OT: Firefox4 is not available

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 09:47:47 -0700 (PDT), Roy wrote:


6 times faster! Cool, now I don't have to upgrade my bandwidth with
my ISP - I'll get 20mbps!

-sw
 
On 2011-03-23, dsi1 wrote:


Explain.

You don't know how to reduce your browser window to a one or two
toolbar window?



First off, what's a "web apps"? Second, why is it a "must in future
browsers"?

Why in the world would I want web-based apps? What's the advantage
over desktop-based apps? Why would I want "the web" to know
what-the-fsck-ever I have on my desktop/computer/hdd? Why is
everybody so freakin pissing-in-their-pants ready to hand over
everything they know to the WORLD WIDE WEB? I mean, c'mon. It's hard
enough to keep the bad guys out of your freakin' computer. Now, a
buncha corporate dirtbags come along and start chanting, "the cloud,
the cloud", and the sheep flock to it like it's the 2nd coming.

Are you ppl for real?


That's something you should demand, not expect.

I find the FTP and Web developer add-ons to be really handy for

If it's what YOU want.

nb
 
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 11:10:15 -0700 (PDT), John Kuthe wrote:


It won't tell everybody at the same time. It's probably not informing
anyone to automatically upgrade for a major release. Some people
would freak if it automatically upgraded to a new, non-point release.

-sw
 
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 23:27:23 -0400, Cheryl wrote:


I'm using Win7. But as Leroy mentioned, changing the persona fixes
that. Unfortunately there aren't any simple color scheme personas.
they all have textures or pictures as backgrounds. I went with
something like 'Blue fox v.4'.

So if "Themes" don't exist any more, what changes the button/menu
styles? Oh, I see - themes are considered add-ons.

-sw
 
On 3/24/2011 9:25 PM, Nunya Bidnits wrote:

Some guys use GG for everyday posting and reading and some guys use it
on occasion. Are you claiming that one type of usage is acceptable and
the other is not? This sounds like massive rationalization to me.
 
On 3/23/2011 5:50 PM, notbob wrote:

It's a unique feature of Chrome - you type in a URL or search term in a
single box. The browser is smart enough to know what you want. The
question is why are other browsers so dumb?


I don't know what you're talking about but I probably know how to
operate a browser as well as the next guy.


It's likely that in the near future, we'll be using more web based apps
like Google Groups and GMail and Google Docs and even web based
anti-virus programs on hand-held devices with our files stored or at
least backed up on a remote server.

I use Google Calendar to schedule appointments every day. Instead of
opening a browser and typing a URL, I just click on my desktop to open
the application. Chrome allows me to use these apps as if they were
loaded on my computer.


The reason I would use a web-based app is because it makes sense. Using
a web based calendar to schedule appointments makes a lot of sense. I
don't use a web based word processor or email program because it doesn't
make much sense for what I do. Perhaps it will in the future.


Feel free to demand that browsers get rid of tabs. As it goes, you can
try to find what works for you or you can howl at the moon. Personally,
I didn't know that there were any browsers in general use without that
feature. Not to worry - one of these days, you'll learn how to configure
one of these programs. :-)


Ain't life grand?
 
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 18:38:20 -1000, dsi1 wrote:


If it's smart enough to know what you want, why do you even have to
type anything at all?


Not in my world. You're just one of those Google Flockers that notbob
was talking about. You just had over everything to Google.* and trust
them with your life.

That's a stupid approach.


It sounds like you use Google-everything. Can't you run your life
without Google?

It's a sad state this world is coming to.

-sw
 
On 3/24/2011 7:39 PM, Cheryl wrote:

I haven't downloaded it yet. Can someone tell me what kinds of changes
are necessary to make FF4 look like a basic FF3? How do you make the
changes?

I started in the mid 90's with Netscape then over to Mozilla Suite then
Firefox. I never had a problem with any upgrades, but, from what I'm
reading, FF4 is a little scary.

It sounds to me that it will look just like Chrome.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.
 
On 3/25/2011 8:06 AM, Janet Wilder wrote:

By George, I think you're right about this. It looks like Chrome which
looks like Safari - sleek. That's the breaks. You can still configure it
to look like the old interface by making sure the menu bar is visible -
by default, it is not. Adding some big or small icons to the toolbar
also helps to get that old bulky look back.

