I was told by members of this group that Firefox might be a good replacement for 
my screwing-up IE browser. But of course, when I go to Mozilla's site, they indicate 
the current version of Firefox isn't for 98SE (at least, they don't list it).

Could you help answer the following issues?

1. Which version of Firefox should I download for 98SE, if not the current one?

2. Can it be installed with IE still on the computer, so I can try out Firefox for 
a while before I remove IE?

3. Any special problems or patches I should be aware of?

Thanks, and this is a terrific group! :)

Tip: Run a free scan for common Windows errors ad

re: Which Firefox for Installing on 98SE? Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 3:04 pm Posted by Steve (23810 messages posted) For 98, Firefox2.0.20 is the one http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Which Firefox for Installing on 98SE? Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 3:21 pm Posted by Kit (14 messages posted) Many thanks, Steve. I'll download it and give it a try! :) On Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 3:04 pm, Steve wrote: >For 98, Firefox2.0.20 is the one >http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Which Firefox for Installing on 98SE? Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 3:45 pm Posted by Steve (23810 messages posted) Firefox won't interfere with IE, and when you install Firefox it will ask if you want to import IE Favorites, so you will feel right at Home with it. It is just a Browser, so there is not a big learning curve. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Which Firefox for Installing on 98SE? Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 5:57 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Kit wrote: ||||[...]when I go to Mozilla's site, ||||they indicate the current version of Firefox isn't for 98SE[...] Steve wrote: |||For 98, Firefox2.0.20 is the one |||http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/all-older.html There's this as well: (also works with OpenOffice 3) cache of http://x86.neostrada.pl/KernelEx Caveat: Many people despise the "AwesomeBar" of FF3. cache of http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-9965812-2.html I use Firefox's big brother (the SeaMonkey suite) and the formal releases of it haven't got that PitA yet. Steve wrote: |[...]when you install Firefox it will ask if you want to import IE Favorites, |so you will feel right at Home with it. | I actually sorta *like* the way IE does Favorites. Keeping each item as a file on the HDD allows you to have them timestamped, so I can search for stuff by date ranges. This DOES have the **disadvantage** of disk consumption of 8kB per item. I keep very little in my Mozilla bookmarks.html file. The 13 items in my Personal Toolbar (which stays minimized most of the time) is about all I keep there. My most-commonly-visited pages are links on an HTML page that I pull up from my Personal Toolbar. I keep the file manager open to access the majority of my Bookmarks/Favorites. I find it less irritating that repeatedly starting from zero and scrolling thru menus. |It is just a Browser, so there is not a big learning curve. | Yup--and the new stuff (like Tabbed Browsing) he will LOVE. Being able to close Tabs with a Middle-click is really nice. If he immediately installs the extensions FlashBlock, AdBlock Plus (and starts telling that what to ignore), and NoScript (and tells that what NOT to ignore), page loads get really fast and screenfuls of flickering, irritating crap become serene. (NoScript is a security enhancement as well.) Note: If you still go to sites that use (those incredible dangerous) ActiveX controls, you will still need M$IE--so those sites will still get a chance to infect your box. As soon as you are done with those garbage sites, close IE. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Firefox - TERRIFIC! But One Little Problem (Follow-Up) Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 8:23 pm Posted by Kit (14 messages posted) I've installed Firefox, AND IT ROCKS!!! In fact, I'm using it now to make this posting. Thanks to everyone for the recommendations and help. I LOVE the tabs, the Most Favorites toolbar, and the multiple search-engines right on the control panel. And FAST!! It's **Absolutely Fabulous**!! I do have one teeny problem, tho.. When I get on some newspage (say Yahoo for example), and they have an article that has a feature from.. say Youtube, IE apparently puts up the pic in the article as normal, where you click on it and it plays. I check the properties for this element and it appears to use MS Mediaplayer 9, which I have already installed on my machine. But the same webpage on Firefox puts up everything but the Youtube image. The text leaves a square hole where it should be, but the player doesn't get called up to fill the spot as it does in IE. It obviously isn't a media player install issue, as it works fine in IE (and has for years). I can't seem to find any setting in Firefox requiring a specification for media players, so I'm not sure if I need an Add-On, Windows Control Panel setting, or what. It must be some "hook" I haven't configured or loaded into Firefox yet. Does any one have any suggestions? It's just this one little problem, otherwise Firefox works *PERFECT*. On Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm, Kit wrote: >I was told by members of this group that Firefox might be a good