Mozilla Firefox 2.0.0.17 is out

[lb]

Did they remember us here with 98? A big fat NOoooo.

So heres to you Mozilla:

BOO, HISSSSS!

 

[FromTheRafters]

Whats wrong with sticking to the old version?

"lb" <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:7b08e4a4-247e-4924-b711-b2ffadcd8a50@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> Did they remember us here with 98? A big fat NOoooo.
>
> So heres to you Mozilla:
>
> BOO, HISSSSS!

 

[lb]

The point is that they upgraded this version which they will not
support anyway later this year and it still has issues, especially
with flash. 2.X versions are supposed to work with 98 and they did
not see fit to let us use this upgrade.

How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?

FromTheRafters wrote:
> Whats wrong with sticking to the old version?
>
> "lb" <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
> news:7b08e4a4-247e-4924-b711-b2ffadcd8a50@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> > Did they remember us here with 98? A big fat NOoooo.
> >
> > So heres to you Mozilla:
> >
> > BOO, HISSSSS!

 

[FromTheRafters]

Okay, I understand.

I just thought it odd that someone would be more willing to
run upgraded application software than to run an upgraded
OS.

It is too bad that technology is moving so fast that perfectly
serviceable OSes stop having application software written
to specifically include their software platform. You shouldn't
really blame the application software vendor for 'moving on',
but an upgrade for a version already known to support that
specific platform should still support that platform IMO.

Next full version - maybe not.

"lb" <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
news:5f60d546-669f-4358-a1de-e451a107713c@m73g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> The point is that they upgraded this version which they will not
> support anyway later this year and it still has issues, especially
> with flash. 2.X versions are supposed to work with 98 and they did
> not see fit to let us use this upgrade.
>
> How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
> with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
> that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?
>
> FromTheRafters wrote:
>> Whats wrong with sticking to the old version?
>>
>> "lb" <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com> wrote in message
>> news:7b08e4a4-247e-4924-b711-b2ffadcd8a50@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> > Did they remember us here with 98? A big fat NOoooo.
>> >
>> > So heres to you Mozilla:
>> >
>> > BOO, HISSSSS!

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 08:31:01 -0700 (PDT), lb <ldbrw@my-dejanews.com>
wrote:

>The point is that they upgraded this version which they will not
>support anyway later this year and it still has issues, especially
>with flash. 2.X versions are supposed to work with 98 and they did
>not see fit to let us use this upgrade.
>
>How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
>with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
>that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?
>

Mozilla has sold out to Microsoft !!!
Think it's time I start switching to Opera even if I never cared much
for it.

 

[stone]

> How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
> with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
> that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?

welcome my son..... welcome, to the masheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen, its alright, we know where
you beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeen.

i concur with all you say, as would all users of 98, and specially 98se.

tis not greedy twits that pull the strings, but rather the enemy of man,,,,, sigh, seek and you
will find.
another sigh....... and i do mean that siiiiiiiiigh sincerly. i find it so sad that
'clever ppl' or 'smart ppl' say, like, um, ppl in groups like this, just cant see what is
going on and who is at the root of it all.. !!
the first two pages explains it all,, and it dont take rocket science, computer science,
vetinary science or any other for it to be seen,,, even by ordinary ppl,, the ones that have
more power than the ego ppl..... due to their eyes (inner and outer) having the ability to 'see'.

in regard to your hissy,,, i totally agree with you,, but trust me, there isnt a damn thing you
can do about a situation that is already known before it is shown.... capiche?

hth

 

[John John (MVP)]

lb wrote:

> How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
> with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
> that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?

First of all, Windows 98 is not a year 2006 model, it's a year 1998 model.

Secondly, in terms of computers, the rapid pace of changes of both
hardware and software in this field makes anything that is 10 years old
almost completely obsolete. A 2 year old car, as you give in your
example, is not completely obsolete, in car lifespans and technology
even a ten year old car is not as outdated as a ten year old computer.
A more appropriate analogy for your fuel saving device would be someone
crying because a new fuel saving devices for model year 2007/2008 cars
doesn't work in their 1942 Packard!

