Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > aus.computers > #47335 > unrolled thread
| Started by | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2015-08-14 14:52 +1000 |
| Last post | 2015-08-18 07:49 +0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 107 — 21 participants |
Back to article view | Back to aus.computers
Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-14 14:52 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:18 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-14 19:43 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 05:39 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-15 07:36 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 09:56 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:18 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:36 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-16 08:45 +1000
Re: Water fox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-16 23:15 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-14 15:36 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Jeßus <fcx_communications@fmi.com> - 2015-08-14 17:19 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-14 19:43 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-14 20:27 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-14 23:05 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 05:51 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "dechucka" <dechucka1@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-15 07:32 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 09:45 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-14 13:53 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-14 19:44 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 00:16 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Jeßus <fcx_communications@fmi.com> - 2015-08-14 17:15 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-14 19:44 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2015-08-15 10:28 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-15 11:31 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 14:00 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2015-08-15 14:12 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-15 11:03 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 05:52 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2015-08-16 08:01 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-16 09:08 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-19 08:28 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Ördög Abaddon Belphegor Lucifer Mephisto Satan <lies-greed-corruption-hate@liberal.org.au> - 2015-08-19 11:14 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-20 07:55 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Ördög Lucifer Belphegor Abaddon Satan Beelzebub <lies-greed-corruption@liberal.org.au> - 2015-08-20 03:16 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-22 06:27 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser rb <snafu@khyber.org> - 2015-09-05 00:32 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser news13 <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2015-09-04 16:07 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-09-05 10:45 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-27 08:14 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-27 07:07 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser BruceS <bruces42@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-27 10:47 -0600
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan <Belphegor@Hell.biz> - 2015-08-28 22:52 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-09-03 16:36 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Ördög Lucifer Belphegor Abaddon Satan Beelzebub <lies-greed-corruption@liberal.org.au> - 2015-09-03 21:41 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-09-05 07:44 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-09-05 12:23 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-09-05 13:17 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-09-07 15:37 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser news13 <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2015-09-05 04:37 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-22 18:17 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-27 07:19 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-27 09:45 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-28 09:43 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-28 11:23 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-28 19:33 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-29 17:29 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-28 19:31 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-29 07:17 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-29 18:00 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-30 02:08 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-28 11:23 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-28 19:44 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-29 17:30 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-29 18:11 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-08-30 23:17 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2015-08-31 07:40 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> - 2015-08-31 21:41 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2015-08-31 21:56 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-09-01 00:35 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 00:18 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 07:24 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 07:35 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 17:48 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-19 00:53 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-19 05:40 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-19 08:15 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-19 17:07 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-20 00:07 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-20 05:41 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-19 17:06 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-15 15:40 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2015-08-16 11:11 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-16 11:18 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser F Murtz <haggisz@hotmail.com> - 2015-10-03 14:16 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Ördög Mephisto Belphegor Lucifer Satan <Belphegor@Hell.biz> - 2015-10-03 06:30 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:28 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2015-08-15 12:08 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Jeßus <j@invalid.lan> - 2015-08-16 11:08 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 07:46 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2015-08-18 10:09 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 14:57 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Alterego <mindcraft@sanity.org> - 2015-08-18 01:59 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser news13 <newsthirteenspam-spam@woa.com.au> - 2015-08-14 13:43 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-15 00:10 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser dolf <dolfboek@hotmail.com> - 2015-08-15 12:33 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-15 15:41 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-15 14:10 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 07:48 +0800
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> - 2015-08-18 17:50 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Fran Farmer <ask@maybeitwillbeforthcoming.com> - 2015-08-15 14:44 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-15 15:43 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser not@telling.you.invalid (Computer Nerd Kev) - 2015-08-16 02:42 +0000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "Pelican" <water-birds@sea.somewhere.org.ir> - 2015-08-16 12:44 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> - 2015-08-16 23:16 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> - 2015-08-17 07:41 +1000
Re: Waterfox. a 64bit mozilla based web browser Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> - 2015-08-18 07:49 +0800
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 02:08 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55e1f514$0$1675$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47624 |
On 30/08/2015 2:00 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> wrote: >> On 29/08/2015 5:31 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> wrote: >>>> On 27-August-2015 7:45 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: >>> [...] >>>>> So *why* bring up "Linux on the desktop"? You might as well have >>>>> brought up the price of a Big Mac in outer Remotetistan. Equally utterly >>>>> irrelevant >>>> not for ppl in outer Remotetistan.. >>> Touche! [1] (Sorry I don't do diacriticals.) >>> >>> [1] As long as you realize that it obviously means "Equally utterly >>> irrelevant" *to the discussion at hand*, i.e. in this case my posting. >> >> I'm not buying into the argument. just introducing some levity.. > > Yes, I know, and I appreciate that. My footnote was just for the > loons who might take your comment (and/or mine) seriously. > Only one person here taking things way too seriously...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 11:23 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55dfd42e$0$11122$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47532 |
On 27/08/2015 5:45 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>> On 23/08/2015 2:17 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>> On 16/08/2015 5:08 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> SG1 <lost@the.races.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Frank Slootweg" <this@ddress.is.invalid> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:d38kk4Fi749U1@mid.individual.net...