replacement for my screwing-up IE browser. [Reply or follow-up to this message] Can't play Flash media at YouTube with my TERRIFIC new Firefox browser Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Kit wrote: |I've installed Firefox, AND IT ROCKS! [...] | Yup. The infection-prone thing that M$ slopped together[1] last century can't hold a candle to 21st-Century browsers. Even IE7 (which M$ purposely crippled for Win9x) is pretty crappy WRT standards. The European Union's lawsuit against Micros~1 may finally force them (for the first time) to a state of quasi-compliance with W3C standards in IE8. http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://microsoft.com |I do have one teeny problem, tho [...]Youtube | First, recognize that this is a Windows 98 forum and that things that don't install from the Windows CD are really off-topic here. That said, replacing IE solves about 93% of all Windoze-related problems, so we'll let it slide this one time. If you're going to continue to use a Mozilla product, however, you should get cozy with a corresponding Mozilla Usenet group and/or forum. Now, recognize that a Web browser is a tool for rendering HTML. *.FLV / *.SWF are NOT part of the HTML specification.[2] cache of http://filext.com/file-extension/FLV To get those kind of unsupported things to play "inside" your Web browser, you need 1) the proper "Helper Application" (Shockwave/Flash) 2) a plug-in that corresponds to the browser and that app. cache of http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/windows-all.html#Flash [1] Actually, M$ got rights to it from Spyglass Inc., screwed that company financially, then took over their browser and renamed it before turning it into an even bigger steaming pile of insecurity. [2] There is a new {video} tag in HTML5 that would make all of this moot, but if M$ doesn't support it in IE8, it will be stillborn. IE is currently losing ~2% of the browser market per year, but it's still got 88% by some counts. [Reply or follow-up to this message] Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 2:43 pm Posted by Kit (14 messages posted) I kind of got a mixed-message in reply to my question, so I guess that requires a mixed-response from me back. I think I got some sort of rules violation warning in gweg's reply, which seemed to be quite unfair to me, so I guess I need to find out if I really did something wrong (I want very much to ask future questions of this Group). Importantly, I have fixed my Firefox problem, which was simply that Shockwave/Flash for Mozilla was not automatically installed with Firefox (it was probably accessing the MS version, which does not work). I very much want to contribute to the Group, so I hope this info is helpful for future Firefox/98SE users. I caught the shockwave/flash and SWF reference from gweg's reply, and that gave me the clue, so I thank him very much for that. But admittedly, it was awfully hard to pick out of the anti-MS talk, and mingled with an apparent warning. So this response is just to explain my intent with the question, and determine if I did something wrong. I found it particularly frustrating that when everyone who responded (including gweg) said good things about Firefox, he felt I was out of line bringing up my questions about installing it on 98SE on this discussion group, especially since I was simply taking everyone's recommendation to swing over to it. A bit no-win trap, that. I didn't ask the Firefox install question until I had scanned the past posts in this Group, and found many requests on Firefox installation details. The question looked valid as long as it was in regards to installing apps on 98SE. I found it especially ironic that I was kind of hand-slapped to stick to Windows subjects while I constantly keep getting Linux discussions in the replies. I appreciated gweg's help immensely, and am very grateful. But it's important to understand that due to the fact I keep 98SE *ONLY* because it is the only operating system that supports about $8,000.00 of support software that programs amusement park rides and motion picture computer cameras, I: 1. Am not using Linux. 2. Don't plan to use Linux. 3. Am not going to consider using Linux. 4. Ask questions of this Group because I don't use Linux. I hope that saves a wasted sales pitch in the future, and again am very appreciative to gweg for his quick response, and helpful clues (and I agree 100% about Windoze, Bill Garbage, and M$). My apologies if I was out of line in some way. On Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 11:20 pm, gewg_ wrote: >First, recognize that this is a Windows 98 forum >and that things that don't install from the Windows CD are really off-topic here. >we'll let it slide this one time. >If you're going to continue to use a Mozilla product, however, >you should get cozy with a corresponding Mozilla Usenet group and/or forum. > >To get those kind of unsupported things to play "inside" your Web browser, >you need >1) the proper "Helper Application" (Shockwave/Flash) > >2) a plug-in that corresponds to the browser and that app. >cache of http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/windows-all.html#Flash > [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 5:00 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) Yes, Firefox queries are off topic on these forums. You should have checked on MozillaZine's Firefox sub-forum for info. In other words, if/when you encounter problems with FF, MozillaZine is the appropriate place to get help. Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 5:43 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Kit wrote: |I kind of got a mixed-message in reply to my question, |so I guess that requires a mixed-response from me back. |I think I got some sort of rules violation warning in gweg's reply, | That's gewg_ (sounds like "goog"). |which seemed to be quite unfair to me, |so I guess I need to find out if I really did something wrong | Here's what the Webmaster has to say: cache of http://www.annoyances.org/exec/show/help_forum#inappropriate |Importantly, I have fixed my Firefox problem, |which was simply that Shockwave/Flash for Mozilla |was not automatically installed with Firefox |(it was probably accessing the MS version, which does not work). | There is no "IE version" or "Mozilla version"--unless you are talking about plug-ins (a distinct one for each browser). |[...]it was awfully hard to pick out of the anti-MS talk, | 8-) With all they do wrong (technically and as a biz), they're such an easy target. |I found it particularly frustrating that when everyone who responded |(including [gewg]) said good things about Firefox, |he felt I was out of line bringing up my questions about installing it on 98SE | It sounded like you got it *installed* fine. The other stuff was **adding** to the basic install. My point is, if you want _specific_ info about an app, the forum/newsgroup for that app is the appropriate place for that --as well as the *best* place. You will find folks there that not only use it every day, you will often find the developers of the app hanging out seeing how things are going. WRT *that* app, those folks have the greatest depth of knowledge and the most current data. I equate wrong-forum posts with taking your Ford to a Toyota specialist. |A bit no-win trap, that. | I think I mentioned that and I gave dispensation for the single occurance. Now that you are aware that apps have forums of their own, you should find those for the apps you use --with the exception of things that install **from your Windoze CD**. |I found it especially ironic |that I was kind of hand-slapped to stick to Windows subjects |while I constantly keep getting Linux discussions in the replies. | Usually it is in response to something that is not possible with Win98, or is way easier with FREE non-M$ software, or is way more secure with FREE non-M$ software, or it is in response to someone mentioning in this Windows 98 forum that they plan to buy/install/use a non-98 OS. |[...]it's important to understand that due to the fact |I keep 98SE *ONLY* because it is the only operating system |that supports about $8,000.00 of support software |that programs amusement park rides and motion picture computer cameras, | FYI: A great deal of ostensibly Windoze-only software will run under a zero-cost OS. http://www.google.com/search?q=winehq With FREE OSes, there are also no Product Keys or other proprietary lock-outs. (You don't have to BUY a new copy for each machine.) | I: |1. Am not using Linux. |2. Don't plan to use Linux. |3. Am not going to consider using Linux. |4. Ask questions of this Group because I don't use Linux. | It is therefore critical that when downloading something and ESPECIALLY **before** laying your money on the sales counter you ensure that any hardware/software you choose to add to the matrix EXPLICITLY says it is 98-compliant. This is getting increasingly difficult. As I previously mentioned, even M$ doesn't support this OS any longer. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 5:46 pm Posted by Steve (23810 messages posted) Kind of Scary knowing Amusement Park Rides use Windows 98. :) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 7:27 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) Arrgh! Do you get a cut for everyone you talk into Linux or what?! You know you're off topic, right? Always. Linux on a Windows forum is inappropriate. Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 7:42 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) Ms. Eagle wrote: Arrgh! Do you get a cut for everyone you talk into Linux or what?! Yup. My 50% cut of FREE is $0. You know you're off topic, right? Always. Linux on a Windows forum is inappropriate. Tell that to someone who thrashed his Windoze install and didn't have backups until he booted to a Linux CD and, using only the tools on the CD, burned all his data to optical media. ...or to someone didn't want to pay for Partition Magic. ...or to someone didn't want to pay for Norton Ghost. ...or... [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Follow Up: Firefox Problem Solved Without Linux! Was My question Off-Topic? Friday, February 20, 2009 at 9:12 pm Posted by Ms. Eagle (33640 messages posted) Oh, I forgot Linux is free. Silly me! :) Blocking Unwanted Parasites with a Hosts File [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Which Firefox for Installing on 98SE? Sunday, March 1, 2009 at 4:36 pm Posted by runsan (104 messages posted) Don’t bother with Firefox (it's a con built of IE). The older versions are slower/bugged & the bookmarks aren’t single files, it’s just one complicated file (not convenient). I speculate your using IE5? it’s well-known for screwing-up, I suggest you upgrade to IE6 due to it’s higher performance (MS has not ended support for it). On Thursday, February 19, 2009 at 2:48 pm, Kit wrote: >I was told by members of this group that Firefox might be a