John

 

[MEB]

"John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
news:%23GL7dgxHJHA.1088@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
| lb wrote:
|
| > How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
| > with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
| > that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?
|
| First of all, Windows 98 is not a year 2006 model, it's a year 1998 model.
|
| Secondly, in terms of computers, the rapid pace of changes of both
| hardware and software in this field makes anything that is 10 years old
| almost completely obsolete. A 2 year old car, as you give in your
| example, is not completely obsolete, in car lifespans and technology
| even a ten year old car is not as outdated as a ten year old computer.
| A more appropriate analogy for your fuel saving device would be someone
| crying because a new fuel saving devices for model year 2007/2008 cars
| doesn't work in their 1942 Packard!
|
| John
|

Hmm, not exactly what is occurring... this isn't an *embedded* application
being discussed here, its a browser for Internet usage which uses the
system/OS available aspects for SOME of its functions, however, most
functions are supplied by the program, in its own code and libraries.

So contrary to what might be normally argued for this activity, and due to
cross platform application [e.g., Linux and other] the difficulties in
continuing 9X support would seem to be essentially non-existent. The *hooks*
used for access in/to the various systems are known, and in 9X are
unchanging.

So the analogy being used to a car is not relevant... we aren't discussing
an integral PART being supplied, but a third party add-on like a fur lined
mirror or a set of fog lamps mounted under/on the bumper.. this shows more,
a deliberate refusal to supply support, or more likely just plain laziness
by the programmers, or as has been suggested, leverage supplied by some
outside force..

--
MEB
http://peoplescounsel.org
a Peoples' counsel
_ _
~~

 

[RobertVA]

stone wrote:
>> How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
>> with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
>> that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?

When the federal government outlawed the sale of lead as a gasoline
additive to increase octane, some older engines (in autos and lawn
equipment) were supposedly at risk of wear problems because they were
designed to use the lead content to lubricate the exhaust (and possibly
the intake) valves.

Unfortunately the chemical that replaced lead as an octane booster (I
think MBTE?) was also a toxic engine exhaust pollutant. Eventually a
government mandate substituted ethanol as an octane booster.

 

[Franc Zabkar]

On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:54:18 -0500, letterman@invalid.com put finger
to keyboard and composed:

>Think it's time I start switching to Opera even if I never cared much
>for it.

I suggest you stay away from the 9.5x versions. They are resource
hogs, and many people are reporting performance issues on several OS
platforms.

- Franc Zabkar
--
Please remove one 'i' from my address when replying by email.

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 06:31:28 +1000, Franc Zabkar
<fzabkar@iinternode.on.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 25 Sep 2008 03:54:18 -0500, letterman@invalid.com put finger
>to keyboard and composed:
>
>>Think it's time I start switching to Opera even if I never cared much
>>for it.
>
>I suggest you stay away from the 9.5x versions. They are resource
>hogs, and many people are reporting performance issues on several OS
>platforms.
>
>- Franc Zabkar

Thanks for th feedback. I presently have 9.24 installed. I've
probably use it once a month at most. If I was to do anything, I'd
likely downgrade it to get a version with less bloat. Opera has never
been a favorite of mine. I liked Firefox the most and actually
preferred IE as a second choice. But I think if I use Opera more I
might get used to it. I will avoid the 9.5 versions though.