>>>>>>> SG1 <lost@the.races.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>> Yes "Edge" is the reason I use IE11 in W10. The new product
>>>>>>>> from M$ is crapware.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have no experience wit "Edge", but for *me*, IE11 is utter
>>>>>>> crap.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I have IE11 since about 3 months on a new 8.1 installation.
>>>>>>> IE11 crashed and crashed since day one. Sometimes 'only' 1 tab.
>>>>>>> Sometimes all tabs. Sometimes it could recover, sometimes it
>>>>>>> couldn't. I never had these kinds of problems with IE9 on Vista.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So the moral of this story is that webbrowsers are very, very
>>>>>>> much a YMMV/YMWV thing! :-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What do U use for newsgroups???
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you bloody read the bloody headers!? :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> But seriously, I use 'tin' for newsgroups.
>>>>>
>>>>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>>>>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
>>>
>>> Next time, try to (read and) comprehend the part(s) you're
>>> (silently) snipping!
>>
>> I did read, comprehend and snip what wasn't relevant.
>
> It *was/is* relevant and it made your response *irrelevant*, because
> the snipped part -implicitly - says that I do *not* "use Linux on the
> desktop".
>
No shit.
> So *why* bring up "Linux on the desktop"? You might as well have
> brought up the price of a Big Mac in outer Remotetistan. Equally utterly
> irrelevant
>
The world doesn't just revolve around you Frank, this is a public forum
and my comments were more general then specific to you, though in reply
to your comment obviously.
> So besides Reading 101 and Comprehension 101, you need to enroll in
> Logic 101.
>
Doe een beetje normaal.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-28 19:44 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d4bs00Fcp04U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47550 |
Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote: > On 27/08/2015 5:45 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: [...] > > So *why* bring up "Linux on the desktop"? You might as well have > > brought up the price of a Big Mac in outer Remotetistan. Equally utterly > > irrelevant > > The world doesn't just revolve around you Frank, this is a public forum > and my comments were more general then specific to you, though in reply > to your comment obviously. The solution to this 'problem' is very simple: If your post is not a response to someone's text, then do not quote it (nor generate an attribution line). Not *really* rocket science, is it!? > > So besides Reading 101 and Comprehension 101, you need to enroll in > > Logic 101. > > Doe een beetje normaal. PKB. We're not mind-readers and our crystal-balls are badly broken. We respond to what you actually wrote, not what you intended to write.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 17:30 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55e17ba7$0$11094$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47583 |
On 29/08/2015 3:44 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote: >> On 27/08/2015 5:45 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote: > [...] >>> So *why* bring up "Linux on the desktop"? You might as well have >>> brought up the price of a Big Mac in outer Remotetistan. Equally utterly >>> irrelevant >> >> The world doesn't just revolve around you Frank, this is a public forum >> and my comments were more general then specific to you, though in reply >> to your comment obviously. > > The solution to this 'problem' is very simple: If your post is not a > response to someone's text, then do not quote it (nor generate an > attribution line). Not *really* rocket science, is it!? > >>> So besides Reading 101 and Comprehension 101, you need to enroll in >>> Logic 101. >> >> Doe een beetje normaal. > > PKB. We're not mind-readers and our crystal-balls are badly broken. We > respond to what you actually wrote, not what you intended to write. > Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow. Jesus...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-29 18:11 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <d4eaubFq39U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47620 |
Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
[...]
> Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow.
OK, let's rewind then. The relevant :-) part in question was:
>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>
> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
If "it wasn't that hard to follow", it should be easy for you to
explain *what* you *were* referring to with the "Because" part, because
you - implicitly - said you were *not* referring to my use of tin/a_CUI/
<whatever> on *Windows*, i.e. not on Linux. (The rest of your sentence
is of course only stating the bloody obvious.)
> Jesus...
Is he involved in this sub-thread as well!?
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-30 23:17 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <mruvlu$q7p$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47626 |
On 30/08/2015 4:11 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
> [...]
>> Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow.
>
> OK, let's rewind then. The relevant :-) part in question was:
>
>>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>>
>> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
>
> If "it wasn't that hard to follow", it should be easy for you to
> explain *what* you *were* referring to with the "Because" part, because
> you - implicitly - said you were *not* referring to my use of tin/a_CUI/
> <whatever> on *Windows*, i.e. not on Linux. (The rest of your sentence
> is of course only stating the bloody obvious.)
>
>> Jesus...
>
> Is he involved in this sub-thread as well!?
>
Not unless he's had another resurrection!
--
Xeno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 07:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <55e3785e$0$42979$c3e8da3$5e5e430d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47650 |
"Xeno" <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:mruvlu$q7p$1@dont-email.me...
> On 30/08/2015 4:11 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>> [...]
>>> Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow.
>>
>> OK, let's rewind then. The relevant :-) part in question was:
>>
>>>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>>>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>>>
>>> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
>>
>> If "it wasn't that hard to follow", it should be easy for you to
>> explain *what* you *were* referring to with the "Because" part, because
>> you - implicitly - said you were *not* referring to my use of tin/a_CUI/
>> <whatever> on *Windows*, i.e. not on Linux. (The rest of your sentence
>> is of course only stating the bloody obvious.)
>>
>>> Jesus...
>>
>> Is he involved in this sub-thread as well!?
>>
> Not unless he's had another resurrection!
>
You must remember not to cross him...
It has already been done once b4.
> --
>
> Xeno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Xeno <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 21:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <ms1eep$39c$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #47655 |
On 31/08/2015 7:40 AM, SG1 wrote:
>
> "Xeno" <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:mruvlu$q7p$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 30/08/2015 4:11 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>> Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow.
>>>
>>> OK, let's rewind then. The relevant :-) part in question was:
>>>
>>>>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>>>>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>>>>
>>>> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
>>>
>>> If "it wasn't that hard to follow", it should be easy for you to
>>> explain *what* you *were* referring to with the "Because" part, because
>>> you - implicitly - said you were *not* referring to my use of tin/a_CUI/
>>> <whatever> on *Windows*, i.e. not on Linux. (The rest of your sentence
>>> is of course only stating the bloody obvious.)
>>>
>>>> Jesus...
>>>
>>> Is he involved in this sub-thread as well!?
>>>
>> Not unless he's had another resurrection!
>>
>
> You must remember not to cross him...
> It has already been done once b4.
yeah but I here tell he came back for more...
Anyway, he hasn't been seen for a coupla K so I guess he's gone for good
now. Stirred up a lot of trouble that last time! People are still
talking about it! ;-)
--
Xeno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "SG1" <lost@the.races.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-31 21:56 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <55e440ed$0$44069$c3e8da3$3a1a2348@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47677 |
"Xeno" <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:ms1eep$39c$2@dont-email.me...
> On 31/08/2015 7:40 AM, SG1 wrote:
>>
>> "Xeno" <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:mruvlu$q7p$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 30/08/2015 4:11 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>> Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow.
>>>>
>>>> OK, let's rewind then. The relevant :-) part in question was:
>>>>
>>>>>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>>>>>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>>>>>
>>>>> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
>>>>
>>>> If "it wasn't that hard to follow", it should be easy for you to
>>>> explain *what* you *were* referring to with the "Because" part,
>>>> because
>>>> you - implicitly - said you were *not* referring to my use of
>>>> tin/a_CUI/
>>>> <whatever> on *Windows*, i.e. not on Linux. (The rest of your sentence
>>>> is of course only stating the bloody obvious.)
>>>>
>>>>> Jesus...
>>>>
>>>> Is he involved in this sub-thread as well!?
>>>>
>>> Not unless he's had another resurrection!
