D
DJW
what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
M
Mayayana
| what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?
I'm using FF 3.6 and Pale Moon 3.6. They will be
getting security updates until at least April.
I just downloaded Pale Moon 9 yesterday to try it
out. I don't see any notable changes, though I didn't
look far. I'm still using v. 3.6 because I generally don't
trust Mozilla anymore. They get almost all of their
funding from Google. They're also moving toward more
of a services/web-apps platform. The update schedule
has become so bizarre that one really has to either
ignore it or go along with auto-updates. (Thus your
question. Who's got time to thoroughly research the
changes every few weeks?)
There's a lot of nonsense planned for the future. One
example:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Silent_Update_OS_Dialogs
A plan to figure out how to bypass UAC so that FF
can update itself without you being notified. They even
have a plan to figure out how to allow commercial websites
to spam you when you're not at their sites! It would
work by having FF run constantly to listen for messages:
http://arstechnica.com/business/new...-web-push-notification-system-for-firefox.ars
So.... I don't know the exact differences between 3 and
9, but I would be careful in the future about accepting
any updates of anything from Mozilla without first
finding out for yourself what has changed.
I'm using FF 3.6 and Pale Moon 3.6. They will be
getting security updates until at least April.
I just downloaded Pale Moon 9 yesterday to try it
out. I don't see any notable changes, though I didn't
look far. I'm still using v. 3.6 because I generally don't
trust Mozilla anymore. They get almost all of their
funding from Google. They're also moving toward more
of a services/web-apps platform. The update schedule
has become so bizarre that one really has to either
ignore it or go along with auto-updates. (Thus your
question. Who's got time to thoroughly research the
changes every few weeks?)
There's a lot of nonsense planned for the future. One
example:
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Silent_Update_OS_Dialogs
A plan to figure out how to bypass UAC so that FF
can update itself without you being notified. They even
have a plan to figure out how to allow commercial websites
to spam you when you're not at their sites! It would
work by having FF run constantly to listen for messages:
http://arstechnica.com/business/new...-web-push-notification-system-for-firefox.ars
So.... I don't know the exact differences between 3 and
9, but I would be careful in the future about accepting
any updates of anything from Mozilla without first
finding out for yourself what has changed.
P
Paul
DJW said:what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?
Generally, with software, you check the "release notes" with each
release. In some cases, the release notes will have a list of bug
fixes for reported bugs, as well as new spiffy features. The
Wikipedia article for the larger packages, may summarize what has
changed.
Probably the single biggest reason to update, is when egregious
bugs are found in support libraries, such as bugs in libpng.
You'd almost swear those bugs were let in, on purpose, and the
"discovery" of the bugs, is to help force upgrading. How many
major projects, never review the third party code in the libraries ?
The mind boggles... If the software had those libraries, as
separate DLL files, we could change the DLL ourselves.
Paul
M
Mayayana
I got curious about this and started looking around.
Nil's link had a bit of info., but no real explanations.
This page has links for detailed rendering changes
for each version:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_10_for_developers
But those pages are detailing specific script/HTML/CSS
changes that are of interest to almost no one. (For web
design, if it only works in a later version of Firefox then it
doesn't work.)
Then I came across this interesting article:
http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/380856/three_annoying_things_about_firefox_4_how_fix_them_/
Apparently the menu bar and status bar were removed by
default as of FF4! It's my impression that the Mozilla people
are generally removing features and removing choice, going
toward the Chrome approach. Yet when I tried Pale Moon 9
I didn't see any difference in things like visible menus. Pale
Moon is a slightly simpler build of FF and keeps up with the
FF schedule. It may be a good option going forward if you
don't want your browser converted into a web-apps feed.
(But I'm basing that on only a quick test of PM9.)
Nil's link had a bit of info., but no real explanations.
This page has links for detailed rendering changes
for each version:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en/Firefox_10_for_developers
But those pages are detailing specific script/HTML/CSS
changes that are of interest to almost no one. (For web
design, if it only works in a later version of Firefox then it
doesn't work.)
