Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
firefox
49 views
Skip to first unread message
Bill Cunningham
Sep 13, 2017, 10:24:59 PM9/13/17
to
I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
support?
Bill
whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
support?
Bill
VanguardLH
Sep 14, 2017, 12:23:59 AM9/14/17
to
is required, too).
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/end-support-windows-xp-and-vista
Paul
Sep 14, 2017, 3:11:13 AM9/14/17
to
blah blah blah until September 2017
This article covers it in a bit more detail.
http://www.zdnet.com/article/still-using-windows-xp-vista-no-firefox-53-for-you/
*******
Seamonkey is at 2.48 right now.
https://www.seamonkey-project.org/releases/legacy
"SeaMonkey 2.49.x will be the last version supporting
Windows XP/Server 2003 and Vista/Server 2008"
So that's only got one more release left in it.
*******
The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
released their last WinXP version long ago, in tune with
the mothership. While there may appear to be a "lot of
independent browser developments", they're really not all that
independent.
When browsers really are independent of everyone else, usually
they suffer in the compatibility department. You cannot expect
all web sites to render properly in them. Because web developers
won't be testing for it.
For example, if I decided to try this out, my guess
would be there would be compatibility issues. But nothing
stops you from testing and finding out. I never found this
did a perfect job on Linux, and it's probably faster to
test a KDE distro than actually install it on Windows
to test it.
https://konqueror.org/features/browser.php
https://www.kde.org/download/
Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 14, 2017, 3:12:38 AM9/14/17
to
In message <opcp9l$f8u$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill Cunningham
Yes, I use Firefox 26. XP support ended with 52 - not sure how you've
got 53.x. ESR is a version that is aimed at organisations, and doesn't
change as often - though a lot of individuals like it for that reason as
well. FWIW, IE8 was the last for XP, and Chrome has also stopped (2.x);
I don't know which _are_ still being updated for XP.
The newsgroup mozilla.support.firefox (you have to use the mozilla
server) will tell you lots more.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
got 53.x. ESR is a version that is aimed at organisations, and doesn't
change as often - though a lot of individuals like it for that reason as
well. FWIW, IE8 was the last for XP, and Chrome has also stopped (2.x);
I don't know which _are_ still being updated for XP.
The newsgroup mozilla.support.firefox (you have to use the mozilla
server) will tell you lots more.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Every kid starts out as a natural-born scientist, and then we beat it out of
them. A few trickle through the system with their wonder and enthusiasm for
science intact. - Carl Sagan (interview w. Psychology Today published '96-1-1)
micky
Sep 14, 2017, 10:50:53 AM9/14/17
to
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:11:06
-0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
>32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
What do they do about 32-bit win7 and win10?
>
>
>The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
>32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
micky
Sep 14, 2017, 10:58:46 AM9/14/17
to
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 08:12:09
I still use Firefox, esr edition iirc. Works fine for me. Wait, that
wasn't exactly true. I only have one gig and while no individual pages
gave me trouble, I couldn't open many tabs at one time, I think it was
as low as 7 on a couple occasions, 20 or 30 at other times.
So I switched to Sea Monkey and it opened more tabs, enought to keep
using it, but there were several other small things I didn't like as
much.
I only use the laptop on trips and when wrapping up trips, and I broke
down and bought a win7 laptop because of stuff like this.
Last June, I actually bought a 2gig DIMM for this 6 y.o. netbook, only
$10, but it didn't work. Bought another with the condition I could
return it and it didnt' work, and the first vendor had already agreed to
send me a Samsung, and it didn't work. Even though both of us checked
what DIMM and how big was meant for this netbook.
+0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote:
>In message <opcp9l$f8u$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill Cunningham
><nos...@nspam.invalid> writes:
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>>support?
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>Yes, I use Firefox 26. XP support ended with 52 - not sure how you've
>got 53.x. ESR is a version that is aimed at organisations, and doesn't
>change as often - though a lot of individuals like it for that reason as
>well.
Good point. I'm tired of updates.
>In message <opcp9l$f8u$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill Cunningham
><nos...@nspam.invalid> writes:
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>>support?
>>
>>Bill
>>
>>
>Yes, I use Firefox 26. XP support ended with 52 - not sure how you've
>got 53.x. ESR is a version that is aimed at organisations, and doesn't
>change as often - though a lot of individuals like it for that reason as
>well.
I still use Firefox, esr edition iirc. Works fine for me. Wait, that
wasn't exactly true. I only have one gig and while no individual pages
gave me trouble, I couldn't open many tabs at one time, I think it was
as low as 7 on a couple occasions, 20 or 30 at other times.
So I switched to Sea Monkey and it opened more tabs, enought to keep
using it, but there were several other small things I didn't like as
much.
I only use the laptop on trips and when wrapping up trips, and I broke
down and bought a win7 laptop because of stuff like this.
Last June, I actually bought a 2gig DIMM for this 6 y.o. netbook, only
$10, but it didn't work. Bought another with the condition I could
return it and it didnt' work, and the first vendor had already agreed to
send me a Samsung, and it didn't work. Even though both of us checked
what DIMM and how big was meant for this netbook.
Bill Cunningham
Sep 14, 2017, 12:21:50 PM9/14/17
to
"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:j47fs1lyrkge$.dlg@v.nguard.lh...
Bill
Bill Cunningham
Sep 14, 2017, 12:24:00 PM9/14/17
to
"Paul" <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote in message
news:opda2b$7ol$1...@dont-email.me...
> Bill Cunningham wrote:
OK I see. Does Opera still support XP? I guess that would mean all the
versions. XP Home SP3 and XP Pro SP 2 and MCE. My firefox comes upon some
pages it doesn't get right but that's ok. The majority are ok.
Bill
Good Guy
Sep 14, 2017, 12:49:59 PM9/14/17
to
Frankly, why does it matter to you whether FF stops supporting XP or
not? You are using XP that is no longer supported so continue using
FF that still works on your outdated XP machine. You'll be dead by
the time you are ready to use modern machines. Whatever runs on
your machine now will continue to run on your XP until 2032 by which
time you'll be dead.
--
With over 500 million
devices now running Windows 10, customer satisfaction is
higher than any previous version of windows.
Bill in Co
Sep 14, 2017, 1:43:50 PM9/14/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <opcp9l$f8u$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill Cunningham
> <nos...@nspam.invalid> writes:
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>> whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will
>> end
>> soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue
>> XP
>> support?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
> Yes, I use Firefox 26. XP support ended with 52 - not sure how you've
> got 53.x. ESR is a version that is aimed at organisations, and doesn't
> change as often - though a lot of individuals like it for that reason as
> well. FWIW, IE8 was the last for XP, and Chrome has also stopped (2.x);
> I don't know which _are_ still being updated for XP.
>
> The newsgroup mozilla.support.firefox (you have to use the mozilla
> server) will tell you lots more.
Good to hear that that older version is still working out well for you, as
> In message <opcp9l$f8u$1...@dont-email.me>, Bill Cunningham
> <nos...@nspam.invalid> writes:
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>> whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will
>> end
>> soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue
>> XP
>> support?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
> Yes, I use Firefox 26. XP support ended with 52 - not sure how you've
> got 53.x. ESR is a version that is aimed at organisations, and doesn't
> change as often - though a lot of individuals like it for that reason as
> well. FWIW, IE8 was the last for XP, and Chrome has also stopped (2.x);
> I don't know which _are_ still being updated for XP.
>
> The newsgroup mozilla.support.firefox (you have to use the mozilla
> server) will tell you lots more.
I'm still using an older version, too (version 36). The newer versions
added those unsigned add-on compatibility warnings, which I just find
annoying. :-) What will be interesting to see is when these older versions
(with an older OS) no longer work at most sites.
Paul
Sep 14, 2017, 8:07:11 PM9/14/17
to
micky wrote:
> In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:11:06
> -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
>> 32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
>
> What do they do about 32-bit win7 and win10?
OK, I'm mistaken. Here's the list.
> In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:11:06
> -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>>
>> The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
>> 32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
>
> What do they do about 32-bit win7 and win10?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
"Chrome runs on:
* Windows 7 or later
* OS X 10.9 or later
* 64-bit versions of Ubuntu 14.04+, Debian 8+, openSUSE 13.1+ and Fedora 21+
* Android 4.1 or later
* iOS 9 or later
As of April 2016, stable 32-bit and 64-bit builds are available for Windows,
with only 64-bit stable builds available for Linux and macOS.
64-bit Windows builds became available in the developer channel and as
canary builds on June 3, 2014, in beta channel on July 30, 2014, and
in stable channel on August 26, 2014. 64-bit OS X builds became available
as canary builds on November 7, 2013, in beta channel on October 9, 2014,
and in stable channel on November 18, 2014.
"
So support for WinXP and Vista is gone, Windows7+ have x86 and x64.
Linux is x64 only. <--- That's where the confusion came from. I assumed
consistency (like there was a reason for x64 only), but I guess not.
I still run 32-bit versions of Linux in virtual machines some times.
With several of the open source programs like Chromium, you need
an x64 OS to build an x86 executable. Some of these programs are
getting so big, the linking stage to build a DLL takes more than
3GB of RAM. You need a good sized machine to do it. Usually the
"build recipe" web pages warn about this. The people who build
Chrome at Google, were given CPUs with 20 cores, so they wouldn't
have to wait so long for builds to finish. That's how much of a
pig it is. I needed around a 45GB RAMdisk to hold everything
for a build (src and output), and there was only a little space
left when it finished (I was doing a debug build).
