One fixed....new snag to contend with

[SpaceGirl]

No I do not mean the spinning logo.
Look to the very bottom left corner of your screen.
Do you see the start button?
Do you see the little windows logo?
If firefox is not a microsoft product, then why does it use the same logo in
the same tray when you have it open?

When MS introduced IE, a man sued MS for literally stealing his idea.
He named his tool IE and MS ran with it literally.
As I recall, there was a settlement reached out of court.

You're mad.

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Steve Greenaway]

Erm, what are you talking about? *Where* does FF use the Windows logo?
The start button isn't part of FF, so it can't be that that you are
talking about, surely? The only logos that I can see that FF have used
anywhere are little blue spheres with a fox curled around them and a
little circle made up of smaller green circles... can't see the Windows
logo anywhere.

I think he means the the logo that gets showed in the taskbar button for
every instance of FF:
http://www.engsoc.org/~macfisto/pics/screen.jpg

And all this time I thought it was just my system doing that!

 

[Steve Greenaway]

I think he means the the logo that gets showed in the taskbar button for
every instance of FF:
http://www.engsoc.org/~macfisto/pics/screen.jpg

And all this time I thought it was just my system doing that!

.... and immediately after posting I found the reason further in the thread.
Shucks.

 

[Dylan Parry]

I think he means the the logo that gets showed in the taskbar button for
every instance of FF:
http://www.engsoc.org/~macfisto/pics/screen.jpg

Ah, well that's a generic icon that is shown for *any* program if its
own icon cannot be found by the system. Obviously there is a bug in FF
where the icons are not being shown correctly in Windows 98/ME. I'd
assume, as they are totally different OSes, that the bug doesn't show
itself in 2000 or XP.

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

... and immediately after posting I found the reason further in the
thread. Shucks.

Thank you. I was beginning to think my posts weren't propagating. ;-)

 

[SpaceGirl]

I think he means the the logo that gets showed in the taskbar button for
every instance of FF:
http://www.engsoc.org/~macfisto/pics/screen.jpg

And all this time I thought it was just my system doing that!

Time to upgrade, perhaps?

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Steve Greenaway]

Time to upgrade, perhaps?

Heh. Do *you* want to pay for it? Actually, this particular
installation of 98SE is probably the most stable OS I've used yet.
I'm rather loathe to modify it.

 

[Leif K-Brooks]

Look to the very bottom left corner of your screen.
Do you see the start button?
Do you see the little windows logo?
If firefox is not a microsoft product, then why does it use the same logo in
the same tray when you have it open?

I've been literally rolling around on the floor laughing for the past
few minutes. You should go into the comedy business!

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Leif K-Brooks scribbled in the mud:

I've been literally rolling around on the floor laughing for the past
few minutes. You should go into the comedy business!

Poor Richard, nobody takes him serious.

 

[SpaceGirl]

Heh. Do *you* want to pay for it? Actually, this particular
installation of 98SE is probably the most stable OS I've used yet.
I'm rather loathe to modify it.

No, but if you're running 98 and online you're just asking for trouble.
But, I guess your machine would be to slow for XP. There is a BIG
difference in stability between the two - XP is practically bomb-proof
on a new-ish machine... this machine (forexample) is on 24/7 (with all
my applications loaded all the time), and is only ever reset for
security patches (about once a month).

--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

XP is practically bomb-proof on a new-ish machine...

For twenty minutes ... ;-)

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5313402.html

this machine (forexample) is on 24/7 (with all my applications
loaded all the time), and is only ever reset for security patches
(about once a month).

Same for my Win2K.

 

[Steve Greenaway]

No, but if you're running 98 and online you're just asking for trouble.

Why, for security reasons? I've never had trouble. Even when I was
running IE6. My wife, OTOH, seems to get all kinds of crap on hers all
the time, before on a machine like this, and now on an XP computer.
I really find it's all down to what you click on. Naive?

But, I guess your machine would be to slow for XP. There is a BIG
difference in stability between the two - XP is practically bomb-proof
on a new-ish machine... this machine (forexample) is on 24/7 (with all
my applications loaded all the time), and is only ever reset for
security patches (about once a month).

XP is wierd. Some machines it's great, some machines have all sorts
of problems.

 

[Duende]

While sitting in a puddle Steve Greenaway scribbled in the mud:

Why, for security reasons? I've never had trouble. Even when I was
running IE6. My wife, OTOH, seems to get all kinds of crap on hers all
the time, before on a machine like this, and now on an XP computer.
I really find it's all down to what you click on. Naive?

Tell your wife to stay away from those porn sites.

 

[SpaceGirl]

For twenty minutes ... ;-)

http://news.zdnet.com/2100-1009_22-5313402.html

No, it's fine... only a fool would put an uprotected machine online! 20
minutes is very optomistic anyway. I've seen it happen in 20 seconds!

Same for my Win2K.

Okay... bit of a nightmare if you're doing multimedia tho.


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[SpaceGirl]

Why, for security reasons? I've never had trouble. Even when I was
running IE6.

Are you sure? Your 'puter might be a zombie without you knowing

My wife, OTOH, seems to get all kinds of crap on hers all
the time, before on a machine like this, and now on an XP computer.
I really find it's all down to what you click on. Naive?
*shrugs*



XP is wierd. Some machines it's great, some machines have all sorts
of problems.

Yeah it is a bit like that. But if you really MUST use Windows (of any
sort), it seems particuarly daft to use a version that is almost 7 years
old given the risks of "living online".


--


x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #

 

[Martin Bialasinski]

Yeah it is a bit like that. But if you really MUST use Windows (of
any sort), it seems particuarly daft to use a version that is almost
7 years old given the risks of "living online".

Well, all the RPC-"we infect you as soon as you go online" Worms need
Windows > 98, no? Worm Writers don't seem to bother with backwards
compatibility ;-)

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

No, it's fine... only a fool would put an uprotected machine
online!

20 minutes is very optomistic anyway. I've seen it happen
in 20 seconds!

Well, that too. Depends on your ISP ... dialup ... broadband ...

 

[Steve Greenaway]

Are you sure? Your 'puter might be a zombie without you knowing

mmmm.... zombies....

I'm running ad-aware, pest patrol, cwshredder, using AVG antivirus. Any
other suggestions?

 

[Randy Webb]

No, it's fine... only a fool would put an uprotected machine online! 20
minutes is very optomistic anyway. I've seen it happen in 20 seconds!

And only a fool would comment on that without actually reading the
article. If you had, you would have seen where it explained that the 20
minutes it takes to violate it is less time than it takes to actually
make it "secure". Or do you propose to update the computers off the
shelf some other way than by being online?

 

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

And only a fool would comment on that without actually reading the
article. If you had, you would have seen where it explained that
the 20 minutes it takes to violate it is less time than it takes to
actually make it "secure". Or do you propose to update the
computers off the shelf some other way than by being online?

Mind clarifying who is the fool you are referring to here, Randy?