Then I came across this interesting article:
http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/article/380856/three_annoying_things_about_firefox_4_how_fix_them_/
Apparently the menu bar and status bar were removed by
default as of FF4! It's my impression that the Mozilla people
are generally removing features and removing choice, going
toward the Chrome approach. Yet when I tried Pale Moon 9
I didn't see any difference in things like visible menus. Pale
Moon is a slightly simpler build of FF and keeps up with the
FF schedule. It may be a good option going forward if you
don't want your browser converted into a web-apps feed.
(But I'm basing that on only a quick test of PM9.)
K
Ken Springer
It's my impression that the Mozilla people
are generally removing features and removing choice, going
toward the Chrome approach.
The default is minimalist, and a lot of complaining about that in the
Mozilla newsgroups.
But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
add-ons, etc.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.4.5
N
Nil
Apparently the menu bar and status bar were removed by
default as of FF4! It's my impression that the Mozilla people
are generally removing features and removing choice, going
toward the Chrome approach.
The menu bar can be revealed by pressing the Alt key, or made always
visible via a menu option. Everything the Status Bar told you can be
seen elsewhere on the screen. You now have more real estate.
M
Mayayana
| But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
| add-ons, etc.
|
I noticed that in the article I linked they were using
an add-on to bring back the status bar. To me that's
a broken status bar. Using add-ons is an entirely
different thing from adjusting settings.
Removing settings options is a big part of why I've
given up on updating FF. I want windows rather than
tabs. I want a status bar. I *don't* want a search bar.
I *don't* want anything like Chrome. Very simple
preferences. If people have to get into research and
"tweaking" to just to make basic choices like that then
the focus has gone from providing a tool for people to
a commercially-oriented approach of trying to mold
the way people use the tool.
| add-ons, etc.
|
I noticed that in the article I linked they were using
an add-on to bring back the status bar. To me that's
a broken status bar. Using add-ons is an entirely
different thing from adjusting settings.
Removing settings options is a big part of why I've
given up on updating FF. I want windows rather than
tabs. I want a status bar. I *don't* want a search bar.
I *don't* want anything like Chrome. Very simple
preferences. If people have to get into research and
"tweaking" to just to make basic choices like that then
the focus has gone from providing a tool for people to
a commercially-oriented approach of trying to mold
the way people use the tool.
M
Mayayana
| Everything the Status Bar told you can be
| seen elsewhere on the screen.
I don't understand that comment. The point of the
status bar is to 1) tell me the source URLs of what's
loading into the browser and 2) tell me where a link
will take me if I hover over it. Where are you getting
that link info? (Much less the loading info.) The only
option I see is to right-click -> Copy Link Location ->
open Notepad -> Right-click Paste.
| You now have more real estate.
I already have more real estate than I need.
More real estate has become an obsessive fad.
But it's not really about real estate at all. People
have swallowed that idea without thinking about
it, yet most people now have screens far bigger
than the webpage they're viewing.
It's really about making the browser window look
more like a program window, in order to make
online web-apps look more like real software. And
that seems to be the crux of the problem. There's
no problem with options. There's no problem with
some people wanting their browser in fullscreen
mode. There's no problem with web-apps. The problem
is that they're removing choice due to ulterior
motives. (Mozilla has become almost an arm of Google
at this point. What started as a small OSS project
now has a budget well over $100 million/year -- almost
all of it from Google.)
| seen elsewhere on the screen.
I don't understand that comment. The point of the
status bar is to 1) tell me the source URLs of what's
loading into the browser and 2) tell me where a link
will take me if I hover over it. Where are you getting
that link info? (Much less the loading info.) The only
option I see is to right-click -> Copy Link Location ->
open Notepad -> Right-click Paste.
| You now have more real estate.
I already have more real estate than I need.
More real estate has become an obsessive fad.
But it's not really about real estate at all. People
have swallowed that idea without thinking about
it, yet most people now have screens far bigger
than the webpage they're viewing.
It's really about making the browser window look
more like a program window, in order to make
online web-apps look more like real software. And
that seems to be the crux of the problem. There's
no problem with options. There's no problem with
some people wanting their browser in fullscreen
mode. There's no problem with web-apps. The problem
is that they're removing choice due to ulterior
motives. (Mozilla has become almost an arm of Google
at this point. What started as a small OSS project
now has a budget well over $100 million/year -- almost
all of it from Google.)
