 sj |
||
|
||
Tech: about Microsoft, IE, Outlook
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 31 Jan 02 - 04:16 PM yup...thanks, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Blackcatter Date: 31 Jan 02 - 12:38 AM Thanks for the help. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 31 Jan 02 - 12:17 AM Bill, Most PC questions have already been answered somewhere on the Net, often in a very careful and understandable way. Rather than reproduce that information here, I'll give you some Web sites that will help you with configuration questions and those nasty details that are often hard to track down. They are mostly self-explanatory and I'm sure that between you and Ferrara you'll have no trouble understanding them. Still, if something seems resistant to understanding, post the question here and somebody is bound to answer. - Mark
A few PC help sites in no particular order. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 11:18 PM (BTW..my wife, Ferrara, was a programmer for 25 years...mostly in DOS and prior, and she helps a LOT with stuff...but it is ME, the 62 year old woodworker who can figure out how to get out of 'safe mode' when things go wrong, and re-configure the system, including graphics drivers and desktop sizes and options..*grin* however...*sigh*...while I have you here...the last time I did this, I lost that blue bar/border that shows progress in file downloads and highlights certain items being 'selected' (can't show that progress in Agent newsreader, for example, though I can edit it's .ini to get a numerical %).....it does NOT seem to be in the 'settings' menu under 'active desktop'....and, Rita & I have separate profiles for Windows, and the bar works in the default profile, just not in mine!...and I can't find any .ini file or anything else that would explain where that setting is! ummm...any ideas? ..I'll sing you a song...in the Key of "R"..... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 11:03 PM thanks Mark & John...that is information that it is hard to find all in one place and clearly stated. I had noticed all the false starts and re-ordering in de-frag, but had no idea why.... (I have some real slow-downs these days...boot-up seems to take MUCH longer, and my CPU at one point hits 100% and hangs there for 20-30 seconds..and every now & then Windows decides it has to re-write something and slows as it deals with some memory issue, I guess...would multiple de-frags possibly help this?) I have a LOT of programs installed and many icons on the desktop, but I try to keep a limit on what is actually running...(I have various ways to monitor these) I do manage to keep things going, but I work at understanding the basics.....I can barely imagine what some people go thru who have NO idea about de-frags or Scandisk or caches or the 27 different categories of 'memory' *grin*...I guess they just re-boot and pray a lot... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 30 Jan 02 - 10:40 PM There were a lot of complaints about Windows defrag when Win95 and Win98 were new. A lot of the problems come from the fact that drives are huge compared to what people were accustomed to. Part of the problems people see also may have come from the "new" option to "arrange files so my programs run faster." This is a check box you can set or clear under Options in defrag. It appears that Windows sometimes can't make up its mind where it wants to put things. It was once common practice to run multiple defrags "if you really want things to be right." Following this old practice, I recently ran multiple passes on my C: drive, with results: Pass 1 - 4 hours Pass 2 - 2.4 hours Pass 3 - 2.2 hours Pass 4 - 3.5 hours ... Pass 9 - 14 hours Pass 10 thru 12 - 34 to 38 minutes. Defrag starts from the information in your File Allocation Table (assuming a FAT or FAT32 disk). It gets where each file starts, and how big it is. It does not know, at this point, where all of the pieces of any file are. Each cluster tells it where to go for the next cluster. It is not uncommon for programs to mess up how "full" a cluster is, and when a misreported cluster is moved during defrag, the "true" filesize can change. This is something that needs to be "reported back" to the FAT, which is a "write to disk" and requires that the process start over. On a boot drive, it is not uncommon for defrag to fill the lower part of the drive, and then decide that a certain group of the files it has moved "down" really need to be at another location. When defrag starts over, it will again move the same files down - and later back up. This little "fairy dance" alone can take about 20 minutes - during each restart, and it can appear that nothing is happening. Eventually, defrag should get everything sorted out, and the time required to run a subsequent defrag will be very much shorter; but there is a real "hump" in the process as things get "almost but not quite right" (in defrag's small mind). Turning off the "optimize for speed" should get you through a much faster defrag, and probably won't greatly affect machine performance. I can't say what will happen if you turn the "optimize" back on and try another defrag. Comments about turning off as much as possible are certainly appropriate. I would be somewhat cautious about resorting to a DOS (Command Line) defrag. It will run, but can "lose" long file names that Windows does use and may also move files that early version Windows calls by absolute disk location. These files are ordinarily tagged Hidden/System etc., and even a DOS defrag shouldn't move them; but DOS isn't even as smart as Windows about such stuff. The risk is much greater if you've been playing around with all those subversive secret hidden files, and left an attribute not properly reset. Note to Mr Red: in your C:\Windows, there should be a folder/directory called "Send To." If you paste a shortcut to your email program there, you will be able to right-click on any file and "send it" to your email. Easiest way to save hunting around each time. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:39 PM The reason they don't finish is that they are interrupted when some other process changes the contents of the hard disk in some fashion. This could be almost anything as many programs remain active in the background and update a time stamp once in a while or perform some other type of disk access. Making any change to any file system on the hard disk invalidates all the information defrag collected during its first pass so all it can do is start over at the beginning. If you stop all processes running on your machine, as outlined above, except for Explorer and Systray, and then start your defrag, it should run to completion without interruption. Windows defrag will complain if you haven't run ScanDisk for a while. That's why I recommended running ScanDisk first. Perhaps the Norton defrag utility won't check to see that all your file system pointers are valid before it begins. Of course if Norton bypasses that check, you might not want to rely on the Norton defrag utility. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:33 PM Blackcatter...what tells you it is 'not finished'?...I have a visual display that shows me with colored bars/squares when it is done. Do you get some error message? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Blackcatter Date: 30 Jan 02 - 03:10 PM Thanks Mark, But how likely am I to screw this up? My system really works fine, I'm just concerent that both defrag programs no longer finish the work no matter how long I let them run. thanks again
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 30 Jan 02 - 12:46 PM Just to calm the style police and claim itsa music music music thread, have folks seen Les Barkers lyrics "Re-installing Windows" to the tune of George Formby's "When I'm cleaning windows"?. He told me bitterly (as bitterly as Les ever gets) "Win95 took 6 months of my life!" |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 30 Jan 02 - 09:55 AM do note that the defrag program in Norton is 'different' than the one given to you with Windows....and there is a lot of discussion in various forums lately about the defrag utility from Windows ME being a significant improvement!--so much so that you are finding copies of it being 'made available'(if you do a Google search in Usenet, you can explore this). I downloaded it, substituted it for the 'old' defrag program in WIN 98, and it seemed to do a good job, Whether it is better than Norton's, I cant say yet, as each defrag is a bit different...I feel ok using either Norton's or Windows'...maybe I'll pick one after a few more tests. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 30 Jan 02 - 02:10 AM Blackcatter, You can remove unwanted programs using the Add/Remove Programs tool in the Windows Control Panel. To perform a defrag, print out the instructions below so you'll have them handy.