 

[Dan]

MEB, why is everyone upset because Mozilla will at least support Firefox
until the middle of December of this year and if enough people complain to
them then maybe Mozilla will see it in its heart to support Windows 98 Second
Edition with a 2.5 version at least until October 31, 2009 when Sun Java 5
support ends. The end is indeed approaching for Windows 98 Second Edition
but only in certain ways and in many ways it will always be better than 2000,
XP and Vista and I am sure Windows 7. The future is coming but will the
future belong to Microsoft in computing or someone else and I think the
answer has become a big if for everyone. I would not be surprised if the
amount of dumb terminals continues to increase and only the privileged few
have true and full operating systems in the future at least for work purposes
that will be difficult to hack and basically useless if hacked because all
these dumb terminals will be able to run is a few programs within the
cooperation and the real power will remain in the hands of the select few who
have the means to the end. Finally, has anyone else noticed that so many
more features are hidden and not included with Windows XP Professional such
as so many disabling features to help figure out what was wrong with the
operating system and allowing users to narrow it down to a hardware and/or a
software problem.

"MEB" wrote:

>
>
> "John John (MVP)" <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote in message
> news:%23GL7dgxHJHA.1088@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> | lb wrote:
> |
> | > How would you like it if the manufacturer of you make of car came out
> | > with an improved fuel saving device and they gave it to all the people
> | > that had 2007 and 2008 models and yours was a 2006?
> |
> | First of all, Windows 98 is not a year 2006 model, it's a year 1998 model.
> |
> | Secondly, in terms of computers, the rapid pace of changes of both
> | hardware and software in this field makes anything that is 10 years old
> | almost completely obsolete. A 2 year old car, as you give in your
> | example, is not completely obsolete, in car lifespans and technology
> | even a ten year old car is not as outdated as a ten year old computer.
> | A more appropriate analogy for your fuel saving device would be someone
> | crying because a new fuel saving devices for model year 2007/2008 cars
> | doesn't work in their 1942 Packard!
> |
> | John
> |
>
> Hmm, not exactly what is occurring... this isn't an *embedded* application
> being discussed here, its a browser for Internet usage which uses the
> system/OS available aspects for SOME of its functions, however, most
> functions are supplied by the program, in its own code and libraries.
>
> So contrary to what might be normally argued for this activity, and due to
> cross platform application [e.g., Linux and other] the difficulties in
> continuing 9X support would seem to be essentially non-existent. The *hooks*
> used for access in/to the various systems are known, and in 9X are
> unchanging.
>
> So the analogy being used to a car is not relevant... we aren't discussing
> an integral PART being supplied, but a third party add-on like a fur lined
> mirror or a set of fog lamps mounted under/on the bumper.. this shows more,
> a deliberate refusal to supply support, or more likely just plain laziness
> by the programmers, or as has been suggested, leverage supplied by some
> outside force..
>
> --
> MEB
> http://peoplescounsel.org
> a Peoples' counsel
> _ _
> ~~
>
>
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

Windows98NV (NEW VERSION)

I've been wondering about something. Since MS has abandoned Win98
(as well as Win95 and Win3x). What rights do we have as users? I
know we still cant make copies or put the OS on the web for free
downloads.

But lets say that everyone on this newsgroup and others who still use
and prefer Win98 were to work with some software developers who
modified Win98 to work with newer computers, run XP software, and
maybe a few more changes that would keep Win98 up with the times, yet
still retain it's look and feel? What if these same developers worked
with Mozilla and other software developers to keep compatible
programs?

I'm not saying this will happen, but there does seem to be a fairly
strong following for Win98, and there is really no reason we should
let it die if we still want to use it. All software can be modified
if knowledgable people work with it. It could even become a
completely new alternative to NT Windows. But the question is this:
How much control does Microsoft still haveof their abandoned software?
Maybe it could no longer be called "windows", or "98", but could
win98 be modified and still retain the the basic core OS?

I know I'd be using it !!!

