Computer genealogy software question

[Gjest]

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

I don't mean to start any unpleasant discussions, just looking
for some ideas about what other Web Masters use. I don't publish
via RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, etc., but have an indepentant Web Page:
http://nickell.tierranet.com

Thanks,
Don

[Hugh Watkins]

<Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

I don't mean to start any unpleasant discussions, just looking
for some ideas about what other Web Masters use. I don't publish
via RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, etc., but have an indepentant Web Page:
http://nickell.tierranet.com

get the latest Family Tree Maker 2005 look at the web site for screen shots
It has a web publish function which Iused for this
http://familytreemaker.genealogy.com/us ... index.html

the single CD version is all you need

and I uploaded a gedcom from it with no problems to
http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... b=:2938990

http://awt.ancestry.com/cgi-bin/igm.cgi ... I581183256

I am 5 Living WATKINS


enjoy automation

Hugh W

[Alan Jones]

I would recommend upgrading to PAF 5.2, I think since you are back on
Paf 2.3 you may need to upgrade to PAF 3 or 4 and then PAF 5.2.
Of course they are free.

Many of the old add ons that I used with PAF 2.3 are not a part of PAF5.2.
I use PAF 5.2 to generate websites, see:
http://members.cox.net/alanjones10/

I won't argue about it, some people are very emotionally connected to their
choice of software. I have used a half dozen software programs and now I
use PAF 5.2.

Alan




<Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

I don't mean to start any unpleasant discussions, just looking
for some ideas about what other Web Masters use. I don't publish
via RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, etc., but have an indepentant Web Page:
http://nickell.tierranet.com

Thanks,
Don

[Gjest]

I have PAF 5.2.18 and use it primarily for reports and such. I did find
out just now that I can do a multi-starting point GEDCOM. I don't find
anything about a Possible Problems utility: children out of order, etc.
I do see there's a nice Order Children in a family with one keystroke.
But first you have to find the problem.

Yes, people tend to have an old shoe association with programs, favorite
cars, etc. Keeps us attached to our youth, but henders advancement.

If it were't for the old shoe syndrome and all the 3rd party software I
have for PAF 2.3c I wouldn't hesitate to move up to V 5.2.

Thanks for your comments and Web Page illustration.

Don

Alan Jones wrote:

I would recommend upgrading to PAF 5.2, I think since you are back on
Paf 2.3 you may need to upgrade to PAF 3 or 4 and then PAF 5.2.
Of course they are free.

Many of the old add ons that I used with PAF 2.3 are not a part of PAF5.2.
I use PAF 5.2 to generate websites, see:
http://members.cox.net/alanjones10/

I won't argue about it, some people are very emotionally connected to their
choice of software. I have used a half dozen software programs and now I
use PAF 5.2.

Alan

Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

I don't mean to start any unpleasant discussions, just looking
for some ideas about what other Web Masters use. I don't publish
via RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, etc., but have an indepentant Web Page:
http://nickell.tierranet.com

Thanks,
Don

[Gjest]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:06:35 -0700, Don. wrote:

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP

Why?

I still use Windows 98 SE and Netscape 7.02 and I remain Virus Free
and can still use all of the old Genealogy Programs and Add-ins.

Works just fine for me.

New, especially when it comes to Microshit is NOT better.

[Victoria Sullivan]

A question - Do you use PAF because it's free or because you need LDS
support?

If either, consider Legacy
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com

The basic program is free and unlimited (some features are only in the
deluxe version, $19.95 by download without CD or printed manual -
various combinations of extras available - see website). Problems can
be excluded individually from the list . You can search all records,
new records and those with previous problems or just records with
excluded problems.

Web site creation is built in. along with a number of other features
PAF 2 didn't have, incuding an extensive report menu and excellent
source citation. Frequent free updates are available and the upgrade
to a new version is inexpensive.

I teach computer use for genealogists with my local society and a
number of our users have gone to Legacy after trying more widely
advertised programs that don't offer the same features or cost a great
deal more for them.

No connection, just a satisfied customer.

Victoria

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:23:59 -0700, Don. wrote:

I have PAF 5.2.18 and use it primarily for reports and such. I did find
out just now that I can do a multi-starting point GEDCOM. I don't find
anything about a Possible Problems utility: children out of order, etc.
I do see there's a nice Order Children in a family with one keystroke.
But first you have to find the problem.

Yes, people tend to have an old shoe association with programs, favorite
cars, etc. Keeps us attached to our youth, but henders advancement.

If it were't for the old shoe syndrome and all the 3rd party software I
have for PAF 2.3c I wouldn't hesitate to move up to V 5.2.

Thanks for your comments and Web Page illustration.

Don

Alan Jones wrote:

I would recommend upgrading to PAF 5.2, I think since you are back on
Paf 2.3 you may need to upgrade to PAF 3 or 4 and then PAF 5.2.
Of course they are free.

Many of the old add ons that I used with PAF 2.3 are not a part of PAF5.2.
I use PAF 5.2 to generate websites, see:
http://members.cox.net/alanjones10/

I won't argue about it, some people are very emotionally connected to their
choice of software. I have used a half dozen software programs and now I
use PAF 5.2.

Alan

Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

I don't mean to start any unpleasant discussions, just looking
for some ideas about what other Web Masters use. I don't publish
via RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, etc., but have an indepentant Web Page:
http://nickell.tierranet.com

Thanks,
Don

[Denis Beauregard]

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:06:35 -0700, Don. wrote in
soc.genealogy.computing:

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

What about moving your data to PAF 5 (or Legacy or whatever) and
using GEDCOM to export your dataset to PAF 2 to use NAP ?

I don't see why you need to have many starting points when
generating GEDCOMs. Most softwares I see will generate one
GEDCOM file with all your data. Why limiting to a small set
of starting points ? If it is to check your data, then you
will likely skip the siblings and first/last marriages of
someone.

Personally, I use my own database definition (from an Excel/Open
Office fileset) and my own softwares. When I generate a new
HTML dataset, I check the complete dataset in a first step. At
this time, I have a little over 1000 births before the marriage
of parents because of birth years computed from the death data,
but all other weirdos are corrected or I change my software to
ignore them.


