trader_4
Sun, 09
Apr 2017 15:54:16 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 7:49:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat,
08 Apr 2017 20:47:44 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Say what? You don't think Google has a way of linking what you
typed or what you spoke into a voice search on an Android phone
back to you? Of course they do.

Re-read what I wrote. The section you conveniently, snipped:

Options exist, vpn, etc. Using other peoples network connection,
forging browser Identity information, etc etc etc.
I was writing about google, the search engine. I don't use voice
commands on my phones, I'm not too lazy to type...

Again, context is everything. The context was what goes on
with SMARTPHONES today. What percent of smartphone users are
doing the above, ie tin foil hat stuff because they are afraid
that google will know that they searched for "pizza near me"?

It's not tinfoil hat stuff. It's being aware of technology and how it
works, under the hood. Old habits die hard, you know. I can't help it
if the vast majority of people using technology today treat it like a
toaster oven. It's not.

And if you don't do something extraordinary, then of course
Google knows what you've been looking for, where you've been
located with the phone, etc. Which of course why the comparison
to Win 10 is logical.

I don't consider sound security practices to be extraordinary. I told
you, I'm a former blackhat hacker. I don't think like the typical joe
down the street.

As far as the android phones go...I use burner phones. They
aren't associated with my name. So, google has no way of tracking
me, personally, no.



What percent of smartphone users are using burner phones?
That's the issue. You seem to think that 99.9% of us users
have the same extreme penchant for privacy that you do.

I fully realize the vast majority of users are ignorant as hell
concerning how the technology works. Downright ****ing stupid, in
some cases. Ignorance is a curable condition.. stupidity, ehh, no
cure for that. I *used* to take advantage of that. Then I realized
that shooting fish in a barrel isn't any real challenge, AND, it was
a total dickhead thing for me to be doing. Not only was I causing
people I didn't even know or would likely ever meet problems, I was
wasting my time too.

The reality is that if you're using a typical smartphone
like 99% of the users out there, then what get's tracked
and seen on Win 10 isn't much different than what's been
going on for years with phones.

I don't think the percentage rate is quite that high, but, I've got
nothing to support/deny it, either. I'd like to think 99.9% of users
are that stupid, but, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are.
Especially with the data breaches I keep reading about. Imho, there's
really no excuse for stupidity concerning digital devices in the
digital age. A computer isn't a toaster oven, despite how 'dumbed
down' the latest OSes have become for the general sheeple.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sun, 09
Apr 2017 15:46:20 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Once again, complete BS. Mozilla has said that there will be no
new versions of Firefox for XP, only SECURITY UPDATES and only
those are guaranteed for another 5 months. Why do you lie? In
addition, Mozillar points out that MSFT is no longer issuing
security updates for XP and Mozilla is telling it's Firefox users
to move to a supported OS and supported browser.

As I've told you before, despite your personal opinion disagreeing
with me, A security update IS an update. The five months isn't set
in stone, either. According to Mozilla. A system being upgraded for
the future shouldn't be running XP OR Windows 7. It's not going to
be much of a future for the individual, unless, the machine is going
to be serving a dedicated purpose and the individual has no need for
later applications which will no longer support EITHER OS.

Despite your weak efforts to paint me as a liar, I haven't done
that...

Nothing is wrong with me. I simply corrected your misleading
statement. Firefox IS still presently supported on Windows XP.

My statement was not misleading, but your BS advice sure is.

My advice as of today is quite sound, thanks. Firefox, despite your
claims, IS still, being updated on Windows XP. Just how many 'new'
features do you need in a ****ing web browser? It's job is to render
HTML for christs sake.

The context, again was a person planning for the future.

They shouldn't bother with XP or Windows 7, then. Unless, as I said,
the future is for a dedicated purpose. If it's going to become a
media server, that's a dedicated purpose. If it's going to be used
as a daily machine, they should move beyond Windows XP AND Windows
7.

And you had to chime in, claiming that Firefox is still supported
on XP, when the only support left is security updates and even
that is only guaranteed for 5 months. Some future, some great
advice!

I 'chimed' in because your statement on the surface WAS NOT
ACCURATE. A security update, IS infact, an update. I realize you're
trying to split hairs here, but, what I wrote does infact, stand.

Was the poster concerned about the time being? Idiot.

I don't know why you're resorting to personal attacks, but, it
doesn't bother me in the least. I've been called much worse. If the
poster is upgrading for the 'future' and doesn't plan to use it for
a dedicated purpose, Windows XP and Windows 7 are a waste of his
time and his money.

That will be changing, soon, but,
it hasn't happened yet. My comment concerning the pointless in
upgrading to Windows 7 has far less to do with firefox than it
does wasting the OPS time in the sense that OS is nearing EOL,
too for end users. So if he wants to prepare for the future, his
choices are a bit limited. Go with win**** 10, or, switch to
linux.


No **** Sherlock, which is why I said IDK of any browser that is
currently supported on XP.

Your statement wasn't accurate. Your ignorance of the subject,
however, does fascinate me. Firefox 45.0.8 ESR is 'currently'
supported on XP. And it will remain so for atleast five more months.


And for me and I think most reasonable
people, 5 months of security updates only, from folks that have
already discontinued ALL OTHER SUPPORT and are telling their
users of Firefox on XP to move, doesn't qualify as "supported".
But heh, feel free to climb on board a browser for 5 months.

We must have a very different understanding of reasonable people,
then. In my circle, reasonable people don't think security updates
aren't updates. They don't expect 'new' features are the only thing
that qualifies as an update. Infact, they realize bug fixes are also
valid, updates. Further, they don't assume that security updates are
issued towards the end of the programs lifecycle, either. As,
reasonably speaking, that doesn't even make any sense. YMMV.


If he wants to run modern
hardware, he should go with a modern OS. Such as Linux, not
Win**** 10.

Is that what you'd tell a customer? A client?

That depends entirely on what the machine in question is being
used for. If it's running a CNC or plasma cutter in his shop,
there's no reason to 'upgrade' the OS. It might infact,
disable the CNC machine and/or plasma cutter.

Was the OP running a CNC machine? Try to stick to the context
at least.

You asked me a question. The OP isn't a client of mine. You
didn't ask me specifically about the OP, you asked what I'd tell
a client or customer and I answered you.


Context matters. The OP isn't running a CNC. Does CNC need
an internet browser? WTF?

Indeed it does. See your question again, then. For proper context.
You specifically! asked me what I'd tell a client or customer. And I
told you. If you wanted me to tell you what I'd tell the OP, you
should have specified the OP, not a client or customer. Context,
right?

Now, concerning your CNC question. I think you might be very
surprised to learn just how often a 'GUI' is actually an HTML (or a
series of them) page. Which is rendered by, (wait for it) a web
browser. It saves development time and costs, but, makes the
software that much more dependent on a working web browser. I've
never agreed with this line of thinking, but, I don't make those
decisions for those companies, so I'm left with the joy of the
aftermath when something that shouldn't have a damn thing to do with
the program itself, breaks.



I find it remarkable that you (I really don't run across many
people who think as you do) that security updates are not
updates.

Lying again. I didn't say that security updates are not updates.

Excuse me? You inferred with your first damn reply that you didn't
consider 'security' updates to be updates.

I said when all you're left with is 5 months of security updates,
ie, no more bug fixes, no more no improvements to make sure it
stays compatible, that is not a *supported* browser. You seem to
think that security updates are all there is to supporting a
product. Probably because you've got a tin foil hat on when
it comes to "security".

You'd be quite mistaken. I've developed and supported software for
years. Issuing bugfixes as well as 'security' updates and new
features...I suppose you didn't check any of the urls I provided
when someone asked what I knew about the subject, albeit in a very
cheeky/smartass fashion.

I don't have a tinfoil hat on, thanks. I told you, I'm a former
BLACKHAT hacker. As a result, I just don't think like you do. I tend
to think outside the box. It's served me well. I've never been 0wned
by one of my peers or their work. OTH, I've made a pile of cash
fixing problems people like you suffer from as a result of their
work.


Firefox
ESR release is still getting security/non security updates for
the time being, AND, it still supports XP/Vista. ESR versions.

BS. Mozilla has clearly said there are no more updates other than
security updates. And even that is for just 5 months. Wow, some
"time being", for a poster upgrading a system for the future!

I provided a link to an older ESR series that had bugfixes AND
security updates applied. No new features mind you, but bugfixes AND
security updates. In case you missed it:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/securi...firefoxesr45.8

They aren't all security updates as you can see.

Look at 45.3 and down:

45.3 was released in 2016, years past Windows XP eol.

Fixed in Firefox ESR 45.3

2016-80 Same-origin policy violation using local HTML file and saved shortcut file
2016-79 Use-after-free when applying SVG effects
2016-78 Type confusion in display transformation
2016-77 Buffer overflow in ClearKey Content Decryption Module (CDM) during video playback
2016-76 Scripts on marquee tag can execute in sandboxed iframes
2016-73 Use-after-free in service workers with nested sync events
2016-72 Use-after-free in DTLS during WebRTC session shutdown
2016-70 Use-after-free when using alt key and toplevel menus
2016-67 Stack underflow during 2D graphics rendering
2016-65 Cairo rendering crash due to memory allocation issue with FFmpeg 0.10
2016-64 Buffer overflow rendering SVG with bidirectional content
2016-63 Favicon network connection can persist when page is closed
2016-62 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:48.0 / rv:45.3)



Your statement wasn't correct on the face of it. You didn't
specify any qualifying aspects. You stated that you knew of no
browsers still being supported that run on XP, and, that's not
the case. Firefox is, for the time being.

No it;s not when Mozilla has already issued the final release for
XP, has stated that there will only be security updates going
forward and only guaranteed that for 5 months and told it's users
to move to a newer OS that is supported. Besides the fact that
Firefox is only issuing security updates for 5 months, you also
have the fact that MSFT is no longer doing security updates for XP
PERIOD! Quite remarkable for a tin foil hat guy to be advocating
that using Firefox on XP is cool and supported, when even the OS
itself is no longer receiving security updates from MSFT!

You're contradicting yourself again...For the next five months,
atleast, Firefox is still supported on Windows XP. I didn't tell the
OP it was a good idea to remain with XP, I simply corrected your
erroneous comment concerning firefox no longer being updated on XP.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Sunday, April 9, 2017 at 12:17:23 PM UTC-4, wrote:
On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was substantial.
In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a huge increase
in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that, maybe half, is
that they are starting with a clean machine again. If they just
did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in performance.

True dat.

That is one reason why I like to keep data on a separate drive.
Then you can just reload the original C: and start as a virgin without
losing any of your data.

I do similar. After a clean install, I make a backup image on a seperate
drive. If I have room on the main drive for another partition, I also
make a backup there. Then, if I want to re-install, it's easy. That's
what I did when going to Win 10. First, I put on a clean install of
Win 7 with all the updates. I saved an image of that, then did the Win 10
upgrade and then made a backup image of that.

Maybe a year or two ago, I was updating a Win 7 system where there was
no recent clean image. So, I had to revert to a factory restore. That
went fine, as did the next couple of Windows updates that I applied.
But then, after it put in a new version of the updater, which it seems
to like to do after just a few updates, then it would no longer update
anything! This was a real problem. It would just sit there and check
for updates, but never do anything. I googled online and saw many people
having the same problem, ie starting with a factory restore, getting to
the same update as me, then being stuck forever. No solution or anything
from MSFT either. Finally, i started searching for any other versions of
their update agent and found that there were many newer ones. So, I
manually installed one that was later than the one that was not working
and that fixed it. When it was all up to date, I made an image, so that
I would not have to go through that whole, long, failing update sequence
again.





Keep all of your data on D:, Keep all of your executables on C:
Go in and change the target in your programs from "my documents" to
"D:\documents" and create separate directories for each program.
The first time I load a system it takes a few hours to actually get
all of the updates, software loaded and configured. Then I image that
drive after I get things the way I like it and I can get back there in
a few minutes if something bad happens.

Exactly!

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sun, 09
Apr 2017 15:56:27 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:17:51 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some
pretty sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus
infection in years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't
seen one make the news in years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes
from 10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have to
do. That includes restoring my base image, updating,
creating new base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb)
dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a lot
of time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting
around, no depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never been a
problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as I disable
all of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has had
problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS has had
to issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I prefer
to install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet to
reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due to
hardware failure. (HD), but, not due to any software issues,
uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I
meant by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said Win
10 is the best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any
malware on Win 10. Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion
concerning Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But,
hey, if it works for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a
vacation in years. Maybe I should consider doing that sometime
this summer. I could probably use it. Hackers aren't all bad you
know. Some of us are quite useful in a positive sense.

I have no use for them.

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was
substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a
huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that,
maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean machine again.
If they just did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in
performance.

The performance boost you're seeing is the file layout.

If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that degrades
the OS performance.

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:55 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sun, 09
Apr 2017 15:54:16 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 7:49:15 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat,
08 Apr 2017 20:47:44 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Say what? You don't think Google has a way of linking what you
typed or what you spoke into a voice search on an Android phone
back to you? Of course they do.

Re-read what I wrote. The section you conveniently, snipped:

Options exist, vpn, etc. Using other peoples network connection,
forging browser Identity information, etc etc etc.
I was writing about google, the search engine. I don't use voice
commands on my phones, I'm not too lazy to type...

Again, context is everything. The context was what goes on
with SMARTPHONES today. What percent of smartphone users are
doing the above, ie tin foil hat stuff because they are afraid
that google will know that they searched for "pizza near me"?

It's not tinfoil hat stuff. It's being aware of technology and how it
works, under the hood. Old habits die hard, you know. I can't help it
if the vast majority of people using technology today treat it like a
toaster oven. It's not.

And if you don't do something extraordinary, then of course
Google knows what you've been looking for, where you've been
located with the phone, etc. Which of course why the comparison
to Win 10 is logical.

I don't consider sound security practices to be extraordinary. I told
you, I'm a former blackhat hacker. I don't think like the typical joe
down the street.

As far as the android phones go...I use burner phones. They
aren't associated with my name. So, google has no way of tracking
me, personally, no.



What percent of smartphone users are using burner phones?
That's the issue. You seem to think that 99.9% of us users
have the same extreme penchant for privacy that you do.

I fully realize the vast majority of users are ignorant as hell
concerning how the technology works. Downright ****ing stupid, in
some cases. Ignorance is a curable condition.. stupidity, ehh, no
cure for that.

You think just maybe instead it's that the vast majority of users realize
that google and similar will know we just googled for "pizza near
me" and don't care that the fact that we're looking for pizza and
our location has been sent to google?

There is also anonymity in numbers. I doubt google has employees sitting
there, monitoring me, interested in the fact that I googled for pizza,
where I'm located and then trying to use that for some nefarious purposes.
In other words, like 99.9% of the world, I don't need a burner phone.




I *used* to take advantage of that. Then I realized
that shooting fish in a barrel isn't any real challenge, AND, it was
a total dickhead thing for me to be doing. Not only was I causing
people I didn't even know or would likely ever meet problems, I was
wasting my time too.

The reality is that if you're using a typical smartphone
like 99% of the users out there, then what get's tracked
and seen on Win 10 isn't much different than what's been
going on for years with phones.

I don't think the percentage rate is quite that high, but, I've got
nothing to support/deny it, either. I'd like to think 99.9% of users
are that stupid, but, I wouldn't be surprised to learn that they are.
Especially with the data breaches I keep reading about. Imho, there's
really no excuse for stupidity concerning digital devices in the
digital age. A computer isn't a toaster oven, despite how 'dumbed
down' the latest OSes have become for the general sheeple.


Computers today are in fact like toasters, because they are widespread
consumer items, easily used by the masses, without needing to be
computer experts or in the case of toasters, electricians or electrical engineers.

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:56 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


As I've told you before, despite your personal opinion disagreeing
with me, A security update IS an update.

Again, if you paid attention, I just told you that despite your claims,
I never said that a security update isn't an "update". I said that
support involves a lot more than just security updates, that Mozilla
has announced the end of Firefox for XP, that they have discontinued
all support for Firefox EXCEPT SECURITY UPDATES. And even that they
have only guaranteed for 5 more months. That anyone would argue that
makes for a "supported" browser, in the context of someone looking to
upgrade a system and run XP for the future, is just plain silly.



The five months isn't set
in stone, either.

Wow, that's reassuring. Kind of like saying the car gas gauge is on
empty, but the engine hasn't quite quit running yet.


According to Mozilla. A system being upgraded for
the future shouldn't be running XP OR Windows 7.

And they'be said you shouldn't be running Firefox on XP anymore,
that you should move to a SUPPORTED OS AND SUPPORTED BROWSER.

It's not going to
be much of a future for the individual,

Wow, you think?


unless, the machine is going
to be serving a dedicated purpose and the individual has no need for
later applications which will no longer support EITHER OS.

Again, not the OP's environment. And if you need a browser, well, you
need a browser, eh? Hence my point.



Despite your weak efforts to paint me as a liar, I haven't done
that...


Yes you have. You said that Firefox is continuing updates for Firefox
on XP beside just security updates. That is not true.


Nothing is wrong with me. I simply corrected your misleading
statement. Firefox IS still presently supported on Windows XP.

My statement was not misleading, but your BS advice sure is.

My advice as of today is quite sound, thanks. Firefox, despite your
claims, IS still, being updated on Windows XP. Just how many 'new'
features do you need in a ****ing web browser? It's job is to render
HTML for christs sake.

You can run a many years old browser and see the problems. I suspect
you're actually using an updated one, like most of us. But if you
really believe that, then feel free to recommend to the OP that he
stay with Firefox on XP for the future.



The context, again was a person planning for the future.

They shouldn't bother with XP or Windows 7, then.

Well, duh! And why not? Because IDK of any browser that is still
supported on XP, for one! And no, having just security updates for
just five months, when Mozilla is telling you they are offering no
new support besides that very limited support, doesn't qualify to a
reasonable person, in the context of this thread, as "supported"\
Good grief!


Unless, as I said,
the future is for a dedicated purpose. If it's going to become a
media server, that's a dedicated purpose. If it's going to be used
as a daily machine, they should move beyond Windows XP AND Windows
7.


Was the OP talking about a media server? Why must you wander in the
wilderness?