Paul
Paul
Sep 14, 2017, 8:17:34 PM9/14/17
to
Opera 7 to 12
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blink_(layout_engine)
Blink is a web browser engine developed
as part of the Chromium project
Opera (15+) <--- means Opera inherits same dependencies as Chromium
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Opera_web_browser
On February 16, 2016, Opera 12.18 was released for the Windows platform <--- last of
old version
On May 28, 2013, a beta version of Opera 15
containing Blink was made available for Windows...
Windows XP and Windows Vista Latest = Version 36
Windows 7 to Windows 10 Latest = Version 47
Opera is treating WinXP/Vista in a similar way to Chromium/Chrome.
You could find a copy of Opera 12.18 for the old stream
of development, or a copy of Opera 36 from the new stream.
Paul
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 15, 2017, 5:10:33 AM9/15/17
to
In message <opf5j9$bqf$1...@dont-email.me>, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid>
writes:
Yes, _support for_ is indeed gone. And I know (from the quotes) that you
were quoting someone else. But of course Chrome _does_ run on XP, just
not the latest version. (Mine's "Version 49.0.2623.112 m", and gives a
pop-down "This computer will no longer receive Google Chrome updates
because Windows XP and Windows Vista are no longer supported." each time
it starts; since I now know that, anyone know how to suppress it? It
goes after a few seconds, but is still a [minor] irritant.)
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)
writes:
>micky wrote:
>> In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:11:06
>> -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
>>> 32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
>> What do they do about 32-bit win7 and win10?
>
>OK, I'm mistaken. Here's the list.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
>
> "Chrome runs on:
That's "the latest version of Chrome", of course.
>> In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Thu, 14 Sep 2017 03:11:06
>> -0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The browsers work in families. Chrome cut WinXP support and
>>> 32 bit support some time ago. Versions like SRWare Iron, they
>> What do they do about 32-bit win7 and win10?
>
>OK, I'm mistaken. Here's the list.
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Google_Chrome
>
> "Chrome runs on:
>
> * Windows 7 or later
> * OS X 10.9 or later
> * 64-bit versions of Ubuntu 14.04+, Debian 8+, openSUSE 13.1+ and
>Fedora 21+
> * Android 4.1 or later
> * iOS 9 or later
[]
> * Windows 7 or later
> * OS X 10.9 or later
> * 64-bit versions of Ubuntu 14.04+, Debian 8+, openSUSE 13.1+ and
>Fedora 21+
> * Android 4.1 or later
> * iOS 9 or later
>So support for WinXP and Vista is gone, Windows7+ have x86 and x64.
[]
Yes, _support for_ is indeed gone. And I know (from the quotes) that you
were quoting someone else. But of course Chrome _does_ run on XP, just
not the latest version. (Mine's "Version 49.0.2623.112 m", and gives a
pop-down "This computer will no longer receive Google Chrome updates
because Windows XP and Windows Vista are no longer supported." each time
it starts; since I now know that, anyone know how to suppress it? It
goes after a few seconds, but is still a [minor] irritant.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
What a strange illusion it is to suppose that beauty is goodness. -Leo Tolstoy,
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
novelist and philosopher (1828-1910)
Bill in Co
Sep 15, 2017, 10:48:09 AM9/15/17
to
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
"C:\Documents and Settings\{user name}\Local Settings\Application
Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --ignore-certificate-errors --test-type
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 15, 2017, 2:47:21 PM9/15/17
to
In message <pp-dnUS3kK-CdSbE...@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
[]
"C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe"
--ignore-certificate-errors --test-type
, and I've just tried it - and the nag did not appear!
absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.
[]
>> were quoting someone else. But of course Chrome _does_ run on XP, just
>> not the latest version. (Mine's "Version 49.0.2623.112 m", and gives a
>> pop-down "This computer will no longer receive Google Chrome updates
>> because Windows XP and Windows Vista are no longer supported." each time
>> it starts; since I now know that, anyone know how to suppress it? It
>> goes after a few seconds, but is still a [minor] irritant.)
>
>Try adding these switches at the end for the target in the shortcut, John:
>
>"C:\Documents and Settings\{user name}\Local Settings\Application
>Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --ignore-certificate-errors
>--test-type
>
Thanks! My QuickStart icon now has
>> not the latest version. (Mine's "Version 49.0.2623.112 m", and gives a
>> pop-down "This computer will no longer receive Google Chrome updates
>> because Windows XP and Windows Vista are no longer supported." each time
>> it starts; since I now know that, anyone know how to suppress it? It
>> goes after a few seconds, but is still a [minor] irritant.)
>
>Try adding these switches at the end for the target in the shortcut, John:
>
>"C:\Documents and Settings\{user name}\Local Settings\Application
>Data\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --ignore-certificate-errors
>--test-type
>
"C:\Program Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe"
--ignore-certificate-errors --test-type
, and I've just tried it - and the nag did not appear!
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
If you want to make people angry, lie to them. If you want to make them
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
absolutely livid, then tell 'em the truth.
R.Wieser
Sep 15, 2017, 4:08:14 PM9/15/17
to
John,
> Thanks! My QuickStart icon now has
>
> "C:\Program
> Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --ignore-certificate-errors --test-type
The question is: what *other* certificate error does it now suppress.
It would not be funny if its somehow also tied to SSL (HTTPS) certificates
(which a quick google shows it is) ...
Ref:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26388405/chrome-disable-ssl-checking-for-sites
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:8OY$BtWhAC...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> Thanks! My QuickStart icon now has
>
> "C:\Program
> Files\Google\Chrome\Application\chrome.exe" --ignore-certificate-errors --test-type
It would not be funny if its somehow also tied to SSL (HTTPS) certificates
(which a quick google shows it is) ...
Ref:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/26388405/chrome-disable-ssl-checking-for-sites
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:8OY$BtWhAC...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
Bill in Co
Sep 15, 2017, 6:48:59 PM9/15/17
to
Well, at least for me, I'm willing to take the risk, since that annoying
popup otherwise just drives me batty. :-)
popup otherwise just drives me batty. :-)
R.Wieser
Sep 16, 2017, 3:58:54 AM9/16/17
to
Bill,
> Well, at least for me, I'm willing to take the risk, since that annoying
> popup otherwise just drives me batty. :-)
Not really much of a risk, provided you are not using your 'puter for
on-line banking or the like.
But now you know what the (unwanted I presume) side effects are, and can
make an *informed* decision.
One question though: Couldn't you install something like GreaseMonkey and
just cut the popup outof the HTML page ? That would at least not come
with uninteded consequences ...
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XdadnW1nubFNxSHE...@earthlink.com...
> Well, at least for me, I'm willing to take the risk, since that annoying
> popup otherwise just drives me batty. :-)
on-line banking or the like.
But now you know what the (unwanted I presume) side effects are, and can
make an *informed* decision.
One question though: Couldn't you install something like GreaseMonkey and
just cut the popup outof the HTML page ? That would at least not come
with uninteded consequences ...
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:XdadnW1nubFNxSHE...@earthlink.com...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 16, 2017, 8:55:06 AM9/16/17
to
In message <opiljo$q3r$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
The popup (actually down) in question - a note that Chrome is no longer
[something: I can't remember whether "supported" or "going to get
updates"] on XP - appears over whatever web page you open Chrome on (in
my case "same tabs as when I closed it"), so unless GreaseMonkey can
spot it regardless of webpage (maybe it can; I've not used it), it
wouldn't help.
- Alison Graham, RT 2015/6/20-26
<add...@not.available> writes:
>Bill,
>
>> Well, at least for me, I'm willing to take the risk, since that annoying
>> popup otherwise just drives me batty. :-)
>
>Not really much of a risk, provided you are not using your 'puter for
>on-line banking or the like.
>
>But now you know what the (unwanted I presume) side effects are, and can
>make an *informed* decision.
>
>One question though: Couldn't you install something like GreaseMonkey and
>just cut the popup outof the HTML page ? That would at least not come
>with uninteded consequences ...
[]
>Bill,
>
>> Well, at least for me, I'm willing to take the risk, since that annoying
>> popup otherwise just drives me batty. :-)
>
>Not really much of a risk, provided you are not using your 'puter for
>on-line banking or the like.
>
>But now you know what the (unwanted I presume) side effects are, and can
>make an *informed* decision.
>
>One question though: Couldn't you install something like GreaseMonkey and
>just cut the popup outof the HTML page ? That would at least not come
>with uninteded consequences ...
The popup (actually down) in question - a note that Chrome is no longer
[something: I can't remember whether "supported" or "going to get
updates"] on XP - appears over whatever web page you open Chrome on (in
my case "same tabs as when I closed it"), so unless GreaseMonkey can
spot it regardless of webpage (maybe it can; I've not used it), it
wouldn't help.
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
gazing at someone in distress is prurient and rude.
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
- Alison Graham, RT 2015/6/20-26
R.Wieser
Sep 16, 2017, 11:09:08 AM9/16/17
to
John,
> so unless GreaseMonkey can spot it regardless of webpage (maybe it can;
> I've not used it), it wouldn't help.
It can. :-)
In fact, that is one of my scripts. A generic one throwing stuff away which
is present on many sites (like a number of "social media" buttons I have no
use for and which I regard of "come track me!" beacons I abhor), and a
couple more to do some site-specific scrubbing.
So, in that regard GreaseMonkey is up to the task.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- O(rigional message:
> so unless GreaseMonkey can spot it regardless of webpage (maybe it can;
> I've not used it), it wouldn't help.
In fact, that is one of my scripts. A generic one throwing stuff away which
is present on many sites (like a number of "social media" buttons I have no
use for and which I regard of "come track me!" beacons I abhor), and a
couple more to do some site-specific scrubbing.