Denis

[Hugh Watkins]

"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]> wrote

snip

Personally, I use my own database definition (from an Excel/Open
Office fileset) and my own softwares. When I generate a new
HTML dataset, I check the complete dataset in a first step. At
this time, I have a little over 1000 births before the marriage
of parents because of birth years computed from the death data,
but all other weirdos are corrected or I change my software to
ignore them.

then Denis you are a menace publishing bad data on the web

you are not doing genealogy but computer generated guesswork
which is what has given the older sections of the IGI such a bad name.

if in doubt leave it out

Hugh W

[Denis Beauregard]

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:15:31 -0000, "Hugh Watkins"
<[email protected]> wrote in soc.genealogy.computing:

"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]> wrote

snip
Personally, I use my own database definition (from an Excel/Open
Office fileset) and my own softwares. When I generate a new
HTML dataset, I check the complete dataset in a first step. At
this time, I have a little over 1000 births before the marriage
of parents because of birth years computed from the death data,
but all other weirdos are corrected or I change my software to
ignore them.

then Denis you are a menace publishing bad data on the web

you are not doing genealogy but computer generated guesswork
which is what has given the older sections of the IGI such a bad name.

if in doubt leave it out

In most cases, I have the exact date of marriage of parents
and the exact date of birth in another dataset not yet
integrated. My complete database has a lot of data in it,
I think I am not far from 130 000 couples. I recently added
a set of 10 000 burials and will later add the corresponding
birth records, thus decreasing this set of 1000 likely
errors.

This data is not published on the web, but on my computer to
help me identify people. The only publicly available version
is at my local gen. soc. and when I will publish (on paper) a
first subset, it will not include those data. Perhaps, I will
try to reduce it to almost no mistakes sooner than expected !
And I will likely publish on my site a subset of it, but not
the full set of records.


Denis

[Steve Hayes]

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:14:16 -0600, Victoria Sullivan <[email protected]>
wrote:

A question - Do you use PAF because it's free or because you need LDS
support?

If either, consider Legacy
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com

Actually I use PAF to transfer data from other programs to Legacy, because
Legacy screws up GEDCOM imports!


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Gjest]

Victoria,

I use PAF 2.3c because I started using it before there was a Legacy, 1993. I saw no reason to change when Legacy came out much later, and certainly didn't want to change to FTM, etc. Now after 11 years it's as I said in my initial message.

I don't need LDS support, and don't need a program to make a "canned" Web Page, as I said initially. So that's a "neither" answer to your first question.

I had forgotten about Legacy, and 'assume' it's a Windows program by now. I've looked at it years ago and decided to stay with PAF 2.3c because it's an 'old shoe' to me.

Also, I doubt that Legacy has the power of 2.3c, with all it's clumsiness, because of all the 3rd party programs I have; mainly creating a Possible Problems file with NAP as an excellent duplication filter program.

One question about Legacy, can I go through and build a GEDCOM by selecting this and that individual's family line to eliminate others? I've 21,000+ people in my db and don't want all the spousal non-NICKELL ancestors I have. My Web Page would just be too big! It's already a witch to load on a 56K modem.

The other question I had concerned helper programs like: HTML2WWW and GedPage. Are there Windows equivalents?

Thanks Victoria, you have excellent credentials and I respect your advice.

Don


Victoria Sullivan wrote:

A question - Do you use PAF because it's free or because you need LDS
support?

If either, consider Legacy
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com

The basic program is free and unlimited (some features are only in the
deluxe version, $19.95 by download without CD or printed manual -
various combinations of extras available - see website). Problems can
be excluded individually from the list . You can search all records,
new records and those with previous problems or just records with
excluded problems.

Web site creation is built in. along with a number of other features
PAF 2 didn't have, incuding an extensive report menu and excellent
source citation. Frequent free updates are available and the upgrade
to a new version is inexpensive.

I teach computer use for genealogists with my local society and a
number of our users have gone to Legacy after trying more widely
advertised programs that don't offer the same features or cost a great
deal more for them.

No connection, just a satisfied customer.

Victoria

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 16:23:59 -0700, Don. wrote:

I have PAF 5.2.18 and use it primarily for reports and such. I did find
out just now that I can do a multi-starting point GEDCOM. I don't find
anything about a Possible Problems utility: children out of order, etc.
I do see there's a nice Order Children in a family with one keystroke.
But first you have to find the problem.

Yes, people tend to have an old shoe association with programs, favorite
cars, etc. Keeps us attached to our youth, but henders advancement.

If it were't for the old shoe syndrome and all the 3rd party software I
have for PAF 2.3c I wouldn't hesitate to move up to V 5.2.

Thanks for your comments and Web Page illustration.

Don

Alan Jones wrote:

I would recommend upgrading to PAF 5.2, I think since you are back on
Paf 2.3 you may need to upgrade to PAF 3 or 4 and then PAF 5.2.
Of course they are free.

Many of the old add ons that I used with PAF 2.3 are not a part of PAF5.2.
I use PAF 5.2 to generate websites, see:
http://members.cox.net/alanjones10/

I won't argue about it, some people are very emotionally connected to their
choice of software. I have used a half dozen software programs and now I
use PAF 5.2.

Alan

Don.> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

I don't mean to start any unpleasant discussions, just looking
for some ideas about what other Web Masters use. I don't publish
via RootsWeb, Ancestry.com, etc., but have an indepentant Web Page:
http://nickell.tierranet.com

Thanks,
Don

--
MS IE/OE users: PLEASE use Text message formatting rather than HTML for personal e-mail.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

Steve Hayes wrote:

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 08:14:16 -0600, Victoria Sullivan <[email protected]
wrote:

A question - Do you use PAF because it's free or because you need LDS
support?

If either, consider Legacy
http://www.legacyfamilytree.com

Actually I use PAF to transfer data from other programs to Legacy, because
Legacy screws up GEDCOM imports!

--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa

Oh, Lordy! It seems it's always something unexpected, eh, Steve? I don't know which is worse, that or having to mess with Match & Merge by hand with PAF! I certainly can't do an Auto Merge with 21,000 names. You can imagine the mess I'd have. I usually (today) use PAF 5.2 and product a Descend report and go through it looking for new information. I can then cut and paste any notes into PAF 2.3c that I deem important--after editing them of course.

I had a friend in the 'old days' who was an HP Software Engineer, and the best programmer I ever knew! He was inexperienced in life and decided to write his own genealogy program. He was about 'done' when I introduced him to PAF 2.3c. He almost hit me! His program had about half the features of PAF and was 4 times a big! (FR.exe is only 300K!) Of course he used Pascal, or something exotic that few people understood at the time.