If you have never completed the maintenance activity described above, you'll find that your system seems to run faster than it did before. These routine maintenance steps should be performed every week or two in order to keep your system running at its best. It should always be performed just prior to installing any large new software package. Good luck, - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Blackcatter Date: 30 Jan 02 - 01:00 AM Hi all, intersting stuff I've got a question - I'm looking for a good and SAFE uninstall program. I've got a bunch of stuff that's taking up room and I'd like to get rid of it, but non of it has its own uninstall utility. Also, I have Norton Utilities, and for the past couple months the "Speed Disk" cannot seem to ever complete defragmenting my drive. The MS version doesn't seem to work either. My PC runs fine, as far as I know, but I'm a bit worried that I cannot defrag my drive. Sorry about thread creep, but I didn't want to waste a new thread on this and it appears that most of the wonderful people I could ask here at Mudcat are on this thread. Thanks! Blackcatter |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 29 Jan 02 - 01:14 PM Oh I forgot to say I copied the index.dat file to fred.txt in a temp folder before I could read the contents and probably removed attributes to get it to copy. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 29 Jan 02 - 08:22 AM Well my index.dat files are 200k and have loads of http:// 's in, you need to read them with a BIN/HEX viewer, I use "Fileview". Does anyone know where MS puts Outlook from Office 2000? Try the properties of the shortcut and guess what? Hidden! Its the old system attribute again but which hidden folder and what have they done to the shortcut system to treat some files differently? Not that I care because all I wanted to do was load Outlook from VB and send keystrokes. VBA (even within Outlook) similalry blocks all sorts of potential virus wheezes. **BTW** I pasted this from from OutLook (Ver 8.04.5619) Help (Office 97) while I still have work! How can I prevent the Visual Basic Scripting Edition code from running? To prevent any Visual Basic Scripting Edition code from running, hold down the SHIFT key. For example, hold down SHIFT while you open an item to prevent the VBScript code for the Open event from running. AND if you thought Netscape was logical try figuring why in one dialogue box they use alt C for Colo(u)r and, while they were on a roll, the just as mnemonic alt C for Category. They couldn't use alt E for Ergonimic, no siree. Anyway I reckon I have it licked, use Messenger to lower viral exposure, get the home made functionality I want at zero co$t (never mind the grey hairs, but it is programming experience) and I'm free of MS. er....... shame about the VB. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 27 Jan 02 - 07:56 PM *printing this to study at leisure*.. Thanks John...it is good to get another view of it all. If it turns out that The Riddler's stuff is paranoid nonsense, so much the better. I do truly appreciate the effort to make a clear case for what you say....that's a lot of typing and thinking! I suspect that I will 'mostly' continue to use some non-MS stuff, simply because I also like the interface better, and people are not targeting Pegasus and Eudora email with viruses....and because I genuinely like the idea of MS having some real competition. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 27 Jan 02 - 03:07 PM RIDDLER PART 3 Certain information is kept in log files, and in certain instances this could be embarrassing - particularly to the paranoid. Since the same Windows used on a home machine must be useful on a network with a hundred machines, it is not too difficult to justify most of the logs. Most of these logs are in binary files, which the casual sneak probably can't read. Most of these log files can probably be deleted (but will start compiling again at the next boot-up). The key point to remember is that anyone who can access your machine can (if determined) access your data. "Deleting" a file merely erases the first byte in the cluster (The first letter of the file name). This tells the disk controller that it is free to use this cluster to write new stuff. It is relatively simple to "undelete" the file by substituting any non-null character in this space - untill something else has been written there. For all practical purposes, a good defrag will move everything around enough to make recovery impractical. It is conceded that Windows and IE do a pretty sloppy job of cleaning up when you tell it to delete temps and such, but this is a compromise between actually deleting everything and deleting what "probably isn't wanted." The program just isn't very smart. But then if it's not smart enough to delete the "right stuff," how do we expect it to be smart enought to "save and hide just the embarassing stuff?" John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 