D
DJW
| But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
| add-ons, etc.
|
I noticed that in the article I linked they were using
an add-on to bring back the status bar. To me that's
a broken status bar. Using add-ons is an entirely
different thing from adjusting settings.
Removing settings options is a big part of why I've
given up on updating FF. I want windows rather than
tabs. I want a status bar. I *don't* want a search bar.
I *don't* want anything like Chrome. Very simple
preferences. If people have to get into research and
"tweaking" to just to make basic choices like that then
the focus has gone from providing a tool for people to
a commercially-oriented approach of trying to mold
the way people use the tool.
Hi again original posted here downloading Pale moon as I write this
and will give it a try where will I find it cache folder or will it
use my FF one? Also still wondering why the two different but current
numbed versions of FF I see the 3. one being half the download sizes
as the 10. one.
M
Mayayana
| Everything the Status Bar told you can be
| seen elsewhere on the screen.
Another interesting point about that: Clickjacking
and similar tricks have become a big problem. It seems
to me that people should be encouraged to notice
where links are going. Removing the status bar is going
in the opposite direction.
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking
"a malicious technique of tricking a Web user into clicking on something
different to what the user perceives they are clicking on"
----------
I don't enable cookies. When I find the link above at
Google I see this in the status bar:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...YQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFzU9ty1x5_cxTb8i-qnsCd9KtCVA
That's another form of clickjacking. Google is trying
to route my click through their server and attach a
cookie alternative to the URL.
A large number of sites use Google Analytics to track
visitors because it's easy and/or because the webmasters
don't understand how to read their own server logs.
What that means is that Google is able to bypass
cookie preferences in the majority of cases, tracking
the movements of people who use their site. The only
way I knew that was because I see Google's clickjack
URL in the status bar when I hover over the link. The
actual link blurb tells me that clicking will take me to
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking". Aside from the
status bar, there is no indication of the fact that
Google intends to route my action through their
own proxy server and tag me with an ID while
they're at it.
| seen elsewhere on the screen.
Another interesting point about that: Clickjacking
and similar tricks have become a big problem. It seems
to me that people should be encouraged to notice
where links are going. Removing the status bar is going
in the opposite direction.
---------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking
"a malicious technique of tricking a Web user into clicking on something
different to what the user perceives they are clicking on"
----------
I don't enable cookies. When I find the link above at
Google I see this in the status bar:
http://www.google.com/url?q=http://...YQFjAA&usg=AFQjCNFzU9ty1x5_cxTb8i-qnsCd9KtCVA
That's another form of clickjacking. Google is trying
to route my click through their server and attach a
cookie alternative to the URL.
A large number of sites use Google Analytics to track
visitors because it's easy and/or because the webmasters
don't understand how to read their own server logs.
What that means is that Google is able to bypass
cookie preferences in the majority of cases, tracking
the movements of people who use their site. The only
way I knew that was because I see Google's clickjack
URL in the status bar when I hover over the link. The
actual link blurb tells me that clicking will take me to
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking". Aside from the
status bar, there is no indication of the fact that
Google intends to route my action through their
own proxy server and tag me with an ID while
they're at it.
K
Ken Springer
| But you can turn most, if not all, of them back on via settings,
| add-ons, etc.
|
I noticed that in the article I linked they were using
an add-on to bring back the status bar. To me that's
a broken status bar. Using add-ons is an entirely
different thing from adjusting settings.
Removing settings options is a big part of why I've
given up on updating FF.
Just curious, have you delved into about:config? IMO, this is a
terrible way for the average user to set options, requires too much
technical knowledge for the average user to do day to day thing.
I want windows rather than
tabs.
That's your personal preference, and has time has gone on, I suspect a
preference that is in a dwindling minority. I remember using IE6 on a
14" monitor, and hating having to open extra windows just to see
additional web pages. Once I found tabbed browsing, I suspect Netscape,
I have never ever wanted to go back.