So, in that regard GreaseMonkey is up to the task.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- O(rigional message:
"J. P. Gilliver (John)" <G6JP...@255soft.uk> wrote in message
news:8ZbP01Ft...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
J. P. Gilliver (John)
Sep 16, 2017, 1:37:12 PM9/16/17
to
In message <opjeqd$2p1$2...@gioia.aioe.org>, R.Wieser
Thanks; I might look into it. In Firefox, I use Ghostery, which gets rid
of lots of that sort of button; must look to see if it's available for
Chrome. (I also have something-analytics in my hosts file. Though pages
still seem to stop while they wait for it.)
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23
<add...@not.available> writes:
>John,
>
>> so unless GreaseMonkey can spot it regardless of webpage (maybe it can;
>> I've not used it), it wouldn't help.
>
>It can. :-)
>
>In fact, that is one of my scripts. A generic one throwing stuff away which
>is present on many sites (like a number of "social media" buttons I have no
>use for and which I regard of "come track me!" beacons I abhor), and a
>couple more to do some site-specific scrubbing.
>
>So, in that regard GreaseMonkey is up to the task.
[]
>John,
>
>> so unless GreaseMonkey can spot it regardless of webpage (maybe it can;
>> I've not used it), it wouldn't help.
>
>It can. :-)
>
>In fact, that is one of my scripts. A generic one throwing stuff away which
>is present on many sites (like a number of "social media" buttons I have no
>use for and which I regard of "come track me!" beacons I abhor), and a
>couple more to do some site-specific scrubbing.
>
>So, in that regard GreaseMonkey is up to the task.
Thanks; I might look into it. In Firefox, I use Ghostery, which gets rid
of lots of that sort of button; must look to see if it's available for
Chrome. (I also have something-analytics in my hosts file. Though pages
still seem to stop while they wait for it.)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
By the very definition of "news," we hear very little about the dominant
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
threats to our lives, and the most about the rarest, including terror.
"LibertyMcG" alias Brian P. McGlinchey, 2013-7-23
Bill in Co
Sep 16, 2017, 3:39:36 PM9/16/17
to
Thanks Rudy. I guess this is something I should look into, and wasn't even
aware of..
I see there is another one called "Tampermonkey" that can work on more
browsers too, and even Android based devices, it seems.
So if I understand this right, this app allows users to write some scripts
to block some undesireable javascripts on any website, and might even work
on an Android tablet? THAT would be really nice, as on my Android tablet,
you can't download or use any browser "add ons" like you can with the
desktop versions of the browsers.
aware of..
I see there is another one called "Tampermonkey" that can work on more
browsers too, and even Android based devices, it seems.
So if I understand this right, this app allows users to write some scripts
to block some undesireable javascripts on any website, and might even work
on an Android tablet? THAT would be really nice, as on my Android tablet,
you can't download or use any browser "add ons" like you can with the
desktop versions of the browsers.
R.Wieser
Sep 16, 2017, 3:57:01 PM9/16/17
to
John
> I use Ghostery, which gets rid of lots of that sort of button;
I myself am using RequestPolicy, NoScript and GreaseMonkey.
The first takes care of all sorts of third-party resources (blocks all
"beacon" and those 1x1 "you can't see me" tracker images as well as all
kinds advertisement (google) scripts). The second one takes care of scripts
still coming from the web-page or -site itself, and the third one gives me
the chance to do some additional (GUI) scrubbing/altering.
Yes, there is a bit of overlap there, but better blocked multiple times than
once to few. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
news:vNgLBvLA...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
> I use Ghostery, which gets rid of lots of that sort of button;
The first takes care of all sorts of third-party resources (blocks all
"beacon" and those 1x1 "you can't see me" tracker images as well as all
kinds advertisement (google) scripts). The second one takes care of scripts
still coming from the web-page or -site itself, and the third one gives me
the chance to do some additional (GUI) scrubbing/altering.
Yes, there is a bit of overlap there, but better blocked multiple times than
once to few. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
news:vNgLBvLA...@soft255.demon.co.uk...
R.Wieser
Sep 16, 2017, 4:11:29 PM9/16/17
to
Bill,
> Thanks Rudy. I guess this is something I should look into, and wasn't
> even aware of..
You're welcome. :-)
> So if I understand this right, this app allows users to write some scripts
> to block some undesireable javascripts on any website,
You can tell it to do almost *anything*, including-but-not-only killing off
scripts. From the server itself, third-party, inline or "onclick" and
family, you name it. If you want you can even replace them.
The JavaScripting GreaseMonkey uses together with some functionality the
browser exposes to work with the HTML document itself you can write a script
to search for anything-and-everything, and remove/alter it to your liking.
> and even Android based devices, it seems.
I have only used in FF on my PC, so I have no idea on which platrforms and
browsers it will (still*) work.
*there is some talk that the newest version of ... IIRC FireFox will not
allow just any kind of extension anymore.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
> Thanks Rudy. I guess this is something I should look into, and wasn't
> even aware of..
> So if I understand this right, this app allows users to write some scripts
> to block some undesireable javascripts on any website,
scripts. From the server itself, third-party, inline or "onclick" and
family, you name it. If you want you can even replace them.
The JavaScripting GreaseMonkey uses together with some functionality the
browser exposes to work with the HTML document itself you can write a script
to search for anything-and-everything, and remove/alter it to your liking.
> and even Android based devices, it seems.
browsers it will (still*) work.
*there is some talk that the newest version of ... IIRC FireFox will not
allow just any kind of extension anymore.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
"Bill in Co" <surly_cu...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:NoidnTyBH7xw4CDE...@earthlink.com...
Steve Hayes
Sep 17, 2017, 12:49:41 AM9/17/17
to
crashing.
Someone, perhaps in this NG, recommended Maxthon, which seems a
promising alternative. It certainly seems to crash less often than
Firefox.
http://i.maxthon.com/
--
Steve Hayes
http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
http://khanya.wordpress.com
pyotr filipivich
Sep 17, 2017, 2:08:11 AM9/17/17
to
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:50:04 +0200
typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following:
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
><nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>>support?
>
>Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or
>crashing.
>
>Someone, perhaps in this NG, recommended Maxthon, which seems a
>promising alternative. It certainly seems to crash less often than
>Firefox.
>
>http://i.maxthon.com/
I've been using PaleMoon - a Firefox "fork"
><nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>>support?
>
>Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or
>crashing.
>
>Someone, perhaps in this NG, recommended Maxthon, which seems a
>promising alternative. It certainly seems to crash less often than
>Firefox.
>
>http://i.maxthon.com/
--
pyotr filipivich
Next month's Panel: Graft - Boon or blessing?
Bill in Co
Sep 17, 2017, 2:48:02 AM9/17/17
to
PaleMoon has also dropped support for XP. (Those versions are the
"Atom/WinXP" versions).
R.Wieser
Sep 17, 2017, 3:33:09 AM9/17/17
to
Steve,
> Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding"
> or crashing.
I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed
? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your
opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:fhvrrchv407041n5i...@4ax.com...
> Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding"
> or crashing.
? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your
opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
news:fhvrrchv407041n5i...@4ax.com...
micky
Sep 17, 2017, 4:15:48 AM9/17/17
to
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 06:50:04
I installed Session Manager, which doesn't stop this but gives more
versatility on recovery. Although some of the options are somewhat
confusing.
Still, it got so bad that on my XP netbook with only 1gig RAM, I
switched to Sea Monkey. It too gave not responding but only after twice
as many tabs were open.
On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM. With 4 gig, using task
manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use by Firefox, so of course
with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
2.2 or 2.3 is about how high it gets before Not Responding, though
sometimes I've had the problem at from 1.8 to tonight for the first
time 2.8 gigs before it stops working, based on what Task Manager says.
I don't have any more crashes at least.
I also set a Firefox option to not load tabs until I open them. I
forget how they phrase it.
This means when restarting FF, only the one tab in each window that, I
guess the one that was open when I last closed it. BUT if I go to a tab
to see what it is so I can close it, if it was not loaded before** it
loads when I go to it, so I've learned to right click on the tab adn
then close it without ever loading it.
A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked
on another tab, because when I first clicked on them, they were always
blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in
DSL to re-download. It would be a good thing to do that if that freed
up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and
maybe that wasnt' true.
+0200, Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote:
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
><nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>>support?
>
>Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or
>crashing.
IME it's been doing that for years.
>On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53 -0400, "Bill Cunningham"
><nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>>support?
>
>Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding" or
>crashing.
I installed Session Manager, which doesn't stop this but gives more
versatility on recovery. Although some of the options are somewhat
confusing.
Still, it got so bad that on my XP netbook with only 1gig RAM, I
switched to Sea Monkey. It too gave not responding but only after twice
as many tabs were open.
On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM. With 4 gig, using task
manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use by Firefox, so of course
with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
2.2 or 2.3 is about how high it gets before Not Responding, though
sometimes I've had the problem at from 1.8 to tonight for the first
time 2.8 gigs before it stops working, based on what Task Manager says.
I don't have any more crashes at least.
I also set a Firefox option to not load tabs until I open them. I
forget how they phrase it.
This means when restarting FF, only the one tab in each window that, I
guess the one that was open when I last closed it. BUT if I go to a tab
to see what it is so I can close it, if it was not loaded before** it
loads when I go to it, so I've learned to right click on the tab adn
then close it without ever loading it.
A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked
on another tab, because when I first clicked on them, they were always
blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in
DSL to re-download. It would be a good thing to do that if that freed
up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and
maybe that wasnt' true.
VanguardLH
Sep 17, 2017, 4:47:00 AM9/17/17
to
micky wrote:
> On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM.
1 GB + 4 GB = 5 GB. Really? Bet what you did was /remove/ the 1 GB
> On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM.
module and put in four 1 GB, two 2 GB, or one 4 GB module.