>>>
>>
>> You must remember not to cross him...
>> It has already been done once b4.
>
> yeah but I here tell he came back for more...
>
> Anyway, he hasn't been seen for a coupla K so I guess he's gone for good
> now. Stirred up a lot of trouble that last time! People are still talking
> about it! ;-)
Might be time to stop the puns Pretzel may want to get involved and we don't
want that....
>
>
> --
>
> Xeno
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-09-01 00:35 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55e48257$0$11091$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47679 |
On 31/08/2015 7:56 PM, SG1 wrote:
>
> "Xeno" <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
> news:ms1eep$39c$2@dont-email.me...
>> On 31/08/2015 7:40 AM, SG1 wrote:
>>>
>>> "Xeno" <xenolith@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:mruvlu$q7p$1@dont-email.me...
>>>> On 30/08/2015 4:11 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>> Frank, really, it wasn't that hard to follow.
>>>>>
>>>>> OK, let's rewind then. The relevant :-) part in question was:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> tin is a CUI ('Console'/Character UI) newsreader. After all, why
>>>>>>> use a GUI for something which is only text?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Because it's 2015 and people don't use Linux on the desktop.
>>>>>
>>>>> If "it wasn't that hard to follow", it should be easy for you to
>>>>> explain *what* you *were* referring to with the "Because" part,
>>>>> because
>>>>> you - implicitly - said you were *not* referring to my use of
>>>>> tin/a_CUI/
>>>>> <whatever> on *Windows*, i.e. not on Linux. (The rest of your sentence
>>>>> is of course only stating the bloody obvious.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Jesus...
>>>>>
>>>>> Is he involved in this sub-thread as well!?
>>>>>
>>>> Not unless he's had another resurrection!
>>>>
>>>
>>> You must remember not to cross him...
>>> It has already been done once b4.
>>
>> yeah but I here tell he came back for more...
>>
>> Anyway, he hasn't been seen for a coupla K so I guess he's gone for
>> good now. Stirred up a lot of trouble that last time! People are still
>> talking about it! ;-)
>
> Might be time to stop the puns Pretzel may want to get involved and we
> don't want that....
>
Oh no, anything but that...
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 00:18 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47379 |
On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message > news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>> so what do you use? >>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>> >>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like *any* of >>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about all >>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>> >>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and Thunderbird >>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down gradually. >>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's machine. >>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird and >>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >> >> chrome! > > Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session manager at > all. Chrome starts pretty damn quick here.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 07:24 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d3f1osF797tU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47446 |
"Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... > On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>> so what do you use? >>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>> >>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like *any* of >>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about all >>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>> >>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and Thunderbird >>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down gradually. >>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's machine. >>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird and >>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>> >>> chrome! >> >> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session manager at >> all. > > > Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. It does start quickly on androids and iOS.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 07:35 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47448 |
On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message > news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>> >>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like *any* of >>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about all >>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>> >>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and Thunderbird >>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down gradually. >>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's machine. >>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird and >>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>> >>>> chrome! >>> >>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session manager at >>> all. >> >> >> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. > > Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. > I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. > It does start quickly on androids and iOS. Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC configurations.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-18 17:48 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d3g6agFfd5kU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47451 |
"Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... > On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like *any* of >>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about all >>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>> >>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and Thunderbird >>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down gradually. >>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's machine. >>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird and >>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>> >>>>> chrome! >>>> >>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session manager >>>> at >>>> all. >>> >>> >>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >> >> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >> > > I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last few > PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. >> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. > Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC > configurations. Nope.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 00:53 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55d36303$0$1646$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47458 |