Don

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

--
MS IE/OE users: PLEASE use Text message formatting rather than HTML for personal e-mail.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

[email protected] wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:06:35 -0700, Don. wrote:

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP

Why?

I still use Windows 98 SE and Netscape 7.02 and I remain Virus Free
and can still use all of the old Genealogy Programs and Add-ins.

Works just fine for me.

New, especially when it comes to Microshit is NOT better.

Hehehe... A man after me own heart. I went with NS in 1996 and still
have the initial receipt showing I paid $76 for it. I've recently
changed to Mozilla/FireFox and really love FF. I stick with NS 4.78
for e-mail because it so 'usable'.

It's really amazing how FF is taking over THE WORLD! Germany, England,
Japan and the US. Wall Street is advising people to dump IE/OE for
security reasons and switch to Mozilla. What more can be said?
Mozilla.org is reporting _downloads_ of over 400,000 a month.

I've a really neato JPG of a Mozilla's symbol flaming IE from a German
newspaper last month. If you'd like to see it drop me a line at
d nickell @ icehouse . net (no spaces)
and I'll send it your way.

--
MS IE/OE users: PLEASE use Text message formatting rather than HTML for personal e-mail.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

Denis Beauregard wrote:

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:06:35 -0700, Don. wrote in
soc.genealogy.computing:

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP with a new
computer purchase. I'm still running PAF 2.3c because of all the
3rd party support that was available. If I do upgrade to XP, what
do most people use to generate Web Page files such as dnickell?

I still use NAP to filter Possible Problems, it only presents the
most recent PPs. I've over 1000 ("over the age of 60 when married",
etc.) and NAP reduces that down to zero only allowign my latest
typos to be shown.

AFAIK GED2WWW, GEDPage, etc. are DOS applications and probably won't
run under XP.

Can modern day genealogy programs generate GEDCOMs with 15 starting
points that I need?

What about moving your data to PAF 5 (or Legacy or whatever) and
using GEDCOM to export your dataset to PAF 2 to use NAP ?

I don't see why you need to have many starting points when
generating GEDCOMs. Most softwares I see will generate one
GEDCOM file with all your data. Why limiting to a small set
of starting points ? If it is to check your data, then you
will likely skip the siblings and first/last marriages of
someone.

Personally, I use my own database definition (from an Excel/Open
Office fileset) and my own softwares. When I generate a new
HTML dataset, I check the complete dataset in a first step. At
this time, I have a little over 1000 births before the marriage
of parents because of birth years computed from the death data,
but all other weirdos are corrected or I change my software to
ignore them.

Denis

I guess I'm doing everything wrong, Denis, but it works for me. I got
tired of boping from one db to another to access my family ancestors:
my mom's, and another for my wife's.

My db is really 37,700 persons.

Obviously I don't want my mom's ancestors, nor my wife's in my NICKELL
db, and vice versa. So...I pick and chose the RINs for my progenitor's
descendants GEDCOM, and then do an Ancestral GEDCOM for the other 2,
keeping each separate.

As for your suggestion of moving my dataset to Legacy, etc., and doing
a Possible Problems, I didn't know Legacy had such a utility. I'm
pretty sure PAF 5.2 doesn't, but I only use PAF 5.2 for Descendancy
reports.

As for using Excel, you sound like a better man than I, Gunga Din.

Thanks for the suggestions.
Don

--
MS IE/OE users: PLEASE use Text message formatting rather than HTML for personal e-mail.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

Hugh Watkins wrote:

"Denis Beauregard" <[email protected]> wrote

snip
Personally, I use my own database definition (from an Excel/Open
Office fileset) and my own softwares. When I generate a new
HTML dataset, I check the complete dataset in a first step. At
this time, I have a little over 1000 births before the marriage
of parents because of birth years computed from the death data,
but all other weirdos are corrected or I change my software to
ignore them.

then Denis you are a menace publishing bad data on the web

you are not doing genealogy but computer generated guesswork
which is what has given the older sections of the IGI such a bad name.

if in doubt leave it out

Hugh W

Or work like mad to prove/disprove the inconsistency!

Don

--
MS IE/OE users: PLEASE use Text message formatting rather than HTML for personal e-mail.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Doug]

Don. wrote:

I guess I'm doing everything wrong, Denis, but it works for me. I got
tired of boping from one db to another to access my family ancestors:
my mom's, and another for my wife's.

My db is really 37,700 persons.

Obviously I don't want my mom's ancestors, nor my wife's in my NICKELL
db, and vice versa. So...I pick and chose the RINs for my progenitor's
descendants GEDCOM, and then do an Ancestral GEDCOM for the other 2,
keeping each separate.

As for your suggestion of moving my dataset to Legacy, etc., and doing
a Possible Problems, I didn't know Legacy had such a utility. I'm
pretty sure PAF 5.2 doesn't, but I only use PAF 5.2 for Descendancy
reports.

Look again, Don. PAF 5.2.18.0: Print, Lists, Possible problems (6th
entry in left column).

Doug

[Robert Heiling]

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

You don't want it anyhow.<g> Get 5.0 if you don't already have it. If you
can't find one, I'm sure I have a copy somewhere here and would be happy to
email you a copy.

HTH
Bob

[Everett M. Greene]

Don. writes:

[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:06:35 -0700, Don. wrote:

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP

Why?

I still use Windows 98 SE and Netscape 7.02 and I remain Virus Free
and can still use all of the old Genealogy Programs and Add-ins.

Works just fine for me.

New, especially when it comes to Microshit is NOT better.

Hehehe... A man after me own heart. I went with NS in 1996 and still
have the initial receipt showing I paid $76 for it. I've recently
changed to Mozilla/FireFox and really love FF. I stick with NS 4.78
for e-mail because it so 'usable'.

It's really amazing how FF is taking over THE WORLD! Germany, England,
Japan and the US. Wall Street is advising people to dump IE/OE for
security reasons and switch to Mozilla. What more can be said?
Mozilla.org is reporting _downloads_ of over 400,000 a month.

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

I've a really neato JPG of a Mozilla's symbol flaming IE from a German
newspaper last month. If you'd like to see it drop me a line at
d nickell @ icehouse . net (no spaces)
and I'll send it your way.

[John Cordes]

Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file
downloads. Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a
PDF file and it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings
that tell it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or
whatever version it's called) to make certain and it was
alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe and have heard of problems
with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any trouble and has
worked for everything.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

You don't want it anyhow.<g> Get 5.0 if you don't already have
it. If you can't find one, I'm sure I have a copy somewhere here
and would be happy to email you a copy.