> With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use
> by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up
> to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
not the 64-bit version based off Windows 2003 Server, crippled to XP
functionality, and with the XP desktop. With Windows XP 32-bit, you
only get 3 GB for user-mode processes. However, that's for ALL
user-mode processes. Any particular 32-bit user-mode process can only
access a maximum of 2 GB: 2^(32-1). The OS sucks up the other 1 GB.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier
http://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/The-4GB-Windows-Memory-Limit-What-does-it-really-mean
> A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked
> on another tab,
toss it away?
> because when I first clicked on them, they were always
> blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in
> DSL to re-download. It would be a good thing to do that if that freed
> up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and
> maybe that wasnt' true.
but been too long since I last looked at it.
Doesn't Session Manager have that (session save state)? Since you're
using it, you're confusing its functions that it adds that Firefox
doesn't. Since Session Manager claims to duplicate the session manager
in Tab Mix Plus, I'm guess Tab Mix Plus also has a session manager.
Paul
Sep 17, 2017, 5:10:51 AM9/17/17
to
application can use. And it's an "address space" issue, not a
"RAM" issue as such.
The executable needs both user-space addresses and kernel addresses.
There is (on Windows) a normal 2GB/2GB address space split. A 32 bit
process uses 32 bit addresses. After translation, if PAE was enabled,
the output could be 36 bit as a physical address, but the address
space limit still exists, and you have a 2GB window anywhere in a
64GB space, if PAE is turned on. The Microsoft "memory license"
trims the PAE thing down to just 4GB of address space for their
32-bit OSes, rather than the 64GB value. PAE is used to hold certain
attribute bits the OS needs (like NX), rather than being turned on
so a 32 bit OS user can use gobs of RAM above 4GB.
There is a /3GB switch for boot.ini or BCD. What this does,
is change the address space split to 3GB/1GB. The kernel address
range is limited. This can have some performance issues on an older
OS.
https://blogs.technet.microsoft.com/askperf/2007/03/23/memory-management-demystifying-3gb/
To use that, is tricky, in that the application itself has to have
a flag set on the code module. The application must be "large_address_aware".
I have my own little 12 line memory-filling program I wrote,
and I've compiled that for "regular" 32 bit usage, "LAA" 32 bit usage,
and 64 bit usage.
gcc -o malloc.exe -Wl,--large-address-aware malloc.c
That gives me an opportunity to test the limits on this page.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/aa366778(v=vs.85).aspx
AFAIK, Photoshop is LAA, so if you used the /3GB switch, you could
use more RAM on a 32-bit Windows OS.
The limit may be 2GB of user-space addresses normally, but
I typically see just 1.8GB before the application cannot
request more RAM. (Because it would have no way to address it.)
There are processes and threads. AFAIK, threads live inside
a single process, so that should function as a "jail". Processes
on the other hand, a program like Firefox can now run multiple
processes. I presume this has an effect on "limits" for what
Firefox can do or eat.
While Firefox is running, it has some sort of pretty active
garbage collector. I've watched in Task Manager, as a "sine wave"
appears for RAM usage. As something in the browser bloats up,
and is then deflated a half second later. If you were to ask
the question "why can't Firefox use less RAM", it's trying,
but it isn't working :-) And Firefox has its own internal
telemetry (CEIP like) for reporting resource usage to the
mothership. This is supposed to make Firefox developers aware
of how the product performs at customer sites. Using
about:memory can show you your own report if you like,
but you typically won't learn anything from that. It
would be like "reading the weather report for Antarctica".
Paul
Steve Hayes
Sep 17, 2017, 10:20:39 AM9/17/17
to
seems to work fine on XP, and generally faster than Firefox.
Steve Hayes
Sep 17, 2017, 10:21:39 AM9/17/17
to
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:32:53 +0200, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:
>Steve,
>
>> Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding"
>> or crashing.
>
>I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed
>? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your
>opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-)
Where can I find it, and how can I avoid the nagging "Update"
messages?
wrote:
>Steve,
>
>> Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding"
>> or crashing.
>
>I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed
>? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your
>opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-)
messages?
R.Wieser
Sep 17, 2017, 10:58:11 AM9/17/17
to
Steve,
> Where can I find it,
Have you already tried to google for it ?
You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to
my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org
itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of
firefox". Try it yourself. :-)
> and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages?
By switching the updating off in the preferences of Firefox ? In my
version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to
"never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown
into google again gives that answer as the first result.
Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve
them yourself, didn't you ...:-(
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
news:f71trc9e0mcneue6l...@4ax.com...
> Where can I find it,
You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to
my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org
itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of
firefox". Try it yourself. :-)
> and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages?
version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to
"never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown
into google again gives that answer as the first result.
Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve
them yourself, didn't you ...:-(
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
news:f71trc9e0mcneue6l...@4ax.com...
Paul
Sep 17, 2017, 10:58:53 AM9/17/17
to
Steve Hayes wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:32:53 +0200, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>>> Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding"
>>> or crashing.
>> I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed
>> ? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your
>> opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-)
>
> Where can I find it, and how can I avoid the nagging "Update"
> messages?
>
Even if the GUI didn't have controls, there are other ways.
> On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 09:32:53 +0200, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
> wrote:
>
>> Steve,
>>
>>> Firefox has become bloatware, and isd always "not responding"
>>> or crashing.
>> I hope you do realize you do not *have* to have the latest version installed
>> ? You could simply decide to take the last version of FF which was, in your
>> opinion, still worth anything and keep using that. :-)
>
> Where can I find it, and how can I avoid the nagging "Update"
> messages?
>
https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/questions/1003777
about:config
app.update.auto - false
app.update.enabled - false
app.update.silent - false
user.js
// turn off application updates:
user_pref("app.update.enabled", false)
Occasionally, Firefox has a setting which is *not* listed in
about:config, but you can add an entry yourself. It's going
to be pretty difficult to figure out what to add, unless
you get lucky in a Google search. Even reading the source
code, you might have a hard time finding the hidden gems.
There's around 150000 files in there, and I computed it
would take a lifetime to read all of them, even with an
Evelyn Wood speed reading course :-) And if you think
that's "awesome", Chromium by comparison has more than
twice that many files.
*******
You can scroll through this stuff, until you
find the version you want.
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/
For example, if I wanted version 12... 15MB EXe file
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/12.0/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2012.0.exe
A more current one... 42MB EXE file
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/53.0.3/win32/en-US/Firefox%20Setup%2053.0.3.exe
Paul
micky
Sep 17, 2017, 1:52:42 PM9/17/17
to
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53
>
I should have added,somewhere in this thread that I am no longer getting
in win10 or afaicr XP, "Script is stuck in loop" errors.
This might be partly because I turned off flash and I have to approve
its use every time a program really needs it, which is rarely. And I
approve it only for one use, not repeated use by a high level domain
(which I believe is what "Allow and Remember" does)
But someone I asked poiuted out that there are script errors that don't
involve flash, and I was getting some of those even after I took the
step in the previous paragraph. So since I'm not getting those
anymore, it must be that Firefox was improved. I haven't read their
version notes to see if they claim to have solved this problem, but it's
sure great not to have it.
The only extensions I am using in win10 (and even fewer in XP. I can
check if you want, but like I say, I think it's FF that has been
improved.) are 5:
Youtube video and audio downloader, which I don't think ever worked for
me, but surely I never use it.
Sqlite manager, which I think I used once, I forget why.
Session manager, which I already mentioned, which is more versatile and
powerful about restoring closed tabs and windows, but which isnt'
perfect. One time I lost all my tabs and I have no idea how. Taking a
global bookmark once in a while is a good idea, but bookmarks don't
include previous or next urls for a tab, like Recently Closed Tabs does.
So that's a reason I rarely run a string of urls in the same tab, and
I'm more likely to open a new tab, so there will be a tab for each thing
when I save a bookmark.
Cntrl-shift-D saves all your tabs and all your windows in bookmarks,
even though that's not listed in the dropdowns afaik.
Reload Every, which was an attempt to get banks etc. from closing the
window I was lokoing at, just because I don't do anything for a few
minutes. It works but I don't think it's enough to outsmart some or all
webistes.
NoSquint Plus, added recently to let me enlarge one tab without
affecting others. Not sure how or if it works yet.
That's all in win10, nothing to prevent script errors and yet I don't
have them. And I'm pretty sure I don't have them in XP. I don't know
how long I would have to browse the web to know for sure?
-0400, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>support?
>
>Bill
> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>support?
>
>
I should have added,somewhere in this thread that I am no longer getting
in win10 or afaicr XP, "Script is stuck in loop" errors.
This might be partly because I turned off flash and I have to approve
its use every time a program really needs it, which is rarely. And I
approve it only for one use, not repeated use by a high level domain
(which I believe is what "Allow and Remember" does)
But someone I asked poiuted out that there are script errors that don't
involve flash, and I was getting some of those even after I took the
step in the previous paragraph. So since I'm not getting those
anymore, it must be that Firefox was improved. I haven't read their
version notes to see if they claim to have solved this problem, but it's
sure great not to have it.
The only extensions I am using in win10 (and even fewer in XP. I can
check if you want, but like I say, I think it's FF that has been
improved.) are 5:
Youtube video and audio downloader, which I don't think ever worked for
me, but surely I never use it.
Sqlite manager, which I think I used once, I forget why.
Session manager, which I already mentioned, which is more versatile and
powerful about restoring closed tabs and windows, but which isnt'
perfect. One time I lost all my tabs and I have no idea how. Taking a
global bookmark once in a while is a good idea, but bookmarks don't
include previous or next urls for a tab, like Recently Closed Tabs does.