On 18/08/2015 3:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message > news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... >> On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like >>>>>>> *any* of >>>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about all >>>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and Thunderbird >>>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down >>>>>>> gradually. >>>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's machine. >>>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird and >>>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>>> >>>>>> chrome! >>>>> >>>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session >>>>> manager at >>>>> all. >>>> >>>> >>>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >>> >>> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >>> >> >> I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last >> few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. > > I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, > but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. > You don't have to load the last session on Chrome. I don't. >>> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. > >> Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC >> configurations. > > Nope. In that case Pale Moon would have to be much faster then Firefox because Firefox is a hell of a lot slower then Chrome.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 05:40 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d3hg24Fq23mU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47460 |
"Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message news:55d36303$0$1646$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... > On 18/08/2015 3:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >> news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... >>> On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>>> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>>>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like >>>>>>>> *any* of >>>>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about all >>>>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and >>>>>>>> Thunderbird >>>>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down >>>>>>>> gradually. >>>>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's machine. >>>>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird >>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> chrome! >>>>>> >>>>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session >>>>>> manager at >>>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >>>> >>>> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >>>> >>> >>> I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last >>> few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. >> >> I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, >> but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. >> > > You don't have to load the last session on Chrome. I don't. Sure, but given that it has no session manager at all, or even any way to load a set of web pages that you regularly use, there is no other way to make it productive like that. You can't even have a crude session manager by grouping sets of favorites/bookmarks opening a set with one click because there is no way to open all of those in a folder. >>>> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. >> >>> Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC >>> configurations. >> >> Nope. > > In that case Pale Moon would have to be much faster then Firefox Yes, it does appear to be, but I haven't carefully checked whether I have them both configured to do exactly the same thing so I am comparing apples with apples and not with oranges. > because Firefox is a hell of a lot slower then Chrome. When not reloading the previous session, quite possibly, but since Chrome has no session manager at all, its not really comparable.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 08:15 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55d3ca90$0$1575$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47461 |
On 19/08/2015 3:40 AM, Rod Speed wrote: > > > "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message > news:55d36303$0$1646$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >> On 18/08/2015 3:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>> news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... >>>> On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like >>>>>>>>> *any* of >>>>>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and >>>>>>>>> Thunderbird >>>>>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down >>>>>>>>> gradually. >>>>>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's >>>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, >>>>>>>>> Tbird and >>>>>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chrome! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session >>>>>>> manager at >>>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >>>>> >>>>> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last >>>> few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. >>> >>> I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, >>> but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. >>> >> >> You don't have to load the last session on Chrome. I don't. > > Sure, but given that it has no session manager at all, or even > any way to load a set of web pages that you regularly use, > there is no other way to make it productive like that. > > You can't even have a crude session manager by grouping > sets of favorites/bookmarks opening a set with one click > because there is no way to open all of those in a folder. > Fair enough. I don't need such a feature so that's not an issue for me. >>>>> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. >>> >>>> Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC >>>> configurations. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> In that case Pale Moon would have to be much faster then Firefox > > Yes, it does appear to be, but I haven't carefully checked whether > I have them both configured to do exactly the same thing so I am > comparing apples with apples and not with oranges. > >> because Firefox is a hell of a lot slower then Chrome. > > When not reloading the previous session, quite possibly, but > since Chrome has no session manager at all, its not really > comparable. Agreed.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-19 17:07 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d3io92F4gtrU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47460 |