HTH
Bob

I have Firefox 0.9.3 and it certainly can download a PDF just
fine. I much prefer Acrobat Reader 6, by the way; amongst other
things the search facility is much improved.

--
John Cordes

[Robert Heiling]

John Cordes wrote:

Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file
downloads. Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a
PDF file and it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings
that tell it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or
whatever version it's called) to make certain and it was
alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe and have heard of problems
with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any trouble and has
worked for everything.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

You don't want it anyhow.<g> Get 5.0 if you don't already have
it. If you can't find one, I'm sure I have a copy somewhere here
and would be happy to email you a copy.

HTH
Bob

I have Firefox 0.9.3 and it certainly can download a PDF just
fine. I much prefer Acrobat Reader 6, by the way; amongst other
things the search facility is much improved.

--
John Cordes

"What known issues are there with the Acrobat plugin?

Using Adobe Reader 6.0 on Windows, you may encounter the following
problems:

* You may not be able to print PDF documents from Mozilla Firefox if you
have Adobe Reader 6.0 installed. [Bug 207417]
* Mozilla Firefox may hang or crash when navigating away from a PDF file
or closing a window where a PDF is being displayed when Adobe Reader 6.0
is being used. [Bug 217137]
* If you have not accepted the Adobe Reader EULA, you have to minimize
your browser to see it.

Acrobat Reader 5.1 does not have these issues, and may be used as a
workaround. Adobe Reader 6.0.1 has not been fully tested."
http://plugindoc.mozdev.org/faqs/acrore ... win-issues

Bob

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 08:55:09 PST, [email protected] (Everett M.
Greene) wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

I've been using Mozilla for a couple of years now (before that I used
Netscape).

When it came acros a PDF file it opened it in Acrobat, and when I clocked on
"Save" in the Acrobat menu, it saved it where I wanted to save it.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Steve Hayes]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 23:28:54 GMT, John Cordes <[email protected]> wrote:

I have Firefox 0.9.3 and it certainly can download a PDF just
fine. I much prefer Acrobat Reader 6, by the way; amongst other
things the search facility is much improved.

I got a freebie disc with Acrobat 6.0, but it said it woud only work with
later version sof Windows than the one I have.


--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/7734/stevesig.htm
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk

[Robert Heiling]

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

[email protected] (Steve Hayes) writes:
[email protected] (Everett M. Greene) wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

I've been using Mozilla for a couple of years now (before that I used
Netscape).

When it came acros a PDF file it opened it in Acrobat, and when
I clocked on "Save" in the Acrobat menu, it saved it where I
wanted to save it.

Maybe that's the catch-22 of my situation. I have Acrobat
4.0 (courtesy of Dell) and it doesn't have a "save" menu
item.

I have Mozilla 5.0/Firefox 0.8 dated 6/1/04. Maybe a later
version will save PDF files?

I suspect that the problem is with the 4.0 version of Acrobat and not with
Firefox.

Bob

[Dave Hinz]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:16:37 PST, Everett M. Greene <[email protected]> wrote:

Maybe that's the catch-22 of my situation. I have Acrobat
4.0 (courtesy of Dell) and it doesn't have a "save" menu
item.

Wow. Acrobat 4 is _very_ old. Yes, get the new reader, lots of new
features since version 4. Same price (free) from adobe.com

Dave Hinz

[Everett M. Greene]

[email protected] (Steve Hayes) writes:

[email protected] (Everett M. Greene) wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

I've been using Mozilla for a couple of years now (before that I used
Netscape).

When it came acros a PDF file it opened it in Acrobat, and when
I clocked on "Save" in the Acrobat menu, it saved it where I
wanted to save it.

Maybe that's the catch-22 of my situation. I have Acrobat
4.0 (courtesy of Dell) and it doesn't have a "save" menu
item.

I have Mozilla 5.0/Firefox 0.8 dated 6/1/04. Maybe a later
version will save PDF files?

[Dennis Lee Bieber]

On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 08:16:37 PST, [email protected] (Everett M.
Greene) declaimed the following in soc.genealogy.computing:

Maybe that's the catch-22 of my situation. I have Acrobat
4.0 (courtesy of Dell) and it doesn't have a "save" menu
item.

I have Mozilla 5.0/Firefox 0.8 dated 6/1/04. Maybe a later
version will save PDF files?

They all will, if you don't OPEN the file... Right click the
link /to/ the PDF and select "save link target..." (or equivalent).
Should bring up a save requestor, and download the PDF directly to the
file.

--

==============================================================
[email protected] | Wulfraed Dennis Lee Bieber KD6MOG
[email protected] | Bestiaria Support Staff
==============================================================
Home Page: <http://www.dm.net/~wulfraed/
Overflow Page: <http://wlfraed.home.netcom.com/

[Gjest]

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Don. writes:
[email protected] wrote:
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 09:06:35 -0700, Don. wrote:

I'm about ready to (finally) upgrade from Win98SE to XP

Why?

I still use Windows 98 SE and Netscape 7.02 and I remain Virus Free
and can still use all of the old Genealogy Programs and Add-ins.

Works just fine for me.

New, especially when it comes to Microshit is NOT better.

Hehehe... A man after me own heart. I went with NS in 1996 and still
have the initial receipt showing I paid $76 for it. I've recently
changed to Mozilla/FireFox and really love FF. I stick with NS 4.78
for e-mail because it so 'usable'.

It's really amazing how FF is taking over THE WORLD! Germany, England,
Japan and the US. Wall Street is advising people to dump IE/OE for
security reasons and switch to Mozilla. What more can be said?
Mozilla.org is reporting _downloads_ of over 400,000 a month.

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

I've not tried to d/l any version of Adobe Acrobat since using FF.
I've AA 5.0 and 6.0 but uninstalled 6.0, don't care for the screen
layout. I have no problems rendering an AA file, printing, saving, etc.
Lucky? That'd be a first!


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

John Cordes wrote:

Robert Heiling <[email protected]> wrote:
"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file
downloads. Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a
PDF file and it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings
that tell it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or
whatever version it's called) to make certain and it was
alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe and have heard of problems
with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any trouble and has
worked for everything.

I can't get Firefox to download the latest version of Adobe
Acrobat at all. Adobe has some sort of exotic process for
downloading that immediately says that there's no net
connection for it to use. [How does it think it got started?]

You don't want it anyhow.<g> Get 5.0 if you don't already have
it. If you can't find one, I'm sure I have a copy somewhere here
and would be happy to email you a copy.