So that's a reason I rarely run a string of urls in the same tab, and
I'm more likely to open a new tab, so there will be a tab for each thing
when I save a bookmark.
Cntrl-shift-D saves all your tabs and all your windows in bookmarks,
even though that's not listed in the dropdowns afaik.
Reload Every, which was an attempt to get banks etc. from closing the
window I was lokoing at, just because I don't do anything for a few
minutes. It works but I don't think it's enough to outsmart some or all
webistes.
NoSquint Plus, added recently to let me enlarge one tab without
affecting others. Not sure how or if it works yet.
That's all in win10, nothing to prevent script errors and yet I don't
have them. And I'm pretty sure I don't have them in XP. I don't know
how long I would have to browse the web to know for sure?
micky
Sep 17, 2017, 3:04:22 PM9/17/17
to
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 03:46:54
netbook had only 1 GB.
>> With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use
>> by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up
>> to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
>
>"Windows XP" without any bitwidth qualifier means the 32-bit version,
Yes, that's what I meant.
>not the 64-bit version based off Windows 2003 Server, crippled to XP
>functionality, and with the XP desktop. With Windows XP 32-bit, you
>only get 3 GB for user-mode processes. However, that's for ALL
>user-mode processes. Any particular 32-bit user-mode process can only
>access a maximum of 2 GB: 2^(32-1). The OS sucks up the other 1 GB.
The OS is 64-bit, but I had trouble with the 64-bit version of FF so I'm
using 32-bit there.
Right now, Task Manager says I'm using 82% of the 8 GB, and FF is using
2.45 GB. I've read what you say about the maximum being 2 GB, but Task
Manager says it's more. ??
>All that downloading to put the page in the cache and then just
>toss it away?
I don't know the internals, but maybe the page was put on the HDD.
>> It would be a good thing to do that if that freed
>> up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and
>> maybe that wasnt' true.
>
>There are add-ons to unload tabs, like OneTab. There was another one
>but been too long since I last looked at it.
I'll look into OneTab. It might help. Even if it slows things down, if
it prevents freezing that's a net gain in time. Thanks.
>Doesn't Session Manager have that (session save state)? Since you're
>using it, you're confusing its functions that it adds that Firefox
>doesn't.
I don't think I'm confusing anything. I gave a short synopsis of thjat
part of Session Manager that seemed relevant here.
>Since Session Manager claims to duplicate the session manager
>in Tab Mix Plus, I'm guess Tab Mix Plus also has a session manager.
Yes, I think so. The author mentions Tab Mix Plus (I think it was) and
there is an option to convert from TabMixPlus. But what I read 3 or 4
years ago was that SM was better.
-0500, VanguardLH <V...@nguard.LH> wrote:
>micky wrote:
>
>> On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM.
>
>1 GB + 4 GB = 5 GB. Really? Bet what you did was /remove/ the 1 GB
>module and put in four 1 GB, two 2 GB, or one 4 GB module.
This is my desktop. In the previuos snipped paragraph I said that my
>micky wrote:
>
>> On my Desktop, I installed another 4gigs RAM.
>
>1 GB + 4 GB = 5 GB. Really? Bet what you did was /remove/ the 1 GB
>module and put in four 1 GB, two 2 GB, or one 4 GB module.
netbook had only 1 GB.
>> With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in use
>> by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to go up
>> to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
>
>"Windows XP" without any bitwidth qualifier means the 32-bit version,
>not the 64-bit version based off Windows 2003 Server, crippled to XP
>functionality, and with the XP desktop. With Windows XP 32-bit, you
>only get 3 GB for user-mode processes. However, that's for ALL
>user-mode processes. Any particular 32-bit user-mode process can only
>access a maximum of 2 GB: 2^(32-1). The OS sucks up the other 1 GB.
using 32-bit there.
Right now, Task Manager says I'm using 82% of the 8 GB, and FF is using
2.45 GB. I've read what you say about the maximum being 2 GB, but Task
Manager says it's more. ??
>
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier
>http://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/The-4GB-Windows-Memory-Limit-What-does-it-really-mean
>
>> A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked
>> on another tab,
>
>Why?
"Because" started the next sentence.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3_GB_barrier
>http://www.brianmadden.com/opinion/The-4GB-Windows-Memory-Limit-What-does-it-really-mean
>
>> A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you clicked
>> on another tab,
>
>Why?
>All that downloading to put the page in the cache and then just
>toss it away?
>
>> because when I first clicked on them, they were always
>> blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in
>> DSL to re-download.
But not too little time to copy from the HDD.
>> because when I first clicked on them, they were always
>> blank and then they filled out in a second or two, too little time in
>> DSL to re-download.
>> It would be a good thing to do that if that freed
>> up ram and delayed freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and
>> maybe that wasnt' true.
>
>There are add-ons to unload tabs, like OneTab. There was another one
>but been too long since I last looked at it.
it prevents freezing that's a net gain in time. Thanks.
>Doesn't Session Manager have that (session save state)? Since you're
>using it, you're confusing its functions that it adds that Firefox
>doesn't.
part of Session Manager that seemed relevant here.
>Since Session Manager claims to duplicate the session manager
>in Tab Mix Plus, I'm guess Tab Mix Plus also has a session manager.
there is an option to convert from TabMixPlus. But what I read 3 or 4
years ago was that SM was better.
micky
Sep 17, 2017, 3:07:58 PM9/17/17
to
In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 05:10:45
>and is then deflated a half second later. If you were to ask
>the question "why can't Firefox use less RAM", it's trying,
Well at least it's trying. That's all I asked of my 12-year old nephew.
>but it isn't working :-) And Firefox has its own internal
>telemetry (CEIP like) for reporting resource usage to the
>mothership. This is supposed to make Firefox developers aware
>of how the product performs at customer sites. Using
>about:memory can show you your own report if you like,
>but you typically won't learn anything from that. It
>would be like "reading the weather report for Antarctica".
As is often the case, it will take me a while to digest the rest of your
post.
-0400, Paul <nos...@needed.invalid> wrote:
>
>While Firefox is running, it has some sort of pretty active
>garbage collector. I've watched in Task Manager, as a "sine wave"
>appears for RAM usage. As something in the browser bloats up,
Sounds interesting. I'll try to do that.
>
>While Firefox is running, it has some sort of pretty active
>garbage collector. I've watched in Task Manager, as a "sine wave"
>appears for RAM usage. As something in the browser bloats up,
>and is then deflated a half second later. If you were to ask
>the question "why can't Firefox use less RAM", it's trying,
>but it isn't working :-) And Firefox has its own internal
>telemetry (CEIP like) for reporting resource usage to the
>mothership. This is supposed to make Firefox developers aware
>of how the product performs at customer sites. Using
>about:memory can show you your own report if you like,
>but you typically won't learn anything from that. It
>would be like "reading the weather report for Antarctica".
post.
VanguardLH
Sep 17, 2017, 6:20:49 PM9/17/17
to
micky wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
you said you were using Windows XP 32-bit. Now you say you are using
the 64-bit version of Windows XP. Which is it? You first mentioned
your laptop and then your desktop. Is the laptop running 32-bit WinXP
and the desktop running 64-bit WinXP?
64-bit WinXP has always been more flaky as it is a frankenjob OS.
32-bit applications that run on 32-bit WinXP fail on 64-bit WinXP.
64-bit applications that run on 64-bit Windows 2003 Server fail on
64-bit WinXP. 64-bit WinXP was Microsoft trying to catch up but late on
providing a 64-bit platform and did so poorly.
The 2 GB max user-mode memory space per process and 3 GB memory for all
user-mode processes is a limitation of the 32-bit version of Windows XP
(or any 32-bit version of Windows).
>>> A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you
>>> clicked on another tab,
>>
>> Why?
>
> "Because" started the next sentence.
You were describing an effect, not the cause. Firefox isn't unloading
the tabs. More likely the add-on(s) you installed are doing that unless
the real problem is a very slow drive or something slowing down access
to the web cache.
Have you tried rebooting Windows into its safe mode (with networking)
and load Firefox in its safe mode to retest if the momentary delay on
refocusing on a tab still results in a lag in repainting the page? This
won't resolve hardware issues but will eliminate startup programs and
addons from causing the problem.
> I don't know the internals, but maybe the page was put on the HDD.
If that's the storage medium in your computer then that is where the web
cache is stored. Go to about:cache to see Firefox's cache statistics.
If there are cached entries, you'll see a link to list them.
If you don't want Firefox to purge its local data (cookies, web cache,
DOM storage, etc) upon its exit so all that data lingers around until
your next Firefox session, you can use an add-on to let you determine if
and when to purge Firefox's local data during a Firefox session. I do
not have Firefox retain any local data after a web session. I have
Firefox purge ALL of its local data upon exit.
>>> It would be a good thing to do that if that freed up ram and delayed
>>> freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and maybe that
>>> wasnt' true.
>>
>> There are add-ons to unload tabs, like OneTab. There was another
>> one but been too long since I last looked at it.
>
> I'll look into OneTab. It might help. Even if it slows things down,
> if it prevents freezing that's a net gain in time. Thanks.
My recollection of OneTab is that you had to select a tab to unload.
You clicked on its toolbar icon to unload tabs and provide a list to let
you reload them. It's also a legacy extension which means it won't
survive with FF57; however, you're on Windows XP which means the latest
you can use there is FF52ESR. I've never used Session Manager (also a
legacy extension) to know if it has an auto-unload feature for tabs. It
certainly has a tons of features. Tab Suspender says it will
automatically unload inactive tabs. Obviously an unloaded tab will take
time to reload; however, some of the web page will be in the web cache
and not have to get re-retrieved. There are several tab auto-unload
extensions. I've never used any of them.