Not to worry though - the basics are still there. You'll still have
separate address and search boxes and you'll still be constantly
informed that certain apps are not comparable with your current version
of FF, and you'll still be asked it you want to see if there are newer,
compatible versions available and also asked you if you want to update
your apps and/or FF.

It's likely that you're not going to like the future of FF because
they'll probably adopt more features of the Chrome browser. These will
probably be more than superficial changes. I'm guessing they're going to
automate their update process - personally, I'd like that one.
 
On 3/23/2011 7:27 PM, Sqwertz wrote:

I said it was smart, not a mind reader.


You like dissing Google yet I'm betting you use their services too - how
dishonorable!

Keep in mind that future trends and how people work with computers have
nothing to do with the personal feelings of old dudes who are stuck in
the past. The future is not for them. You guys think you're so brave and
honest and cool but you're just old farts. Unix dinosaurs.


Read my posts about Google - you know where you can find the indexed
search-able Usenet archives. Otherwise, stick with what you know cause
you know nothing about how I feel about Google. Rest assured that this
is purely intentional.
 
On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 12:48:08 -0600, Christine Dabney wrote:


I'm downloading it now. It's screaming along at 9 Kbps. So far I'm
not impressed.

-sw
 
In article ,
"Nunya Bidnits" wrote:


I downloaded 4.0 yesterday. I didn't notice anything about it being a
Beta, though I wasn't looking for that notice either. I don't
use it as my primary browser.

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
 
In article ,
"Nunya Bidnits" wrote:


Dang! How silly of me to not realize that. I use it to look at
clothes!

--
Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
Holy Order of the Sacred Sisters of St. Pectina of Jella
"Always in a jam, never in a stew; sometimes in a pickle."
Pepparkakor particulars posted 11-29-2010;
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
 
Re: [email protected]

dsi1 wrote:


You're not grasping my point. *IF* a person wants to reference any
historical archives on Usenet, past the point of their own server's
retention, *there is no other choice* than to use GG. Don't you get that?
It's not a matter of willingness, it's a matter of necessity because the
Deja News archive was hijacked by GG years ago. So even someone who hates
Google has nowhere else to go for that resource, or to reference a series of
posts or compilation on a subject, there is no other way to transmit URL
references to those posts.

It's not rationalization when there is no other option because the company
you don't like has monopolized what you want to use.

Personally I don't mind Google's search engines and I don't need their mail
accounts, and I also think their Blogger service is pretty cool. But I
detest Google groups as well as their relentless campaign to acquire
personal data in depth from those who just want to do simple things on the
net. And my main objection to GG is very sound... between gmail and GG, they
have facilitated communications for hundreds of thousands of spammers,
trolls, malicious site posters and virus distributors. If you have ever
tried to report a particularly egregious or repetitious violation, even if
it borders on the criminal, you quickly learn that they don't give a rat's
ass. The way they have implemented but failed to police the GG service is
irresponsible and cynical. It seems unthinkable that such a technically
advanced company should hold the time honored conventions of Usenet in such
callous disregard. And don't tell me it's because it's old technology. If it
was useless or dying, Google wouldn't have anything to do with it.

I also don't like the notion that some folks never learn how nicely a proper
newsreader works in organizing, storing, and presenting Usenet material,
compared to the mind numbing methods of doing the same things in GG, even
when referencing material you've already read. I for one detest loading page
after page to get to something that is accesible with one cllick in a
newsreader. I think the problem is that it causes people not to learn to use
technology, and rather to have someone else do it for them and hand them
everything, mindless of the fact that it's inefficient and slow by
comparison.

Just because there is a cloud doesn't mean that is the one and only solution
for all computing from here on out. But it does pose the risk of creating a
generation whose ability to manipulate computer technology at a fine grained
and customizable level is decreasing rather than improving.

And finally, if I am doing a writing project, I definitely want my work
here, not up in the sky somewhere. MS Word is just ducky. If I want it to be
somewhere else, no problem, I can put it anywhere on the planet that I
choose, and I know for a fact who will see it and who won't.

MartyB
 
Back
Top