27 Jan 02 - 02:59 PM RIDDLER PART 2 The ATTRIB listing will show a list of entries, each of which will probably look something like: A SHR Filename FullPathFilename The initial four characters, A,S,H,R are the "file attributes." Only those appropriate to a given file will be shown. The "A" is officially called the "Archive Bit" and tells you whether the file has been changed since the last time it was "archived." The main old-timey use was probably with the DOS XCOPY command, where the /m switch would let you copy only files that had been changed, and would "turn off the A bit" so that you wouldn't copy them again (unless they were changed again) in your next backup. The "S" is the "System Bit" and is applied specifically so that you don't have to look at all of the program system files - and generally so you don't copy or move them unintentionally. BY DESIGN dating back to DOS version 1.4, at least, they do not display in normal DIR listings. The "H" is the "Hidden Bit," which traditionally had no more nefarious a purpose than to permit you to "remove" files from display in a DIR listing. DOS is only able to display about 25 lines on a screen. If you were working with a directory that had a few dozen files, it was very handy to be able to "Attrib +H" a few of them to get the out of the way. "ATTRIB -H *.*" brought them all back when you were done with what you were working on. The "R" is the "ReadOnly Bit," which merely means that you are "inhibited" from changing the file, especially by accident. Note that "inhibited" does NOT mean "prevented." I suppose that "Riddler" would be appalled to know that there are also other attribute bits that don't display in the ATTRIB listing. As an example, the "dirty bit" tells a program whether a file has been changed since it was last saved, so that the program can ask "Do you want to save" when you try to close without saving. And then there's the "busy bit" that lets the machine know that someone has a file open - so that you don't have two people making conflicting changes at the same time. DEEP, DARK CONSPIRACY. Cumulative disk space used is exceedingly difficult to calculate exactly, due to the need to look at exactly how many "clusters" each file needs (for each of about 15,000 files on my machine?). A rough calculation brings me easily within 10M of matching the total writable space on my drive with the space used by known and easily identifiable files. Since my last backup of about 3 years worth of email files was some 1.4G-Bytes, I really wonder where Windows is storing "all of my email in secret files." The Registry Key where "Mr Riddler" claims that Windows stores every web site you have ever visited contains exactly ONE entry on my machine. Man, I gotta get busy and go somewhere! John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 27 Jan 02 - 02:55 PM This gets longish so - RIDDLER PART 1 I have run through the complete article on "Microsoft's Really Hidden Files," and frankly I am amazed - that anyone would waste their time publishing this kind of junk. "The Riddler's" repeated insistence that you need to reboot your machine into "real DOS mode" several times is quaint nonsense. EVERY action that he describes can be carried out in a DOS window. For those not accustomed to using DOS, unless your setup has been altered, you can click on START, Run up to PROGRAMS and select MS-DOS. If your program list has been altered (some administrators like to remove the DOS shortcut) you can click START, RUN, type COMMAND and hit enter. An ugly, usually blackish, window will open showing the DOS command prompt: C:\Windows_ With the "_" flashing to indicate where you will type. Since you want to look at the whole drive, and not just windows, you need to "change directory" to the C:\ location. Type CD\ and hit enter to get there. Type DIR *.*/S and hit enter, and you will see a whole bunch of files flash by. These are the files that DOS or Windows Explorer ordinarily will show you. If you want to actually read them, you can type DIR *.*/S/P where the P stands for page, or for those inclined to elegance, type DIR *.*/S|more, where the "|" is the "pipe" switch, that "pipes" the output of the DIR command through a "filter" named "MORE" to do exactly same thing that /P does. Either of these will show you one screenfull at a time. Hit any key (the spacebar works nicely) and the next screen will appear. Hit the key about 599 more times and you'll get through a typical Windows directory. Unfortunately, you can't do much else untill you have "paged" through all the screens, unless you know that CONTROL Z will abort the listing (you may need to hit the Ctl-Z a couple of times). An alternate way to see them all is to type something like: DIR *.