HTH
Bob

I have Firefox 0.9.3 and it certainly can download a PDF just
fine. I much prefer Acrobat Reader 6, by the way; amongst other
things the search facility is much improved.

--
John Cordes

The latest version of FF is refered to openly as Firefox Setup 1.0PR.exe.
If you enter 'about: ' in the Address field it will show:
FireFox 0.10.1
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win98; rv:1.7.3) Gecko/20041001 Firefox/0.10.1
get it at:
http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox ... /0.10.html

It supposedly closes a security leak.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

Doug wrote:

Don. wrote:

I guess I'm doing everything wrong, Denis, but it works for me. I got
tired of boping from one db to another to access my family ancestors:
my mom's, and another for my wife's.

My db is really 37,700 persons.

Obviously I don't want my mom's ancestors, nor my wife's in my NICKELL
db, and vice versa. So...I pick and chose the RINs for my progenitor's
descendants GEDCOM, and then do an Ancestral GEDCOM for the other 2,
keeping each separate.

As for your suggestion of moving my dataset to Legacy, etc., and doing
a Possible Problems, I didn't know Legacy had such a utility. I'm
pretty sure PAF 5.2 doesn't, but I only use PAF 5.2 for Descendancy
reports.


Look again, Don. PAF 5.2.18.0: Print, Lists, Possible problems (6th
entry in left column).

Doug

THANKS, Doug! I'll checkout 5.2's result.

WOW! Just ran a PP on my db, 45 pages!! Just looked and it's now worse
that problems in 2.3c:
"Was not between 16 and 45 when children were born in marriages"

I've hundreds of those errors, and Surnames being the same. ;-(

But, that's the way it was/is in KY, TN, etc.; especially in the
mid-1800's in eastern KY.

Do you know of any 3rd party software what will work as well as NAP?
NAP compares the last listing with an OK list made by you going through
the listing once and identifying every 'error' that's OK. Entries that
aren't OK are put into a file called CheckIt. That way you don't have
to repeatedly read through hundreds of lines you've already gone through.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[cecilia]

Don. wrote:

[...]
Do you know of any 3rd party software what will work as well as NAP?
NAP compares the last listing with an OK list made by you going through
the listing once and identifying every 'error' that's OK. Entries that
aren't OK are put into a file called CheckIt. That way you don't have
to repeatedly read through hundreds of lines you've already gone through.

This is possible with Legacy, at least on the individual level.

"After printing a Potential Problems Report and checking on the
results, you may find that the warnings for a particular individual
are unfounded and that the information is correct. (Aunt Mabel really
did have a child when she was 55 years old.) To mark an individual so
that he or she is excluded from future Potential Problems Reports,
edit the individual (which displays the Information screen) and select
the Exclude from Potential Problems Report checkbox."

[Gjest]

cecilia wrote:

Don. wrote:
[...]
Do you know of any 3rd party software what will work as well as NAP?
NAP compares the last listing with an OK list made by you going through
the listing once and identifying every 'error' that's OK. Entries that
aren't OK are put into a file called CheckIt. That way you don't have
to repeatedly read through hundreds of lines you've already gone through.

This is possible with Legacy, at least on the individual level.

"After printing a Potential Problems Report and checking on the
results, you may find that the warnings for a particular individual
are unfounded and that the information is correct. (Aunt Mabel really
did have a child when she was 55 years old.) To mark an individual so
that he or she is excluded from future Potential Problems Reports,
edit the individual (which displays the Information screen) and select
the Exclude from Potential Problems Report checkbox."

Ah, now we're getting somewhere, Cecelia, maybe there is a light
at the end of the tunnel that's not a train. I'll get Legacy and
give it a go. I've only got about 1,000 such PPs, but I'd only have
to do it _once_.

Thank you,
Don

--
MS IE/OE users: PLEASE use Text message formatting rather than HTML for personal e-mail.


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

cecilia wrote:

Don. wrote:
[...]
Do you know of any 3rd party software what will work as well as NAP?
NAP compares the last listing with an OK list made by you going through
the listing once and identifying every 'error' that's OK. Entries that
aren't OK are put into a file called CheckIt. That way you don't have
to repeatedly read through hundreds of lines you've already gone through.

This is possible with Legacy, at least on the individual level.

"After printing a Potential Problems Report and checking on the
results, you may find that the warnings for a particular individual
are unfounded and that the information is correct. (Aunt Mabel really
did have a child when she was 55 years old.) To mark an individual so
that he or she is excluded from future Potential Problems Reports,
edit the individual (which displays the Information screen) and select
the Exclude from Potential Problems Report checkbox."

BTW, in looking for Legacy with Google I found:
http://www.genealogy-software-review.com/

Legacy stands out as THE BEST considering many features. They seem to be
not affiliated with any of the many non-genealgy areas they cover.

Don


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hugh

[Robert Heiling]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hi Hugh

I just now brought up both MSIE6 & Firefox1.0 and would have trouble telling the
difference except that I display the browser name at the top of my screen for
ease of recognition. My homepage for all browsers is my main bookmarks file. I
then clicked quickly back & forth on the taskbar between the two and am hard
pressed to see what you are describing. The displays are basically identical in
size.

More details are needed I guess. What URL are you looking at and could you tell
me which part of the screen is smaller?

Bob

[Gjest]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hugh

I'm not Bob, Hugh, but I use the latest FireFox, V 0.10.1, and just
recently upgraded to Acrobat Reader 6.0. My browser screen is about
half filled with overhead before the contents of a PDF appear.

There's the FF Options(?) Toolbar, Navigator TB, Personal TB, PrefBar,
then comes the Adobe Reader's 2 TBs. I just right clicked on an
Adobe Reader toolbar hoping to see their names. One option was
simply Toolbars; I clicked on it, now I don't have ANY Adobe TBs!

That helps a bit, but a small bit.

Don


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:06:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hi Hugh

I just now brought up both MSIE6 & Firefox1.0 and would have trouble telling the
difference except that I display the browser name at the top of my screen for
ease of recognition. My homepage for all browsers is my main bookmarks file. I
then clicked quickly back & forth on the taskbar between the two and am hard
pressed to see what you are describing. The displays are basically identical in
size.

More details are needed I guess. What URL are you looking at and could you tell
me which part of the screen is smaller?