good replacement for >my screwing-up IE browser. But of course, when I go to Mozilla's site, they indicate >the current version of Firefox isn't for 98SE (at least, they don't list it). > >Could you help answer the following issues? > >1. Which version of Firefox should I download for 98SE, if not the current one? > >2. Can it be installed with IE still on the computer, so I can try out Firefox for >a while before I remove IE? > >3. Any special problems or patches I should be aware of? > >Thanks, and this is a terrific group! :) [Reply or follow-up to this message] As usual, "runsan" has no clue. Monday, March 2, 2009 at 5:24 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) runsan wrote: |Don’t bother with Firefox | Before taking to heart anything this user says, look at his record: http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum_search?user=1154084049&requested=win98 His moronic notions have to continually be slapped down by people with a clue. He has a great many opinions; none have a basis in fact. |(it's a con built of IE). | Complete nonsense. IE uses MSHTML (aka the Trident rendering engine--currently M$'s property) and Firefox uses the Gecko rendering engine, which has Netscape roots and is now Open Source Software under the GPL. The only common link between the 2 is Marc Andreessen (who start again from scratch after finishing Trident --having learned from his mistakes). http://www.google.com/search?q=Marc-Andreessen+Mosaic+Spyglass+Netscape+Gecko |The older versions are slower/ | Claptrap. You won't notice any negative speed difference when compared to any version of IE--especially one usable with Win98. You may notice an increase in speed, like when processing JavaScript with Firefox's (21st-Century) TraceMonkey JavaScript engine. |bugged | WRT "bugged" [buggy?]: Total garbage. (Like all versions of FF)--and unlike IE-- even the old versions aren't open wounds just waiting to be infected. The time span since FF3 has been released hasn't allowed any threats to be developed nor exploited. There have also been updates to FF2 since that time. Your 'bugged" [buggy?] comment is uninformed crap. If you have a link that confirms your statement with details, post it. Bugs in Open Source Software are squashed MUCH faster than in M$ products. There are known bugs in IE that have been there for YEARS without patches --and the defects in IE (especially before IE7) will remain in place eternally; there is no further suppport for IE6 (and certainly not for earlier versions) and IE6 is the last version that works under Win9x --MSFT purposely broke compatibility with IE7 and Win9x). |& the bookmarks aren’t single files, | ...and, as such, don't take up 8kB each on your hard drive. ...and, as a single file, are easier to back up (especially if they have names with over 64 characters). NOTE: That said, I like my Bookmarks/Favorites *timestamped*, so I go the other way, but there is no other reason I can see for not using the Mozilla method. For most things, I like the way IE does it BUT I'm *willing* to take the hit on HDD space used as well as the extra effort it takes to create those non-native items under Gecko. |it’s just one complicated file (not convenient). | You are a moron. Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks are kept in a standard HTML file called -- wait for it -- bookmarks.html. You can use it the standard way *or* call it as a viewable page of hyperlinks. Most people (who notice a difference) find it MORE convenient than IE's Favorites. |I speculate [you're] using IE5? it’s well-known for screwing-up, | ALL versions of IE are festering sores. Because of the needlessly liberal privileges granted to the highly-integrated M$ browser, the *less* you use IE, the **lower** your chances of a SYSTEM infection. NOTE: I stopped letting IE have access to the 'Net in 2002. Anyone can do the same with an entry in his software firewall's configuration. |I suggest you upgrade to IE6 due to [its] higher performance | Not "higher" when compared to ANY non-M$ browser --if you don't count ease of system infection via IE. If you run a Micros~1 OS, you will probably need to to have a working install of MSHTML (the core engine). It is used by the Help system, among other things; several (clueless) app vendors also call it (instead of the default browser). Since M$ shut down the auto-update for 9x, you don't need the M$ browser --unless you go to websites that use (the incredibly dangerous) ActiveX controls. Immediately after playing Russian Roulette on those sites, shut down IE and use a non-M$ browser for the rest of your websurfing. |(MS has not ended support for it). | Utter rubbish. ...and if you are concerned about PRIVACY, the way IE keeps stuff in the Registry is avoided by using a non-M$ browser. Avoiding Micros~1 as much as possible makes it MUCH simpler to erase your browsing footprints. ...and if you had READ the thread, you would see the OP has started to use Firefox and is VERY impressed with it. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue. Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 1:16 pm Posted by runsan (104 messages posted) The majority of infections come from sites you visit (it’s not solely IE fault). IE has a better bookmark system, e.g. I have a single file, and can place it anywhere, i.e. on my desktop for 'quick access' to the site or in a folder. Another annoyance: If I have a web page (stored on my drive) with a link to a word document in it or a program, firefox treats it like a download... with IE, it realises it’s on my own drive & opens the document/program without any prompt (it opens a .txt or .ppt within the IE browser so i dont have to access it's window). Firefox start page/search bar has Google 'tightly-embedded' in it, & they’re obviously bad on privacy. IE may stored data in the registry, but I securely wipe my drive and 'fresh install' every 6/7 months, providing I keep the drivers. On Monday, March 2, 2009 at 5:24 pm, gewg_ wrote: >runsan wrote: >|Don’t bother with Firefox >| >Before taking to heart anything this user says, look at his record: >http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum_search?user=1154084049&requested=win98 >His moronic notions have to continually be slapped down by people with a clue. >He has a great many opinions; none have a basis in fact. > >|(it's a con built of IE). >| >Complete nonsense. >IE uses MSHTML (aka the Trident rendering engine--currently M$'s property) >and Firefox uses the Gecko rendering engine, >which has Netscape roots and is now Open Source Software under the GPL. >The only common link between the 2 is Marc Andreessen >(who start again from scratch after finishing Trident >--having learned from his mistakes). >http://www.google.com/search?q=Marc-Andreessen+Mosaic+Spyglass+Netscape+Gecko > >|The older versions are slower/ >| >Claptrap. You won't notice any negative speed difference >when compared to any version of IE--especially one usable with Win98. >You may notice an increase in speed, like when processing JavaScript >with Firefox's (21st-Century) TraceMonkey JavaScript engine. > >|bugged >| >WRT "bugged" [buggy?]: Total garbage. (Like all versions of FF)--and unlike IE-- >even the old versions aren't open wounds just waiting to be infected. > >The time span since FF3 has been released >hasn't allowed any threats to be developed nor exploited. >There have also been updates to FF2 since that time. >Your 'bugged" [buggy?] comment is uninformed crap. >If you have a link that confirms your statement with details, post it. > >Bugs in Open Source Software are squashed MUCH faster than in M$ products. >There are known bugs in IE that have been there for YEARS without patches >--and the defects in IE (especially before IE7) will remain in place eternally; >there is no further suppport for IE6 (and certainly not for earlier versions) >and IE6 is the last version that works under Win9x >--MSFT purposely broke compatibility with IE7 and Win9x). > >|& the bookmarks aren’t single files, >| >...and, as such, don't take up 8kB each on your hard drive. > >...and, as a single file, are easier to back up >(especially if they have names with over 64 characters). > >NOTE: >That said, I like my Bookmarks/Favorites *timestamped*, so I go the other way, >but there is no other reason I can see for not using the Mozilla method. >For most things, I like the way IE does it >BUT I'm *willing* to take the hit on HDD space used >as well as the extra effort it takes to create those non-native items under Gecko. > >|it’s just one complicated file (not convenient). >| >You are a moron. >Gecko/Mozilla/Firefox/SeaMonkey bookmarks are kept in a standard HTML file >called -- wait for it -- bookmarks.html. >You can use it the standard way *or* call it as a viewable page of hyperlinks. >Most people (who notice a difference) find it MORE convenient than IE's Favorites. > >|I speculate [you're] using IE5? it’s well-known for screwing-up, >| >ALL versions of IE are festering sores. Because of >the needlessly liberal privileges granted to the highly-integrated M$ browser, >the *less* you use IE, the **lower** your chances of a SYSTEM infection. > >NOTE: I stopped letting IE have access to the 'Net in 2002. >Anyone can do the same with an entry in his software firewall's configuration. > >|I suggest you upgrade to IE6 due to [its] higher performance >| >Not "higher" when compared to ANY non-M$ browser >--if you don't count ease of system infection via IE. > >If you run a Micros~1 OS, >you will probably need to to have a working install of MSHTML (the core engine). >It is used by the Help system, among other things; >several (clueless) app vendors also call it (instead of the default browser). > >Since M$ shut down the auto-update for 9x, you don't need the M$ browser >--unless you go to websites that use (the incredibly dangerous) ActiveX controls. >Immediately after playing Russian Roulette on those sites, >shut down IE and use a non-M$ browser for the rest of your websurfing. > >|(MS has not ended support for it). >| >Utter rubbish. > >...and if you are concerned about PRIVACY, the way IE keeps stuff in the Registry >is avoided by using a non-M$ browser. >Avoiding Micros~1 as much as possible >makes it MUCH simpler to erase your browsing footprints. > >...and if you had READ the thread, >you would see the OP has started to use Firefox and is VERY impressed with it. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue. Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 5:11 pm Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) runsan wrote: |The majority of infections come from sites you visit | In the 21st Century, the majority of infections come thru email and require foolish people using insecure M$ apps to execute them. ...and the people who run non-M$ apps and especially non-M$ OSes don't seeem to have problems with infections from websites. |(it’s not solely IE fault). | People getting pwned via IE6 is so common, when it happens, it doesn't even make a ripple any more. Now, botnets of ten of thousands of IE users--that makes the news. IE has ActiveX and Browser Helper Objects. No other browser has those highly-exploitable infection vectors. The way IE is tied to the OS adds another HUGE pile of insecurities: cache of http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878 |IE has a better bookmark system, | Again: Not necessarily. Most people find no difference--until backup time; then non-IE browsers win via the density of the data. 8kB of disk space per Favorite is NOT the ideal. Being able to view Mozilla's bookmarks.html as a page (and click items) is also a nice option--not available with IE's Favorites. |e.g. I have a single file, | You have a MULTITUDE of files--8kB each. |and can place it anywhere, |i.e. on my desktop for 'quick access' to the site or in a folder. | Your inability to use your system effectively is YOUR problem. I've never had a problem making new shortcuts from existing items; Mozilla bookmarks are no exception. Read the Subject line of this post again. |Another annoyance: |If I have a web page (stored on my drive) with a link to a word document |in it or a program, firefox treats it like a download... | I have no idea what you are on about. Expecting a Web browser to open M$Office files is foolish. Another typical M$ fanboi defense of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish and proprietary junk rather than OPEN standards. If I want to create an HTML file, I use the integral HTML Editor (Mozilla Composer) in SeaMonkey. KompoZer is available (gratis and libre) for Firefox users. I don't use M$Office at all. |with IE, it realises [it] on my own drive |& opens the document/program without any prompt |(it opens a .txt or .ppt within the IE browser |so i dont have to access [its] window). | I have OpenOffice for dealing with M$Office files. I don't have a problem opening documents. ...and embedding links to M$Office docs in HTML pages is more clueless M$ fanboi stuff. |Firefox start page/search bar has Google 'tightly-embedded' in it, | I use SeaMonkey (FF's big brother) and I set my Start Page to about:blank. Firefox can do the same. Preferences can be easily changed thru menus or with about:config. You have no idea what you are talking about. |& they’re obviously bad on privacy. | I have no idea what you think you are talking about. I do a Ctrl+H to pull up my browser history and can delete _any_ item(s) I want --and Edit; Preference; Advanced; Cache; Clear Cache deletes *that* record. (I do wish *that* required fewer clicks --but there ARE tweaks for that; I just haven't bothered with them.) There are also numerous extensions for Mozilla browsers like NoScript; the extensions available for IE can't compare even slightly. |IE may stored data in the registry, | There's no "may" about it. |but I securely wipe my drive and 'fresh install' every 6/7 months, |providing I keep the drivers. | That's one way to do it--the foolish way. Using a BETTER browser that has an easily-editable history and which doesn't constantly put crap in the Registry is the SMART way to do it. Using an OS that doesn't have a Windoze Registry removes the issue completely. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: Thanks to All for Topic Clarification Sunday, March 8, 2009 at 8:41 am Posted by Kit (14 messages posted) Thanks to all who helped to clarify how the topics work here, and for the kind suggestions on apps choices. A special reply to Steve is in order here, in regards to amusement rides running on Windows. Yes, I know that THIS message is ironically 'way off topic, and I assure you it won't happen again. But I felt it critically important no one felt they were regularly getting on amusement rides that are run by Windows. That would be the start of a very nasty rumor, owing to me. TYPICALLY this is not done. There are a number of "Boiler Plate" specifications for what is termed "Life-Safety" level of equipment design. I helped write them. One of the fundamental rules is that Life-Safety equipment be operated by non-crashable Programmable Logic Controllers, or PLC's. Allen-Bradley makes the most widely-used one. Various companies developed utility programs to create, download, and real-time monitor the "Ladder Logic" PLC program that actually run the rides, which are executed from the PLC's NVRAM. The utility programs were for a long while exclusively DOS-based programs. Windows98 is the last version that can operate this software while still functioning in today's advanced file-handling world. Therefore, the DOS/Windows98 program is more of a development compiler and monitoring system utility. So ride the rides in peace. Again, my apologies for the deviation. I will stay on topic in my future questions, and my apologies for any trouble it created. On Friday, February 20, 2009 at 5:46 pm, Steve wrote: >Kind of Scary knowing Amusement Park Rides use Windows 98. :) [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue. Sunday, June 28, 2009 at 5:33 pm Posted by runsan (104 messages posted) IE is a standard in itself, & it’s proud not to be the underdog. FF does hinder when it comes to styling with CSS..you can’t color scrollbars & you can’t add styles to images. Fact: all versions compatible with 98 have glitches. FF isn’t completely friendly with various media embedding plugins… from suggesting “manual installs” for Shockwave and WMP, or (once they’re