An unloaded tab (if YOU choose to unload them) will take time to
re-retrieve the page again from the server when you focus on the
unloaded tab. A cached web page should be nearly instantly repainted
when you refocus on an unloaded tab and a still-loaded tab should
already still be painted so there is no lag to show that tab. That
there is a lag to show the web page (whether to re-retrieve from server
or reread the web cache) means something unloaded the tab.
With tons of tabs open, could be that Firefox is unloading the oldest
tabs to conserve on memory (not disk space for the web cache). It only
has so much system RAM it gets to use.
Some tweaks you can try:
- In about:config, set network.prefetch-next = False. When Firefox
loads a page, it also goes out to all the linked resources in a web
page to shove them into its web cache. All that downloading takes
bandwidth (and more than you intended when selecting a specific web
page to visit) which means more time. The downloading is in the
background so you're supposed to not see it but you are loading LOTS
of tabs and each of those pages could be pre-fetching content. It
also defeats ad and tracking blockers by retrieving a resource that
you would've blocked if it had been retrieved by the current document
(web page). Pre-fetching resources means you touched those resources
which can then track from where you came. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_prefetching#Issues_and_criticisms
- Every tab has its own history. When you use the same tab to visit
other pages or sites, like clicking on hyperlinks or using the address
bar, a history is maintained during the life of that tab. That's why
you can click on the Back button to look at history for a tab. The
default history for a tab is 50 entries. Do you really need to
revisit something that far back? If so then why are you opening so
many tabs? More history is a load on Firefox to maintain per tab.
In about:config, set browser.sessionHistory.max_entries to 10 (instead
of the default of 50) to reduce load on Firefox for history.
- What is the value for the browser.cache.memory.enable setting? See
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.enable. True makes
Firefox reload pages faster.
- While Mozilla added a new HTTP cache (aka cache2) that is supposed to
be faster and more streamlined (seems mostly the latter as it helps
halts in Firefox but doesn't seem to do much for increasing speed),
they decided for some reason to disable it by default. Go into
about:config and check the browser.cache.use_new_backend setting.
Mine is 0 (disabled). Change to 1 to enable. This was introduced
back around 2014. I don't know why it is not enabled by default.
Seems an overly long time to still be considered an experiment.
NOTE: I went into about:cache and the disk cache location is the
cache2 folder. My guess Mozilla went full ahead on their new cache
it is ignored.
- Make sure the Flash plug-in is configured for "Ask to Activate" to
NOT start playing streamed Flash content in a web page until YOU allow
it. You don't need to be loading tons of tabs, especially in the
background where you won't see them, to have Flash playing in many of
them. Or just disable the Flash plug-in (improve security, make sites
use HTML5 <video> if they have both content types).
- If you don't even want HTML5 <video> to start playing and consume
bandwidth for a tab opened in the background, go into about:config and
change media.autoplay.enabled to False. However, some sites won't let
you manually start playing their video as they provide no user
controls in the UI for their player. Don't remember the domain but
users complained about some movie site not letting them manually start
playing the movie videos there. For those sites that provide no user
controls (buttons for Play, Pause, etc), sometimes you can right-click
on the video to select Play. Even when there is a Play button shown,
sometimes it requires clicking it twice. If you want to disable
auto-play for HTML5 <video> only for background tabs (i.e., you
configured Firefox to open new tabs in the background), set
media.block-play-until-visible to True (unnecessary if already
media.autoplay.enabled is False).
- Check if Electrolysis (e10s) is enabled. This is the new
multi-process scheme for Firefox. Go to about:support and search on
"multiprocess". If it is "1/1" then it is enabled. If it is "0/1"
then you have an add-on that interferes with the use of e10s. I
replaced all my legacy add-ons with WE (WebExtension) version, except
for uMatrix that I'm still waiting for its WE release (its beta
version is unuable due to uncontrollable scrolling of its table);
however, even with legacy uMatrix I'm getting "1/1". You should also
see in Options -> General tab a new Performance section where the
number of content processes can be specified. Mozilla is starting
with 1 (although it may differ depending on your hardware). Going
higher means more memory consumption by Firefox. Mine is at 1.
I've read where some folks have changed it to 4. For some info, see:
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/05/27/firefox-54-multi-content-processes/,
https://www.ghacks.net/2016/02/15/change-how-many-processes-multi-process-firefox-uses/.
You have to disable the "Use recommended" option to see the separate
options for hardware/GPU acceleration and content process limit.
Mozilla recommends changing from the recommended default only if you
have more than 8 GB of system RAM. My desktop is 8 GB. I'll try it
at 4 for awhile to see if I notice any performance gain. If not, back
to 1. Changing this value requires a restart of Firefox. More
content processes means more memory consumption, something you already
noted having a problem.
- I usually exit Firefox when I'm not using it. Some folks want to
leave it running it all the time; i.e., the Web is their primary use
of their computer. When Firefox is left running but you minimize it
(to do something else, God forbid), it does not reliniquish any of its
resources, like GUI objects. That means it uses as much memory
whether its window is display or when hidden (and all you have is the
taskbar button). To reduce memory consumption when you hide its
window, create a new Boolean variable named config.trim_on_minimize
and set to True. See:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize.
Since I don't leave Firefox running when I'm not using it, this
setting is inapplicable to me.
- How big is the web cache (Options -> Advanced -> Network -> Cached Web
Content)? The idea is to locally cache the web pages so they can get
reloaded quicker than having to re-retrieve them from the server. For
me, I purge everything on exit from Firefox so I don't need a huge web
cache. I configured it to 500MB maximum. I would've set it to zero
since I have an always-on high-speed broadband connection but some web
cache is okay per Firefox session. The bigger the web cache to more
time to maintain it. There is also the problem of having to check if
the page has been modified since the content was stored in the web
cache, and not all pages provide a Modified datestamp or it is never
updated which results in re-downloading the page anyway. Then there
is all that head seeking on the hard disk. If you have an SSD, a web
cache means more wear that shortens its life. For a fast Internet
connection and since I changed to an SSD for the OS partition, I'll
go back to disabling the web cache (set the override from 500MB to
zero) which also means less time to do the purge on exit. I actually
prefer the web browser retrieve a web page anew instead of having to
piece together what is current versus what is old to then now what has
to be retrieved that is changed. I get a new web page upon visit. I
still have to allow DOM Storage (aka Offline Website Data) because
I've hit too many sites that require it for their page to be
functional but it does get purged on Firefox's exit.
- Go to about:memory and click on "Minimize memory usage". That is only
a very temporary solution. If there's nothing available to free then
there won't be any reduction.
- Is hardware (GPU) acceleration enabled in Firefox? It can speed up
Firefox but only at web sites that use graphical rendering (e.g.,
online 3D games). It can cause Firefox to crash because either the
hardware (GPU's firmware) or especially the video driver won't support
it. You could enable it to see if you get faster page rendering in
Firefox. You could disable it to see if those Firefox crashes go
away.
> VanguardLH wrote:
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in
>>> use by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to
>>> go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
>>
>> "Windows XP" without any bitwidth qualifier means the 32-bit
>> version,
>
> Yes, that's what I meant.
>
>> micky wrote:
>>
>>> With 4 gig, using task manager I could get up to about 1.7gigs in
>>> use by Firefox, so of course with 4 more gig, I should be able to
>>> go up to 5.7gigs, right? Wrong.
>>
>> "Windows XP" without any bitwidth qualifier means the 32-bit
>> version,
>
> Yes, that's what I meant.
>
> The OS is 64-bit, but I had trouble with the 64-bit version of FF so
> I'm using 32-bit there.
You are posting in a Windows XP newsgroup. When queried for bitwidth,
> I'm using 32-bit there.
you said you were using Windows XP 32-bit. Now you say you are using
the 64-bit version of Windows XP. Which is it? You first mentioned
your laptop and then your desktop. Is the laptop running 32-bit WinXP
and the desktop running 64-bit WinXP?
64-bit WinXP has always been more flaky as it is a frankenjob OS.
32-bit applications that run on 32-bit WinXP fail on 64-bit WinXP.
64-bit applications that run on 64-bit Windows 2003 Server fail on
64-bit WinXP. 64-bit WinXP was Microsoft trying to catch up but late on
providing a 64-bit platform and did so poorly.
The 2 GB max user-mode memory space per process and 3 GB memory for all
user-mode processes is a limitation of the 32-bit version of Windows XP
(or any 32-bit version of Windows).
>>> A while back I had the feeling that tabs would unload when you
>>> clicked on another tab,
>>
>> Why?
>
> "Because" started the next sentence.
the tabs. More likely the add-on(s) you installed are doing that unless
the real problem is a very slow drive or something slowing down access
to the web cache.
Have you tried rebooting Windows into its safe mode (with networking)
and load Firefox in its safe mode to retest if the momentary delay on
refocusing on a tab still results in a lag in repainting the page? This
won't resolve hardware issues but will eliminate startup programs and
addons from causing the problem.
> I don't know the internals, but maybe the page was put on the HDD.
cache is stored. Go to about:cache to see Firefox's cache statistics.
If there are cached entries, you'll see a link to list them.
If you don't want Firefox to purge its local data (cookies, web cache,
DOM storage, etc) upon its exit so all that data lingers around until
your next Firefox session, you can use an add-on to let you determine if
and when to purge Firefox's local data during a Firefox session. I do
not have Firefox retain any local data after a web session. I have
Firefox purge ALL of its local data upon exit.
>>> It would be a good thing to do that if that freed up ram and delayed
>>> freezing,but I dont' think I've seen that lately and maybe that
>>> wasnt' true.