Bob


This is the home page I use. It has weather for two cities, NY Yankee

and Alabama football scores plus other spors and computer news - plus
3 comis strips. You have to register with MSN to view the screen.

http://dellnet.my.msn.com/

In IE the screen below all the headers is in two columns which fill
the screen from l to r. The page will scroll and the type size is
easily readable.

In Firefox the two columns fill about 2/3rds of the screen from l to r
and the rest is just color, no data.. I can read the screen but it's
more comfortable with the type enlarged. I tried expanding the screens
to no avail. Not even going to [full screen] works.

I subscribe to Ancestry.com and the size is different between the two
browsers there also.

I think your seeing no difference in your screens tells me it's
something with my computer (or me) - I'm using a Dell Inspiron 5150
Laptop here with XP Home and no SP2 yet..

I think I will delete Firefox and download another copy to try.

Thanks,

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:07:26 -0700, Don. wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hugh

I'm not Bob, Hugh, but I use the latest FireFox, V 0.10.1, and just
recently upgraded to Acrobat Reader 6.0. My browser screen is about
half filled with overhead before the contents of a PDF appear.

There's the FF Options(?) Toolbar, Navigator TB, Personal TB, PrefBar,
then comes the Adobe Reader's 2 TBs. I just right clicked on an
Adobe Reader toolbar hoping to see their names. One option was
simply Toolbars; I clicked on it, now I don't have ANY Adobe TBs!

That helps a bit, but a small bit.

Don

Thanks, Don. As I mentioned to Bob I think I'll delete Firefox and
download another copy - can't hurt.

While in AL The Mr. Sid plug-in worked on IR but not FF for viewing
census records on Ancestry.com.

And I use Popup Stopper on IE. It will permit popups with the [ctrl].
I note that you have to tinker with FF to admit them.

Hugh

[john]

I don't have any problems with Acrobat Reader 6.02 in Firefox.

You need to change (In Downloads | File Type | Change Action from the
default "Open with" AcroExch (which does not work) to "Open them with
this application" C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 6.0\Reader\AcroRd32.exe
(or wherever AcroRd32.exe is on your PC).

Regarding your view problem, have you tried Ctrl + in Firefox to
increase the view size (or Ctrl - to decease size)?


John

[Robert Heiling]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 18:06:25 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hi Hugh

I just now brought up both MSIE6 & Firefox1.0 and would have trouble telling the
difference except that I display the browser name at the top of my screen for
ease of recognition. My homepage for all browsers is my main bookmarks file. I
then clicked quickly back & forth on the taskbar between the two and am hard
pressed to see what you are describing. The displays are basically identical in
size.

More details are needed I guess. What URL are you looking at and could you tell
me which part of the screen is smaller?

Bob


This is the home page I use. It has weather for two cities, NY Yankee
and Alabama football scores plus other spors and computer news - plus
3 comis strips. You have to register with MSN to view the screen.

Sorry, but there ain't no way I'm going to register.<g>

http://dellnet.my.msn.com/

The sign in page looks the same in both as above.

In IE the screen below all the headers is in two columns which fill
the screen from l to r. The page will scroll and the type size is
easily readable.

In Firefox the two columns fill about 2/3rds of the screen from l to r
and the rest is just color, no data.. I can read the screen but it's
more comfortable with the type enlarged. I tried expanding the screens
to no avail. Not even going to [full screen] works.

I should have asked you before what screen res you use. 800 X 600, 1280 X 1024, ?

I subscribe to Ancestry.com and the size is different between the two
browsers there also.

Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

I think your seeing no difference in your screens tells me it's
something with my computer (or me) - I'm using a Dell Inspiron 5150
Laptop here with XP Home and no SP2 yet..

I don't think so, other than the screen res or some software setting.

I think I will delete Firefox and download another copy to try.

Don't do that! Wasted effort! Just make sure we have the same FF. Click Help-About
etc and see if you have Firefox/0.10.1

Bob

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:30:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

I just now brought up both MSIE6 & Firefox1.0 and would have trouble telling the
difference except that I display the browser name at the top of my screen for
ease of recognition. My homepage for all browsers is my main bookmarks file. I
then clicked quickly back & forth on the taskbar between the two and am hard
pressed to see what you are describing. The displays are basically identical in
size.

More details are needed I guess. What URL are you looking at and could you tell
me which part of the screen is smaller?

Bob


This is the home page I use. It has weather for two cities, NY Yankee
and Alabama football scores plus other spors and computer news - plus
3 comis strips. You have to register with MSN to view the screen.

Sorry, but there ain't no way I'm going to register.<g

I doubted that you would is why I mentioned.

http://dellnet.my.msn.com/

The sign in page looks the same in both as above.

In IE the screen below all the headers is in two columns which fill
the screen from l to r. The page will scroll and the type size is
easily readable.

In Firefox the two columns fill about 2/3rds of the screen from l to r
and the rest is just color, no data.. I can read the screen but it's
more comfortable with the type enlarged. I tried expanding the screens
to no avail. Not even going to [full screen] works.

I should have asked you before what screen res you use. 800 X 600, 1280 X 1024, ?

I'm using 1024 x 768. on the laptop.

I subscribe to Ancestry.com and the size is different between the two
browsers there also.

Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

I'll get back tomorrow. I have to chair and Eagle Scout Board of
Review in a few minutes - I've done that for more than 30 years.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 23:19:58 +0200, john <[email protected]> wrote:

I don't have any problems with Acrobat Reader 6.02 in Firefox.

You need to change (In Downloads | File Type | Change Action from the
default "Open with" AcroExch (which does not work) to "Open them with
this application" C:\Program Files\Adobe\Acrobat 6.0\Reader\AcroRd32.exe
(or wherever AcroRd32.exe is on your PC).

Regarding your view problem, have you tried Ctrl + in Firefox to
increase the view size (or Ctrl - to decease size)?


John

I presume that's the same as the command on the menu - which I have
tried. But surely I would not have to do that every screen.

Hugh

[Robert Heiling]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 21:30:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

I just now brought up both MSIE6 & Firefox1.0 and would have trouble telling the
difference except that I display the browser name at the top of my screen for
ease of recognition. My homepage for all browsers is my main bookmarks file. I
then clicked quickly back & forth on the taskbar between the two and am hard
pressed to see what you are describing. The displays are basically identical in
size.

More details are needed I guess. What URL are you looking at and could you tell
me which part of the screen is smaller?

Bob


This is the home page I use. It has weather for two cities, NY Yankee
and Alabama football scores plus other spors and computer news - plus
3 comis strips. You have to register with MSN to view the screen.