*/S > dirlist.txt The > is a "redirect" which will send the listing to the file "dirlist.txt" instead of to the screen. (Use your own name for "dirlist" although the .txt is recommended to make it easier to find.) You can open the .txt file in Notepad, Wordpad, or Word, or another text processing program. Be warned - my full directory listing opens as a 331 page document in Word. On the last screen, or at the end of the .txt listing, you will find the total number of files listed, total of file sizes, number of directories listed, and free space on the disk. If you now substitute a different DOS command in place of "DIR" you get a different result. Type ATTRIB *.*/S > attylist.txt and you will create a text file that lists EVERY file on the drive. EVERY SECRET HIDDEN NEFARIOUS REALLY HIDDEN SUBVERSIVE NASTY FILE mentioned in "MR RIDDLER's" anonymous revelations is in this list. "REALLY HIDDEN?" I don't think so. ATTRIB *.*/S is just way too easy. Since the ATTRIB (ATTRIBUTE) command doesn't list directories (usually) this gives you a somewhat smaller .txt file - only 292 pages for my machine. Note: When you're done with the DOS window, type EXIT and hit enter. This is somewhat more reliable than using the "X" in the corner of the window to close. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 27 Jan 02 - 01:00 PM well, it gets curiouser & curiouser... I suspect the REAL truth lies somewhere in the middle. I have seen folks say they CAN view any files they want to, and I have seen reports by pretty competent guys who say that there ARE files that MS tries to keep you from accessing easily and deleting. In this, as in many other things, it bears an attempt to get the truth, hmmm? And in the meantime, you'll humor me if I err on the side of caution. If MS were so beneign, would all those states have filed lawsuits and would the Justice dept have gotten so deeply involved? There is a lot at stake...money and power...and as Enron and other debacles show, when money and power are issues, people, acting thru coporate entities just 'may' engage in many practices which assure them of continued dominance......and if being able to 'read' my PC at their leisure someday might give them leverage, why, I have no doubt they would try to design the system to make that possible. Can they...have they...really tried and managed it? *shrug*...I will never be the expert, but will I continue to read opinions and articles? *grin*..... It would be nice to have it PROVED that there is no danger and no 'plot'....and that one can simple choose the product that works best for them.........lets see what we all think in 3-4 years... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Malcolm Douglas Date: 26 Jan 02 - 10:04 PM I haven't looked for the hidden archive files yet (I really don't understand DOS) but I mentioned the site to a friend who knows about such things, and who didn't believe me at first: he found an enormous hidden file on his computer which took a surprisingly long time to delete. They do exist. Incidentally, it's not just Microsoft that silts our hard drives up with junk; I found two Netscape archive files containing email attachments (graphics files from work) that I had deleted TWICE and had thought gone; they amounted to some 70mb. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Jan 02 - 09:52 PM Mark, I have to agree, I think. I followed several of the "nefarious" leads in the article, and found nothing that didn't relate directly to a known operating function in Windows. Several of his "plots" appear to revolve around a feature called "aliasing" that can be seen just by looking in your Windows Directory (or WINNT) at the "Fonts" folder. You will see the font names. If you copy the font files to another directory, and look in the new directory, you will see the font file names. It's a pretty neat trick, and I suppose someone could see a plot there, but it is done for a reason and can be helpful, possibly even to the majority of users. It can be annoying when Microsoft uses tricks like this coupled with their standard assumption that "all users are idiots," since it may hide things that those of us who are only mildly drain bamaged would really like to know. The man with a spear is a god to one who never used anything but a rock? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Cohen Date: 26 Jan 02 - 07:48 PM For what it's worth, when I went to the "fuckmicrosoft" site that led off this discussion, and read all the scary stuff, I followed the instructions to find my hidden history files--and found the contents just by opening them...they were not "empty" as the site said they would be. Which leads me to question the veracity of everything else on that site. Not that I'm a big fan of microsoft, but saying that the giant is bad (even if it's true) doesn't make everything else you say reliable. (If someone can point out to me where I'm wrong here, I'd be happy to hear it.) Aloha, Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: GUEST,wildlone,sans cookie[for now ] Date: 26 Jan 02 - 06:22 PM Bill D,interesting stuff, It could explain some of the problems I keep getting using IE 5.5 with AOL. I am now using Netscape 6.6, hence no cookie