>>
>> There are add-ons to unload tabs, like OneTab. There was another
>> one but been too long since I last looked at it.
>
> I'll look into OneTab. It might help. Even if it slows things down,
> if it prevents freezing that's a net gain in time. Thanks.
You clicked on its toolbar icon to unload tabs and provide a list to let
you reload them. It's also a legacy extension which means it won't
survive with FF57; however, you're on Windows XP which means the latest
you can use there is FF52ESR. I've never used Session Manager (also a
legacy extension) to know if it has an auto-unload feature for tabs. It
certainly has a tons of features. Tab Suspender says it will
automatically unload inactive tabs. Obviously an unloaded tab will take
time to reload; however, some of the web page will be in the web cache
and not have to get re-retrieved. There are several tab auto-unload
extensions. I've never used any of them.
An unloaded tab (if YOU choose to unload them) will take time to
re-retrieve the page again from the server when you focus on the
unloaded tab. A cached web page should be nearly instantly repainted
when you refocus on an unloaded tab and a still-loaded tab should
already still be painted so there is no lag to show that tab. That
there is a lag to show the web page (whether to re-retrieve from server
or reread the web cache) means something unloaded the tab.
With tons of tabs open, could be that Firefox is unloading the oldest
tabs to conserve on memory (not disk space for the web cache). It only
has so much system RAM it gets to use.
Some tweaks you can try:
- In about:config, set network.prefetch-next = False. When Firefox
loads a page, it also goes out to all the linked resources in a web
page to shove them into its web cache. All that downloading takes
bandwidth (and more than you intended when selecting a specific web
page to visit) which means more time. The downloading is in the
background so you're supposed to not see it but you are loading LOTS
of tabs and each of those pages could be pre-fetching content. It
also defeats ad and tracking blockers by retrieving a resource that
you would've blocked if it had been retrieved by the current document
(web page). Pre-fetching resources means you touched those resources
which can then track from where you came. See:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Link_prefetching#Issues_and_criticisms
- Every tab has its own history. When you use the same tab to visit
other pages or sites, like clicking on hyperlinks or using the address
bar, a history is maintained during the life of that tab. That's why
you can click on the Back button to look at history for a tab. The
default history for a tab is 50 entries. Do you really need to
revisit something that far back? If so then why are you opening so
many tabs? More history is a load on Firefox to maintain per tab.
In about:config, set browser.sessionHistory.max_entries to 10 (instead
of the default of 50) to reduce load on Firefox for history.
- What is the value for the browser.cache.memory.enable setting? See
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.cache.memory.enable. True makes
Firefox reload pages faster.
- While Mozilla added a new HTTP cache (aka cache2) that is supposed to
be faster and more streamlined (seems mostly the latter as it helps
halts in Firefox but doesn't seem to do much for increasing speed),
they decided for some reason to disable it by default. Go into
about:config and check the browser.cache.use_new_backend setting.
Mine is 0 (disabled). Change to 1 to enable. This was introduced
back around 2014. I don't know why it is not enabled by default.
Seems an overly long time to still be considered an experiment.
NOTE: I went into about:cache and the disk cache location is the
cache2 folder. My guess Mozilla went full ahead on their new cache
it is ignored.
- Make sure the Flash plug-in is configured for "Ask to Activate" to
NOT start playing streamed Flash content in a web page until YOU allow
it. You don't need to be loading tons of tabs, especially in the
background where you won't see them, to have Flash playing in many of
them. Or just disable the Flash plug-in (improve security, make sites
use HTML5 <video> if they have both content types).
- If you don't even want HTML5 <video> to start playing and consume
bandwidth for a tab opened in the background, go into about:config and
change media.autoplay.enabled to False. However, some sites won't let
you manually start playing their video as they provide no user
controls in the UI for their player. Don't remember the domain but
users complained about some movie site not letting them manually start
playing the movie videos there. For those sites that provide no user
controls (buttons for Play, Pause, etc), sometimes you can right-click
on the video to select Play. Even when there is a Play button shown,
sometimes it requires clicking it twice. If you want to disable
auto-play for HTML5 <video> only for background tabs (i.e., you
configured Firefox to open new tabs in the background), set
media.block-play-until-visible to True (unnecessary if already
media.autoplay.enabled is False).
- Check if Electrolysis (e10s) is enabled. This is the new
multi-process scheme for Firefox. Go to about:support and search on
"multiprocess". If it is "1/1" then it is enabled. If it is "0/1"
then you have an add-on that interferes with the use of e10s. I
replaced all my legacy add-ons with WE (WebExtension) version, except
for uMatrix that I'm still waiting for its WE release (its beta
version is unuable due to uncontrollable scrolling of its table);
however, even with legacy uMatrix I'm getting "1/1". You should also
see in Options -> General tab a new Performance section where the
number of content processes can be specified. Mozilla is starting
with 1 (although it may differ depending on your hardware). Going
higher means more memory consumption by Firefox. Mine is at 1.
I've read where some folks have changed it to 4. For some info, see:
https://www.ghacks.net/2017/05/27/firefox-54-multi-content-processes/,
https://www.ghacks.net/2016/02/15/change-how-many-processes-multi-process-firefox-uses/.
You have to disable the "Use recommended" option to see the separate
options for hardware/GPU acceleration and content process limit.
Mozilla recommends changing from the recommended default only if you
have more than 8 GB of system RAM. My desktop is 8 GB. I'll try it
at 4 for awhile to see if I notice any performance gain. If not, back
to 1. Changing this value requires a restart of Firefox. More
content processes means more memory consumption, something you already
noted having a problem.
- I usually exit Firefox when I'm not using it. Some folks want to
leave it running it all the time; i.e., the Web is their primary use
of their computer. When Firefox is left running but you minimize it
(to do something else, God forbid), it does not reliniquish any of its
resources, like GUI objects. That means it uses as much memory
whether its window is display or when hidden (and all you have is the
taskbar button). To reduce memory consumption when you hide its
window, create a new Boolean variable named config.trim_on_minimize
and set to True. See:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Config.trim_on_minimize.
Since I don't leave Firefox running when I'm not using it, this
setting is inapplicable to me.
- How big is the web cache (Options -> Advanced -> Network -> Cached Web
Content)? The idea is to locally cache the web pages so they can get
reloaded quicker than having to re-retrieve them from the server. For
me, I purge everything on exit from Firefox so I don't need a huge web
cache. I configured it to 500MB maximum. I would've set it to zero
since I have an always-on high-speed broadband connection but some web
cache is okay per Firefox session. The bigger the web cache to more
time to maintain it. There is also the problem of having to check if
the page has been modified since the content was stored in the web
cache, and not all pages provide a Modified datestamp or it is never
updated which results in re-downloading the page anyway. Then there
is all that head seeking on the hard disk. If you have an SSD, a web
cache means more wear that shortens its life. For a fast Internet
connection and since I changed to an SSD for the OS partition, I'll
go back to disabling the web cache (set the override from 500MB to
zero) which also means less time to do the purge on exit. I actually
prefer the web browser retrieve a web page anew instead of having to
piece together what is current versus what is old to then now what has
to be retrieved that is changed. I get a new web page upon visit. I
still have to allow DOM Storage (aka Offline Website Data) because
I've hit too many sites that require it for their page to be
functional but it does get purged on Firefox's exit.
- Go to about:memory and click on "Minimize memory usage". That is only
a very temporary solution. If there's nothing available to free then
there won't be any reduction.
- Is hardware (GPU) acceleration enabled in Firefox? It can speed up
Firefox but only at web sites that use graphical rendering (e.g.,
online 3D games). It can cause Firefox to crash because either the
hardware (GPU's firmware) or especially the video driver won't support
it. You could enable it to see if you get faster page rendering in
Firefox. You could disable it to see if those Firefox crashes go
away.
Paul
Sep 17, 2017, 7:53:26 PM9/17/17
to
micky wrote:
> In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53
> -0400, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>> whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>> soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>> support?
>>
>> Bill
>>
> I should have added,somewhere in this thread that I am no longer getting
> in win10 or afaicr XP, "Script is stuck in loop" errors.
The possibilities:
> In microsoft.public.windowsxp.general, on Wed, 13 Sep 2017 22:24:53
> -0400, "Bill Cunningham" <nos...@nspam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I was just wondering if anyone else usese firefox here. I have 'esr'
>> whatever that is. 53.2.0 or so. Anyone happen to know if XP support will end
>> soon; and if so any other browsers out there that are going to continue XP
>> support?
>>
>> Bill
>>
> I should have added,somewhere in this thread that I am no longer getting
> in win10 or afaicr XP, "Script is stuck in loop" errors.
1) Script is stuck in loop. CPU goes to 100% on one core.
Firefox detects a lack of response to user input, as there
must be an issue with the script.
Scripts will always get stuck in loops. They're "computer
programs" and it's dead-easy to write "1: GOTO 1" in any
language.
2) The only way to stop that, is have a scheduler inside the
browser, and reduce the priority (number of ticks) that the
errant script gets. This isn't always a fix, since one script
may control a second script, that actually displays content.
If the first script is stuck, fiddling the priority does not
correct the "stupid programming" in the first script. For example,
if a Google script doesn't get what it wants (store a EverCookie),
then it could loop like that on purpose. Changing the priority
so the rest of the browser remains responsive, is merely a
"bandaid on stoopid".
Letting Javascript into a computer, is like letting
malware into a computer. It can be well coded, poorly
coded, or whatever. While we hope Javascript is a "box"
that prevents stuff from escaping, the history of
computing to date, shows no such "box" really works.