And you had to chime in, claiming that Firefox is still supported
on XP, when the only support left is security updates and even
that is only guaranteed for 5 months. Some future, some great
advice!

I 'chimed' in because your statement on the surface WAS NOT
ACCURATE.

It was 99% accurate and 100% accurate in the context of the OP's
situation. That's why you're desperately now talking about CNC,
media servers, and all that bulls ****.




A security update, IS infact, an update. I realize you're
trying to split hairs here, but, what I wrote does infact, stand.

Was the poster concerned about the time being? Idiot.

I don't know why you're resorting to personal attacks,

Because after a while, it's like talking to a child.


but, it
doesn't bother me in the least. I've been called much worse. If the
poster is upgrading for the 'future' and doesn't plan to use it for
a dedicated purpose, Windows XP and Windows 7 are a waste of his
time and his money.


Wow, you really think? But why would that be? You claim that Firefox
is still supported on XP, so he should still use it. Go figure.


That will be changing, soon, but,
it hasn't happened yet. My comment concerning the pointless in
upgrading to Windows 7 has far less to do with firefox than it
does wasting the OPS time in the sense that OS is nearing EOL,
too for end users. So if he wants to prepare for the future, his
choices are a bit limited. Go with win**** 10, or, switch to
linux.


No **** Sherlock, which is why I said IDK of any browser that is
currently supported on XP.

Your statement wasn't accurate. Your ignorance of the subject,
however, does fascinate me. Firefox 45.0.8 ESR is 'currently'
supported on XP. And it will remain so for atleast five more months.


You're lying again. All support EXCEPT FOR SECURITY UPDATES has
already ended, Mozilla has clearly stated that. Apparently in your
tin foil hat world, the only updating that is required is security
updates.




And for me and I think most reasonable
people, 5 months of security updates only, from folks that have
already discontinued ALL OTHER SUPPORT and are telling their
users of Firefox on XP to move, doesn't qualify as "supported".
But heh, feel free to climb on board a browser for 5 months.

We must have a very different understanding of reasonable people,
then. In my circle, reasonable people don't think security updates
aren't updates.

There you go lying again. I never said security updates are not
updates. Only that they are just one part of support and that they
are the very last part of support to go. When you get to that point
and with security updates only committed to for just 5 months, it's
not what reasonable people would call supported when they go looking
for a browser or similar software product.



They don't expect 'new' features are the only thing
that qualifies as an update. Infact, they realize bug fixes are also
valid, updates.

Bingo. And Mozilla has said no updates other than security updates.
So, unless that bug involves security, you're not getting an update
to fix it.





Further, they don't assume that security updates are
issued towards the end of the programs lifecycle, either. As,
reasonably speaking, that doesn't even make any sense. YMMV.



There you go lying again. I never said that security updates are
only issued near the end. I said that near the end of a browser or
similar's lifecycle, security updates are the very last part of support
that goes. And here we are, 5 months left.



If he wants to run modern
hardware, he should go with a modern OS. Such as Linux, not
Win**** 10.

Is that what you'd tell a customer? A client?

That depends entirely on what the machine in question is being
used for. If it's running a CNC or plasma cutter in his shop,
there's no reason to 'upgrade' the OS. It might infact,
disable the CNC machine and/or plasma cutter.

Was the OP running a CNC machine? Try to stick to the context
at least.

You asked me a question. The OP isn't a client of mine. You
didn't ask me specifically about the OP, you asked what I'd tell
a client or customer and I answered you.


Context matters. The OP isn't running a CNC. Does CNC need
an internet browser? WTF?

Indeed it does. See your question again, then. For proper context.
You specifically! asked me what I'd tell a client or customer. And I
told you. If you wanted me to tell you what I'd tell the OP, you
should have specified the OP, not a client or customer. Context,
right?

Yes, you have a hard time with context. The context of the thread is
the OP's problem, so the context of my question was a customer in a
similar position, not one with a CNC machine or a rocket ship.
Geeesh!




I find it remarkable that you (I really don't run across many
people who think as you do) that security updates are not
updates.

Lying again. I didn't say that security updates are not updates.

Excuse me? You inferred with your first damn reply that you didn't
consider 'security' updates to be updates.


You're continuing to lie. I didn't infer any such thing. I clearly
said that security updates are just one part of product SUPPORT.



I said when all you're left with is 5 months of security updates,
ie, no more bug fixes, no more no improvements to make sure it
stays compatible, that is not a *supported* browser. You seem to
think that security updates are all there is to supporting a
product. Probably because you've got a tin foil hat on when
it comes to "security".

You'd be quite mistaken. I've developed and supported software for
years. Issuing bugfixes as well as 'security' updates and new
features...I suppose you didn't check any of the urls I provided
when someone asked what I knew about the subject, albeit in a very
cheeky/smartass fashion.

I don't have a tinfoil hat on, thanks. I told you, I'm a former
BLACKHAT hacker. As a result, I just don't think like you do. I tend
to think outside the box. It's served me well. I've never been 0wned
by one of my peers or their work. OTH, I've made a pile of cash
fixing problems people like you suffer from as a result of their
work.


Firefox
ESR release is still getting security/non security updates for
the time being, AND, it still supports XP/Vista. ESR versions.

BS. Mozilla has clearly said there are no more updates other than
security updates. And even that is for just 5 months. Wow, some
"time being", for a poster upgrading a system for the future!

I provided a link to an older ESR series that had bugfixes AND
security updates applied. No new features mind you, but bugfixes AND
security updates. In case you missed it:

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/securi...firefoxesr45.8

They aren't all security updates as you can see.

Look at 45.3 and down:

45.3 was released in 2016, years past Windows XP eol.

Fixed in Firefox ESR 45.3

2016-80 Same-origin policy violation using local HTML file and saved shortcut file
2016-79 Use-after-free when applying SVG effects
2016-78 Type confusion in display transformation
2016-77 Buffer overflow in ClearKey Content Decryption Module (CDM) during video playback
2016-76 Scripts on marquee tag can execute in sandboxed iframes
2016-73 Use-after-free in service workers with nested sync events
2016-72 Use-after-free in DTLS during WebRTC session shutdown
2016-70 Use-after-free when using alt key and toplevel menus
2016-67 Stack underflow during 2D graphics rendering
2016-65 Cairo rendering crash due to memory allocation issue with FFmpeg 0.10
2016-64 Buffer overflow rendering SVG with bidirectional content
2016-63 Favicon network connection can persist when page is closed
2016-62 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:48.0 / rv:45.3)


And Mozilla has now said all that is over, that only security updates
will be issued. What part of that don't you understand?





Your statement wasn't correct on the face of it. You didn't
specify any qualifying aspects. You stated that you knew of no
browsers still being supported that run on XP, and, that's not
the case. Firefox is, for the time being.

No it;s not when Mozilla has already issued the final release for
XP, has stated that there will only be security updates going
forward and only guaranteed that for 5 months and told it's users
to move to a newer OS that is supported. Besides the fact that
Firefox is only issuing security updates for 5 months, you also
have the fact that MSFT is no longer doing security updates for XP
PERIOD! Quite remarkable for a tin foil hat guy to be advocating
that using Firefox on XP is cool and supported, when even the OS
itself is no longer receiving security updates from MSFT!

You're contradicting yourself again...For the next five months,
atleast, Firefox is still supported on Windows XP.


I didn't contradict a damn thing. Security updates are just the final,'
last part of support to go.


I didn't tell the
OP it was a good idea to remain with XP, I simply corrected your
erroneous comment concerning firefox no longer being updated on XP.


There you go lying again. I never said Firefox is no longer being
updated. I said Firefox is no longer supported on XP. Mozilla agrees,
they point out that it's impossible to continue to support a browser
on an OS that itself is receiving no security updates! They've told
users to move to a new OS, new browser that is supported. And again,
pay attention to the question the OP asked. And no, he isn't running
a CNC machine.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:56:47 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

A single actual HD with multiple partitions isn't really a seperate
drive, though. If hardware failure occurs in your scenario, you can
lose data on 'drive' D: just as easily as you would on 'drive' C:

You wouldn't believe how many people i've met who kept an image on
'drive' D: without realizing the single HD present on the computer
would take both 'drives' south for the summer, with no plans on
returning should hardware failure occur with the HD.

I am talking about a separate drive. Drives are cheap. With SATA it is
also easy to mirror a drive.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
Sun, 09 Apr 2017
13:25:48 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 09:02:52 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
om Sun, 09 Apr 2017
01:17:45 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some
pretty sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus
infection in years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't
seen one make the news in years.

DOS or win32? Many viruses didn't exactly make the news, but,
still managed to spread quite nicely. Wildlist n all. Sadly, most
of mine did infact make the news. Scare mongering reporters, the
lot of them.


No. IBM 370. Assembler aka BAL. That's what I assumed when you
said asm. Haven't done it since1980. Maybe 1981.

We were discussing Windows, last time I checked.. and I specifically
told you I had a virus get loose on me during testing and had to
write a scanner to hunt it down. I thought you did the same thing,
based on your initial reply. Was I mistaken? Or, did I accidently
confuse you?

No, we were talking about different things.

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:56:48 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
Sun, 09 Apr 2017
16:52:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it regularly,
when I have done it, the PC performance improvement was
substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and see a
huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of that,
maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean machine again.
If they just did a system restore, they'd also see a good boost in
performance.

Yes, though apps are much better now at cleaning up when
uninstalled. I like a "clean" system, and don't give a second
thought about installing apps to try out. I also sometimes "hack"
my OS. By imaging every month or two, I don't have to excessively
worry about system changes. Also malware becomes a non-issue,
even if it's a "sleeper" type virus.

Depends on the virus. [g] If you don't know the virus is present,
you're unknowingly doing it a favor with the imaging. A couple of super
snarky viruses payloads was that of sector level data diddling. If done
slow enough, it could be months before you noticed a problem. How far
back do your images go?

I never image a system that has seen the net, aside from updating
Windows and some core apps. I start by restoring my last image, doing
those updates, the making a new base image.
I keep about 5-10 images, the oldest being the initial install.
I only do full images.

Vic Smith
Mon, 10 Apr 2017
17:01:52 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:56:45 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:
We were discussing Windows, last time I checked.. and I specifically
told you I had a virus get loose on me during testing and had to
write a scanner to hunt it down. I thought you did the same thing,
based on your initial reply. Was I mistaken? Or, did I accidently
confuse you?

No, we were talking about different things.

Ahh. That explains it. May also explain a couple of other thread
responses too. Nothing to do with you, though.





--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Vic Smith
Mon, 10 Apr 2017
17:12:34 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Mon, 10 Apr 2017 09:56:48 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:

Vic Smith
m Sun, 09 Apr 2017
16:52:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Sun, 9 Apr 2017 08:56:27 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it
regularly, when I have done it, the PC performance improvement
was substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and
see a huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of
that, maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean machine
again. If they just did a system restore, they'd also see a good
boost in performance.

Yes, though apps are much better now at cleaning up when
uninstalled. I like a "clean" system, and don't give a second
thought about installing apps to try out. I also sometimes
"hack" my OS. By imaging every month or two, I don't have to
excessively worry about system changes. Also malware becomes a
non-issue, even if it's a "sleeper" type virus.

Depends on the virus. [g] If you don't know the virus is present,
you're unknowingly doing it a favor with the imaging. A couple of
super snarky viruses payloads was that of sector level data
diddling. If done slow enough, it could be months before you
noticed a problem. How far back do your images go?

I never image a system that has seen the net, aside from updating
Windows and some core apps.

Ahh. I tend to image before I do anything that could possibly, result
in data loss. Yes, it can be time consuming, but, I typically do not
bill for that time.

I start by restoring my last image,
doing those updates, the making a new base image.

I've known several individuals who take that approach, and, I find
nothing wrong with it. I don't do that myself, but, I don't chide you
for doing it.

I keep about 5-10 images, the oldest being the initial install.
I only do full images.

Understood. I do the same as far as full images go. Forensic style if
I suspect/know the system does need those 'free' sectors copied too.





--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 15:43:09 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sun,
09 Apr 2017 15:56:27 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:17:51 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some
pretty sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus
infection in years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't
seen one make the news in years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes
from 10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have
to do. That includes restoring my base image, updating,
creating new base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb)
dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a
lot of time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting
around, no depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never
been a problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as
I disable all of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has
had problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS
has had to issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I
prefer to install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet
to reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due
to hardware failure. (HD), but, not due to any software
issues, uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I
meant by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said
Win 10 is the best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any
malware on Win 10. Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion
concerning Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But,
hey, if it works for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a
vacation in years. Maybe I should consider doing that
sometime this summer. I could probably use it. Hackers aren't
all bad you know. Some of us are quite useful in a positive
sense.

I have no use for them.

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it
regularly, when I have done it, the PC performance improvement
was substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and
see a huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of
that, maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean
machine again. If they just did a system restore, they'd also
see a good boost in performance.

The performance boost you're seeing is the file layout.

If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that
degrades the OS performance.

A disk defrag usually cannot for a variety of reasons, restore all
files to contiguous blocks, where as image restoration does do that.
You get the performance boost in file access time with contiguous
blocks of data. Otherwise, your machine is searching for the bits and
pieces which make up the file(s) you're accessing. If you did a
defrag on an ancient OS like DOS, you would see the performance boost
I'm writing about. Windows, oth, doesn't give a defrag program the
opportunity, even if you do a 'boot time' defrag.

Based on what you've written, it's clear to me that you don't have a
firm grasp on how files are actually stored on your hard disk. I
don't fault you for that, mind you, most people don't know/could give
a rats ass. The only time it becomes important is for the purposes of
data recovery.

Needless to say, when you tell Windows to 'delete' a file, it didn't
really delete it. It marked the space as 'available' and renamed the
first character of the filename to 'null'. That space that has become
available may not be a contiguous block of free space though, and, if
you create a new file that's larger than that free space, you're
actually breaking the new file into even smaller pieces/sections when
you save data to it. On a modern box, for sometime, you won't notice
the performance hit. Over time though, when you have many files, you
will.

So, some people opt for a defrag to regain the lost performance. The
defrag program does this by trying to re-allocate files as contiguous
blocks of data, but, as I wrote previously, it's not typically able
to do this with every single one.

There is a line of thought (which I don't agree with) that a defrag
does nothing for an NTFS file system. Of course it does. Just not as
well as it did FAT16/FAT32.

OTH, A drive imaging utility, due to the nature in which it works,
actually does accomplish this. Semi by design. As it's only
interested in sectors marked in use by the OS. It 'rebuilds' this in
your image file. So when you re-load that image later, it starts from
the first sector and proceeds. Files are for the most part,
contiguous blocks of data when restored in this manner. The entire
file system is, actually.

With that said, if you do a forensic image instead, It's going to
restore the data/sectors exactly as it stored them, which will be the
way it read them on your hard disk when it created the image. A
forensic image gets the sectors marked as free, too. Where as a
normal image does not.

It gets worse though. If you have a 4.1kilobyte file to save, you're
actually going to take 2! 4kilobyte sectors to hold it. the .1 is
wasting an entire 4k block. Which may not be right behind the
original 4k block. Hence, fragmentation.

I'm not trying to be a wiseass with you Trader, I'm simply trying to
explain one of the differences between imaging and defragging, aside
from data backup. And, why you gain more performance re-loading the
image than you normally will doing a defrag, instead.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 15:50:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

[big snip]

I fully realize the vast majority of users are ignorant as hell
concerning how the technology works. Downright ****ing stupid,
in some cases. Ignorance is a curable condition.. stupidity, ehh,
no cure for that.

You think just maybe instead it's that the vast majority of users
realize that google and similar will know we just googled for
"pizza near me" and don't care that the fact that we're looking
for pizza and our location has been sent to google?

Yes, I do. That's why I wrote the stupidity comment above. That don't
care attitude is what makes blackhat work possible, in many cases.

There is also anonymity in numbers. I doubt google has employees
sitting there, monitoring me, interested in the fact that I
googled for pizza, where I'm located and then trying to use that
for some nefarious purposes. In other words, like 99.9% of the
world, I don't need a burner phone.

That's the thing with computers these days though. You don't need an
employee to 'monitor' you or your habits. You can have a program
analyze the data much faster and much more accurately, if you wanted
to. If 99.9% (I really don't know where you get those figures) didn't
need/want a burner phone, the market wouldn't be able to support
their creation.

There's no real anonymity (in this sense) when you have software that
doesn't need to take a break or sleep, analyzing piles of data. If
you're hunting for details on a specific person and trying to connect
the dots, it doesn't matter how large your data sample set is, the
program will have no trouble looking through it and building a very
accurate profile of you, the target.

Google reps once commented they could accurately predict the stock
market to the point of interfering with it. They weren't BSing about
that. They can do this because of the data they've collected and the
software resources they have that could process it. And, I seriously
doubt they are the only ones able to do this, if they really wanted
to get into that game.

Computers today are in fact like toasters, because they are
widespread consumer items, easily used by the masses, without
needing to be computer experts or in the case of toasters,
electricians or electrical engineers.

Well, no, actually, computers are nothing like toasters. Granted,
they've been 'dumbed down' for the masses, but, that comes at a great
cost.



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 16:21:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:56 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


As I've told you before, despite your personal opinion
disagreeing with me, A security update IS an update.

Again, if you paid attention, I just told you that despite your
claims, I never said that a security update isn't an "update". I
said that support involves a lot more than just security updates,
that Mozilla has announced the end of Firefox for XP, that they
have discontinued all support for Firefox EXCEPT SECURITY UPDATES.
And even that they have only guaranteed for 5 more months. That
anyone would argue that makes for a "supported" browser, in the
context of someone looking to upgrade a system and run XP for the
future, is just plain silly.

Technically, it IS a supported browser, for the time being. And,
choosing to invest in new hardware to run XP if the machine isn't
running XP specific software for a dedicated purpose is a total
waste of money, time, and resources. The future doesn't include XP
for normal end users.

Wow, that's reassuring. Kind of like saying the car gas gauge is
on empty, but the engine hasn't quite quit running yet.

That's a **** poor comparison, but, I understand your need to provide it.

It's not going to be much of a future for the individual,

Wow, you think?

I didn't state otherwise...

Despite your weak efforts to paint me as a liar, I haven't done
that...


Yes you have. You said that Firefox is continuing updates for
Firefox on XP beside just security updates. That is not true.