dave |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Jan 02 - 04:18 PM Bill & Mark, I'm not really too concerned about finding new software, although since Intuit claims over 80 percent of the tax prep business, you have to worry about how long the others are going to be around. They even drove Microsoft (Money) out. My put on it is that installing software extraneous to the purpose for which I purchased their program, without informing me that they would do so and without asking my permission to do so, constitutes a violation of the specifically cited prohibition in 18 U.S.C. § 1030. Fairly recent citation, by the Honorable Robert J. Timlin, Judge of the United States District Court, Central District of California is that .."A person violates Section 1030(a)(2)(C) where that person "intentionally accesses a computer without authorization or exceeds authorized access." Other sections of the statutes deal with unauthorized installation of software not consistent with the owners purposes. In other words, my feeling is that what Intuit did to me, and will do to anyone who uses their software for this years income tax returns, constitutes a felony. Unfortunately, I'm not rich; but I intend to be vocal about it. Step 1, 5 emails to my local newspaper. Step 2, in preparation - complaint to my state attorney general, Better Business Bureau, & Local police fraud/consumer protection unit. More to come. But of course I know I'm "fighting feathers." Incidentally - when I connected to Intuits "web chat" help site, they said "It's Microsoft's problem," and disconnected me without permitting a reply or other question. John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mark Clark Date: 26 Jan 02 - 03:24 PM I've used TaxAct for a few years now and have had no problems whatever. They even throw in a free electronic filing with the product. The program is very instructive and helpful and can guide anyone through the process easily. Of course it also keeps history so you don't have enter the same constant information each year and you can use previous years' information to help calculate the current year. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: GUEST,Bill D Date: 26 Jan 02 - 02:51 PM John, when we needed some business.tax software last year, I went searching for options, and found several that did pretty well in various ways....I hope you find one that suits....(NOTHING upsets me more than some software that decides FOR you what to do, what to install, and who too inform of what you are doing!!!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: JohnInKansas Date: 26 Jan 02 - 02:43 AM I don't have any serious problems with using Internet Explorer and Outlook Express, although you do need to stay in touch with Mickey$oft with respect to upgrades. Unfortunately, my systems have just been TRASHED (excuse my shouting) by our innocent purchase of TurboTax, so that the S.O. could get some 1099s printed to send out. New versions of TurboTax (Quicken) automatically install Internet Explorer 5.5. They do not ask if you want it, and do not tell you they are doing it until they reach a point in the installation process where you cannot interrupt or abort the installation. If you use another Internet program, you can "uninstall" their IE5.5 when your done with your taxes. (they say). If you use another version of IE, as I did, you cannot feasibly uninstall their "add-in" without completely corrupting your system. It took me two days, and 4 calls to my ISP providers, to get back on line - and the version of IE5.5 installed is not even current with respect to Mickey$oft security releases. Security fixes I had previously applied to my other version of IE were trashed. Needless to say, I DO NOT RECOMMEND TURBO TAX, and I'll be trying to teach my S.O. to use something other than Quicken for her books as soon as possible. Anyone for a class action?? John |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: hesperis Date: 25 Jan 02 - 09:02 PM Yep. And what's even cooler, is a php bookmark manager with a mysql backend! LOL, I'm turning into a geek... I've completely fallen in love with php/mysql. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 25 Jan 02 - 10:25 AM yup...you find places like this where someone posts their collection...evidently there is a BM manager called "Compass", cause I got several batches like this....always something neat to look at! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: hesperis Date: 25 Jan 02 - 12:13 AM Yeah, bookmark managers are sooo cool! I kept on seeing people's bookmarks on the net, and wondered how they'd compiled them all! But with GUL, I can import the IE crapola, and export it as a netscape html file and publish it! LOL, I sorted through over 2000 bookmarks and grabbed 180-ish of them as the best of those. One's broken though. :( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 02 - 08:08 PM sure...there are many 'bookmark managers'....and Netscape's is just an HTML file...you can save bookmarks in ANY program that will allow you to click....