It doesn't matter what you "do" that involves customers/users, if you
are going to be successful, you have to provide what a significantly
sized group of customers/users want, or you eventually fail. And if
customers/users begin to want something different/more, you have to
provide it, or your competition will.
Or... Your competition has an idea people never thought of, and the
idea takes off. Think Facebook. Something else I don't use, but the
vast majority of people seem to want it, and it has had positive effects.
I want a status bar. I *don't* want a search bar.
I *don't* want anything like Chrome.
On this we agree.
Very simple
preferences. If people have to get into research and
"tweaking" to just to make basic choices like that then
the focus has gone from providing a tool for people to
a commercially-oriented approach of trying to mold
the way people use the tool.
Or, as I said above, modifying the tool to meet the
needs/expectations/wants of the people using it. Kind of a chicken and
egg thing, if you think about it.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.4.5
K
Ken Springer
Also still wondering why the two different but current
numbed versions of FF I see the 3. one being half the download sizes
as the 10. one.
When Mozilla made the major changes in FF4, there was a lot of
complaining in the Mozilla newsgroups. Who knows what Mozilla was
receiving privately.
So, they've been providing security updates for FF3.x.x, but nothing
else AFAIK, while development of the current....branch?????..... goes
on. Eventually, all support of 3.x.x will be dropped.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.4.5
M
Mayayana
Hi again original posted here downloading Pale moon as I write this
and will give it a try where will I find it cache folder or will it
use my FF one?
In the personal app data folder, where you find the
FF cache, you'll see a folder named "Moonchild
Productions". Nearly everything will work like FF. It's
basically FF with extras like Accessibility removed.
But the settings (stored in prefs.js, userChrome.css,
useContent.css, etc.) are all separately stored by
each browser.
Also still wondering why the two different but current
numbed versions of FF I see the 3. one being half the download sizes
as the 10. one.
I'm afraid that explanation is a bit involved:
FF has been going in the direction of Chrome,
which is actually the direction of Microsoft, Google,
Apple and others. They're all seeing money to be
made by providing services online like GMail, online
MS Office, etc. ("web apps")
Increasingly, the operating system itself is being
changed to make it like a service, so that money
can be made from the usage of software, rather
than just the purchase of software.
The browser plays a big role there. Google's Chrome
is designed primarily as a web-app window, to make
Google's plethora of online services more functional.
FF is going in a similar direction, partly just because
that's the current fad, and partly because FF is
built by Mozilla, which gets nearly all its funding
from Google. (Meanwhile, Microsoft is building IE
into Windows 8 more deeply than ever before. They're
plotting to win by having the only browser that is not,
itself, a web-app on Windows!)
OK...so browsers are turning into web-app windows.
Part of the reason is to make online software look
and feel more like real software. Also, online software
basically functions on top of a giant pile of javascript
hacks. It's just webpages gone wild. The purveyors of
those services are constantly trying to improve the
functionality by doing things like improving how browsers
parse javascript. One of the best ways to improve
that quickly is if they can get people to accept an
independent browser program that manages itself, updating
constantly. In other words, an improvement to gmail won't
help most people if it uses code that only works in 10%
of browsers. If they can push you into constant auto-
update then web-app software essentially becomes
an extension of the browser. They can develop the two
in tandem. And the browser becommes an extension of
the operating system: They can improve GMail this afternoon
and have everybody using the new version almost instantly.
So... the people selling web-apps want your browser
to constantly update, so that they can always be using
the latest web-app tricks.
To that end, Chrome and FF have gone on an update
schedule so extreme as to be ludicrous. The Mozilla
people have stated that they want to eliminate versions
altogether, blurring the line between the operating system
and the browser. One way to get there is to make the
version numbers so ridiculous that they no longer mean
anything. That's why FF is currently at v. 11.