On 19-August-2015 2:53 AM, Clocky wrote: > On 18/08/2015 3:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >> >> >> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >> news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... >>> On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>>> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>>>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like >>>>>>>> *any* of >>>>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about >>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and >>>>>>>> Thunderbird >>>>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down >>>>>>>> gradually. >>>>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's >>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, >>>>>>>> Tbird and >>>>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> chrome! >>>>>> >>>>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session >>>>>> manager at >>>>>> all. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >>>> >>>> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >>>> >>> >>> I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last >>> few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. >> >> I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, >> but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. >> > > You don't have to load the last session on Chrome. I don't. > >>>> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. >> >>> Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC >>> configurations. >> >> Nope. > > In that case Pale Moon would have to be much faster then Firefox > because Firefox is a hell of a lot slower then Chrome. > > > rubbish! maybe you don't do housekeeping on your PC? -- rgds, Pete ------- "When tolerance becomes a one-way street it leads to cultural suicide" -Col. Allen West http://thereligionofpeace.com https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/ http://pamelageller.com/ coming to a street near you!.. http://ausnet.info/islam/lakemba.html Brigitte Gabriel's answer to 'peaceful' moslems.. http://tinyurl.com/brigitteGab "No need for concern. Only 5-10% of muslims are extremists. In 1940 only 7% of Germans were Nazis. How did that turn out?" "ISIS's actions represent no faith, least of all the Muslim faith" -Barack Obama, idiotic President of the USA https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=56&v=QxzOVSMUrGM
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Clocky <notgonna@happen.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 00:07 +0800 |
| Message-ID | <55d4a9ac$0$1655$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com> |
| In reply to | #47465 |
On 19/08/2015 3:07 PM, felix_unger wrote: > On 19-August-2015 2:53 AM, Clocky wrote: >> On 18/08/2015 3:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>> news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... >>>> On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like >>>>>>>>> *any* of >>>>>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and >>>>>>>>> Thunderbird >>>>>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down >>>>>>>>> gradually. >>>>>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's >>>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, >>>>>>>>> Tbird and >>>>>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chrome! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session >>>>>>> manager at >>>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >>>>> >>>>> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last >>>> few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. >>> >>> I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, >>> but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. >>> >> >> You don't have to load the last session on Chrome. I don't. >> >>>>> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. >>> >>>> Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC >>>> configurations. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> In that case Pale Moon would have to be much faster then Firefox >> because Firefox is a hell of a lot slower then Chrome. >> >> >> > > rubbish! maybe you don't do housekeeping on your PC? > Runs everything else just fine. Firefox is slow and unstable and has been that way on a multitude of systems I have had it on over the years. I finally gave up on it when I discovered Chrome which is very fast by comparison.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2015-08-20 05:41 +1000 |
| Message-ID | <d3k4fsFfs7bU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #47465 |
"felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message news:d3io92F4gtrU2@mid.individual.net... > On 19-August-2015 2:53 AM, Clocky wrote: >> On 18/08/2015 3:48 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>> >>> >>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>> news:55d26fd7$0$2754$c3e8da3$76491128@news.astraweb.com... >>>> On 18/08/2015 5:24 AM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> "Clocky" <notgonna@happen.com> wrote in message >>>>> news:55d20942$0$1665$c3e8da3$5496439d@news.astraweb.com... >>>>>> On 15/08/2015 12:00 PM, Rod Speed wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "felix_unger" <me@nothere.biz> wrote in message >>>>>>> news:d37j4gFah6uU1@mid.individual.net... >>>>>>>> On 15-August-2015 10:28 AM, Je�us wrote: >>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 19:44:49 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On 14-August-2015 5:15 PM, Je?us wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 14 Aug 2015 14:52:14 +1000, felix_unger <me@nothere.biz> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Waterfox is a 64 bit version of firefox.. >>>>>>>>>>>> https://www.waterfoxproject.org/ >>>>>>>>>>> Mozilla based? I'll pass. >>>>>>>>>> so what do you use? >>>>>>>>> Firefox (sadly) ATM and Tor. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I don't have a favourite browser - I don't particularly like >>>>>>>>> *any* of >>>>>>>>> them for differing reasons. All I know is I've tried just about >>>>>>>>> all >>>>>>>>> the Mozilla variants and they suffer from being Mozilla based. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Firefox was excellent in the beginning, over time it and >>>>>>>>> Thunderbird >>>>>>>>> gradually declined. They always seem to slow machines down >>>>>>>>> gradually. >>>>>>>>> The other week I did a fresh install of Win 7 on someone's >>>>>>>>> machine. >>>>>>>>> The only other things installed was Clamwin, Malwarebytes, Tbird >>>>>>>>> and >>>>>>>>> Firefox. Within 5 days the machine was running slow, with FF not >>>>>>>>> responding/crashing on a regular basis. We really, really need >>>>>>>>> something fresh to come along in the browser world. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> chrome! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Too slow to start and it’s a very minimal browser, no session >>>>>>> manager at >>>>>>> all. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Chrome starts pretty damn quick here. >>>>> >>>>> Not if you let it restore the previous session it doesn’t. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I'm comparing it to Firefox which took an eternity to start on my last >>>> few PC's. Chrome is very fast indeed by comparison. >>> >>> I find that Pale Moon starts a lot faster than Chrome on the PC, >>> but that is because the Pale Moon doesn’t reload the last session. >>> >> >> You don't have to load the last session on Chrome. I don't. >> >>>>> It does start quickly on androids and iOS. >>> >>>> Seems fast enough here on this PC. Maybe dependent on individual PC >>>> configurations. >>> >>> Nope. >> >> In that case Pale Moon would have to be much faster then Firefox because >> Firefox is a hell of a lot slower then Chrome. >> >> >> > > rubbish! maybe you don't do housekeeping on your PC? Its got nothing to do with housekeeping and that would affect both Firefox and Chrome anyway.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | aus.computers
csiph-web