No, I haven't lied. I specifically stated:

Message-ID:

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser.

In response to what you wrote:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't accurate, atleast, not yet. Mozilla is still doing
updates for Firefox (a browser) that still runs on XP. Versions
prior to 45.0.8 were still getting minor bugfixes that were not
'security' only related. I already shared the url showing that. I
even pasted it:

Message-ID: XnsA7533DEC0297AHT1@EF5v6vvo88Gb99jhRCMLUhBs9ll7m D.42huA6plCP3M1.sr5O0fzFj25Fz4tqWE

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/securi...firefoxesr45.8

They aren't all security updates as you can see.

Look at 45.3 and down:

45.3 was released in 2016, years past Windows XP eol.

Fixed in Firefox ESR 45.3

2016-80 Same-origin policy violation using local HTML file and saved shortcut file
2016-79 Use-after-free when applying SVG effects
2016-78 Type confusion in display transformation
2016-77 Buffer overflow in ClearKey Content Decryption Module (CDM) during video playback
2016-76 Scripts on marquee tag can execute in sandboxed iframes
2016-73 Use-after-free in service workers with nested sync events
2016-72 Use-after-free in DTLS during WebRTC session shutdown
2016-70 Use-after-free when using alt key and toplevel menus
2016-67 Stack underflow during 2D graphics rendering
2016-65 Cairo rendering crash due to memory allocation issue with FFmpeg 0.10
2016-64 Buffer overflow rendering SVG with bidirectional content
2016-63 Favicon network connection can persist when page is closed
2016-62 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:48.0 / rv:45.3)


At this point, the discussion derailed in what you consider support
to be. And, I understand your need to do that, too. You were wrong
with your initial comment.

****, I just realized you're a google groups groupie. Why not use a
real usenet client and provider?

Nothing is wrong with me. I simply corrected your misleading
statement. Firefox IS still presently supported on Windows XP.

My statement was not misleading, but your BS advice sure is.

My advice as of today is quite sound, thanks. Firefox, despite
your claims, IS still, being updated on Windows XP. Just how many
'new' features do you need in a ****ing web browser? It's job is
to render HTML for christs sake.

You can run a many years old browser and see the problems. I
suspect you're actually using an updated one, like most of us.
But if you really believe that, then feel free to recommend to the
OP that he stay with Firefox on XP for the future.

I run the newest firefox on my linux machines, Yes. I run firefox
45.0.8 on this machine, though. This machine will soon be retired,
though. I've kept it for so long due to the sheer amount of software
and data present on it. Once I'm able to get all/nearly all of the
software up and running on the linux machines, this one will be
retired. It's long past due, anyhow. It's quite old. I built it
nearly fifteen years ago to rip and encode dvd/audio cds,
originally. I didn't go cheap then, either. It's a dual CPU (mated
processors, thank you) and for it's time, it rocked.. But, that time
has long since come and gone. I keep it because, as I said, I have
piles of software I use on it. Alot of that being programming
related things. Some of which will not 'convert' to linux and remain
practical.

Well, duh! And why not? Because IDK of any browser that is still
supported on XP, for one! And no, having just security updates
for just five months, when Mozilla is telling you they are
offering no new support besides that very limited support, doesn't
qualify to a reasonable person, in the context of this thread, as
"supported"\ Good grief!

Your idea of a 'reasonable' person differs from mine.. and your
statement about not knowing of any browser still supported on XP, is
wrong. Firefox, IS. Your idea of supported obviously differs from
mine in this case, too.

Your efforts to redefine terms to suit you obviously make no
difference to me. Supported is Supported. Your red herring
arguments, aside.

Indeed it does. See your question again, then. For proper
context. You specifically! asked me what I'd tell a client or
customer. And I told you. If you wanted me to tell you what I'd
tell the OP, you should have specified the OP, not a client or
customer. Context, right?

Yes, you have a hard time with context. The context of the thread
is the OP's problem, so the context of my question was a customer
in a similar position, not one with a CNC machine or a rocket
ship. Geeesh!

I have no trouble with context. You asked what I'd tell a client or
customer. I answered. I don't know the OP, I've never met them. So,
they couldn't possibly be a client or customer of mine. You didn't
specify 'a customer in a similar position', either. I've already
provided the OP my professional recommendation, several times now,
anyway. Don't waste your money on Windows XP or! Windows 7. I
suggested linux over Windows 10 due to the spyware issues present
(as in built in) to Windows 10 and you disagreed with that. Which is
your perogative. You clearly don't mind being spied on. I do.

I didn't lie about anything, I didn't try to BS anybody. Your
accusations towards me are not accurate. You just didn't appreciate
my correcting your inaccurate statement and exposing your lack of
knowledge on the subject. It's that simple. To your credit though,
I've never seen you claim to be an IT expert. If you did, I'd have
to call bull**** on that too.

[snip rest of your garbage].

You already lost when you resorted to lame personal attacks, false
accusations (lying? wtf? really?), and weak efforts to move goal
posts, anyway. I should have checked your headers closer before I
responded the first time. I have little use for google groupies.

Have a pleasent day, Trader.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 6:27:07 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 15:43:09 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:54 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sun,
09 Apr 2017 15:56:27 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Saturday, April 8, 2017 at 9:17:51 PM UTC-4, Vic Smith
wrote:
On Sat, 8 Apr 2017 23:56:30 -0000 (UTC), Diesel
wrote:


You code in asm? What passes for malware these days is some
pretty sorry ass **** code. I haven't seen an actual virus
infection in years.

Used to. Yes, there's be a lack of viruses of late. Haven't
seen one make the news in years.

Looking at my image archive, it seems to
actually average about every 45 days. It normally takes
from 10 to 30 minutes. Depends on how many updates I have
to do. That includes restoring my base image, updating,
creating new base image. My OS is on a small SSD (64gb)
dedicated to it.

You might want to look into wsus. You can save yourself a
lot of time and bandwidth...

http://download.wsusoffline.net/

Makes doing offsite tech support easier too. No waiting
around, no depending on the users internet connection.


I don't do tech support, and Windows updates have never
been a problem. I update other apps too when I restore, as
I disable all of the auto updates.

You must be one of those rare cases then. Windows update has
had problems going back years on various Windows flavors. MS
has had to issue 'fixes' to correct it, multiple times.

Bottom line is it's normal system maintenance for me.
Started imaging with XP, which was easy to break. I
prefer to install my OS one time only.

This copy of XP was installed over a decade ago. I've yet
to reload it. Had to restore from image once or twice due
to hardware failure. (HD), but, not due to any software
issues, uhh, no.

XP was - and might still be - a target for malware, which I
meant by "break." Win 7 wasn't quite as bad. As I said
Win 10 is the best of the lot. I can't confirm getting any
malware on Win 10. Maybe the hackers are on vacation.

I respectfully disagree with your best of the lot opinion
concerning Windows 10, for reasons I've already stated. But,
hey, if it works for you...it's all gravy. I haven't taken a
vacation in years. Maybe I should consider doing that
sometime this summer. I could probably use it. Hackers aren't
all bad you know. Some of us are quite useful in a positive
sense.

I have no use for them.

One advantage to re-imaging is that while I don't do it
regularly, when I have done it, the PC performance improvement
was substantial. In fact, I think when people buy a new PC and
see a huge increase in performance, I'd bet that a good part of
that, maybe half, is that they are starting with a clean
machine again. If they just did a system restore, they'd also
see a good boost in performance.

The performance boost you're seeing is the file layout.

If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that
degrades the OS performance.

A disk defrag usually cannot for a variety of reasons, restore all
files to contiguous blocks, where as image restoration does do that.
You get the performance boost in file access time with contiguous
blocks of data. Otherwise, your machine is searching for the bits and
pieces which make up the file(s) you're accessing. If you did a
defrag on an ancient OS like DOS, you would see the performance boost
I'm writing about. Windows, oth, doesn't give a defrag program the
opportunity, even if you do a 'boot time' defrag.

Based on what you've written, it's clear to me that you don't have a
firm grasp on how files are actually stored on your hard disk. I
don't fault you for that, mind you, most people don't know/could give
a rats ass. The only time it becomes important is for the purposes of
data recovery.


Now we have the guy who thinks recommending Firefox as a supported
browser to use on Win XP for the future, telling me that IDK how
files are stored on a hard disk. ROFL!



Needless to say, when you tell Windows to 'delete' a file, it didn't
really delete it.

No **** Sherlock. You just figure that out?

There is no point in going any further with you. I could point out
that over the years I've seen many authorities list many reasons that
a PC with a clean install slows down over time. Most of them focus
on the fact that all kinds of software has been installed, removed,
re-installed, corrupting things, adding startup items, etc. Sure,
they include fragmentation as ONE reason, but it's not the only
reason or the prime reason. For one thing, the OS files, most of them
should not become fragmented, because they stay where they are put.
It's the deleting, copying, installing, deleting of other files
that creates most of the fragmentation. But you can go on continue
to believe what you want to believe in your tin hat world. How's
that burner phone doing? ROFL

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 6:27:08 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 15:50:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

[big snip]

I fully realize the vast majority of users are ignorant as hell
concerning how the technology works. Downright ****ing stupid,
in some cases. Ignorance is a curable condition.. stupidity, ehh,
no cure for that.

You think just maybe instead it's that the vast majority of users
realize that google and similar will know we just googled for
"pizza near me" and don't care that the fact that we're looking
for pizza and our location has been sent to google?

Yes, I do. That's why I wrote the stupidity comment above. That don't
care attitude is what makes blackhat work possible, in many cases.

I see, so now those of us who use our smartphones to fine a pizza
or a restaurant are "stupid", unless we do it on a burner phone.
ROFL!




There is also anonymity in numbers. I doubt google has employees
sitting there, monitoring me, interested in the fact that I
googled for pizza, where I'm located and then trying to use that
for some nefarious purposes. In other words, like 99.9% of the
world, I don't need a burner phone.

That's the thing with computers these days though. You don't need an
employee to 'monitor' you or your habits. You can have a program
analyze the data much faster and much more accurately, if you wanted
to. If 99.9% (I really don't know where you get those figures) didn't
need/want a burner phone, the market wouldn't be able to support
their creation.


Wow, it's analyzed that I want to find an Indian restaurant near
where I'm located right now. My God! How awful! BTW, better
not drive in much of the US anymore. The major toll roads, for
example, are scanning your license plates, tracking who comes
and goes. Every car going into and out of NY City is logged.
Time to get a burner car!




There's no real anonymity (in this sense) when you have software that
doesn't need to take a break or sleep, analyzing piles of data. If
you're hunting for details on a specific person and trying to connect
the dots, it doesn't matter how large your data sample set is, the
program will have no trouble looking through it and building a very
accurate profile of you, the target.


There is anonymity because the computer doesn't know me or care
about me versus some guy in India or CA. The computer is finding
me the Indian restaurant near me, not compiling data to blackmail me.




Google reps once commented they could accurately predict the stock
market to the point of interfering with it. They weren't BSing about
that.

If anyone could do that, they would not be bragging they would be
trillionaires. But then you'd believe anything some kook says.

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 6:27:09 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon, 10
Apr 2017 16:21:57 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Monday, April 10, 2017 at 5:59:56 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


As I've told you before, despite your personal opinion
disagreeing with me, A security update IS an update.

Again, if you paid attention, I just told you that despite your
claims, I never said that a security update isn't an "update". I
said that support involves a lot more than just security updates,
that Mozilla has announced the end of Firefox for XP, that they
have discontinued all support for Firefox EXCEPT SECURITY UPDATES.
And even that they have only guaranteed for 5 more months. That
anyone would argue that makes for a "supported" browser, in the
context of someone looking to upgrade a system and run XP for the
future, is just plain silly.

Technically, it IS a supported browser,

Just having security updates is not a supported product. If you're
as familiar with software products as you claim to be, then you'd
know that security updates are just the last part of product
support to go when it's being discontinued. Firefox
has clearly stated that they are ending support and that their users
should move to another browser and platform. Again, what was the
CONTEXT? Someone upgrading a system for the future. Good grief,
you're dense. Just because Firefox is committed to another whopping 5 months of only security updates, you just had to chime in and steer the
OP in the wrong direction. And to top it off, this is for XP, and
MSFT isn't even providing security updates for XP itself. Yet you
claim Firefox on XP is "supported"? ROFL


for the time being. And,
choosing to invest in new hardware to run XP if the machine isn't
running XP specific software for a dedicated purpose is a total
waste of money, time, and resources. The future doesn't include XP
for normal end users.

Wow, that's reassuring. Kind of like saying the car gas gauge is
on empty, but the engine hasn't quite quit running yet.

That's a **** poor comparison, but, I understand your need to provide it.

It's not going to be much of a future for the individual,

Wow, you think?

I didn't state otherwise...

Despite your weak efforts to paint me as a liar, I haven't done
that...


Yes you have. You said that Firefox is continuing updates for
Firefox on XP beside just security updates. That is not true.

No, I haven't lied. I specifically stated:

Message-ID:

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser.

In response to what you wrote:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't accurate, atleast, not yet. Mozilla is still doing
updates for Firefox (a browser) that still runs on XP. Versions
prior to 45.0.8 were still getting minor bugfixes that were not
'security' only related. I already shared the url showing that. I
even pasted it:

Message-ID: XnsA7533DEC0297AHT1@EF5v6vvo88Gb99jhRCMLUhBs9ll7m D.42huA6plCP3M1.sr5O0fzFj25Fz4tqWE

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/securi...firefoxesr45.8

They aren't all security updates as you can see.

Look at 45.3 and down:

45.3 was released in 2016, years past Windows XP eol.

Fixed in Firefox ESR 45.3

2016-80 Same-origin policy violation using local HTML file and saved shortcut file
2016-79 Use-after-free when applying SVG effects
2016-78 Type confusion in display transformation
2016-77 Buffer overflow in ClearKey Content Decryption Module (CDM) during video playback
2016-76 Scripts on marquee tag can execute in sandboxed iframes
2016-73 Use-after-free in service workers with nested sync events
2016-72 Use-after-free in DTLS during WebRTC session shutdown
2016-70 Use-after-free when using alt key and toplevel menus
2016-67 Stack underflow during 2D graphics rendering
2016-65 Cairo rendering crash due to memory allocation issue with FFmpeg 0.10
2016-64 Buffer overflow rendering SVG with bidirectional content
2016-63 Favicon network connection can persist when page is closed
2016-62 Miscellaneous memory safety hazards (rv:48.0 / rv:45.3)


Idiot, that is the PAST! Mozilla has clearly said, NOTHING BUT SECURITY
UPDATES and those only for 5 months!




At this point, the discussion derailed in what you consider support
to be. And, I understand your need to do that, too. You were wrong
with your initial comment.

****, I just realized you're a google groups groupie. Why not use a
real usenet client and provider?

Another example of why you're an idiot. Now you want to start the
silly BS of "my way of engaging with newsgroups is better than yours"
ROFL!



Your idea of a 'reasonable' person differs from mine..

I think everyone here would agree with that. Your idea of reasonable
is that a normal smartphone has to be avoided in favor of a burner
phone.


and your
statement about not knowing of any browser still supported on XP, is
wrong. Firefox, IS. Your idea of supported obviously differs from
mine in this case, too.

Your efforts to redefine terms to suit you obviously make no
difference to me. Supported is Supported. Your red herring
arguments, aside.


Do you deny that support for browsers includes more than just security updates? That Mozilla provides all that support for Firefox on Win 7,
Win 10, but no longer for Firefox on XP? That Mozilla has ended all
support OTHER THAN SECURITY UPDATES and even that is committed to for
only 5 months?

Do you deny that the context of the OP's question was upgrading a
typical desktop system for the future? Do you deny that Mozilla has
said that users of Firefox on XP should move to a SUPPORTED OS and a
SUPPORTED browser because they are eoling Firefox XP?


I didn't lie about anything, I didn't try to BS anybody. Your
accusations towards me are not accurate. You just didn't appreciate
my correcting your inaccurate statement and exposing your lack of
knowledge on the subject. It's that simple.


Yes, it is that simple. If the OP listened to you, he's think Firefox
on XP is swell, a supported browser for the future.



To your credit though,
I've never seen you claim to be an IT expert. If you did, I'd have
to call bull**** on that too.

[snip rest of your garbage].

You already lost when you resorted to lame personal attacks, false
accusations (lying? wtf? really?),

Yes, you are lying. You lied when you said that I claimed that Firefox
was no longer providing any updates of any kind for Firefox on XP.
You lied when you said that Firefox is continuing to provide updates
beyond security updates. And you badly mislead the OP by implying
that Firefox for XP is a supported choice for a browser today and the
future.

trader_4
Tue, 11
Apr 2017 16:05:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Just having security updates is not a supported product.

Nice try, but!, that's not what you wrote originally.

You wrote:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't true.

Again, what was the CONTEXT? Someone upgrading a system for the future.

The future does NOT include Windows XP or Windows 7. I already told
the OP, that, too. The OP has limited options if they are upgrading
for 'the future' And the OP made a poor decision, so this is a
pointless discussion, anyhow.

Good grief, you're dense.

Really? So you wrote the following because?

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

You were wrong, flat out, wrong. Regardless of your pathetic attempt
to move the goal posts, your statement is wrong.

you just had to chime in and steer the OP in the wrong direction.

By suggesting the OP not even bother with 64bit XP or Windows 7?
That's not steering the OP in the wrong direction, that's telling
the OP, straight up, they are WASTING their time and money.

I chimed in, when you wrote the following:
Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

The OP shouldn't have to pay for your ignorance of the subject
matter. Not that it matters either way, the OP has foolishly chosen
to purchase Windows 7. Waste of money... but, hey, it's the OPs
money and the OPs equipment. What's that saying? a fool and his
money are soon parted.. right? Well...

And to top it off, this is for XP, and MSFT isn't even providing
security updates for XP itself. Yet you claim Firefox on XP is
"supported"? ROFL

Despite your efforts to move the goal posts when called out on your
ignorance displayed he

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.


Firefox is still being 'updated' for Windows XP. Security updates,
are, still updates.


[snip]

Idiot, that is the PAST! Mozilla has clearly said, NOTHING BUT
SECURITY UPDATES and those only for 5 months!