Sorry, but there ain't no way I'm going to register.<g

I doubted that you would is why I mentioned.

http://dellnet.my.msn.com/

The sign in page looks the same in both as above.

In IE the screen below all the headers is in two columns which fill
the screen from l to r. The page will scroll and the type size is
easily readable.

In Firefox the two columns fill about 2/3rds of the screen from l to r
and the rest is just color, no data.. I can read the screen but it's
more comfortable with the type enlarged. I tried expanding the screens
to no avail. Not even going to [full screen] works.

I should have asked you before what screen res you use. 800 X 600, 1280 X 1024, ?

I'm using 1024 x 768. on the laptop.

I subscribe to Ancestry.com and the size is different between the two
browsers there also.

Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

I'll get back tomorrow. I have to chair and Eagle Scout Board of
Review in a few minutes - I've done that for more than 30 years.

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Bob

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Hugh

[Robert Heiling]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

Bob

[Robert Melson]

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:

In IE the screen below all the headers is in two columns which fill
the screen from l to r. The page will scroll and the type size is
easily readable.

In Firefox the two columns fill about 2/3rds of the screen from l to r
and the rest is just color, no data.. I can read the screen but it's
more comfortable with the type enlarged. I tried expanding the screens
to no avail. Not even going to [full screen] works.

I subscribe to Ancestry.com and the size is different between the two
browsers there also.

I think your seeing no difference in your screens tells me it's
something with my computer (or me) - I'm using a Dell Inspiron 5150
Laptop here with XP Home and no SP2 yet..

I think I will delete Firefox and download another copy to try.

Thanks,

Hugh
Hugh:

Have you edited your preferences in firefox? You can easily set font and
font-size in preferences, which might have an effect on what you see and
describe above. Not only does it not use the Internet Exploder settings, you
will also have to import your IE bookmarks/favorites.

Regards,
Another Bob
Bob Melson
--
Robert G. Melson Nothing is more terrible than
Rio Grande MicroSolutions ignorance in action.
El Paso, Texas Goethe
melsonr(at)earthlink(dot)net

[Gjest]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:07:26 -0700, Don. wrote:



"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hugh

I'm not Bob, Hugh, but I use the latest FireFox, V 0.10.1, and just
recently upgraded to Acrobat Reader 6.0. My browser screen is about
half filled with overhead before the contents of a PDF appear.

There's the FF Options(?) Toolbar, Navigator TB, Personal TB, PrefBar,
then comes the Adobe Reader's 2 TBs. I just right clicked on an
Adobe Reader toolbar hoping to see their names. One option was
simply Toolbars; I clicked on it, now I don't have ANY Adobe TBs!

That helps a bit, but a small bit.

Don

Thanks, Don. As I mentioned to Bob I think I'll delete Firefox and
download another copy - can't hurt.

Oh, boy! That's into an area that's NOT my expertise even though I've
done it a dozen times. ;-( The fly in the ointment is that you don't
completely "delete" FF/Mox/TB but Uninstall with Add/Remove in Window's
Settings. That then leave your Profile intact, as well as Bookmarks, etc.

I just had a terrible session trying to install FF on my wife's ME system
after installing Moz last month. She's been using NS 4 for some time,
but seldom surfing the web AND saving Bookmarks. I installed FF per the
above recipe and decided to put all my BMs from my Win98SE system in her
FF. HA! It has to be done carefully.

I saved my Bookmarks.html and Bookmarks.bak from the Windows's Profile,
NOT from the Profile under Program Files! and after installing her FF
shut down and overwrote her simliar BMs with mine from a floppy. That
worked but no other combo would. I was then able to change the throbber
to an icon of my own creation and make a User.js link to Google Advanced.
Also changed all the other icons (upper left) to that of the FF icon.

I did the latter because I'm a die hard anti-MS knut and it bugged me to
see the Flying Windows on my Window's Toolbar when FF was running. (Label
me coo coo.)

While in AL The Mr. Sid plug-in worked on IR but not FF for viewing
census records on Ancestry.com.

THAT I've never been able to do! But I neven have any problems with
Vital Search images: http://www.vitalsearch-worldwide.com/.

And I use Popup Stopper on IE. It will permit popups with the [ctrl].
I note that you have to tinker with FF to admit them.

That's about right. I have seen a "slide over" but that was done
withJS and there's evidently no way to block that.

BTW, I'm no expert, all the above messin' with FF was done with the
help of the Mozilla Champions in the Secure NGs for the Mozilla set.

Good luck,

Don

Hugh

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Gjest]

Hugh, did you install FF V 0.10.1?

It's AKA Firefox Setup 1.0PR.exe but fixes an earlier security leak.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox

Don


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Robert Heiling]

Robert Heiling wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob

[john]

Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:


"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:


On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks


One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..


I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?


The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob

You can always look at the configuration file for Firefox - just enter
"about:config" in the URL box. You can change the settings for just
about everything. Double-click on an item to change it. And if you
right-click you can reset them to the default.

John

[Robert Heiling]

john wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:
Robert Heiling wrote:


"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:


On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks


One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..


I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?


The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob



You can always look at the configuration file for Firefox - just enter
"about:config" in the URL box. You can change the settings for just
about everything. Double-click on an item to change it. And if you
right-click you can reset them to the default.

John

What settings are you recommending?

Bob

[john]

Robert Heiling wrote:

john wrote:


Robert Heiling wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:



"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:



On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:



Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks



One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..



I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?


The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob



You can always look at the configuration file for Firefox - just enter
"about:config" in the URL box. You can change the settings for just
about everything. Double-click on an item to change it. And if you
right-click you can reset them to the default.

John


What settings are you recommending?

Bob


I'm not since I don't know what they all do (nor have I found a complete

listing anywhere). But you could try resetting everything to "default"
or just checking what is not default and thinking about "why" -
presumably they could be the cause of your problem.

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 02:33:01 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

No, it was checked. I unchecked and tried (without quitting the
browser) but left it checked overnight with the computer off. Same
thing this AM.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The entire screen appears to be 3/4 size. More of a screen which needs
to be scrolled appears on FF than on IE. When I increase the type size
in FF the screen becomes slightly distorted. The increased size is not
retained either.

I did reinstall after searching for [moz*.*] and eliminating all
residue traces of the program after uninstalling. Same thing.