installed) either half-loads the embedded page, or loads everything… but refuses to play the content. Fact: IE6 has been more secure than Firefox 1 in 2006 FF flaws SA12403 - Unpatched since 08-30-2004 SA23046 - Unpatched since 11-22-2006 SA25481 - Unpatched since 06-01-2007 SA27907 - Unpatched since 12-04-2007 SA12580 - Unpatched from 09-18-2004 to 01-15-2008 SA20442 - Unpatched from 06-06-2006 to 10-19-2007 Using FF is not a solution to spyware as you put it & I shall encourage others to use IE thanks to it's reliability. On Tuesday, March 3, 2009 at 5:11 pm, gewg_ wrote: >runsan wrote: >|The majority of infections come from sites you visit >| >In the 21st Century, the majority of infections come thru email >and require foolish people using insecure M$ apps to execute them. > >...and the people who run non-M$ apps and especially non-M$ OSes >don't seeem to have problems with infections from websites. > >|(it’s not solely IE fault). >| >People getting pwned via IE6 is so common, >when it happens, it doesn't even make a ripple any more. >Now, botnets of ten of thousands of IE users--that makes the news. > >IE has ActiveX and Browser Helper Objects. >No other browser has those highly-exploitable infection vectors. > >The way IE is tied to the OS adds another HUGE pile of insecurities: >cache of http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878 > >|IE has a better bookmark system, >| >Again: Not necessarily. Most people find no difference--until backup time; >then non-IE browsers win via the density of the data. >8kB of disk space per Favorite is NOT the ideal. > >Being able to view Mozilla's bookmarks.html as a page (and click items) >is also a nice option--not available with IE's Favorites. > >|e.g. I have a single file, >| >You have a MULTITUDE of files--8kB each. > >|and can place it anywhere, >|i.e. on my desktop for 'quick access' to the site or in a folder. >| >Your inability to use your system effectively is YOUR problem. >I've never had a problem making new shortcuts from existing items; >Mozilla bookmarks are no exception. >Read the Subject line of this post again. > >|Another annoyance: >|If I have a web page (stored on my drive) with a link to a word document >|in it or a program, firefox treats it like a download... >| >I have no idea what you are on about. >Expecting a Web browser to open M$Office files is foolish. >Another typical M$ fanboi defense of Embrace, Extend, Extinguish >and proprietary junk rather than OPEN standards. > >If I want to create an HTML file, >I use the integral HTML Editor (Mozilla Composer) in SeaMonkey. >KompoZer is available (gratis and libre) for Firefox users. >I don't use M$Office at all. > >|with IE, it realises [it] on my own drive >|& opens the document/program without any prompt >|(it opens a .txt or .ppt within the IE browser >|so i dont have to access [its] window). >| >I have OpenOffice for dealing with M$Office files. >I don't have a problem opening documents. >...and embedding links to M$Office docs in HTML pages >is more clueless M$ fanboi stuff. > >|Firefox start page/search bar has Google 'tightly-embedded' in it, >| >I use SeaMonkey (FF's big brother) and I set my Start Page to about:blank. >Firefox can do the same. >Preferences can be easily changed thru menus or with about:config. >You have no idea what you are talking about. > >|& they’re obviously bad on privacy. >| >I have no idea what you think you are talking about. > >I do a Ctrl+H to pull up my browser history and can delete _any_ item(s) I want >--and Edit; Preference; Advanced; Cache; Clear Cache deletes *that* record. >(I do wish *that* required fewer clicks >--but there ARE tweaks for that; I just haven't bothered with them.) > >There are also numerous extensions for Mozilla browsers like NoScript; >the extensions available for IE can't compare even slightly. > >|IE may stored data in the registry, >| >There's no "may" about it. > >|but I securely wipe my drive and 'fresh install' every 6/7 months, >|providing I keep the drivers. >| >That's one way to do it--the foolish way. >Using a BETTER browser that has an easily-editable history >and which doesn't constantly put crap in the Registry is the SMART way to do it. > >Using an OS that doesn't have a Windoze Registry removes the issue completely. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue (especially WRT Internet Exploder) Monday, June 29, 2009 at 11:27 am Posted by gewg_ (4444 messages posted) runsan wrote: |IE is a standard in itself, | Internet Exploder is the standard for how NOT to build a browser. The fact is, the IE "standard" ARBITRARILY CHANGES from version to version. Web developers despise IE. Many no longer support IE6. ...and the standards for Web development (and tools) have **always** been the WorldWide Web Consortium's published standards for HTML, CSS, XML, etc. Their validators are the Gold Standard for what is and what isn't proper coding: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.annoyances.org/exec/forum/win98/1246235593 |& it’s proud not to be the underdog. | There is NO honor among criminals. IE is the product of a convicted criminal organization. IE was forced on its users by an abusive monopolist. Internet Exploder is something to be proud of producing (or using)?? NOT. |FF does hinder when it comes to styling with CSS.. | Interesting you should mention the area where IE trails the pack by a MASSIVE margin --again, EXPECIALLY in light of IE6's lousy compliance with the W3C's CSS