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Sorry, but, I knew atleast one browser company was still doing
updates for a browser for XP. The fact you didn't, doesn't make me
the idiot. Attempts to move the goal posts, doesn't make me the
idiot either...

At this point, the discussion derailed in what you consider
support to be. And, I understand your need to do that, too. You
were wrong with your initial comment.

****, I just realized you're a google groups groupie. Why not use
a real usenet client and provider?

Another example of why you're an idiot. Now you want to start the
silly BS of "my way of engaging with newsgroups is better than
yours" ROFL!

Wow. I simply asked you a question, Trader. No reason to become more
defensive and make more assumptions as to why I asked...

I think everyone here would agree with that. Your idea of
reasonable is that a normal smartphone has to be avoided in favor
of a burner phone.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I won't claim to speak
for everyone. If you wish to do so, that's on you. Suffice to say,
if what you said was accurate, why isn't everyone?!? jumping all
over me in this discussion? Something seems to be amiss here...


and your
statement about not knowing of any browser still supported on XP,
is wrong. Firefox, IS. Your idea of supported obviously differs
from mine in this case, too.

Your efforts to redefine terms to suit you obviously make no
difference to me. Supported is Supported. Your red herring
arguments, aside.


Do you deny that support for browsers includes more than just
security updates?

You specifically wrote:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't true. And, I responded to that statement. If you were
clear in what you personally consider an update to be, this discussion
wouldn't have gone this far.

Do you deny that the context of the OP's question was upgrading a
typical desktop system for the future?

Nope. And, I already commented on that, too. I advised them NOT
to waste their time or money on 64bit XP or Windows 7. My opinion
hasn't got a thing to do with his/her choice of browser. It's the
fact XP is already EOL and Windows 7 soon will be. So there's no
'future' to be had with either of them. Not for the OPs purposes,
anyhow. That is, if they think updates mean what you do: new
features, etc.

OTH, If (which is why I brought up CNC machines and plasma cutters)
the machine was being used for a dedicated purpose, it wouldn't
matter which 'version' of Windows they decided to run with, so long
as the dedicated hardware/software supported it. And, I brought up
the dedicated aspect because YOU asked me what I'd tell a client or
customer. See, the thing is, I listen to the client/customer and
determine what they intend to use the machine for, BEFORE I advise
them on what to do. You might want to try that sometime, instead of
writing ignorant statements as you did when you wrote this:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Do you deny that Mozilla has said that users of Firefox on XP
should move to a SUPPORTED OS and a SUPPORTED browser because
they are eoling Firefox XP?

Nope. However, that has nothing to do with what you wrote - which I
responded to, initially:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

I didn't lie about anything, I didn't try to BS anybody. Your
accusations towards me are not accurate. You just didn't
appreciate my correcting your inaccurate statement and exposing
your lack of knowledge on the subject. It's that simple.


Yes, it is that simple. If the OP listened to you, he's think
Firefox on XP is swell, a supported browser for the future.

If the OP listened to me, they wouldn't have gone with Windows 7...I
did not claim Firefox would be a good choice on XP for the 'future'.
I simply corrected your ignorant statement:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Yes, you are lying. You lied when you said that I claimed that
Firefox was no longer providing any updates of any kind for
Firefox on XP.

Actually, I responded to your comment:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which is certainly an ignorant one to make. And, you've attacked me
as well as tried to put words in my mouth AND move goal posts since
then...


You lied when you said that Firefox is continuing
to provide updates beyond security updates.

Er, no. I didn't...

I didn't claim Mozilla was still! doing anything of the sort,
either. I specifically wrote:

Message-ID:

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser.

They were providing NON security related 'updates' to Firefox upto
2016, but, that doesn't matter as I never suggested the OP should
stick with ANY version of XP or Windows 7.

And you badly mislead
the OP by implying that Firefox for XP is a supported choice for a
browser today and the future.

Please feel free to cite MID where I said Firefox for XP (or Windows
7) was a good choice for the future. I can't seem to find one that
supports what you're claiming I wrote.




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Tue, 11
Apr 2017 15:42:04 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Now we have the guy who thinks recommending Firefox as a supported
browser to use on Win XP for the future, telling me that IDK how
files are stored on a hard disk. ROFL!

I didn't say anything about using firefox on Windows XP for the
future. Atleast, not a long term future. I simply commented on your
prior ignorant comment that you knew of no browser still being
updated for XP. You were wrong. ROFL.

And based on what you wrote he

Message-ID:
If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that
degrades the OS performance.

You don't. If you did, you wouldn't have tried to compare what a
defrag program does vs an imaging program. An imaging program doesn't
leave your files in a fragmented state when it stores them inside the
image. It doesn't restore them in a fragmented state, either. It
rounds up all the little pieces and saves it inside the image as a
contiguous block of data.

The *only* time this doesn't apply is when you are doing a forensic
image. It's known as a forensic image for a very specific reason. A
forensic image is created so that you have a complete! and I do mean,
complete copy of the client/suspects hard disk. And, you work from a
copy! of said image, NOT THE ORIGINAL or the clients/suspects drive.

Can you recover data from a damaged file system by hand? Can you
rebuild a wrecked Master boot record/partition table by hand? Can you
recover data the client thought they deleted via normal means, by
hand? Can you recover from a malware issue without resorting to
reloading windows, either via image or from scratch? I can. So, you
can stop writing from your arsehole anytime. You aren't going to
school me on IT. It's just not going to happen.

Just as clarance? shouldn't play electrician, you shouldn't play IT
expert. You aren't one. Stick with the field you know, likely by
college education (IE: someone else had to teach you), leave the IT
stuff to those of us who know what we're doing and didn't require
someone else to teach us all about it, at our own expense.

Needless to say, when you tell Windows to 'delete' a file, it
didn't really delete it.

No **** Sherlock. You just figure that out?

ROFL. Umm, No. On my coco3 (back in the 1980s) I wrote a disk copier,
to defeat the copy protection present on a game intended for the
coco2. At the age of 9. I went to the same Radio Shack where I bought
the game, three days prior and asked the store clerk why he didn't
tell me the game wouldn't copy using the copy command built into the
computers rom chip.

As, it was the first time I'd ever encountered an error backing up a
floppy disc. I'd already copied a lot of others, using the built in
copy command without any trouble. But, this particular game was the
exception. I started writing my program friday night, by monday
morning, before I had to leave for school, I had it working! And, it
worked well. Really well.

I hadn't even heard of copy protection until I experienced it with
that game. I refused to use my originals except to make a copy of
them. And to this day, I do the same. Audio cd/dvd/bluray; they are
opened and a computer reads it one time, start to finish. The
original is placed back into the container and put up for safe
keeping. My discs are in absolutely mint condition as a result. No
scratches, no finger prints, nothing like that. Originals were hard
to replace, money wise, for a kiddo. I took great care of my stuff,
just as I do today.

He laughed and said, that's to make sure that when your disk
eventually gives out, you get to buy another one from us. That ****ed
me off to the point where I went home, made twenty five (yes, 25)
copies of said game and returned to that store. I asked him if I
could show him something on the demo coco3 they had running in the
store. I showed him the game I bought, three damn days ago, running
on the copied floppy. He was more than shocked, I'll put it that way.

I was grinning like a cheshire cat. And then I told him, I've got 24
more of these floppies with me, you smug asshole. I'm going to walk
outside of your store and GIVE THEM AWAY to anyone who wants it. They
don't have to buy it from you. What's more, I also brought a copy of
my program that I wrote, 25 copies of it to be exact, and, I'm going
to give it away to anybody who wants it too. I'm pretty damn sure
based on the way in which it works, it'll defeat ALL forms of copy
protection you assholes used on these floppies. Marking sectors as
bad, conveniently not formatting some (special format trick) was
dirty in my eyes, so I fixed you, and I fixed you good. Oh, and, btw,
I told him, the copies are stripped of your copy protection routines,
too. So, the copies themselves can be copied with the ordinary copy
command in the computer. You only need my program to make the first
one. H0h0h0.

My dad was with me, laughing his ****ing ass off. He told the guy,
"my son isn't like most kids. He takes care of his things, and, he
didn't appreciate being tricked like that. He spent his whole weekend
writing his program to copy that floppy. You don't have anything in
the store that can remain 'copy protected' anymore. And my son, due
to the way in which he feels you tricked him, is going to give you a
taste of your own medicine, and, I'm okay with him doing it, too."

I told the clerk he could keep the diskette I put in his demo machine
as I had plenty of them now, as well as my program. I had plenty of
copies of it too. He was NOT pleased, but, by then, I didn't give two
****s about him. Trying to trick a nine year old kid who worked his
ass off for months to save up enough money to buy the game, and you
do me like that? Heh, **** you. I even demo'd my disk copier for him
with a game I did not have and never saw previously, that was also
'copy protected' and My program did NOT fail. it copied the game
succesfully, on the first try.

I didn't stop there. I also brought along 25 copies of my disc copier
with me. I left one with the store clerk and gave the other 24 away
to anyone who wanted one. no charge, enjoy!

So, I knew about the deletion thing long before I got my first PC,
thanks. In fact, I also wrote what I called a data hiding program. It
would swap out the file allocation table at your request. So you
could save data normally, run my program, the floppy would appear
blank. Load other files onto it, and switch back and forth at your
leisure. Hiding whatever you wanted on the floppy disk. The only
catch was if the floppy neared capacity, you ran the risk of
overwriting one set of your file(s). As my program swapped out the
table and allocated the 'hidden' stuff to the back. Since the table
thought those were free sectors, it would overwrite your hidden stuff
if you used too much of the floppy storage up.

I only brought up the normal deletion process in a wasted effort on
my part to explain one of the differences between a defrag and an
image. Why one boosts performance more than the other. That was all.
There was no need for you to try and be a condescending prick towards
me in your reply.

I did write a DOS based program, in the mid 90s that would secure
delete files and freespace on a hard disk and/or floppy diskette. I
submitted the program to zdnet for review and publication. I won four
out of five possible stars (one star deducted for less than stellar
documentation as was/still is to a point typical for me) coders tend
not to be the best doc writers. We know how our program works, we
wrote it.

You can find it here, if you'd like to check it out:
http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/core/NUKE32A.ZIP

And some of my other ancient 'portable' (love the buzzword) apps
he

http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/core/

I submitted almost all of them to zdnet, and scored four out of five
stars for it. Always a star deducted for the docs, and ONLY the docs.
I've still got some/all of the reviews for them, too. Way back before
DOS 'died' and was still popular. Maybe you've hard of the
shareware/freeware compilation cdroms (mostly for BBS SysOps; which I
was also one)?

If you'd like, I'll post a few of them for your reading pleasure.
Zdnet wasn't cool with crypto submissions; and I learned that the
hard way. I did submit a couple of them and was told they wouldn't be
reviewed or published on cdrom due to their nature. My others though,
they did get published on cdrom. This was way before a typical home
user/small business owner could 'burn' his own cdroms.

Matter of fact, several of the boards I was a Co-SysOp on are
featured on the DVD set known as the 'BBS Documentaries'.

So, not only do I have my honorary masters degrees (two of them to be
exact), along with my ancient as hell Comptia A+/network+ certs (that
are grandfathered, btw), I've also got 'scene' credit too. How about
you?

There is no point in going any further with you. I could point
out that over the years I've seen many authorities list many
reasons that a PC with a clean install slows down over time.

Of course it does. Primarily due to file creation/deletion, etc. As I
outlined in the previous post. Modern OSes tend to create lots of
temp files as a daily part of their operations. And, that doesn't
even include surfing the web. And, then you have normal HD wear and
tear (mechanical drives, primarily) We could get even more specific,
concerning the damage cosmic rays have on the hardware over time,
but, I'm already writing way above your paygrade, so what's the
point.

Most of them focus on the fact that all kinds of software has been
installed, removed, re-installed, corrupting things, adding
startup items, etc.

Ehh, corruption plays a role, but, uhh, that's mostly the flawed
design of later editions of Windows using a proprietary binary
'registry' format (which also consists of a series of files which
change in size and are not 'set in stone' on the hard disk) If the
registry 'hive' which consists of a series of files grows/shrinks in
size, you're fragmenting it in the process. That will also slow your
machine down over time. Using a 'registry' cleaner? Heh, you
shouldn't. Not only for fragmentation issues, but for deleting
keys/values it thinks are harmless, but, your OS and/or installed
apps don't always feel the same way.

Adding anything to a disk that has sectors already marked free god
only knows where, due to normal file i/o activity
(deletion/creation/modification) also contributes to the performance
hit you will eventually experience. It's why an image reload will
cause a larger performance 'boost' than a defrag will on modern
editions of Windows. The defrag has to work with what it has, an
imaging program doesn't have to worry about your sectors condition,
layout, etc.

What you're actually writing about (without realizing it) is losing
the contiguous aspect to the files. The more split up the file(s) you
access are, the longer it's going to take your machine to bring that
file up for you. And, this doesn't just affect your files, either.
This can also affect dll loading, system driver loading, etc. Neither
of those 'OS' files locations are set in stone. They are subject to
being moved around when a defrag is performed.

The more you create/delete, the more the file(s) involved are spread
out all over the place. And, this includes the Windows registry. The
so called registry hive is several files, each with it's own function
and purpose.

reason, but it's not the only reason or the prime reason. For one
thing, the OS files, most of them should not become fragmented,
because they stay where they are put.

Well, not quite. The boot sector, mbr, etc, does tend to remain in
one place. Most of your system dlls and drivers will remain in the
same place, until you run that defrag for the first time.

Then, they'll be shuffled around at the sector level too, as the
defragger works. As, the defrag routines are trying to make as many
files as contiguous as is possible. In order to do that, it temp
relocates sector data as it shuffles things around. Moving nearly
everthing you incorrectly think remains in the same place.

You also have the windows swap file, as well as the hibernation file
to contend with. While the hibernation file on Vista+ is default to
75% of total system ram, the swap file can grow/shrink in size
depending in Windows present needs, unless you manually configure it
to be a specific size. The swap file cannot be defragged while
Windows is up and running, but, the hibernation file, can. If you opt
for a boot time defrag, that's when the swap file can get moved
around if needbe.

In both cases, more sectors are used/freed up (according to the file
tables); which results in, you guessed it, fragmentation and
eventually a noticable performance hit. Running defrag? It's
trying hard to straighten out a big mess at the sector level, but, to
do that, it might have to move files around that you had no idea
would be touched. Like your system dlls and system drivers. Your
'OS' files, you wrote about, previously. Their locations on disk are
not set in stone and ARe most certainly subject to changing locations
if a defrag operation is performed. If windows has to wait on your
hard disk to find the entire file due to it being spread out across
multiple sectors in different areas of the hard disk, you will
experience delays.

This also contributes over time to performance hits. Windows has to
be able to load dlls, of course. the dll isn't treated any
differently at the sector level than the word file (just an example)
that contains your families secret cookie recipes. This can cause a
'delay' in the app/Windows itself requesting functions from that dll,
since it has to load it, and, in order to do that, it's gotta find
all the pieces that goto it. And this applies for your system drivers
as well.

Since your defragger might have prioritized files it assumes you use
more often, based on access date/time stamps, that OS file you
thought never moves, might have been moved towards the end of the
drive. Or, in some cases, only a piece of it is now sitting towards
the end with the rest in the middle and/or towards the front. Now,
windows gets to search for the pieces in order to load the function
that's being requested from that dll. Or, the system driver it needs
to run say, your video card properly.

So, you're going to notice a delay. Windows 'slows down' as a result.
It's a trade off with the defrag route. OTH, a disk image doesn't do
any of this silly ****. It finds your files, all the pieces, stores
it contiguously inside the image. And, when you initially reload from
this image, it's just like having a clean slate, because it's not
reloading the image at the sector level the way it found it. Unless,
you're doing a forensic restore and for that, you had to create a
forensic image, first. Otherwise, You get a snappy machine again. For
awhile...and the vicious cycle repeats.

Some programs, like utorrent for example try to reduce the chances of
the fragmentation by pre-allocating the space the complete torrent
contents will require. If you downloaded say, a linuxmint ISO that's
1.5gigs, the program is going to create a file of 1.5 gigs, and fill
the file in as the download progresses.

The idea behind this is to reduce the level of fragmentation. It's
hoping that the 1.5 gigs is either outright contiguous blocks
(sectors) or close to it. Vs expanding the file as it retrieves more
pieces to it which is more likely going to be split across sectors
that are not near one another, due to other file write operations
occuring as it runs. Such as your 'updated' web browser while you're
surfing say, google groups.

A long time ago, Prodigy was falsely accused of spying on it's users
because it opted to pre-allocate a specific file to a certain size.
As the file is pre-allocated, whatever might be in the 'unused'
sectors that already contained data you could not access via normal
means is going to show up in that file, until it's over written later
by the prodigy software. Or, something else, like, another file.

Based on that, some ignorant people (such as yourself) mistakenly
thought it was 'spying' on them, because they could see bits and
pieces of their own data; left behind when they thought they
'deleted' the file, or when their word processor deleted a temporary
file containing it as it 'saved the changes' to the document you were
working on. Or perhaps some of their accounting data that was
temporarily saved to disk while the 'master' file was being updated
with the changes.

But you can go on continue to believe what you want to believe in
your tin hat world.

What you confuse for a tinhat world is IT 101. And, by the looks of
things, you haven't made it that far. ROFL.

How's that burner phone doing? ROFL

It's running the latest and greatest Android OS, and it's been
rooted. So, quite nicely I'd say. It's a quad core, too. with a
rather pleasant looking large screen. A bit too big to fit in my
pocket, but, I like it. It's almost the size of a small tablet.

Hows your monthly bill (which is most likely more than what I pay
every 30 days for unlimited time and data which isn't throttled if I
exceed a certain amount, unlike most major carriers) that's tied to
your actual name and address?

And, did I mention, I own this phone; there's no contract of any
kind. Nobodies going to try and bill me for early termination fees if
I don't like the service I get. Which, btw, uses the same cell towers
as your phone that likely cost a lot more than what I paid for mine.
And, mine probably has more 'features' than yours, since I rooted it
already. ROFL.

You can remain trying to be a wiseass prick towards me if you'd like,
I'll just continue to respond in kind by taking you to IT school, in
front of your 'pals' that have gone very silent in this
discussion...