The reason
that v. 3 is also available is because corporate IT people
don't want to test a new browser every 6 weeks. They
want to thoroughly test one tool and then use it for a
long period. To placate the corporate audience, Mozilla
agreed to maintain one version for a long period while they
keep updating the latest version. FF3 is the current stable
version, until at least April. I think I read somewhere that
v. 10 will be the next stable version. If that's true it means
that v. 3 will be dropped from
support in April and v. 10 will remain stable and supported
for a year or so. So next year at this time you should have
a choice to download FF 10 or FF 19. The latter will probably
give you no choice in constant updating, will customize your
homepage without asking, will track your most visited sites
and show them as options on every new tab, will run
constantly with an online connection, allowing websites you
visit to send you messages ("Big sale! Buy now!"), and for all
I know may require a webcam so that Google can know what
brand of chips you eat while creating your own TV shows through
the use of Youtube, Chrome, and a cranial implant.
and will give it a try where will I find it cache folder or will it
use my FF one?
In the personal app data folder, where you find the
FF cache, you'll see a folder named "Moonchild
Productions". Nearly everything will work like FF. It's
basically FF with extras like Accessibility removed.
But the settings (stored in prefs.js, userChrome.css,
useContent.css, etc.) are all separately stored by
each browser.
Also still wondering why the two different but current
numbed versions of FF I see the 3. one being half the download sizes
as the 10. one.
I'm afraid that explanation is a bit involved:
FF has been going in the direction of Chrome,
which is actually the direction of Microsoft, Google,
Apple and others. They're all seeing money to be
made by providing services online like GMail, online
MS Office, etc. ("web apps")
Increasingly, the operating system itself is being
changed to make it like a service, so that money
can be made from the usage of software, rather
than just the purchase of software.
The browser plays a big role there. Google's Chrome
is designed primarily as a web-app window, to make
Google's plethora of online services more functional.
FF is going in a similar direction, partly just because
that's the current fad, and partly because FF is
built by Mozilla, which gets nearly all its funding
from Google. (Meanwhile, Microsoft is building IE
into Windows 8 more deeply than ever before. They're
plotting to win by having the only browser that is not,
itself, a web-app on Windows!)
OK...so browsers are turning into web-app windows.
Part of the reason is to make online software look
and feel more like real software. Also, online software
basically functions on top of a giant pile of javascript
hacks. It's just webpages gone wild. The purveyors of
those services are constantly trying to improve the
functionality by doing things like improving how browsers
parse javascript. One of the best ways to improve
that quickly is if they can get people to accept an
independent browser program that manages itself, updating
constantly. In other words, an improvement to gmail won't
help most people if it uses code that only works in 10%
of browsers. If they can push you into constant auto-
update then web-app software essentially becomes
an extension of the browser. They can develop the two
in tandem. And the browser becommes an extension of
the operating system: They can improve GMail this afternoon
and have everybody using the new version almost instantly.
So... the people selling web-apps want your browser
to constantly update, so that they can always be using
the latest web-app tricks.
To that end, Chrome and FF have gone on an update
schedule so extreme as to be ludicrous. The Mozilla
people have stated that they want to eliminate versions
altogether, blurring the line between the operating system
and the browser. One way to get there is to make the
version numbers so ridiculous that they no longer mean
anything. That's why FF is currently at v. 11.
The reason
that v. 3 is also available is because corporate IT people
don't want to test a new browser every 6 weeks. They
want to thoroughly test one tool and then use it for a
long period. To placate the corporate audience, Mozilla
agreed to maintain one version for a long period while they
keep updating the latest version. FF3 is the current stable
version, until at least April. I think I read somewhere that
v. 10 will be the next stable version. If that's true it means
that v. 3 will be dropped from
support in April and v. 10 will remain stable and supported
for a year or so. So next year at this time you should have
a choice to download FF 10 or FF 19. The latter will probably
give you no choice in constant updating, will customize your
homepage without asking, will track your most visited sites
and show them as options on every new tab, will run
constantly with an online connection, allowing websites you
visit to send you messages ("Big sale! Buy now!"), and for all
I know may require a webcam so that Google can know what
brand of chips you eat while creating your own TV shows through
the use of Youtube, Chrome, and a cranial implant.
K
Ken Springer
| Everything the Status Bar told you can be
| seen elsewhere on the screen.
Another interesting point about that: Clickjacking
and similar tricks have become a big problem. It seems
to me that people should be encouraged to notice
where links are going. Removing the status bar is going
in the opposite direction.