(I have saved copies several times) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: hesperis Date: 21 Jan 02 - 07:37 PM Exactly! Mine are only two years old. I zip up the whole directory once a year, too, to make sure they get saved properly! Apparently you can use GUL as a bookmark manager, and then just put KM as the default browser so that if you click on a link in GUL it'll load KM. I will definitely try that. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 02 - 04:57 PM indeed....the bookmark limit in K_Meleon is the bugaboo...I simply use it for zipping around, or for loading when I am wary that Netscape is bogged down... (my bookmark file is 1.2 million bytes...6 years old...yes, I know I should copy it and do a serious scouring of it...but, but...they're old FRIENDS...maybe they'll work again sometime!) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: hesperis Date: 21 Jan 02 - 04:24 PM StarOffice is a complete office environment, with an integrated desktop on top of the normal windows desktop. I think it also browses html documents. This means, to read one quick document from a friend, you have to wait ten minutes for the whole shebang to load, and then wait another five for it to convert the thing to it's own format. No thanks. Thanks for the links Bill. I'm just looking for a good Word clone aside from WordPerfect, but pretty much in that class. TextShield doesn't look too bad. *g* K-meleon looks pretty good from the faq and the forums. There are workarounds for the worst problems, and if you manage your bookmarks with an outside program, that completely removes the worst problem for me. K-meleon only takes 512??? I have over 2180 bookmarks. It was 2184 earlier today, and has probably gone up to 2190 by now. *bg* Anyway, if it isn't good now, it's one to watch for in future releases. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 21 Jan 02 - 01:38 PM There is a SUN Star Office for Linux. I have the PC dielect but never loaded it, you need a release code from a magazine that seems to have folded. I am stuck with Word & Excel for the VBA capability. Sold my soul to MS afraid. But I use Netscape a bit. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 02 - 01:31 PM so far, Opera is the ONLY alternative browser to IE & Netscape that is attempting to do it all ...I am no expert on whether it does what YOU want, but there are LONG, detailed discussion forums about it, and someone there could no doubt answer your questions. As to 'free'...it can be free, if you can tolerate a pretty small ad in one corner....otherwise, it is not expensive to eliminate that ad..(and of course, some even manage to get around that expense) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 21 Jan 02 - 01:22 PM take a look here http://www.textshield.com/ there are many varied needs in the wordprocessor realm....I don't need a fancy one, but some get used to tricks that ONLY come with MS Word, so it's hard to offer them anything else...but TextShield does a lot...as does CryptEdit ..they are 'different' , but have real advantages... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: hesperis Date: 21 Jan 02 - 12:59 PM Is there a good alternative to M$ word? Like, an actual GOOD one? That just comes with a word processor, not 30-300 more megs of stuff I don't need... never liked WordPerfect (bad memories of high school!), though the Hawk uses it. Word is the only M$Office thing I use - tried Access for a while, but will probably put the stuff online with mysql and php instead. That'll be more convenient for me *and* for my team. Will check out K-Meleon. Netscape 4.x is not good for iframes and a lot of web developers use them. The thing is, the bells and whistles that M$ puts into IE make IE really attractive for the developers to develop FOR... and a lot of people use it. If there really was a good free browser that could do wonderful java and dhtml and advanced html tricks, that would be great. I haven't found one yet. :( |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Homeless Date: 21 Jan 02 - 09:54 AM Here's another interesting perspective on MS's new security initiative... clicky |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Mr Red Date: 19 Jan 02 - 11:10 AM Well I read the guff on those files. Some of it was new to me but the html files in history have always been visible to me and I have been deleting in explorer happily every so often for the space (not that it is an issue for me but... MS ain't gonna see my pecadillo's - no siree) What I do is save html files in my own directory. I read a lot (particularly long threads) off-line so it helps. Sure I could look for the history files but there is a lot of crap I didn't ask for and what day was it? I save only the ones that appeal, but it does mean my posts may be more delayed and what I pontificate on is already old-pontifs but - hey it saves pennies and I get to wipe the history without thinking. Shame about the Mudcat cookie but I have a plan for that - just too lazy to bother. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Amergin Date: 19 Jan 02 - 02:16 AM we can't even really support netscape...only ie....we can't even really support anything but a windows machine....we can do a little on macs....but that is only to get their connection up....and a little for their email....other than that...(but then there is less that can go wrong on a mac...at least where we are concerned) we cannot support any of the other alternative systems....not even their connections...if a customer uses one of those he is screwed.... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 02 - 11:53 PM ...and NO little paper clip!...*grin* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: toadfrog Date: 18 Jan 02 - 11:51 PM Just into the bargain, Bill, I suggest anyone who is an individual working with a word processor (not necessarily businesses working with suites) try Word Pefect in liu of Word. So far as I can see, it does a better job on just about everything, and does not try to force you to write letters, pleadings etc. the Gates way. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 02 - 08:24 PM why, Bob...you should feel honored that MS IE cares SO much about you, and wants to be sure all is well! ;>)) (just wait till MSIE 12.4, when YOU won't even have to decide where to go, or when to turn it on!...It will just surf FOR you in the middle of the night and tell you anything of importance it finds!) (so far the worst it has done to me is to partially reset my .ini file in my Agent newsreader, forcing me to go in and edit it...(MSIE tries to be my default newsreader, but Agent has some defense up)...MSIE has just set quietly in the corner since then, as I have NOT opened it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bob Bolton Date: 18 Jan 02 - 07:35 PM G'day Bill D, Hey, you're saying terrible things about Bill G ... I close off and go away - but latelty, when I do that ... MS IE demands to 'phone home with a 'Failure Report" ... Then it takes about 5 minutes get out of the bloody program! Regard(les)s, Bob Bolton |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 18 Jan 02 - 07:10 PM when elephants battle, mice are trampled..(cockroaches hide better, and have SO many kids , they don't care if a few are trampled) As long as the trend towards a few big boys owning all the important parts, (including the phone lines), end user satisfaction will be low on the list of priorities. (remember Ma Bell?).... so far, Opera, K-Meleon, Mozilla, Linux, etc....are projects to keep MS and AOL from controlling it all...will they endure? Netscape didn't, so I won't hold my breath...but they all learned a bit from Netscape. So unless MS manages to corrupt ALL the standards, until only their browsers will run on their systems, according to their protocols, some, like me, will keep using whatever alternatives there are. There are some fairly smart folks who do NOT appreciate M$.....perhaps they will at least salvage something. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 18 Jan 02 - 03:58 PM Netscape 6.1 is signicantly better than Netscape 6.0 - confusingly the icon still calls it 6.
Opera's ads are pretty inconspicuous, and it's got some very handy features.
Mind the way things are going we'll probably find they are both really owned by Gates, along with most of the rest of the "free market".
The thing is, if you're a mouse it doesn't really matter who owns the building. What matters is, who is the caretaker (janitor). Most of us are mice, except when w are cockroaches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: GUEST,Penny S. (elsewhere) Date: 18 Jan 02 - 11:56 AM Thanks for this - it at least answers the amazing disappearing drive space problem, which I was going to solve by using the return to factory setting option some time soon - now it's sooner. Don't know what I'm going to do at work, though. Penny |
|
Subject: RE: BS: seriously--about Microsoft, IE, Outlook From: Bill D Date: 17 Jan 02 - 05:31 PM well, I have only an occasional crash with Netscape 4.75...and I understand that 4.78 & 4.79 are even better, but it may be in how YOU configure them....I LOVE Opera, and it can be free with a little ad stuck in the corner...for totally free, but not as configurable, try K-Meleon ...and ongoing project...it is small & fast, and will handle 'most' things. Pegasus Mail is great, although I have been using Eudora for years...(I may yet switch) as was noted above, 602 PRO is a free office suite that is good, and there is "Open Office" which is the open source for StarOffice....unless one is a MAJOR user of MS Word (I am not), I suspect any of those would do what you need. I use several free wordprocessors and text editors that do almost anything I want, CryptEdit, TextShield Fusion....a couple of quick, smaller ones, too..... |
| Share Thread: |