this week I've seen something related to this). I believe you're thinking of the Debian / Mozilla Foundation squabble over trademarked graphic logos. cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceweasel#Origins_of_the_issue_and_of_the_Iceweasel_name |in favor of Gecko as well. | I don't think you understand "Gecko" either. Gecko is the underlying technology used in ALL Mozilla products (and their offshoots). When the Mozilla Foundation inherited Netscape's codebase, they hacked on it a while, then, realizing what a complete mess it was, they just gave up and started re-coding from zero. This page shows browsers grouped under their respective rendering engines: cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_web_browsers#Gecko-based_browsers ||[...]ISP software is unnecessary and is universally crap. || |At least [my new ISP] got that part right. |They installed little more than the hardware drivers. | Huh-zah! ...of course, the rest was crapware. ||I try to stay away from sites constructed by complete idiots ||http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.enteringthemindseye.com/boldventure.html || |I think "complete idiots" is a bit harsh. | Well, I say, "If the shoe fits..." |I would say "complete amateurs", | If you were used to using the W3C Validator, you would recognize results that say that the page wasn't good enough to even BEGIN checking the actual coding. It didn't even pass the PRE-test. It is obvious that the person who slopped together that page had no clue what he was doing and didn't know OR DIDN'T CARE that HTML pages can AND SHOULD be validated BEFORE they are published to the Web. My guess is that he used a MSFT tool. From my previous post: ::Micros~1 Internet-related tools SUCK. ::Professional Web developers universally despise Microsoft editors and browsers. M$'s piss-poor analog of HTML (like their piss-poor analog of Java --as noted in my previous *Embrace, extend and extinguish* link) is an attempt to BREAK compatibility. Redmond's crappy tools are the mechanism to accomplish this goal. Note to all: If you want to learn "How to Create HTML", find a tutorial that EARLY ON discusses *What is Valid Code* and *How do I VALIDATE my code?*. Make sure they DON'T specify Micro$oft tools; good FREE tools are readily available. If you are going to *pay* for a tool, get Dreamweaver. |I have been downloading mp3s from that site for over two years |and would not have posted the link if I had reason to believe |there were any dangers at that site. | Their content might impress you but I assume that anyone who can't even put together a valid Web page doesn't know how to secure his site AND won't know when it has been hacked. With my luck, that would be right after you posted the link. 8-( ||When I *do* have a problem with images ||because of an anal-retentive site owner who defeats right-click[...] || |I figured out how to fix right-click problems by trial and error. |I just save the web page, open it in a text editor, and edit out the offending code. | |I already noticed one bug in Opera, |not being able to copy text from the web page and paste it elsewhere. | While I was posting yesterday, I was thinking about that --then, last night I ran across this: http://www.snopes.com/language/literary/rosie.asp Opening it in my HTML editor and viewing the source code reveals: document.onmousedown=disableselect Paranoid, small-minded people 8-( --easily thwarted by anyone with a clue and a parser. |Thanks for the detailed dissertation. | No sweat. When we all share the wealth, things get better. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Good browsers, good HTML tools, good companies, good HTML pages Wednesday, January 23, 2008 at 1:12 am Posted by dhm (1069 messages posted) "Opening it in my HTML editor and viewing the source code reveals: document.onmousedown=disableselect --easily thwarted by anyone with a clue and a parser." Oh, so that's the reason some sites are balky on that. But I don't need the parser. By trial and error I found that I can select anyway if I click and draw the mouse upwards across the text. As the saying goes, "The problem with making something foolproof is that fools are so ingenious." Of course, that means ... But anyway I got it to work by simply doing it backwards. [Reply or follow-up to this message] Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread Search this forum Start a new thread on a different subject Report abuse of the forum Return to the Windows 98 Discussion Forum