standard. |you can’t color scrollbars & you can’t add styles to images. |Fact: all versions compatible with 98 have glitches. | KernelEx is a patch that allows FF3, Ooo3, Flash10, etc. to run under Win9x. There is nothing keeping you from use a MODERN browser --even the *most* modern versions of the Gecko-based browsers. ...and while we're on this topic, M$ PURPOSELY broke later versions of IE so they wouldn't work under Win9x (or even under W2k) and so you would have to give them $$$ for a new operating system. Truly a corporation populated by evil individuals. |FF isn’t completely friendly with various media embedding plugins… |from suggesting “manual installs” for Shockwave and WMP, | Both of those technologies are junk as well. Just get a MODERN Open Source media player like VLC or Mplayer. |or (once they’re installed) either half-loads the embedded page, |or loads everything… but refuses to play the content. | Again: The problem is chosing junky media players from contemptible corporations. |Fact: IE6 has been more secure than Firefox 1 in 2006 | NOT a fact: A dated conclusion based on a tainted, incomplete database. It is, in fact, a silly statement--at worst: fanboyism; at best: simply uninformed. |FF flaws |SA12403 - Unpatched since 08-30-2004 |SA23046 - Unpatched since 11-22-2006 |SA25481 - Unpatched since 06-01-2007 |SA27907 - Unpatched since 12-04-2007 |SA12580 - Unpatched from 09-18-2004 to 01-15-2008 |SA20442 - Unpatched from 06-06-2006 to 10-19-2007 | MINOR flaws--all now patched. A major problem in the methodology you cited is that the database relies on the vendors to report the flaws in their products. M$ is notorious for not only *not patching* flaws but **NOT EVEN REPORTING THEM** to start with. This is the antithesis of the Open Source ethos. ...and Firefox's time-to-patch latency is a particular shining example, as it is unparalleled for serious vulnerabilities. For contrast, see "CERT" (below). Your impotent attempts at slinging mud are really simple-minded. |Using FF is not a solution to spyware as you put it | The NoScript extention for Firefox (and its siblings) is the single most effective anti-malware meme available in ANY browser. Internet Exploder doesn't have anything that compares in any way in this arena. Excluding ActiveX from the browser is another obvious choice to improve security. The AdBlock Plus extension for Firefox (and its siblings) is also a MASSIVE improvement in the browsing experience. Be sure to mention when Internet Exploder offers anything like that--especially IE6. Actual facts: Since 2004, CERT, the US Govt's computer security experts have said STOP USING INTERNET EXPLORER. The contrast is so great, they say *Use ANY other browser*. They mentioned A MOUNTAIN of SERIOUS vulnerabilities: cache of http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878 ...and in the intervening years, NONE of those major flaws have been corrected. In addition, from a usability standpoint, looking at the results of Acid3 (the most recent browser proficiency test), Internet Exploder FAILS MISERABLY--and IE6 is at the very bottom of the entire lot. cache of http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Trident_-_Internet_Explorer cache of http://miglius.lt/acid-3-browser-test/1457 (Since that time, FF has improved to 93% and will hold there until after FF3.5, currently a RC, is formally released.) ...and IE6 doesn't even pass Acid2 (and NEVER will). Just pathetic. cache of http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2 cache of http://www.mezzoblue.com/archives/2005/07/28/ie7_css_upda (Internet Exploder didn't even pass Acid2 until IE8.) |& I shall encourage others to use IE thanks to it's reliability. | As usual, anyone who follows your always-wrong advice will find himself, at best, using an inferior browser and, at worst, with a thoroughly infected Windoze box. [Reply or follow-up to this message] re: As usual, "runsan" has no clue (especially WRT Internet Exploder) Wednesday, July 1, 2009 at 1:21 am Posted by runsan (104 messages posted) gewg_ wrote: |Internet Exploder is the standard for how NOT to build a browser. IE is simply-constructed while Mozilla browsers are more complex, resulting in them being more vulnerable to attack. |Firefox's time-to-patch latency is a particular shining example, |as it is unparalleled for serious vulnerabilities. Mozilla browsers suffer from to many 0-day vulnerabilities, thus patches are not released in a timely manner. |and IE6 doesn't even pass Acid2 (and NEVER will) Neither Firefox 1 or 2 passed the Acid2. |The NoScript extention for Firefox (and its siblings) is |the single most effective anti-malware meme available in ANY browser. Internet Exploder | doesn't have anything that compares in any way in this arena. There have been many extension issues that sometimes requires a clean reinstall to resolve, and the extensions themselves are not free of defects: FireFTP, Firebug. Wizz RSS News Reader, etc... which is why IE add-ons (IE had extensions 1st) are far more superior. | Excluding ActiveX from the browser is another obvious choice to improve security. Mozilla browsers are not 100% ActiveX compatible therefore 10-15% of web sites aren't completely compatible with them, which is why the majority favour IE. Mozilla browsers are more safer to be running on MS OSes than on Linux OSes (excluding SEL), due to Linux lacks multiple levels of authorisation. [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