What that means is that Google is able to bypass
cookie preferences in the majority of cases, tracking
the movements of people who use their site. The only
way I knew that was because I see Google's clickjack
URL in the status bar when I hover over the link. The
actual link blurb tells me that clicking will take me to
"en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clickjacking". Aside from the
status bar, there is no indication of the fact that
Google intends to route my action through their
own proxy server and tag me with an ID while
they're at it.
I think this is an educational problem, not computer or program issue.
People don't know this ability exists, or even how to use it. And, most
people don't care, either. :-(
I don't know how we'll ever get the majority of people to even want to
learn it. :-(
What you are asking is for the vast majority of users to be as
knowledgeable about using computers as you are. That gives the plumber
the right to ask you to know as much about plumbing as he/she does. Or
the electrician, pediatrician, nuclear physicist. None of this is
practical.
I don't know where the solution lies, other than getting more members of
society to be honest, ethical, above board, etc.
--
Ken
Mac OS X 10.6.8
Firefox 10.0.2
Thunderbird 10.0.2
LibreOffice 3.4.5
M
Mayayana
| Just curious, have you delved into about:config? IMO, this is a
| terrible way for the average user to set options, requires too much
| technical knowledge for the average user to do day to day thing.
|
Yes, I do use about:config. I agree with you. It's completely
useless for most people. As you probably know, it's really left
over from Netscape's system to allow corporate customization.
But it never was a sensible design.
| > I want windows rather than tabs.
|
| That's your personal preference,...
| It doesn't matter what you "do" that involves customers/users, if you
| are going to be successful, you have to provide what a significantly
| sized group of customers/users want, or you eventually fail.
Yes, but Mozilla is non-profit, OSS. It's free, not
ad-supported. The whole point of its conception
was to provide choice and to provide a browser
that's not designed for commercial interests. And it
costs them nothing to leave these options in. It's
not a case of either we serve these people OR we
serve them. They simply have no valid excuse for
removing choice.
| terrible way for the average user to set options, requires too much
| technical knowledge for the average user to do day to day thing.
|
Yes, I do use about:config. I agree with you. It's completely
useless for most people. As you probably know, it's really left
over from Netscape's system to allow corporate customization.
But it never was a sensible design.
| > I want windows rather than tabs.
|
| That's your personal preference,...
| It doesn't matter what you "do" that involves customers/users, if you
| are going to be successful, you have to provide what a significantly
| sized group of customers/users want, or you eventually fail.
Yes, but Mozilla is non-profit, OSS. It's free, not
ad-supported. The whole point of its conception
was to provide choice and to provide a browser
that's not designed for commercial interests. And it
costs them nothing to leave these options in. It's
not a case of either we serve these people OR we
serve them. They simply have no valid excuse for
removing choice.
M
Mayayana
| What you are asking is for the vast majority of users to be as
| knowledgeable about using computers as you are.
No, I think you're twisting what I'm saying. Google
is spying while Firefox helps them get away with it
by removing the status bar.
I'm not saying everyone must learn to read, so to
speak. I'm saying, "To whom it may concern, these
people are burning books and may be blocking your
access to information."
What you're saying boils down to, "So what if they
burn the books? A lot of people don't read them anyway."
| knowledgeable about using computers as you are.
No, I think you're twisting what I'm saying. Google
is spying while Firefox helps them get away with it
by removing the status bar.
I'm not saying everyone must learn to read, so to
speak. I'm saying, "To whom it may concern, these
people are burning books and may be blocking your
access to information."
What you're saying boils down to, "So what if they
burn the books? A lot of people don't read them anyway."
D
DJW
| What you are asking is for the vast majority of users to be as
| knowledgeable about using computers as you are.
No, I think you're twisting what I'm saying. Google
is spying while Firefox helps them get away with it
by removing the status bar.
I'm not saying everyone must learn to read, so to
speak. I'm saying, "To whom it may concern, these
people are burning books and may be blocking your
access to information."
What you're saying boils down to, "So what if they
burn the books? A lot of people don't read them anyway."