It greatly amuses me too. You mistakenly think I'm some peon or
wannabe that you're going to walk all over. You couldn't be more
wrong.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Tue, 11
Apr 2017 15:47:12 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 6:27:08 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Mon,
10 Apr 2017 15:50:08 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

[big snip]

I fully realize the vast majority of users are ignorant as
hell concerning how the technology works. Downright ****ing
stupid, in some cases. Ignorance is a curable condition..
stupidity, ehh, no cure for that.

You think just maybe instead it's that the vast majority of
users realize that google and similar will know we just googled
for "pizza near me" and don't care that the fact that we're
looking for pizza and our location has been sent to google?

Yes, I do. That's why I wrote the stupidity comment above. That
don't care attitude is what makes blackhat work possible, in many
cases.

I see, so now those of us who use our smartphones to fine a pizza
or a restaurant are "stupid", unless we do it on a burner phone.
ROFL!

Reading comprehension can be a difficult skill to learn. Some just
don't do well with it...You're trying (and failing
miserably, too I might add) to put words in my mouth, again.

There's no real anonymity (in this sense) when you have software
that doesn't need to take a break or sleep, analyzing piles of
data. If you're hunting for details on a specific person and
trying to connect the dots, it doesn't matter how large your data
sample set is, the program will have no trouble looking through
it and building a very accurate profile of you, the target.


There is anonymity because the computer doesn't know me or care
about me versus some guy in India or CA. The computer is finding
me the Indian restaurant near me, not compiling data to blackmail
me.

LOL. The computer doesn't care what it's being tasked with,
actually. It has no idea the information it's collecting/already
collected on you could be used for nefarious purposes. That's
entirely upto the individual(s) collecting the data. I'd like to
think everybodies an honest joe with all of it, but, I know better,
from first hand experience doing nasty things to people with your
attitude and mindset. Ignorance is bliss, right?


If anyone could do that, they would not be bragging they would be
trillionaires. But then you'd believe anything some kook says.

LOL. Well, no, actually I wouldn't. I would however seriously
consider the value of something written by a former Google employee
who did more than maintain say, the coffee makers or change paper in
the office printers.

Like, oh, say this:

https://www.quora.com/What-would-hap...e-stock-market

Rob Ennals, former Product Manager at Google (2010-2015)
Written 39w ago · Upvoted by William Chen, Data Scientist at Quora
and Jenelle Bray, Head of Security Data Science at LinkedIn

In theory the data Google has could be used to predict short term
stock market movements extremely well. However using user data in
this way would severely violate Google's deeply held principles
about use of user data, and so there is no way that Google would
ever actually do that. It would also likely be illegal under insider
trading law.

If Google turned "evil" then there is a lot of data they could
theoretically use for 'insider trading'. They have email, calendars,
location information, search history - this could be very effective
at predicting future mergers, deals, and how well a company is
likely to be doing prior to releasing quarterly results.

However there is no way in hell that Google would ever use user data
in this way. Google's entire business model relies on the fact that
users trust Google to keep their private data private, and to only
apply machine-analysis to their data in ways that are clearly
ethical. Any employee who tried to work around Google's (extremely
strictly enforced) data access policies to get data that could be
used for stock trading would be fired very quickly.

It's also likely that this behaviour would be considered illegal
under insider trading laws.

Google is not the only company with these properties. Plenty of
other companies are trusted to be stewards of data that could, if
abused, be used for insider trading - including telephone companies,
delivery companies, credit card companies, etc.

But hey.. what would he know about Googles abilities or lack there
of, right? You obviously know more than him. Well, you seem to think
you do, anyhow.

The more BS you write, Trader, the more I laugh at you. You're
really entertaining.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 04/12/2017 04:36 AM, Diesel wrote:

[snip]

I didn't say anything about using firefox on Windows XP for the
future. Atleast, not a long term future. I simply commented on your
prior ignorant comment that you knew of no browser still being
updated for XP. You were wrong. ROFL.

I have one XP/FF system, and I got an update (52.0.2) after this thread
began.

[snip]

Sam E
Wed, 12 Apr 2017 19:25:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 04/12/2017 04:36 AM, Diesel wrote:

[snip]

I didn't say anything about using firefox on Windows XP for the
future. Atleast, not a long term future. I simply commented on
your prior ignorant comment that you knew of no browser still
being updated for XP. You were wrong. ROFL.

I have one XP/FF system, and I got an update (52.0.2) after this
thread began.

[snip]


SHHH! You aren't suppposed to be backing up Anything I wrote, man.
Trader will not be pleased. But, *I* do thank you for your post,
regardless.

Btw, if you don't mind the slight convenience for you, could you take
a peek at your about button and tell me specifically which flavor of
52.0.2 it is? Thanks! I know this sounds like a silly question on the
surface, but, if you take a peek here (and scroll down a ways) you'll
understand...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake107/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake108/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake109/
Dir 52.0.2/
Dir 52.0.2esr/



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On 04/12/2017 08:29 PM, Diesel wrote:

[snip]

Btw, if you don't mind the slight convenience for you, could you take
a peek at your about button and tell me specifically which flavor of
52.0.2 it is? Thanks! I know this sounds like a silly question on the
surface, but, if you take a peek here (and scroll down a ways) you'll
understand...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake107/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake108/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake109/
Dir 52.0.2/
Dir 52.0.2esr/

I put a picture of that help window at http://notstupid.us/IMG_5794

It changed to ESR just before updating to 52 (2 updates, one just
changed the channel, the other loaded 52).
--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The world is proof that God is a committee." [Bob Stokes]

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:39:33 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Tue, 11
Apr 2017 15:42:04 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Now we have the guy who thinks recommending Firefox as a supported
browser to use on Win XP for the future, telling me that IDK how
files are stored on a hard disk. ROFL!

I didn't say anything about using firefox on Windows XP for the
future. Atleast, not a long term future.

Yet that was the whole context of the thread and my post was made in
that context. Thanks for proving my point that you can't understand
context.



I simply commented on your
prior ignorant comment that you knew of no browser still being
updated for XP. You were wrong. ROFL.

From Mozilla:


Important - Firefox is ending support for Windows XP and Vista
Firefox version 52 will be the last complete update for Windows XP and Windows Vista. Security updates will be released, but no new features.
Why is Firefox support ending for Windows XP and Vista users?
Firefox is one of the only browsers to offer any support for Windows XP and Vista. Microsoft itself ended support for Windows XP in 2014 and will end support for Windows Vista in 2017. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates, have known exploits, and can be dangerous to use, which makes it difficult to maintain Firefox on those versions."


Now, put that in the *context* of the OP, ie someone upgrading a system
for the future and my statement that IDK of any browser still supported
for XP is accurate. Mozilla has said they are eoling it, that there will
be only security updates from now on and that is only committed to for
5 months.





And based on what you wrote he

Message-ID:
If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that
degrades the OS performance.

You don't. If you did, you wouldn't have tried to compare what a
defrag program does vs an imaging program.


I never made any such comparison, there you go again, idiot.



Needless to say, when you tell Windows to 'delete' a file, it
didn't really delete it.

No **** Sherlock. You just figure that out?

ROFL. Umm, No. On my coco3 (back in the 1980s) I wrote a disk copier,
to defeat the copy protection present on a game intended for the
coco2. At the age of 9. I went to the same Radio Shack where I bought
the game, three days prior and asked the store clerk why he didn't
tell me the game wouldn't copy using the copy command built into the
computers rom chip.


Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we don't care.



But you can go on continue to believe what you want to believe in
your tin hat world.

What you confuse for a tinhat world is IT 101. And, by the looks of
things, you haven't made it that far. ROFL.

The tin hat part is that you're obviously obsessed with "privacy"
while the vast majority of users of PCs and smartphones today
are not. Obsessed to the point that you think you need a burner
phone. Maybe you do, IDK what you're doing, but obviously the
vast majority of us don't need burner phones. And it's also
curious that someone so obsessed with security, thinks using
Firfox today on XP, which receives no updates, no support, no
security updates, is a "supported" browser environment.




How's that burner phone doing? ROFL

It's running the latest and greatest Android OS, and it's been
rooted. So, quite nicely I'd say. It's a quad core, too. with a
rather pleasant looking large screen. A bit too big to fit in my
pocket, but, I like it. It's almost the size of a small tablet.

Hows your monthly bill (which is most likely more than what I pay
every 30 days for unlimited time and data which isn't throttled if I
exceed a certain amount, unlike most major carriers) that's tied to
your actual name and address?

And, did I mention, I own this phone; there's no contract of any
kind. Nobodies going to try and bill me for early termination fees if
I don't like the service I get. Which, btw, uses the same cell towers
as your phone that likely cost a lot more than what I paid for mine.
And, mine probably has more 'features' than yours, since I rooted it
already. ROFL.

You can remain trying to be a wiseass prick towards me if you'd like,

I'd say you're the wise as prick. And I'm not the only one in this
thread that apparently thinks so either.


I'll just continue to respond in kind by taking you to IT school, in
front of your 'pals' that have gone very silent in this
discussion...


IDK which "pals" you're referring to, but silence obviously says
nothing about anyone else supporting your claims, though I'm not
surprised you think it does.

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:39:33 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Tue, 11
Apr 2017 16:05:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Just having security updates is not a supported product.

Nice try, but!, that's not what you wrote originally.

You wrote:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't true.


In the context of the OP, who is upgrading a system FOR THE FUTURE,
it is true , because Mozilla has ended all support other than security
updates. Security updates are the last part of support to go, and even
that is only committed for JUST 5 MORE MONTHS. And even XP has no
support period, not even security updates, from MSFT. Is that a
supported environment? And over this, you want to pick stupid nits?
The OP needs a browser for the future, at best FF is there for just
5 months!

"Important - Firefox is ending support for Windows XP and Vista
Firefox version 52 will be the last complete update for Windows XP and Windows Vista. Security updates will be released, but no new features.
Why is Firefox support ending for Windows XP and Vista users?
Firefox is one of the only browsers to offer any support for Windows XP and Vista. Microsoft itself ended support for Windows XP in 2014 and will end support for Windows Vista in 2017. Unsupported operating systems receive no security updates, have known exploits, and can be dangerous to use, which makes it difficult to maintain Firefox on those versions."

Now, if you were a computer consultant and had a client who was
upgrading a desktop system and asked if Firefox was a supported browser
that they should use, what would you tell them?

"Well, let's see if you are running a CNC machine......, blah, blah,
blah.... Firefox is still supported, blah blah, blah.

I gave him the simple, correct, short answer. FF isn't supported
for what he's doing. Mozilla has ended all support except for
security updates, and even that is only guaranteed for just 5 months.
To you, that's "supported" and worth a whole big detour into the
wilderness. Good grief!

If they guy had asked, are there still security updates for Firefox
for a few more months, I would have given a different answer.
Again CONTEXT is everything.



Again, what was the CONTEXT? Someone upgrading a system for the future.

The future does NOT include Windows XP or Windows 7.

Nor obviously Firefox for XP, yet here you are, disagreeing, arguing
and misleading the OP. If he listens to me, he realizes FF isn't
supported on XP. If he listened to you, he thinks it is supported
and apparently peachy keen for his upgrade scenario, because *again*,
that was the context of the question!


IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

The OP shouldn't have to pay for your ignorance of the subject
matter.

My "cost"? ROFL. If he listened to me, he's be on a modern
browser that is supported. Listening to you, he'd put Firefox for XP
on the system he plans to upgrade, because according to you, it's
"supported". ROFL


Not that it matters either way, the OP has foolishly chosen
to purchase Windows 7. Waste of money... but, hey, it's the OPs
money and the OPs equipment. What's that saying? a fool and his
money are soon parted.. right? Well...

Wow, and a minute ago you accused me of wasting his money? Now
money doesn't matter? ROFL



And to top it off, this is for XP, and MSFT isn't even providing
security updates for XP itself. Yet you claim Firefox on XP is
"supported"? ROFL

Despite your efforts to move the goal posts when called out on your
ignorance displayed he

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.


Firefox is still being 'updated' for Windows XP. Security updates,
are, still updates.


Security updates are not the only part of product support, which is
a concept you clearly don't understand. Security updates are the very
last part of support to go and even that is going in just 5 months!





[snip]

Idiot, that is the PAST! Mozilla has clearly said, NOTHING BUT
SECURITY UPDATES and those only for 5 months!

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Sorry, but, I knew atleast one browser company was still doing
updates for a browser for XP. The fact you didn't, doesn't make me
the idiot. Attempts to move the goal posts, doesn't make me the
idiot either...

At this point, the discussion derailed in what you consider
support to be. And, I understand your need to do that, too. You
were wrong with your initial comment.

****, I just realized you're a google groups groupie. Why not use
a real usenet client and provider?

Another example of why you're an idiot. Now you want to start the
silly BS of "my way of engaging with newsgroups is better than
yours" ROFL!

Wow. I simply asked you a question, Trader. No reason to become more
defensive and make more assumptions as to why I asked...


There you go lying yet again. You did not just ask a question.
You claimed that people who use google groups are somehow inferior
as an attack on me and wanted to start another whole pointless debate.
WTF is it your business as to how others access newsgroups, which
are a dying vehicle anyway?


I think everyone here would agree with that. Your idea of
reasonable is that a normal smartphone has to be avoided in favor
of a burner phone.

Once again, you're putting words in my mouth. I won't claim to speak
for everyone. If you wish to do so, that's on you. Suffice to say,
if what you said was accurate, why isn't everyone?!? jumping all
over me in this discussion? Something seems to be amiss here...


and your
statement about not knowing of any browser still supported on XP,
is wrong. Firefox, IS. Your idea of supported obviously differs
from mine in this case, too.

Your efforts to redefine terms to suit you obviously make no
difference to me. Supported is Supported. Your red herring
arguments, aside.


Do you deny that support for browsers includes more than just
security updates?

You specifically wrote:

Message-ID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't true. And, I responded to that statement. If you were
clear in what you personally consider an update to be, this discussion
wouldn't have gone this far.

Do you deny that the context of the OP's question was upgrading a
typical desktop system for the future?

Nope. And, I already commented on that, too. I advised them NOT
to waste their time or money on 64bit XP or Windows 7. My opinion
hasn't got a thing to do with his/her choice of browser. It's the
fact XP is already EOL and Windows 7 soon will be. So there's no
'future' to be had with either of them. Not for the OPs purposes,
anyhow. That is, if they think updates mean what you do: new
features, etc.

OTH, If (which is why I brought up CNC machines and plasma cutters)
the machine was being used for a dedicated purpose, it wouldn't
matter which 'version' of Windows they decided to run with,

There you go again with the CNC BS. Does the OP have a CNC?
You sure have a problem with understanding context.

On 04/13/2017 09:12 AM, Wayne Boatwright wrote:
On Thu 13 Apr 2017 12:57:05a, Mark Lloyd told us...

On 04/12/2017 08:29 PM, Diesel wrote:

[snip]

Btw, if you don't mind the slight convenience for you, could you
take a peek at your about button and tell me specifically which
flavor of 52.0.2 it is? Thanks! I know this sounds like a silly
question on the surface, but, if you take a peek here (and scroll
down a ways) you'll understand...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake107/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake108/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake109/
Dir 52.0.2/
Dir 52.0.2esr/

I put a picture of that help window at
http://notstupid.us/IMG_5794

It changed to ESR just before updating to 52 (2 updates, one just
changed the channel, the other loaded 52).

I checked he help screen on my latest update of FIrefox and it only
shows 52.0.2. Nowhere does it display "ESR".


Mozilla had announced they were changing to the "ESR channel" for XP
systems updating to 52. I don't know why yours is different.

--
Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"The world is proof that God is a committee." [Bob Stokes]

Wayne Boatwright
9.44 Thu, 13 Apr
2017 14:12:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Thu 13 Apr 2017 12:57:05a, Mark Lloyd told us...

On 04/12/2017 08:29 PM, Diesel wrote:

[snip]

Btw, if you don't mind the slight convenience for you, could you
take a peek at your about button and tell me specifically which
flavor of 52.0.2 it is? Thanks! I know this sounds like a silly
question on the surface, but, if you take a peek here (and scroll
down a ways) you'll understand...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake107/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake108/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake109/
Dir 52.0.2/
Dir 52.0.2esr/

I put a picture of that help window at
http://notstupid.us/IMG_5794

It changed to ESR just before updating to 52 (2 updates, one just
changed the channel, the other loaded 52).

I checked he help screen on my latest update of FIrefox and it only
shows 52.0.2. Nowhere does it display "ESR".

Which OS are you using?




--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Mark Lloyd Thu, 13
Apr 2017 07:57:05 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On 04/12/2017 08:29 PM, Diesel wrote:

[snip]

Btw, if you don't mind the slight convenience for you, could you
take a peek at your about button and tell me specifically which
flavor of 52.0.2 it is? Thanks! I know this sounds like a silly
question on the surface, but, if you take a peek here (and scroll
down a ways) you'll understand...

https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/

Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake107/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake108/
Dir 52.0.2-funnelcake109/
Dir 52.0.2/
Dir 52.0.2esr/

I put a picture of that help window at
http://notstupid.us/IMG_5794

It changed to ESR just before updating to 52 (2 updates, one just
changed the channel, the other loaded 52).

Hmm.. Which OS is the one using ESR and the other using non ESR?


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Thu, 13
Apr 2017 14:45:43 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Yet that was the whole context of the thread and my post was made
in that context. Thanks for proving my point that you can't
understand context.

I understand context just fine, You have a serious issue when
someone points out an erroneous comment you wrote, though.
It *wasn't* personal. You seem to be taking it personally though.

Your reply taken IN context was in error, on your part. Firefox is
updated for windows XP/vista users for the time being. 52 series
added new features, not just security updates. And, presently, as
confirmed by two others who've already posted, it is still being
provided to XP/Vista users. Making your entire defense of your
erroneous comment null and void. Even with your efforts to move the
goalposts and redefine what updates means.

Now, put that in the *context* of the OP, ie someone upgrading a
system for the future and my statement that IDK of any browser
still supported for XP is accurate. Mozilla has said they are
eoling it, that there will be only security updates from now on
and that is only committed to for 5 months.

I did. Your statement is still wrong. They were mulling over
upgrading to XP 64bit. For the time being, Firefox is still being
updated for it.

Really now.....

Message-ID:

AFAIK, 52.0.2 is the latest FF browser version...

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

And, once again, You're wrong. Firefox 52 includes new 'features';
it's not security updates only. And, uhh, XP can *still* use it.

I never made any such comparison, there you go again, idiot.

You shouldn't continue calling me an idiot when it's clear as hell
to myself and others, evidently, that you're the one who's ignorant
on this subject. Besides, I was taught a long time ago for debate
class, that if you have to resort to personal attacks, your side
already lost.

Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we
don't care.

No further interest in discussing the low level details of file
systems, then? Are you sure you don't want to tell me how
defraggers and imaging programs actually work anymore? How about
sector level access? File/data deletion aspects? No? :-)

Yea, I noticed you didn't answer any of my legitimate 'data/system
recovery' questions, either. I don't even wonder why that is.

I tried to tell you, Trader, I'm not an average joe you're going to
walk all over. You seem to have gotten quite used to being one of
the 'top dogs' around here. In your own field, you might very well
be... but, not in the field of IT. You should have kept your
ignorant mouth shut instead, imo.

I wouldn't know what the rest of you think about my posts, actually.
You tried to speak for everyone else once already, and, well, that
didn't work out so well. Sam E is running XP with FF52.0.2 (likely
ESR if using XP/Vista) In other words, it's still getting
updates;security, non security. New features were added to FF52
series. check the release notes, don't take my word for it.


The tin hat part is that you're obviously obsessed with "privacy"
while the vast majority of users of PCs and smartphones today
are not.

It's not tin hat stuff, it's due entirely to what I used to do and
still know how to do. I like to keep people with my skillsets OUT of
my stuff. And, if you think people like me are in that much of a
minority, then you haven't been paying attention to any of the press
releases/technical reports concerning botnets, data breaches, etc.

ALL of that is possible for people 'like me' because ignorant people
like you consider these machines to be like toaster ovens; due to
the dumbed down aspect of them and act accordingly. I preached
personal responsibility during my active time as a Vxer, and I still
believe in that today. You've been a shining example of why I
preached it then and continue to do so now, FWIW.

OTH, I know this machine isn't a toaster oven and shouldn't be
treated like one. Despite MS best efforts to turn it into a simple
to use 'appliance'

In other words, you drank the koolaid and asked for more. I didn't.

Obsessed to the point that you think you need a burner
phone. Maybe you do, IDK what you're doing, but obviously the
vast majority of us don't need burner phones. And it's also
curious that someone so obsessed with security, thinks using
Firfox today on XP, which receives no updates, no support, no
security updates, is a "supported" browser environment.

Alas, it does still recieve updates... Despite your efforts to move
the goal posts.

From this url (at the bottom):
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

Migrated Firefox users on Windows XP and Windows Vista operating
systems to the extended support release (ESR) version of Firefox.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurerelea...-xp-and-vista/

I'd say you're the wise as prick. And I'm not the only one in
this thread that apparently thinks so either.

I'm not the one writing from his arsehole trying to be condescending
as he does so. That's what you've been doing. And, I wouldn't even
try speaking for what others may/may not think about me, you, or
this discussion. You have though. including your childish personal
attacks, idiot, etc. You are an adult, right?

I'll just continue to respond in kind by taking you to IT school,
in front of your 'pals' that have gone very silent in this
discussion...


IDK which "pals" you're referring to, but silence obviously says
nothing about anyone else supporting your claims, though I'm not
surprised you think it does.

Well... lol, the silence has been broken:

Message-ID:
Message-ID:

That's *two* seperate posters so far, running EOL versions of
Windows that got the latest Firefox and actually took the time to
comment, in this very thread.

See what you get for making assumptions involving "everyone" else?

Your ass, handed to you, on a silver platter.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Thu, 13
Apr 2017 15:05:40 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 5:39:33 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Tue,
11 Apr 2017 16:05:13 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Just having security updates is not a supported product.

Nice try, but!, that's not what you wrote originally.

You wrote:

Message-ID:


IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Which isn't true.


In the context of the OP, who is upgrading a system FOR THE
FUTURE, it is true , because Mozilla has ended all support other
than security updates. Security updates are the last part of
support to go, and even that is only committed for JUST 5 MORE
MONTHS. And even XP has no support period, not even security
updates, from MSFT. Is that a supported environment? And over
this, you want to pick stupid nits? The OP needs a browser for the
future, at best FF is there for just 5 months!

If the OP needs a 'browser' for the future, they might want to
seriously consider an OS that's still going to be getting updates,
for the future. XP/Vista is not. Windows 7 will soon be in the same
boat. You're the one with the comprehension issue. Although Windows 7
haven't officially reached EOL yet, various companies are already no
longer supporting it. As long as you don't need those companies
offerings though, you can still continue to run Windows 7.

OTH, If you do, it's time to consider a different version of Windows,
different software package, OR an outright OS change.

Now, if you were a computer consultant and had a client who was
upgrading a desktop system and asked if Firefox was a supported
browser that they should use, what would you tell them?

Ahh, you've rephrased your question. Cute, but, it makes no
difference.

The first thing I'm going to ask them is what are you planning to do
with the upgrade. Is this going to be for normal every day use, OR, a
dedicated purpose? That distinction determines my response.

"Well, let's see if you are running a CNC machine......, blah,
blah, blah.... Firefox is still supported, blah blah, blah.

See above. Btw, part of the work I do is consulations...So, I'm
writing from first hand experience here. I have been the entire time.
We're in different lines of 'work', so I can see how you may have
missed that. Despite the obvious hints I dropped about it.

I gave him the simple, correct, short answer.

Umm, actually, you told him you didn't know of any browser still
supported on XP, and, at the time, the OP didn't tell any of us what
he planned to use the 'upgraded' machine for. While I agree your
answer was a simple and short one, at the time of the OPs post, I
don't know if i'd go so far as to claim it was the correct one. More
details were needed in order to do that. Details you didn't ask for
or wait for the OP to provide, before you made your ignorant
comment...


If they guy had asked, are there still security updates for
Firefox for a few more months, I would have given a different
answer. Again CONTEXT is everything.

For some reason, based on our interactions, I *seriously* doubt it.
You may try to backtrack all you like, but, when you wrote what you
did, I think you actually believed it. In other words, you didn't
know FF was still being updated for XP/vista users. You do now,
though. Thanks to me. You're welcome, btw.

If he listened to you, he thinks it is
supported and apparently peachy keen for his upgrade scenario,
because *again*, that was the context of the question!

Oh, he didn't listen to much of anything I advised. He spent funds on
a near EOL OS, multiple times. He might have even gone so far as to
purchase 64bit XP had I not posted. Maybe, he did. The OP doesn't
seem to be interested in taking sound advice when it's freely
offered, imo.

My "cost"? ROFL. If he listened to me, he's be on a modern
browser that is supported. Listening to you, he'd put Firefox for
XP on the system he plans to upgrade, because according to you,
it's "supported". ROFL

round and round you go. I'm starting to get dizzy watching you.

Not that it matters either way, the OP has foolishly chosen
to purchase Windows 7. Waste of money... but, hey, it's the OPs
money and the OPs equipment. What's that saying? a fool and his
money are soon parted.. right? Well...

Wow, and a minute ago you accused me of wasting his money? Now
money doesn't matter? ROFL

You previously accused me of having reading comprehension issues and
trouble with context...Interesting how you go and demonstrate both
weaknesses yourself.

Security updates are not the only part of product support, which
is a concept you clearly don't understand. Security updates are
the very last part of support to go and even that is going in just
5 months!

A concept I don't understand? Really?

http://bughunter.it-mate.co.uk/changes.txt

That's just one of mine, btw. I mentioned I worked for malwarebytes
for a number of years, previously didn't I? If not, I just did. I
wasn't in customer service, if that helps, Trader. I was in one of
the technical departments.

Wow. I simply asked you a question, Trader. No reason to become
more defensive and make more assumptions as to why I asked...


There you go lying yet again. You did not just ask a question.
You claimed that people who use google groups are somehow inferior
as an attack on me and wanted to start another whole pointless
debate. WTF is it your business as to how others access
newsgroups, which are a dying vehicle anyway?

Wow...

The death of usenet has been predicted now for a decade or more. It
hasn't happened, just yet. Using a real client instead of the
terrible google groups interface does give you more options. I wasn't
trying to 'attack' you with my question. It's been my experience,
typically, that google group 'groupies' (it's not a phrase I coined,
either) don't know about usenet clients/usenet servers, or the
features google isn't able to provide them as a result. THAT is why I
asked you. But, hey, if you're okay with posts not inline with thread
replies, having to allow google scripts to run, and forced to use a
web browser that google likes, fine with me. I wouldn't dream of
trying to convert you.


Nope. And, I already commented on that, too. I advised them NOT
to waste their time or money on 64bit XP or Windows 7. My opinion
hasn't got a thing to do with his/her choice of browser. It's the
fact XP is already EOL and Windows 7 soon will be. So there's no
'future' to be had with either of them. Not for the OPs purposes,
anyhow. That is, if they think updates mean what you do: new
features, etc.

OTH, If (which is why I brought up CNC machines and plasma
cutters) the machine was being used for a dedicated purpose, it
wouldn't matter which 'version' of Windows they decided to run
with,

There you go again with the CNC BS. Does the OP have a CNC?

I don't know if they do or not. If you were an IT tech, you'd
understand why my reply wasn't BS as you put it. In order to provide
the best advice, one must know (or have a damn good idea) what it is
the customer/client wants out of the machine.

Btw, you snipped the rest of my reply...Which is important, for
proper context...And, I'm not even trying to paint you as a liar for
doing it, unlike what you tried (and failed) doing with me.

This is what I wrote. I did remove the last line exposing your
ignorance on browsers being updated for XP, though. I'm not out to
get you, and, I don't take what you write, personally. Unlike
yourself.

OTH, If (which is why I brought up CNC machines and plasma cutters)
the machine was being used for a dedicated purpose, it wouldn't
matter which 'version' of Windows they decided to run with, so long
as the dedicated hardware/software supported it. And, I brought up
the dedicated aspect because YOU asked me what I'd tell a client or
customer. See, the thing is, I listen to the client/customer and
determine what they intend to use the machine for,

You sure have a problem with understanding context.

Well, one of use seems to, that's for sure.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Bud Frede
Fri, 14 Apr 2017
12:21:05 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Diesel writes:


As far as the android phones go...I use burner phones. They
aren't associated with my name. So, google has no way of tracking
me, personally, no.

I don't think that they're operating at the personal level that
much (at least for now). Google is more interested in behaviors,
preferences, dislikes, and other things that can be applied to a
broad segment of the population.

Nor do I...

In other words, they'll treat you as a member of one or more
groups that you share characteristics with. They want to sell
advertising that's well-targeted at you and people like you, and
they want to design their apps and services so that you and people
like you will have a good experience using them so you'll spend
more time on Google properties (and they'll have more chances to
show you ads and collect even more data).

Ayep. The thing is though, I don't really use the phone for much
other than making calls.. maybe sending an occasional text message.
If I want to surf the net, etc, I have a real computer, with a real
screen, mouse, keyboard, etc for that. Well, uhh, multiple computers,
but, you get the idea.

Your use of phones not associated with your name doesn't really
change any of this, because it's what you do with your phone that
they care about and not your name so much.

They aren't getting much useful information from my activities. I
treat it like an electronic dog collar and act accordingly.


--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

Your use of phones not associated with your name doesn't really
change any of this, because it's what you do with your phone that
they care about and not your name so much.


OK we have a lot of computer expertise in this thread, I have a question that's been bugging me.

Windows machine with Adobe XI reader.

When I open a .pdf, any .pdf, after a few minutes, my Sunbelt firewall tells me that Adobe is trying to contact IP address 65.202.58.25. When I disallow it, it tries 65.202.184.89. I checked the Adobe updater setting and it is turned OFF, no updates, do NOT check for updates.

the IP address show up as Verizon in Brooklyn NY.

WTF is Adobe doing and how do I stop it.

It appears they do not respect my request to not check for updates.

thanks

Mark

Sat, 15
Apr 2017 02:30:45 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:


Your use of phones not associated with your name doesn't really
change any of this, because it's what you do with your phone
that they care about and not your name so much.


OK we have a lot of computer expertise in this thread, I have a
question that's been bugging me.

Windows machine with Adobe XI reader.

Hmm.. Which version of Windows?

When I open a .pdf, any .pdf, after a few minutes, my Sunbelt
firewall tells me that Adobe is trying to contact IP address
65.202.58.25. When I disallow it, it tries 65.202.184.89. I
checked the Adobe updater setting and it is turned OFF, no
updates, do NOT check for updates.

Is sunbelt by chance providing the port it's trying to reach on
either IP address?

the IP address show up as Verizon in Brooklyn NY.

That doesn't really mean much on it's own.

WTF is Adobe doing and how do I stop it.

It may be sending statistics data. Have you by chance tried to
examine it with Wireshark? IE: have Wireshark running when you open a
pdf and wait for it to try to contact either IP address? Wireshark
can provide you all sorts of details, including the raw packet data.

It appears they do not respect my request to not check for
updates.

I don't think it's checking for updates...



--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:45:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Thu, 13
Apr 2017 14:45:43 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Yet that was the whole context of the thread and my post was made
in that context. Thanks for proving my point that you can't
understand context.

I understand context just fine,

Obviously not. Because the context was a person upgrading a system's
hardware and software for the future. The post I replied to, that
poster further set the context by posting:


" From some of your posting you say
that the main problem is with the graphics of the internet. The web
sites and brousing programs are not supporting win xp to ammount to
anything any more. That may be part of the problem. "


To which I responded:

+1

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any browsers
for XP. And each month, what's left gets further and further away
from working with websites that are updated.


To which you posted:

"You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser. "


Now you claim there was no attack. Another lie, of course.
My comment, in context, was accurate. Your reply, on it's face
was stupid, because it's already 2017. Mozilla has stated that
support for Firefox on XP is ending, all support other than
security updates is gone, and even those they have only committed to
for 5 more months. In the context of the thread, someone looking
for the future, for a browser that is compatible with today's
websites, supported, my comment and advice was accurate. What you
chimed in with would leave the OP believing that Firefox is fine,
is supported, when in fact Mozilla has told it's users that they
are ending support, to move, that all that left are 5 months of
security updates. Good grief.





You have a serious issue when
someone points out an erroneous comment you wrote, though.
It *wasn't* personal. You seem to be taking it personally though.

You have a serious issue when your first reply to someone is a
snide, condescending remark for no reason.



Your reply taken IN context was in error, on your part. Firefox is
updated for windows XP/vista users for the time being.

Another lie. Mozilla has said there is no more updating, no more
bug fixes, nothing other than SECURITY UPDATES and only that for
5 months. What a swell environment to recommend for the OP to
use on a system being upgraded for the future.


52 series
added new features, not just security updates.

Why can't you understand that was in THE PAST and Mozilla has said
that is now OVER?


And, presently, as
confirmed by two others who've already posted, it is still being
provided to XP/Vista users. Making your entire defense of your
erroneous comment null and void. Even with your efforts to move the
goalposts and redefine what updates means.

You're lying again. Or Mozilla is lying:

https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Firef...x/td-p/1374444


"Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release."

But heh, feel free to mislead the OP updating his systems and
tell him that Firefox is supported on XP for the future.



Now, put that in the *context* of the OP, ie someone upgrading a
system for the future and my statement that IDK of any browser
still supported for XP is accurate. Mozilla has said they are
eoling it, that there will be only security updates from now on
and that is only committed to for 5 months.

I did. Your statement is still wrong. They were mulling over
upgrading to XP 64bit. For the time being, Firefox is still being
updated for it.

Really now.....

Message-ID:

AFAIK, 52.0.2 is the latest FF browser version...

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

And, once again, You're wrong. Firefox 52 includes new 'features';
it's not security updates only. And, uhh, XP can *still* use it.


Do you not understand that release is IN THE PAST? It's OVER!
With your first post on this, you apparently didn't even know it
was already 2017. Good grief.



I never made any such comparison, there you go again, idiot.

You shouldn't continue calling me an idiot when it's clear as hell
to myself and others, evidently, that you're the one who's ignorant
on this subject. Besides, I was taught a long time ago for debate
class, that if you have to resort to personal attacks, your side
already lost.


This coming from the jerk who's first post to me was an attack.



Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we
don't care.

No further interest in discussing the low level details of file
systems, then? Are you sure you don't want to tell me how
defraggers and imaging programs actually work anymore? How about
sector level access? File/data deletion aspects? No? :-)

As perfectly clear in the thread, I never told you or anyone how
defraggers work. You're lying, *again*.




Yea, I noticed you didn't answer any of my legitimate 'data/system
recovery' questions, either. I don't even wonder why that is.

I tried to tell you, Trader, I'm not an average joe you're going to
walk all over. You seem to have gotten quite used to being one of
the 'top dogs' around here. In your own field, you might very well
be... but, not in the field of IT. You should have kept your
ignorant mouth shut instead, imo.


This from the jerk who was just whining about me getting personal.
Go figure.



I wouldn't know what the rest of you think about my posts, actually.
You tried to speak for everyone else once already, and, well, that
didn't work out so well.

I never spoke for anyone else, yet another lie.



Sam E is running XP with FF52.0.2 (likely
ESR if using XP/Vista) In other words, it's still getting
updates;security, non security. New features were added to FF52
series. check the release notes, don't take my word for it.


https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Firef...x/td-p/1374444

Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release."


Who should people believe about support? You or Mozilla?




The tin hat part is that you're obviously obsessed with "privacy"
while the vast majority of users of PCs and smartphones today
are not.

It's not tin hat stuff, it's due entirely to what I used to do and
still know how to do. I like to keep people with my skillsets OUT of
my stuff.

Yet you claim that an old browser, running on an old OS for which
there are no security updates, is a "supported" way to engage
with the internet.


And, if you think people like me are in that much of a
minority, then you haven't been paying attention to any of the press
releases/technical reports concerning botnets, data breaches, etc.

ALL of that is possible for people 'like me' because ignorant people
like you consider these machines to be like toaster ovens; due to
the dumbed down aspect of them and act accordingly. I preached
personal responsibility during my active time as a Vxer, and I still
believe in that today. You've been a shining example of why I
preached it then and continue to do so now, FWIW.

OTH, I know this machine isn't a toaster oven and shouldn't be
treated like one. Despite MS best efforts to turn it into a simple
to use 'appliance'

In other words, you drank the koolaid and asked for more. I didn't.

Obsessed to the point that you think you need a burner
phone. Maybe you do, IDK what you're doing, but obviously the
vast majority of us don't need burner phones. And it's also
curious that someone so obsessed with security, thinks using
Firfox today on XP, which receives no updates, no support, no
security updates, is a "supported" browser environment.

Alas, it does still recieve updates... Despite your efforts to move
the goal posts.

From this url (at the bottom):
https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

Migrated Firefox users on Windows XP and Windows Vista operating
systems to the extended support release (ESR) version of Firefox.

https://blog.mozilla.org/futurerelea...-xp-and-vista/


Followed of course by this:


Can I still browse safely with Firefox?
In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release.


Note that the calendar has advanced. It's not only 2017, which you
didn't know with your first post, it's now April.




I'd say you're the wise as prick. And I'm not the only one in
this thread that apparently thinks so either.

I'm not the one writing from his arsehole trying to be condescending
as he does so.

Your very first remark to me:

"You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser. "

It's obvious who the condescending asshole really is.



That's what you've been doing. And, I wouldn't even
try speaking for what others may/may not think about me, you, or
this discussion. You have though. including your childish personal
attacks, idiot, etc. You are an adult, right?


ROFL. This after all the attacks you just made above.


I'll just continue to respond in kind by taking you to IT school,
in front of your 'pals' that have gone very silent in this
discussion...


IDK which "pals" you're referring to, but silence obviously says
nothing about anyone else supporting your claims, though I'm not
surprised you think it does.

Well... lol, the silence has been broken:

Message-ID:
Message-ID:

That's *two* seperate posters so far, running EOL versions of
Windows that got the latest Firefox and actually took the time to
comment, in this very thread.

See what you get for making assumptions involving "everyone" else?

Your ass, handed to you, on a silver platter.

Wake up. It's April, those updates were in the PAST.


"Can I still browse safely with Firefox?
In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release."

Wow, no more bug fixes, no more compatibility fixes, just security
updates and those are only committed to for 5 more months. What
part of "find a different supported browser" don't you understand?

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:45:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:


Now, if you were a computer consultant and had a client who was
upgrading a desktop system and asked if Firefox was a supported
browser that they should use, what would you tell them?

Ahh, you've rephrased your question. Cute, but, it makes no
difference.


I only rephrased it because you insist on playing word games,
when the context of the thread, the question, my post are perfectly
clear.



The first thing I'm going to ask them is what are you planning to do
with the upgrade. Is this going to be for normal every day use, OR, a
dedicated purpose? That distinction determines my response.


If you read the post, he said he was upgrading a desktop system.
That's not a CNC or an ATM. Got it now?



"Well, let's see if you are running a CNC machine......, blah,
blah, blah.... Firefox is still supported, blah blah, blah.

See above. Btw, part of the work I do is consulations...So, I'm
writing from first hand experience here. I have been the entire time.
We're in different lines of 'work', so I can see how you may have
missed that. Despite the obvious hints I dropped about it.


You have no idea what line of work I'm in or my background, fool.


I gave him the simple, correct, short answer.

Umm, actually, you told him you didn't know of any browser still
supported on XP, and, at the time, the OP didn't tell any of us what
he planned to use the 'upgraded' machine for. While I agree your
answer was a simple and short one, at the time of the OPs post, I
don't know if i'd go so far as to claim it was the correct one.

I see, so now you "don't know if it was the correct one". ROFL
Now you don't know! Then why did you post this as your first, immediate
response:

"You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser. "


Seems you knew then. Now you don't know! Until 2017? It's April 2017
right now!



More
details were needed in order to do that. Details you didn't ask for
or wait for the OP to provide, before you made your ignorant
comment...


ROFL. And here you are, the one now backtracking, calling me the
ignorant one? You didn't even know what year it was!



OTH, If (which is why I brought up CNC machines and plasma cutters)
the machine was being used for a dedicated purpose, it wouldn't
matter which 'version' of Windows they decided to run with, so long
as the dedicated hardware/software supported it. And, I brought up
the dedicated aspect because YOU asked me what I'd tell a client or
customer. See, the thing is, I listen to the client/customer and
determine what they intend to use the machine for,

You sure have a problem with understanding context.

Well, one of use seems to, that's for sure.


ROFL. There you go again, wandering in the wilderness. CNC? Plasma
cutters? The guy has a desktop system, try reading the post next time.

trader_4
Sat, 15
Apr 2017 15:48:10 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:45:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Thu,
13 Apr 2017 14:45:43 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Yet that was the whole context of the thread and my post was
made in that context. Thanks for proving my point that you
can't understand context.

I understand context just fine,

Obviously not. Because the context was a person upgrading a
system's hardware and software for the future. The post I replied
to, that poster further set the context by posting:

It did nothing of the sort. You wrote that you knew of no browser
updates for XP. Your comment, was wrong.

Now you claim there was no attack.

There wasn't.

Another lie, of course.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what that specific word means.


My comment, in context, was accurate.

Your comment, taken exactly as you wrote it, was not accurate.

Your reply, on it's face was stupid, because it's already 2017.

Last time I checked, it was still April. Not September.

Mozilla has stated that support for Firefox on XP is ending

Indeed, they have. They haven't officially decided the date just yet
though. And, support=updates last time I checked.


In the context of the thread, someone looking for the future

Nice spin, but, er, no cigar. The future doesn't include Windows XP
or Windows 7. And, if you're running new hardware as well as some
6th generations, it doesn't include Windows 8/8.1 either. It's going
to be Windows 10 (bleh) or Linux, or, a flavor of unix. Those will
be everyones 'options' very soon if they wanna run new hardware. So,
the entire facade of upgrading a machine for the 'future' is a
****ing joke if you're 'upgrading' to 64bit XP or Windows 7.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._on_new_chips/

The OP clearly didn't know this, and, based on your weak as ****
all defense, you didn't either. And, it's NOT even new news, here.

for a browser that is compatible with today's websites, supported, my comment and advice was accurate.

No, your comment wasn't accurate...


What you chimed in with would leave the OP believing that Firefox
is fine, is supported, when in fact Mozilla has told it's users
that they are ending support, to move, that all that left are 5
months of security updates. Good grief.

Please again, cite MID where I stated or even implied that with my
initial reply to you. I asked you to do this once already. You do
know what an MID is right?

You have a serious issue when
someone points out an erroneous comment you wrote, though.
It *wasn't* personal. You seem to be taking it personally though.

You have a serious issue when your first reply to someone is a
snide, condescending remark for no reason.

Regardless of how you chose to take my reply to you, it was still an
accurate reply. And the reason I responded in the first place is
because you wrote an erroneous statement. You didn't specify you
knew of no other browsers for the 'future'. You specifically stated
that you didn't know about any browsers still being updated for use
with XP, and, your statement is wrong.

I never suggested the OP should remain with XP or 'upgrade' to
Windows 7. I've consistently recommended NOT doing either.

Your reply taken IN context was in error, on your part. Firefox
is updated for windows XP/vista users for the time being.

Another lie. Mozilla has said there is no more updating, no more
bug fixes, nothing other than SECURITY UPDATES and only that for
5 months. What a swell environment to recommend for the OP to
use on a system being upgraded for the future.

Do you know what the word contradiction means? As, you're doing it,
again.


52 series
added new features, not just security updates.

Why can't you understand that was in THE PAST and Mozilla has said
that is now OVER?

52 series isn't in the past. Did you not read the release notes?
Updates are updates, no matter how you try to redefine what the word
means.

k And, presently, as
confirmed by two others who've already posted, it is still being
provided to XP/Vista users. Making your entire defense of your
erroneous comment null and void. Even with your efforts to move
the goalposts and redefine what updates means.

You're lying again. Or Mozilla is lying:

Excuse me? I provided MIDs of two! other posters who are still
running Windows XP that are now using 52.0.2. For some reason (a
screwup on Mozilla's end no doubt and it wouldn't be the first time)
one is using ESR now, and, the other one hasn't been switched over,
yet.

"Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows
Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support
Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important
Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do
not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release."

But heh, feel free to mislead the OP updating his systems and
tell him that Firefox is supported on XP for the future.

I responded to your erroneous statement concerning firefox updates
on XP. I've stated from day one! that the OP should NOT pursue XP
64bit or Windows 7. So, where exactly did I mislead the OP?

Provide an MID, if you don't mind.

Now, put that in the *context* of the OP, ie someone upgrading
a system for the future and my statement that IDK of any
browser still supported for XP is accurate. Mozilla has said
they are eoling it, that there will be only security updates
from now on and that is only committed to for 5 months.

I did. Your statement is still wrong. They were mulling over
upgrading to XP 64bit. For the time being, Firefox is still being
updated for it.

Really now.....

Message-ID:

AFAIK, 52.0.2 is the latest FF browser version...

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

And, once again, You're wrong. Firefox 52 includes new
'features'; it's not security updates only. And, uhh, XP can
*still* use it.


Do you not understand that release is IN THE PAST? It's OVER!
With your first post on this, you apparently didn't even know it
was already 2017. Good grief.

52.0.2 hasn't been out very long. You assumed I didn't know what
year it was because I neglected to include a specific month with my
original comment? That's a bit desperate, Trader.

You shouldn't continue calling me an idiot when it's clear as
hell to myself and others, evidently, that you're the one who's
ignorant on this subject. Besides, I was taught a long time ago
for debate class, that if you have to resort to personal attacks,
your side already lost.


This coming from the jerk who's first post to me was an attack.

Jerk is an improvement, but, still falls along the lines of 'if you
have to resort to personal attacks, you've already lost'; Did you
not take debate class in school, or, did you manage to fail it?

Now, that question was a very 'snide' one. Intentionally. Just so
you can see the difference between being 'cheeky' (aka; wiseass, but
in a playful manner) with you, and actually being a Jerk towards
you.

Concerning your ignorance of the subject of IT in general, it's not
a personal opinion, it's a fact; based on what you wrote about
defragging/imaging software and 'OS files' never being moved. Last
time I checked, DLL files as shipped with Windows along with device
drivers are infact, 'OS' files, and they are moved around from the
very first defrag you do. You went on to try and talk down to me
concerning how sector level access actually works and what happens
to so called 'deleted' files, too. That was a mistake to do, on your
part. Granted, you know nothing about me; we've had very little
interaction here, but.. there's a saying about don't judge a book by
it's cover. And it certainly applies in this case.

My first post to you on this subject was this:

MID:

You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will still
support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche' browser.

Granted, I should have included the words 'towards the end of 2017'
or specified the month that Mozilla is mulling over, as, they
haven't set it in stone yet, but I digress. I thought! wrongly it
was implied. In other words, Trader, I'm well aware of the present
year. I have to sign forms (with a pen rofl) on a near daily basis
with the current date, thanks.

In response to what you wrote:

MID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Notice, I'm not paraphrasing your post, or altering it in any possible way

My initial response to you wasn't even all that rude on the face of
it. I just called into question your expertise. After further
discussion with you on the subject of IT related things, I wasn't
wrong, either.


Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we
don't care.

No further interest in discussing the low level details of file
systems, then? Are you sure you don't want to tell me how
defraggers and imaging programs actually work anymore? How about
sector level access? File/data deletion aspects? No? :-)

As perfectly clear in the thread, I never told you or anyone how
defraggers work. You're lying, *again*.

Oh, it's perfectly clear in the thread, yes. Right here infact:

MID:
If that's the case, then doing a disk defragmentation should also
give a similar boost. I've never seen that happen. I think there
is a lot more there that gets added, corrupted over time that
degrades the OS performance.

Written by you, in response to what I wrote he

MID: XnsA7533DEAB9FACHT1@EF5v6vvo88Gb99jhRCMLUhBs9ll7m D.42huA6plCP3M1.sr5O0fzFj25Fz4tqWE

The performance boost you're seeing is the file layout.
[snip rest of my own post] and, uhh, it is.

Based on what you wrote, it's clear that you thought
defraggers and imaging software had some things in common; they
worked in a similar fashion. They do not. Corruption typically plays
a very small role in Windows file access delays. Typically. It's
much more to do with (as I've gone into great detail previously to
explain) where the bits and pieces to the files you/the os needs
are, and how far apart these pieces may be.

You should stop with the liar routine, though. it's not true and
it's getting rather stale. I haven't lied to you or anyone else
concerning anything in this excessively long thread.

Btw, another advantage to using a real usenet client is that you can
keep copies of posts and locate MIDs of said posts, should you
want/need to do so. It also keeps copies of posts written and
maintains proper threading order; which also gives me various ways
in which to view the thread contents. Allows for searching bodies of
messages, anytime I like too, no live internet connection required
because my client is storing the messages locally once I open the
thread or subscribe to the newsgroup; it's my choice.

Which is also a more efficient use of my WAN side bandwidth.
I don't have to reload a page via google to review a prior post.
It's already here. And, didn't require downloading hundreds of
kilobytes of additional data completely unrelated to the post. The
items your browser requires to render this post for you, via google.

But, you took my question to you about using
google groups personally and didn't give me the chance to explain
why I'd asked. Also, using a real usenet client, depending on client
and rendering options, keeps you a bit safer while reading posts. My
client won't, for example, render inline HTML that could be present
in a post. IE: You can't slip me a mickey with plaintext. My client
doesn't try to interpret anything.. Unless! I want it to.

OTH, I *could* slip you one, since I know you're using a browser to
read these posts. And, you already told me which browser it is too.
I could even rig the mickey to hit you, based on your header data,
and leave everybody else alone that might also read with html
enabled. probably a good thing I don't waste my time doing things
like that anymore with the exception of proof of concept code with
my friends and my own things. Still need to keep the skills
relevant, to remain useful as one of the 'good guys' you know.

Oh, one more thing on that subject, if you think google would stop
me dead in my tracks and/or stop it from going live on your machine
when you opened the next post from me, think again. Re-read what I
wrote above. I don't do the theoritical game so much as I do viable
proof of concept code. Code, my man, not theories.

I'm not trying to convince you to switch by letting you know all of
this, either. I'm sure you have a reason for using google groups
that makes sense to you, which is why I asked why you preferred to
access usenet in that manner. I tend to avoid other 'web portals' as
well; which happens to be what google is in this context.

This from the jerk who was just whining about me getting personal.
Go figure.

I'm not whining about anything, actually. I simply commented on your
need to make things personal. You still haven't answered any of my
questions concerning your actual abilities, or rather, lack of,
either. Sorry, couldn't help but notice that. You seem to be for the
most part, an end user, based on what you've written and refuse to
respond to, so far. I accept that I could be wrong about that, but,
I don't presently believe that's the case here.

I mean no offense with the end user remark, either. Without end
users, There'd be no real need for people like me. You're our bread
and butter.

I wouldn't know what the rest of you think about my posts,
actually. You tried to speak for everyone else once already, and,
well, that didn't work out so well.

I never spoke for anyone else, yet another lie.

Yes, you did.

MID:
Wow, I'm sure your parents were impressed. The rest of us, we don't care.

MID:
Who should we believe?

MID:
Please cite for us the evidence that Win 10 sends audio recordings
of us unless we choose to use Cortana.

MID:
I think everyone here would agree with that.

You just flat out, lied your ****ing ass off when you stated that
you didn't speak for anyone else...Another disadvantage you have
viewing usenet via google groups vs a real client. It's harder for
you to review your own posts, than it is for me to do the same.

You might want to rethink your strategy. I don't have reading
comprehension issues (I'd make for a terrible hacker if I did; as
in, ex convict from prison, terrible) and I haven't been lying in
this thread.

Sam E is running XP with FF52.0.2 (likely
ESR if using XP/Vista) In other words, it's still getting
updates;security, non security. New features were added to FF52
series. check the release notes, don't take my word for it.


https://support.mozilla.org/t5/Firef...t-ending-for-W
indows-XP-does-this-mean-Firefox/td-p/1374444

Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

Security updates tend to be about safety...*shrug*

Who should people believe about support? You or Mozilla?

Answered already. Hundreds? of lines ago, now.

Yet you claim that an old browser, running on an old OS for which
there are no security updates, is a "supported" way to engage
with the internet.

Firefox 52.0.2 isn't old. AFAIK, it's the most recent version for
public use, outside of daily builds, etc. An old OS doesn't
automagically make you a hackers (like me) bitch, either.

If you'd like to discuss various aspects of hacking as it relates to
computing and electronics (oh, especially electronics), perhaps you
should create a new thread? I'd be happy to offer you some advice
and knowledge, free of charge. Which is a very kind thing of me to
offer you, considering I usually bill $50 per hour for my time. And,
I get it too. My rate is very reasonable considering the
competitions.

Much more so when you consider the services I can provide, in shop,
vs the ones that depend on 3rd party software they didn't write, or
have the knowledge required to even try writing...They just wind up
outsourcing it to me (with their markup passed along to their
client), anyway. The last line is in reference to shops local to me
that are in the PC repair/support business like myself.

Although I'm technically their competition, they still use my
services for the special jobs they run across. I'm very good at what
I do, and I have a proven track record for it, too. That and I don't
try to take their customers by reaching out to them when I have
their machine at my shop when the client thinks it's still where
they took it. At the end of the day, imo, it doesn't matter
which company or person does the actual service work, as long as
it's done, and done right. A happy client is a repeat client for all
of us.

I wouldn't put your system or it's contents at actual risk,
either. Suffice to say, if hacking was as easy to do as various
scaremongering news reports make it out to be, well, I'd be a
trillionaire... If I disregarded moral and ethical code and just
didn't care about the harm I caused. Damn road blocks are keeping me
from those trillions. Damn them. Damn them all to hell. [g]

Do you have a best buy store in your area? I ask you this because,
the repair discs their techies (geek squad) have included a copy of
MY BugHunter program along with several other freeware/commercial
utilities of it's kind. It may still include my program, I haven't
seen a newish copy of the disc in awhile. I didn't ask for the one
that I acquired.

Which is how I know what was (might still be) on it. That's
entirely my fault, I did state in the licensing agreement you could
use it all you wanted for commercial purposes too without paying me
a cent. Hirens Boot cd also included my BugHunter app. I'd hope they
don't anymore, considering I haven't updated it in YEARS and, as
with other utilities of it's kind, it's only as useful as it's last
definitions (database) update.

Followed of course by this:

[snip]

Covered already...

Any reason you can't trim what you won't respond to? I know you can
do that with the interface you've chosen to use to interact with on
usenet.

Note that the calendar has advanced. It's not only 2017, which
you didn't know with your first post, it's now April.

ROFL. I didn't know it was 2017? That's ****ing hillarious, seriously.
Granted, I should have included the words 'towards the end of 2017'
or specified the month that Mozilla is mulling over, as, they
haven't set it in stone yet, but I digress.

That was a big mistake on my part, I can see that now. I'll be sure
to write things at the appropriate reading level for you in the
future. Say that of a small child in 1st grade or so. So that there
can be no possible confusion.

Your very first remark to me:

"You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will
still support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche'
browser. "

Yep, in response to your comment:

MID:

IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

It's obvious who the condescending asshole really is.

I don't recall claiming I couldn't be an asshole...I'd be a liar for
sure, If I did. I wasn't being condescending when I wrote the
initial reply to you, either. You didn't know FF was still being
updated on XP systems. If you did, you wouldn't have written what
you did. And, I didn't take your reply out of context, either. You
don't seem to be one who likes to admit when he's wrong..

That's what you've been doing. And, I wouldn't even
try speaking for what others may/may not think about me, you, or
this discussion. You have though. including your childish
personal attacks, idiot, etc. You are an adult, right?


ROFL. This after all the attacks you just made above.

Oh c'mon now, you're being very childish at this point. It's
not necessary for you to do so. Seriously though, asking if you're
actually an Adult is attacking you? If so, you need thicker skin.
This is usenet. What did you use to access usenet prior to Google?
Were you even reading/posting on usenet before then?

Wake up. It's April, those updates were in the PAST.

I'm wide awake, thanks. Second pot of coffee will do that for you.
FF 52.0.2 was released on March 28th of this year, so, uhh, while it
was released in the 'past' it wasn't released that far in the past.
We're not even talking a month out, yet.

Wow, no more bug fixes, no more compatibility fixes, just security
updates and those are only committed to for 5 more months. What
part of "find a different supported browser" don't you understand?

Umm, I understand the discussion just fine. I also understand that
you posted inaccurate information and I replied to your post
containing it. What part of that is giving you such a hard time?

Btw...

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._on_new_chips/
13 Apr 2017 at 23:37, Shaun Nichols

Microsoft has cut software updates and tweaks for computers powered
by Intel and AMD's latest-generation processors running old versions
of Windows.

The Redmond giant is no longer serving software fixes to PCs and
other systems that run Windows 7 or Windows 8.1 on Intel's fresh new
Kaby Lake or AMD's hot-off-the-fab Ryzen chips. Those machines will
now be required to update to Windows 10 in order to obtain future
improvements. Critical security patches will still be offered for
now, though.

Microsoft argues this is all because it can't be bothered supporting
the latest silicon, such as Intel's 7th-gen Core series, on anything
other than Windows 10.

Src: https://blogs.windows.com/business/2...y-for-windows/

Embarrassingly, Redmond's update code has locked out some
sixth-generation AMD Carrizo chips and reportedly some recent-ish
Intel CPUs, even though those components are still eligible for bug
fixes and tweaks for Windows 7 and 8. Microsoft is working on
resolving this, apparently.

The whole policy was enforced from this week onwards, coinciding
with Microsoft releasing its badly organized April patch bundle.

Src: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._tuesday_mess/

Ouch. Good read, but, ouch.

So, umm, just how does the MS koolaid taste? What flavor is it
supposed to be? And, does it reasonably taste like it?

You know, other than binary posts, this has probably got to be one
of the longest, if not, the longest post I've ever written on
usenet! And, I don't even benefit from it. You and anyone else
reading may, though. It's educational. I wouldn't have it any other
way. ROFL.

If you've got something new to bring to the table, please do,
Otherwise, I consider this subject closed.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4
Sat, 15
Apr 2017 15:58:22 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Ahh, you've rephrased your question. Cute, but, it makes no
difference.


I only rephrased it because you insist on playing word games,
when the context of the thread, the question, my post are
perfectly clear.

I'm not playing any word games...Your initial reply to the op was
perefectly clear, yes. You didn't know that firefox was still being
updated and still worked on Windows XP. You couldn't have been more
clear concerning it.

The first thing I'm going to ask them is what are you planning to
do with the upgrade. Is this going to be for normal every day
use, OR, a dedicated purpose? That distinction determines my
response.


If you read the post, he said he was upgrading a desktop system.
That's not a CNC or an ATM. Got it now?

What he said doesn't matter as far as that reply of mine goes. You
asked me what I'd tell a customer or client. I answered you. You didn't
ask me what I'd tell the op, because I already told the OP upgrading to
XP 64bit or Windows 7 was a bad idea. You specifically asked what I'd
tell a customer or client. Not the OP. Reading comprehension, right?

See above. Btw, part of the work I do is consulations...So, I'm
writing from first hand experience here. I have been the entire
time. We're in different lines of 'work', so I can see how you
may have missed that. Despite the obvious hints I dropped about
it.


You have no idea what line of work I'm in or my background, fool.

Unless you lied to me, I do. I asked you about it, in another
discussion we had sometime back, in this very newsgroup. You told me
that you were an Electrical Engineer. Did you lie to me? Do you need
the MID? [g] Granted, it was quite awhile ago, so you may not have
remembered it. I'll hunt the MID down for you, if you'd like me to do
so. I even told you that I respected what you did, but, you probably
don't remember that either.

Umm, actually, you told him you didn't know of any browser still
supported on XP, and, at the time, the OP didn't tell any of us
what he planned to use the 'upgraded' machine for. While I agree
your answer was a simple and short one, at the time of the OPs
post, I don't know if i'd go so far as to claim it was the
correct one.

I see, so now you "don't know if it was the correct one". ROFL
Now you don't know! Then why did you post this as your first,
immediate response:

Uhm. You go and quote what I actually wrote, alter it in your
paraphrased quote and claim I don't know? Other than being a trollish
thing to do...it does something else I didn't ask you to do for me.
Which is to demonstrate a reading comprehension issue on your end...

I was politely telling you, that I didn't agree with your claim that
you provided him the correct answer. I can dumb this down further if
you need me to do so. "if I'd go so far as to claim" are very important
words, and, when removed as you did, alter the context of the line
itself. Are you sure you want to accuse me of having reading
comprehension issues, again? As, uhh, you're demonstrating what you
think I have, yourself. ROFL. Or, you've been beaten down so much by
me, that you feel the need to try for obvious trolling. Which is it? I
seek clarification.

"You must not know much about the subject, then. Firefox will
still support XP until 2017. And firefox isn't exactly a 'niche'
browser. "


Seems you knew then. Now you don't know! Until 2017? It's
April 2017 right now!

I'm beginning to think it's the former, with a bit of the latter tossed
in for good measure.

More details were needed in order to do that. Details you didn't
ask for or wait for the OP to provide, before you made your ignorant
comment...


ROFL. And here you are, the one now backtracking, calling me the
ignorant one? You didn't even know what year it was!

See above.

ROFL. There you go again, wandering in the wilderness. CNC?
Plasma cutters? The guy has a desktop system, try reading the
post next time.

I did read his post. You disagreed with the comment I wrote, to you
(not the OP), about Firefox being updated on XP. You asked me what I'd
tell a customer or client, not what I'd tell the OP. Hence, my example
with CNC/Plasma cutter. Two perfectly good examples of dedicated
purpose machines. Trader, I have to tell you man, you aren't a very
good troll. In fact, your trolling skills seem to be on par with your
IT knowledge.

--
I would like to apologize for not having offended you yet.
Please be patient. I will get to you shortly.

trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, April 11, 2017 at 6:27:09 AM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:

[snip rest of your garbage].

You already lost when you resorted to lame personal attacks, false
accusations (lying? wtf? really?),

Yes, you are lying. You lied when you said that I claimed that
Firefox
was no longer providing any updates of any kind for Firefox on XP.
You lied when you said that Firefox is continuing to provide updates
beyond security updates. And you badly mislead the OP by implying
that Firefox for XP is a supported choice for a browser today and the
future.


I use Opera ... because I felt that FF was getting too bloated to run well
on my hardware about 2 or 3 years ago . I don't know what FF's plans are for
Linux support , but it was installed as the default browser on the Linux
Mint I installed a couple of days ago . Thread below has more details about
that install .
--
Snag



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 8:39:45 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 15
Apr 2017 15:58:22 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Ahh, you've rephrased your question. Cute, but, it makes no
difference.


I only rephrased it because you insist on playing word games,
when the context of the thread, the question, my post are
perfectly clear.

I'm not playing any word games...Your initial reply to the op was
perefectly clear, yes. You didn't know that firefox was still being
updated and still worked on Windows XP. You couldn't have been more
clear concerning it.



The only support left for Firefox is security updates for 5 months.
There is no support at all, no security updates, for XP. Only an
idiot would argue that is a supported environment for a guy looking
to upgrade his PC for the future. But then here you are. Again,
CONTEXT is everything.



The first thing I'm going to ask them is what are you planning to
do with the upgrade. Is this going to be for normal every day
use, OR, a dedicated purpose? That distinction determines my
response.


If you read the post, he said he was upgrading a desktop system.
That's not a CNC or an ATM. Got it now?

What he said doesn't matter as far as that reply of mine goes.

AGain, you have no concept about CONTEXT.


I was politely telling you,


Your very first post to me was most certainly not polite,
it was an attack. An attack over nothing, because now you
finally have admitted, you're "not sure" if what I gave
was the right answer. ROFL

On Saturday, April 15, 2017 at 8:39:46 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Sat, 15
Apr 2017 15:48:10 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

On Thursday, April 13, 2017 at 8:45:03 PM UTC-4, Diesel wrote:
trader_4
Thu,
13 Apr 2017 14:45:43 GMT in alt.home.repair, wrote:

Yet that was the whole context of the thread and my post was
made in that context. Thanks for proving my point that you
can't understand context.

I understand context just fine,

Obviously not. Because the context was a person upgrading a
system's hardware and software for the future. The post I replied
to, that poster further set the context by posting:

It did nothing of the sort. You wrote that you knew of no browser
updates for XP. Your comment, was wrong.

Fool, again, context is important. The OP was planning on upgrading
a system for the future. Mozilla has said that all support for
Firefox XP, except for security updates, is OVER. Try as you might
to make it appear that isn't so, it's a fact. I provided you the
link. So, while apparently to you 5 months of security updates
only amounts to a supported, updated browser, in the context of
what the OP was doing, clearly what I said was a correct answer.




Now you claim there was no attack.

There wasn't.

Another lie, of course.

I'm starting to wonder if you know what that specific word means.


That's because you're a liar, who twists and turns.



My comment, in context, was accurate.

Your comment, taken exactly as you wrote it, was not accurate.

Your reply, on it's face was stupid, because it's already 2017.

Last time I checked, it was still April. Not September.

Mozilla has stated that support for Firefox on XP is ending

Indeed, they have. They haven't officially decided the date just yet
though. And, support=updates last time I checked.

So, now you want to tell everyone that support for a software
product only involves security updates? Everyone else with
any familiarity with PCs or the industry knows that security
updates are just one part of product support. And even that
is only committed to for 5 months. Supported? For someone
upgrading for the future? ROFL





In the context of the thread, someone looking for the future

Nice spin, but, er, no cigar. The future doesn't include Windows XP
or Windows 7. And, if you're running new hardware as well as some
6th generations, it doesn't include Windows 8/8.1 either. It's going
to be Windows 10 (bleh) or Linux, or, a flavor of unix. Those will
be everyones 'options' very soon if they wanna run new hardware. So,
the entire facade of upgrading a machine for the 'future' is a
****ing joke if you're 'upgrading' to 64bit XP or Windows 7.

https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/0..._on_new_chips/

The OP clearly didn't know this, and, based on your weak as ****
all defense, you didn't either. And, it's NOT even new news, here.

for a browser that is compatible with today's websites, supported, my comment and advice was accurate.

No, your comment wasn't accurate...


What you chimed in with would leave the OP believing that Firefox
is fine, is supported, when in fact Mozilla has told it's users
that they are ending support, to move, that all that left are 5
months of security updates. Good grief.

Please again, cite MID where I stated or even implied that with my
initial reply to you. I asked you to do this once already. You do
know what an MID is right?

The WTF was the point of your reply? The OP was looking for a
desktop for the future. My reply told him there was no future
in Firefox on XP! Yet, you chimed in, idiot.




You have a serious issue when
someone points out an erroneous comment you wrote, though.
It *wasn't* personal. You seem to be taking it personally though.

You have a serious issue when your first reply to someone is a
snide, condescending remark for no reason.

Regardless of how you chose to take my reply to you, it was still an
accurate reply.

Oh, I see, so now you don't deny that it was an attack.




And the reason I responded in the first place is
because you wrote an erroneous statement.

It was not erroneous in the context of the OPs question.
What was erroneous was your BS, saying the Firefox is still
supported until 2017. Get a calendar dude!



Your reply taken IN context was in error, on your part. Firefox
is updated for windows XP/vista users for the time being.

Another lie. Mozilla has said there is no more updating, no more
bug fixes, nothing other than SECURITY UPDATES and only that for
5 months. What a swell environment to recommend for the OP to
use on a system being upgraded for the future.

Do you know what the word contradiction means? As, you're doing it,
again.


52 series
added new features, not just security updates.

Why can't you understand that was in THE PAST and Mozilla has said
that is now OVER?

52 series isn't in the past. Did you not read the release notes?
Updates are updates, no matter how you try to redefine what the word
means.


If it's released, the it is indeed in the past. How hard is that
to grasp? And Mozilla has said no more updates for anything other
than security updates and those for just 5 months.



k And, presently, as
confirmed by two others who've already posted, it is still being
provided to XP/Vista users. Making your entire defense of your
erroneous comment null and void. Even with your efforts to move
the goalposts and redefine what updates means.

You're lying again. Or Mozilla is lying:

Excuse me? I provided MIDs of two! other posters who are still
running Windows XP that are now using 52.0.2. For some reason (a
screwup on Mozilla's end no doubt and it wouldn't be the first time)
one is using ESR now, and, the other one hasn't been switched over,
yet.


The only one screwed up here is you. I didn't say 52 doesn't exist.
Mozilla didn't say it doesn't exist. That is in the PAST and there
are no more updates like it coming, except for SECURITY Updates.




"Can I still browse safely with Firefox?

In March 2017, if you are using Firefox with Windows XP or Windows
Vista, you will automatically be updated to the Extended Support
Release version of Firefox. You will continue to receive important
Firefox security updates but no other features or updates. You do
not need to do anything else.

That is effective as of the 03-07 Firefox 52 / ESR release."

But heh, feel free to mislead the OP updating his systems and
tell him that Firefox is supported on XP for the future.

I responded to your erroneous statement concerning firefox updates
on XP. I've stated from day one! that the OP should NOT pursue XP
64bit or Windows 7. So, where exactly did I mislead the OP?

Provide an MID, if you don't mind.

Now, put that in the *context* of the OP, ie someone upgrading
a system for the future and my statement that IDK of any
browser still supported for XP is accurate. Mozilla has said
they are eoling it, that there will be only security updates
from now on and that is only committed to for 5 months.

I did. Your statement is still wrong. They were mulling over
upgrading to XP 64bit. For the time being, Firefox is still being
updated for it.

Really now.....

Message-ID:

AFAIK, 52.0.2 is the latest FF browser version...

https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo.../releasenotes/

And, once again, You're wrong. Firefox 52 includes new
'features'; it's not security updates only. And, uhh, XP can
*still* use it.


Do you not understand that release is IN THE PAST? It's OVER!
With your first post on this, you apparently didn't even know it
was already 2017. Good grief.

52.0.2 hasn't been out very long.


ROFL. It obviously doesn't matter how long it's been out.
What we're talking about is right now and moving forward.
How hard is that to understand? And again, Mozilla has said,
no more updates like 52, only SECURITY updates and that for
only 5 months? Supported? For the OP upgrading for the
future? I can't believe anyone is dumb enough to argue this.


You assumed I didn't know what
year it was because I neglected to include a specific month with my
original comment? That's a bit desperate, Trader.

No, I assume it because you said Firefox is still supported until
2017. Your words, not mine.




You shouldn't continue calling me an idiot when it's clear as
hell to myself and others, evidently, that you're the one who's
ignorant on this subject. Besides, I was taught a long time ago
for debate class, that if you have to resort to personal attacks,
your side already lost.


This coming from the jerk who's first post to me was an attack.

Jerk is an improvement, but, still falls along the lines of 'if you
have to resort to personal attacks, you've already lost'; Did you
not take debate class in school, or, did you manage to fail it?

Now, that question was a very 'snide' one. Intentionally. Just so
you can see the difference between being 'cheeky' (aka; wiseass, but
in a playful manner) with you, and actually being a Jerk towards
you.

Concerning your ignorance of the subject of IT in general, it's not
a personal opinion, it's a fact; based on what you wrote about
defragging/imaging software and 'OS files' never being moved. Last
time I checked, DLL files as shipped with Windows along with device
drivers are infact, 'OS' files, and they are moved around from the
very first defrag you do. You went on to try and talk down to me
concerning how sector level access actually works

Idiot, you're hearing voices now or lying yet again, or both.
I never said a God damn thing about how sector level access works.
You need help.



and what happens
to so called 'deleted' files, too. That was a mistake to do, on your
part.

AGain, I never said a word about what happens with deleted files
either. I can see why you have so many problems here with people.


IDK of any browser company that is still doing updates of any
browsers for XP.

Notice, I'm not paraphrasing your post, or altering it in any possible way

My initial response to you wasn't even all that rude on the face of
it. I just called into question your expertise. After further
discussion with you on the subject of IT related things, I wasn't
wrong, either.

Yeah, sure, not rude at all. Called into question my expertise
because I steared the OP in the right direction, with an answer,
taken in context that was correct. OMG, there will still be
security updates only for Firefox on XP for 5 more months.
WOW, God forgive me for that awful mistake! And it's effect
on the OP and his question? ZERO!