Software can detect it is in a VM. Software can
escape from a VM. Functionality has always won out
over security - that's why the browser has 30 different
ways to store cookies. Obviously, somebody wanted a
cookie on your browser, and was willing to pay someone
to put it there. Only the "official" cookie, has
an easy means of cleaning ("delete history" thing).
DOM storage does not. Why did they invent DOM storage ?
Why did we need DOM storage ? "OMG Cookies!!!" :-)
Paul
pyotr filipivich
Sep 17, 2017, 9:50:05 PM9/17/17
to
Steve Hayes <haye...@telkomsa.net> on Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:21:19 +0200
I like palemoon cause it is close to what I'd gotten used to.
Transfer of bookmarks is the deal killer for me.
typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following:
>
>
>>>> http://i.maxthon.com/
>>>
>>> I've been using PaleMoon - a Firefox "fork"
>>
>>Same here, you just need to get an older special build version for XP, as
>>PaleMoon has also dropped support for XP. (Those versions are the
>>"Atom/WinXP" versions).
>
>Yes, I looked at that, saw it, and gave PaleMoon a miss, but Maxthon
>seems to work fine on XP, and generally faster than Firefox.
>
Hmmm - may have tot take a look at it.
>>>
>>> I've been using PaleMoon - a Firefox "fork"
>>
>>Same here, you just need to get an older special build version for XP, as
>>PaleMoon has also dropped support for XP. (Those versions are the
>>"Atom/WinXP" versions).
>
>Yes, I looked at that, saw it, and gave PaleMoon a miss, but Maxthon
>seems to work fine on XP, and generally faster than Firefox.
>
I like palemoon cause it is close to what I'd gotten used to.
Transfer of bookmarks is the deal killer for me.
Steve Hayes
Sep 18, 2017, 1:39:34 AM9/18/17
to
On Sun, 17 Sep 2017 16:57:51 +0200, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:
>Steve,
>
there, done that?
Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for?
wrote:
>Steve,
>
>> Where can I find it,
>
>Have you already tried to google for it ?
>
>You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to
>my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org
>itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of
>firefox". Try it yourself. :-)
>
>> and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages?
>
>By switching the updating off in the preferences of Firefox ? In my
>version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to
>"never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown
>into google again gives that answer as the first result.
>
>Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve
>them yourself, didn't you ...:-(
Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have been
>
>Have you already tried to google for it ?
>
>You see, I just threw "FireFox older versions" (the first thing that kame to
>my mind) into google, and the top result was from support.mozilla.org
>itself, stating that "This article gives you links to old versions of
>firefox". Try it yourself. :-)
>
>> and how can I avoid the nagging "Update" messages?
>
>By switching the updating off in the preferences of Firefox ? In my
>version of FF (16) thats under tools, options, advanced, update (set to
>"never check for updates"). And a quick "FireFox turn off updates" thrown
>into google again gives that answer as the first result.
>
>Be honest, you have posted these questions before even *trying* to solve
>them yourself, didn't you ...:-(
there, done that?
Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for?
R.Wieser
Sep 18, 2017, 3:37:53 AM9/18/17
to
Steve,
> Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have
> been there, done that?
You did not need to, it was all readily available on the web. Seven words,
and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you
needed.
You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to
present everything to you on a silver platter. :-(
> Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for?
Nope. For stuff like this we are here for *after* you have put your own
effort into finding a solution yourself, not before.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
> Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have
> been there, done that?
and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you
needed.
You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to
present everything to you on a silver platter. :-(
> Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for?
effort into finding a solution yourself, not before.
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
"Steve Hayes" <haye...@telkomsa.net> wrote in message
news:gvmurcht3km1alphg...@4ax.com...
Steve Hayes
Sep 19, 2017, 12:03:50 AM9/19/17
to
On Mon, 18 Sep 2017 09:37:39 +0200, "R.Wieser" <add...@not.available>
wrote:
>Steve,
>
wrote:
>Steve,
>
>> Why try to reinvent the wheel when there are fundis who have
>> been there, done that?
>
>You did not need to, it was all readily available on the web. Seven words,
>and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you
>needed.
>
>You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to
>present everything to you on a silver platter. :-(
>
>> Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for?
>
>Nope. For stuff like this we are here for *after* you have put your own
>effort into finding a solution yourself, not before.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
Go and troll somewhere else.
>> been there, done that?
>
>You did not need to, it was all readily available on the web. Seven words,
>and all of what ? Five minutes and you would have had everything you
>needed.
>
>You make it sound like a big job, allowing you to lean back and expect us to
>present everything to you on a silver platter. :-(
>
>> Isn't that what these tech newsgroups are for?
>
>Nope. For stuff like this we are here for *after* you have put your own
>effort into finding a solution yourself, not before.
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
R.Wieser
Sep 19, 2017, 10:06:47 AM9/19/17
to
Steve,
> Go and troll somewhere else.
:-D Lazy and expecting others to do all the work, and forcefully rejecting
being told so. How old are you, 12 ?
Kiddo, does your mother still allow you to ask where the plates and cutlery
are, even though you know very well they are placed in the confines of the
kitchen ? Cause thats how you're behaving. Knowing how and where to get
stuff, but still expecting others to fetch it for you.
And a bit of a warning: this attitude gets old very quickly. Just as you
mother got wise to it and told you to move your own ass, the people who you
now use will start to simply ignore you because of it (I know I will).
And than comes the day you *really* need help, and noone responds anymore
...
news:so51scdrk5cer21l9...@4ax.com...
> Go and troll somewhere else.
being told so. How old are you, 12 ?
Kiddo, does your mother still allow you to ask where the plates and cutlery
are, even though you know very well they are placed in the confines of the
kitchen ? Cause thats how you're behaving. Knowing how and where to get
stuff, but still expecting others to fetch it for you.
And a bit of a warning: this attitude gets old very quickly. Just as you
mother got wise to it and told you to move your own ass, the people who you
now use will start to simply ignore you because of it (I know I will).
And than comes the day you *really* need help, and noone responds anymore
...
news:so51scdrk5cer21l9...@4ax.com...
Bill Cunningham
Sep 19, 2017, 1:00:30 PM9/19/17
to
"VanguardLH" <V...@nguard.LH> wrote in message
news:dtyicspwq5hc$.dlg@v.nguard.lh...
[]
> 64-bit WinXP has always been more flaky as it is a frankenjob OS.
> 32-bit applications that run on 32-bit WinXP fail on 64-bit WinXP.
ran 32 bit media center edition. I never had the Home Edition 32 bit. But my
firefox is 32 bit and it runs on my x64. The manufacturer of my machine put
a 64 bit CPU in the machine and sold it with 32 bit MCE.
> 64-bit applications that run on 64-bit Windows 2003 Server fail on
> 64-bit WinXP. 64-bit WinXP was Microsoft trying to catch up but late on
> providing a 64-bit platform and did so poorly.
I have many "Win server 2003" updates installed on my x64. It is a
"Frankenjob".
Bill
pyotr filipivich
Sep 22, 2017, 12:10:46 AM9/22/17
to
"R.Wieser" <add...@not.available> on Tue, 19 Sep 2017 16:06:31 +0200
to prove that.
typed in microsoft.public.windowsxp.general the following:
>Steve,
>
>> Go and troll somewhere else.
>
>:-D Lazy and expecting others to do all the work, and forcefully rejecting
>being told so. How old are you, 12 ?
>
>Kiddo, does your mother still allow you to ask where the plates and cutlery
>are, even though you know very well they are placed in the confines of the
>kitchen ? Cause thats how you're behaving. Knowing how and where to get
>stuff, but still expecting others to fetch it for you.
>
>And a bit of a warning: this attitude gets old very quickly. Just as you
>mother got wise to it and told you to move your own ass, the people who you
>now use will start to simply ignore you because of it (I know I will).
>
>And than comes the day you *really* need help, and noone responds anymore
>...
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
Rudy old sock - If you can't answer the questions, you don't have
>
>> Go and troll somewhere else.
>
>:-D Lazy and expecting others to do all the work, and forcefully rejecting
>being told so. How old are you, 12 ?
>
>Kiddo, does your mother still allow you to ask where the plates and cutlery
>are, even though you know very well they are placed in the confines of the
>kitchen ? Cause thats how you're behaving. Knowing how and where to get
>stuff, but still expecting others to fetch it for you.
>
>And a bit of a warning: this attitude gets old very quickly. Just as you
>mother got wise to it and told you to move your own ass, the people who you
>now use will start to simply ignore you because of it (I know I will).
>
>And than comes the day you *really* need help, and noone responds anymore
>...
>
>Regards,
>Rudy Wieser
to prove that.
R.Wieser
Sep 22, 2017, 2:38:32 AM9/22/17
to
pyotr,
> Rudy old sock - If you can't answer the questions, you don't
> have to prove that.
:-) I guess you do not believe in getting your facts straight before
opening your mouth.
Two things:
Have *you* already tried to find what steve here is after ? How hard was
it for you ? Not at all ? Well ...
I already mentioned (sept. 17), all it took me was two searches using 7
words (which I even provided!) and google gave me the answers as the first
results. It took me way less than 5 minutes.
I take it you didn't read that post ... :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
"pyotr filipivich" <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:r939scld7imjqfdvg...@4ax.com...
> Rudy old sock - If you can't answer the questions, you don't
> have to prove that.
opening your mouth.
Two things:
Have *you* already tried to find what steve here is after ? How hard was
it for you ? Not at all ? Well ...
I already mentioned (sept. 17), all it took me was two searches using 7
words (which I even provided!) and google gave me the answers as the first
results. It took me way less than 5 minutes.
I take it you didn't read that post ... :-)
Regards,
Rudy Wieser
-- Origional message:
news:r939scld7imjqfdvg...@4ax.com...
0 new messages