I have another question a year or more ago when I did an update to FF
I started getting fairly often a lot of :
A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding.
You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script
will complete.
Script: chrome://browser/content/browser.js:9289
the end scrip description varies and if I hit run it shows the dialog
box again in a short bit. What is it trying to do and is there a check
box somewhere to stop this and or would that limit my browsing
experience. I am afraid to check the don't show again for fear that it
will just keep trying to run the script and I will freeze up totally.
Does that don not show mean that or that if that particular script or
any script can not run that it will NOT! try to run it and will allow
me to move on. Does it have anything to do with having pop ups turned
off? It happens about one to two times each hour or so of browersing
the web
M
Mayayana
Sorry, but I've never seen that problem. I found
a few links like this one:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100730170145AA5jJaN
It looks like it might just be a combination of
buggy add-ons and buggy webpages.
browser.js is in Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\chrome\browser.jar.
It's a very big script. I have no idea what it does. I'd guess
it's probably an overall operations script that doesn't point
to a specific problem.
--
--
I have another question a year or more ago when I did an update to FF
I started getting fairly often a lot of :
A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding.
You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script
will complete.
Script: chrome://browser/content/browser.js:9289
the end scrip description varies and if I hit run it shows the dialog
box again in a short bit. What is it trying to do and is there a check
box somewhere to stop this and or would that limit my browsing
experience. I am afraid to check the don't show again for fear that it
will just keep trying to run the script and I will freeze up totally.
Does that don not show mean that or that if that particular script or
any script can not run that it will NOT! try to run it and will allow
me to move on. Does it have anything to do with having pop ups turned
off? It happens about one to two times each hour or so of browersing
the web
a few links like this one:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100730170145AA5jJaN
It looks like it might just be a combination of
buggy add-ons and buggy webpages.
browser.js is in Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\chrome\browser.jar.
It's a very big script. I have no idea what it does. I'd guess
it's probably an overall operations script that doesn't point
to a specific problem.
--
--
| What you are asking is for the vast majority of users to be as
| knowledgeable about using computers as you are.
No, I think you're twisting what I'm saying. Google
is spying while Firefox helps them get away with it
by removing the status bar.
I'm not saying everyone must learn to read, so to
speak. I'm saying, "To whom it may concern, these
people are burning books and may be blocking your
access to information."
What you're saying boils down to, "So what if they
burn the books? A lot of people don't read them anyway."
I have another question a year or more ago when I did an update to FF
I started getting fairly often a lot of :
A script on this page may be busy, or it may have stopped responding.
You can stop the script now, or you can continue to see if the script
will complete.
Script: chrome://browser/content/browser.js:9289
the end scrip description varies and if I hit run it shows the dialog
box again in a short bit. What is it trying to do and is there a check
box somewhere to stop this and or would that limit my browsing
experience. I am afraid to check the don't show again for fear that it
will just keep trying to run the script and I will freeze up totally.
Does that don not show mean that or that if that particular script or
any script can not run that it will NOT! try to run it and will allow
me to move on. Does it have anything to do with having pop ups turned
off? It happens about one to two times each hour or so of browersing
the web
I
Iceman
what is the difference between firefox 10.0.2 and 3.6.25 for windows?
Probably none, except more bloat. ;-) I, personally, am happy with my FF
3.6.27.
I'm not in favour of downloading and installing browsers, just to try them
out, so you should have a look at this article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_web_browsers
K
Ken Blake, MVP
On 2/25/12 7:31 AM, Mayayana wrote:
That's your personal preference, and has time has gone on, I suspect a
preference that is in a dwindling minority.
In a sense, of course, having multiple browser Windows open is very
similar to having tabs; it's just that with multiple Windows open, the
tabs are on the Task Bar, not within the browser.
I greatly prefer the tabs in the browser for the following reasons:
1. The web site tabs aren't mixed up with the other "tabs" there.
2. There's room for lots of tabs in the browser without taking away
space on the Task Bar.
3. It's considerably more efficient to have only a single copy of the
browser open.
I don't like the way IE does tabs, and I greatly prefer the way it's
done in my browser of choice, Maxthon.
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP