Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Digerati

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57
1
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 24, 2019, 12:43:41 PM »
I quoted you where you said "same browser settings" so I don't know what it is you feel you fixed. Regardless, I said what I intended to say so from my perspective, nothing has changed.

Again, was not making a statement of fact. I said "I'd be interested in seeing... ." and "chances are... ." Truth be told, I'm no longer interested. I have preparations to make for the kids and grandkids tomorrow.

****



Merry Christmas to all!

2
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 23, 2019, 09:12:31 PM »
I still prefer PM too. But uBlock Origin is bugging more and more lately - especially with search results. Oh well. That too is OT.

3
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 23, 2019, 08:41:06 PM »
Quote
Have you used it?
I used to use with IE years ago because I had several 100 saved bookmarks/favorites. But when I stopped using IE, I stopped saving bookmarks in my browser.

I have enabled the Quicklaunch toolbar in W10 and have links to the 17 forum sites I visit regularly. And for most other sites, I have links to their log in page in my password manager.

Quote
You think same browser = same browser settings/Add-ons/plugins and that CPU speed and load, drive speed, free/available memory differences are irrelevant, or minimally different across user installs. Don't assume, test for yourself, you might learn something new.
I don't understand how this line has turned sour. I sure didn't mean it too.

I never said anything was irrelevant.

But I contend if you saw improvement, chances are others will too. How much will certainly vary machine to machine and there will also certainly be some who see no change at all.

I just said I would be interested in seeing the results of a test. Sorry for causing consternation.

4
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 23, 2019, 06:03:41 PM »
Quote
'Less than 3MB. Not GB' - You want GB differences, really?
No. I was just suggesting loading 3MB more data shouldn't take very much extra time.
Quote
My 'actual timed tests' would have little bearing or relevance to anyone who isn't using my machine and connection.
I don't see why not. If using the same browser and the same Speedyfox program, if you see a significant improvement on your machine, it seems logical to assume others running the same browser and Speedyfox would also see a significant improvement. Not second for second, of course. And assuming the network connection is not causing a bottleneck, not sure that would matter either.

Quote
I have no idea what Strg stands for.
I had to look that up. Apparently its stands for "Steuerung" which means "Control" in German. So Strg is what we know as the Ctrl key. Makes sense now. (Opps, satrow beat me to it).

5
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 23, 2019, 05:20:17 PM »
Quote
(OT:  Some years ago, there was a tool that could be run that would check bookmarks and list those that no longer resolve.
Was it AM-Deadlink?

6
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 23, 2019, 04:30:04 PM »
Quote
Did I notice PM loading faster - yes, pretty sure I did, at a guess ~10-15%.
Pretty sure? Unless actual timed tests were done, "pretty sure" could just be what the mind was hoping to see. 10 - 15% sounds okay, but that's still less than 3MB. Not GB.

I'd be interested in seeing the results of a timed "before and after" test, then do another timed test a week later and see if still faster, or back to the "before" times.

BTW, from 2012: https://forum.palemoon.org/viewtopic.php?f=19&t=785

7
Internet / Re: SpeedyFox
« on: December 23, 2019, 02:56:03 PM »
Quote
I'm one that prefers to do my own manual changes and not have a program do some unknown tweaks therefore I'm hesitant to try it.
I agree. I feel program developers are probably best at tweaking their own programs. They already want their products to be quick. I feel if such tricks were beneficial over all, they would already be incorporated in the code.

Speedyfox has been around for many years. It seems to me if it worked as good as the promises suggested it did, it would not be something most FF users never heard of. And again, if as good as promised, browser developers would have incorporated those same tricks.

I do not believe it is harmful, and definitely not malicious. And it may provide noticeable improvements right after it is run. I just doubt those performance improvements last. I think a quick clutter clean-out with Windows Disk Cleanup or CCleaner is probably just as good.

Having said all that, I have not tried it. So perhaps it not fair I express my opinion. But I still see no reason to install it.

8
Never heard of Ekoru before (or Ecosia either). I'm not a tree hugger but I do think we need to do more to keep our grandkids from inheriting our messes. I am going to check it out.

9
I installed the newest version of SpywareBlaster yesterday. This morning I looked at Task Manager and as before there is no active process running with the program. It continues to be passive protection so it doesn't use CPU to protect the browsers.
After doing my homework (which I should have done earlier  :-[ ), you are correct. As noted by FAQ #5, SpywareBlaster is indeed "passive". So other than a little disk space, it is not eating up system resources (CPU clock cycles or RAM). I'm just not buying that my browsers have all these "leaky holes" (FAQ #4) that need plugging or that my real-time anti-malware scanners are leaving those holes unprotected and allowing those [supposedly] unprotected vulnerabilities exposed to the bad guys for their unhindered exploitation.

I am all for a layered approach to security. We should never have all our eggs in one basket. This is why I use Windows Defender and Malwarebytes. But they are NOT my entire defense against malware.

I also keep my operating system fully updated - one of the most critical steps in security we can make. But that's still not all. I also use an active firewall and all my computers are behind a router. Lastly, I avoid being "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, download, attachment and popup I see. That's already a lot of layers.

If one "stops" getting infected after installing SpywareBlaster, then, maybe, there would be some justification for installing it. But frankly, I would look for deficiencies elsewhere - primarily somewhere between the ears of the user.

Does it hurt to install it? No. Is it needed. No.

10
Quote
do I really need to keep Spyware Blaster running?
In my opinion, no. I run the same combination (Malwarebytes Premium and Windows Defender) on all my systems. Spywareblaster is not needed. I don't believe running it too would cause problems, in terms of conflicts with Malwarebytes or WD. But it is wasting resources (RAM and CPU clock cycles) for no added value in security.

I am assuming you otherwise keep your computer (Windows and your security programs) fully updated, and you are not "click-happy" on every unsolicited link, download, attachments, and popup you see.

11
The link I provided was from Amazon UK. But they appear to be the same thing, just different USB cable.

12
Quote
You mean one of those links I posted above? Which one would you suggest?
??? Oops! Sorry. I could have sworn I included the link.

I meant one of these.

13
I would not bother with an enclosure for such old PATA/IDE technology hard drives that likely will never be used again. I'd go with something like this adapter. At least then it could be used with current SATA drives too.

That said, if the old drive died, there is nothing to suggest any adapter or enclosure will do any good. Clearly, if these were so valuable, she should have had multiple copies on different drives because "all" drives will fail - eventually.

14
Sounds like a good plan.

15
Yeah, for security reasons, it is not a good idea to connect an XP system to a network that has Internet access.

How is your W10 system connecting to the Internet? If via a router, I would connect to another Ethernet port on the router. If the W10 system is connecting via wifi to a wireless router, then try connecting directly to the wireless router and not through the W10 system.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 57