 

[Dan]

RE: Windows98NV (NEW VERSION)

I would enjoy using it as well. Letterman, do not lose all hope because a
buddy of mine who works for AT&T Wireless got a computer from the company and
one of the operating systems is a customized version of Windows 98 Second
Edition. In addition, at my workplace the computer in the middle of the
networking room is an old computer with limited functionality that helps to
make sure the network keeps going so there is definitely use of older
software, computers and programs out there. Microsoft, knows a group of
users really likes Windows 98 Second Edition and is still using it and the
bottom line comes down to the economics of the situation and the businesses
spend more money on Microsoft's software so the businesses get the greater
support. The cost of supporting the 9x line as well as the NT line was too
costly for Microsoft so Microsoft brought a fairly workable solution with
Windows XP Home and XP Professional. Microsoft, is not all bad and are very
helpful and I prefer them to Apple except in the case of Apple stores which
are helpful but I communicate with Microsoft primarily with emails.

"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:

> I've been wondering about something. Since MS has abandoned Win98
> (as well as Win95 and Win3x). What rights do we have as users? I
> know we still cant make copies or put the OS on the web for free
> downloads.
>
> But lets say that everyone on this newsgroup and others who still use
> and prefer Win98 were to work with some software developers who
> modified Win98 to work with newer computers, run XP software, and
> maybe a few more changes that would keep Win98 up with the times, yet
> still retain it's look and feel? What if these same developers worked
> with Mozilla and other software developers to keep compatible
> programs?
>
> I'm not saying this will happen, but there does seem to be a fairly
> strong following for Win98, and there is really no reason we should
> let it die if we still want to use it. All software can be modified
> if knowledgable people work with it. It could even become a
> completely new alternative to NT Windows. But the question is this:
> How much control does Microsoft still haveof their abandoned software?
> Maybe it could no longer be called "windows", or "98", but could
> win98 be modified and still retain the the basic core OS?
>
> I know I'd be using it !!!
>
>

 

[letterman@invalid.com]

Re: Windows98NV (NEW VERSION)

On Fri, 26 Sep 2008 12:31:02 -0700, Dan
<Dan@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>I would enjoy using it as well. Letterman, do not lose all hope because a
>buddy of mine who works for AT&T Wireless got a computer from the company and
>one of the operating systems is a customized version of Windows 98 Second
>Edition. In addition, at my workplace the computer in the middle of the
>networking room is an old computer with limited functionality that helps to
>make sure the network keeps going so there is definitely use of older
>software, computers and programs out there. Microsoft, knows a group of
>users really likes Windows 98 Second Edition and is still using it and the
>bottom line comes down to the economics of the situation and the businesses
>spend more money on Microsoft's software so the businesses get the greater
>support. The cost of supporting the 9x line as well as the NT line was too
>costly for Microsoft so Microsoft brought a fairly workable solution with
>Windows XP Home and XP Professional. Microsoft, is not all bad and are very
>helpful and I prefer them to Apple except in the case of Apple stores which
>are helpful but I communicate with Microsoft primarily with emails.

This is great news !!!!!

>
>"letterman@invalid.com" wrote:
>
>> I've been wondering about something. Since MS has abandoned Win98
>> (as well as Win95 and Win3x). What rights do we have as users? I
>> know we still cant make copies or put the OS on the web for free
>> downloads.
>>
>> But lets say that everyone on this newsgroup and others who still use
>> and prefer Win98 were to work with some software developers who
>> modified Win98 to work with newer computers, run XP software, and
>> maybe a few more changes that would keep Win98 up with the times, yet
>> still retain it's look and feel? What if these same developers worked
>> with Mozilla and other software developers to keep compatible
>> programs?
>>
>> I'm not saying this will happen, but there does seem to be a fairly
>> strong following for Win98, and there is really no reason we should
>> let it die if we still want to use it. All software can be modified
>> if knowledgable people work with it. It could even become a
>> completely new alternative to NT Windows. But the question is this:
>> How much control does Microsoft still haveof their abandoned software?
>> Maybe it could no longer be called "windows", or "98", but could
>> win98 be modified and still retain the the basic core OS?
>>
>> I know I'd be using it !!!
>>
>>