I note a Mozilla forum but I doubt that I am technically intelligent
enough to participate. I didn't see a FF news group where I could
study the archives before participating.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 03:10:19 GMT, [email protected] (Robert
Melson) wrote:

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (J. Hugh Sullivan) writes:

In IE the screen below all the headers is in two columns which fill
the screen from l to r. The page will scroll and the type size is
easily readable.

In Firefox the two columns fill about 2/3rds of the screen from l to r
and the rest is just color, no data.. I can read the screen but it's
more comfortable with the type enlarged. I tried expanding the screens
to no avail. Not even going to [full screen] works.

I subscribe to Ancestry.com and the size is different between the two
browsers there also.

I think your seeing no difference in your screens tells me it's
something with my computer (or me) - I'm using a Dell Inspiron 5150
Laptop here with XP Home and no SP2 yet..

I think I will delete Firefox and download another copy to try.

Thanks,

Hugh
Hugh:

Have you edited your preferences in firefox? You can easily set font and
font-size in preferences, which might have an effect on what you see and
describe above. Not only does it not use the Internet Exploder settings, you
will also have to import your IE bookmarks/favorites.

Regards,
Another Bob
Bob Melson

Yes, I increased the font size way beyond reason with no change. Also,
when installing, FF gives you the opportunity to import IE Bookmarks.

I may try going to a site and adding the bookmark to FF instead of
using the ones imported from IE.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:57:02 -0700, Don. wrote:

Hugh, did you install FF V 0.10.1?

It's AKA Firefox Setup 1.0PR.exe but fixes an earlier security leak.

http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox

Don

I installed [version 1.0 preview release] according to the program
itself. The install version is [Firefox Setup 1,OPR. exe].

That download is current on the Mozilla site.

Hugh

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:46:22 -0700, Don. wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:07:26 -0700, Don. wrote:



"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hugh

I'm not Bob, Hugh, but I use the latest FireFox, V 0.10.1, and just
recently upgraded to Acrobat Reader 6.0. My browser screen is about
half filled with overhead before the contents of a PDF appear.

There's the FF Options(?) Toolbar, Navigator TB, Personal TB, PrefBar,
then comes the Adobe Reader's 2 TBs. I just right clicked on an
Adobe Reader toolbar hoping to see their names. One option was
simply Toolbars; I clicked on it, now I don't have ANY Adobe TBs!

That helps a bit, but a small bit.

Don

Thanks, Don. As I mentioned to Bob I think I'll delete Firefox and
download another copy - can't hurt.


Oh, boy! That's into an area that's NOT my expertise even though I've
done it a dozen times. ;-( The fly in the ointment is that you don't
completely "delete" FF/Mox/TB but Uninstall with Add/Remove in Window's
Settings. That then leave your Profile intact, as well as Bookmarks, etc.

I just had a terrible session trying to install FF on my wife's ME system
after installing Moz last month. She's been using NS 4 for some time,
but seldom surfing the web AND saving Bookmarks. I installed FF per the
above recipe and decided to put all my BMs from my Win98SE system in her
FF. HA! It has to be done carefully.

I saved my Bookmarks.html and Bookmarks.bak from the Windows's Profile,
NOT from the Profile under Program Files! and after installing her FF
shut down and overwrote her simliar BMs with mine from a floppy. That
worked but no other combo would. I was then able to change the throbber
to an icon of my own creation and make a User.js link to Google Advanced.
Also changed all the other icons (upper left) to that of the FF icon.

I did the latter because I'm a die hard anti-MS knut and it bugged me to
see the Flying Windows on my Window's Toolbar when FF was running. (Label
me coo coo.)

While in AL The Mr. Sid plug-in worked on IR but not FF for viewing
census records on Ancestry.com.

THAT I've never been able to do! But I neven have any problems with
Vital Search images: http://www.vitalsearch-worldwide.com/.

And I use Popup Stopper on IE. It will permit popups with the [ctrl].
I note that you have to tinker with FF to admit them.

That's about right. I have seen a "slide over" but that was done
withJS and there's evidently no way to block that.

BTW, I'm no expert, all the above messin' with FF was done with the
help of the Mozilla Champions in the Secure NGs for the Mozilla set.

Good luck,

Don


Hugh

I'm not an expert either but I did delete the extraneous FF files
after a search and before reinstalling.

An expert is one who gets so curious about something that will not
work right that he pursues it until it will. I have become
self-sufficient in a number of things because I have that gene!

I have no problem with being dumb, I just have a problem staying that
way!

Hugh

[Gjest]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 20:46:22 -0700, Don. wrote:



"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 12:07:26 -0700, Don. wrote:



"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 18:24:14 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

"Everett M. Greene" wrote:

Mozilla/Firefox works well enough except for PDF file downloads.
Nothing I've done seems to get Firefox to save a PDF file and
it appears to totally ignore "preference" settings that tell
it to save the files.

I just ran a test download & save on my Firefox "1.0" (or whatever version
it's called) to make certain and it was alright. I use version 5.0 of Adobe
and have heard of problems with later versions. 5.0 has never given me any
trouble and has worked for everything.

I have Firefox on my computer at the house in AL so I finally
installed it here also.

The screen is smaller than IE for some reason. The text can be made
larger but the screen still doesn't fill as IE does. Any thoughts
about why that is, Bob?

Hugh

I'm not Bob, Hugh, but I use the latest FireFox, V 0.10.1, and just
recently upgraded to Acrobat Reader 6.0. My browser screen is about
half filled with overhead before the contents of a PDF appear.

There's the FF Options(?) Toolbar, Navigator TB, Personal TB, PrefBar,
then comes the Adobe Reader's 2 TBs. I just right clicked on an
Adobe Reader toolbar hoping to see their names. One option was
simply Toolbars; I clicked on it, now I don't have ANY Adobe TBs!

That helps a bit, but a small bit.

Don

Thanks, Don. As I mentioned to Bob I think I'll delete Firefox and
download another copy - can't hurt.


Oh, boy! That's into an area that's NOT my expertise even though I've
done it a dozen times. ;-( The fly in the ointment is that you don't
completely "delete" FF/Mox/TB but Uninstall with Add/Remove in Window's
Settings. That then leave your Profile intact, as well as Bookmarks, etc.

I just had a terrible session trying to install FF on my wife's ME system
after installing Moz last month. She's been using NS 4 for some time,
but seldom surfing the web AND saving Bookmarks. I installed FF per the
above recipe and decided to put all my BMs from my Win98SE system in her
FF. HA! It has to be done carefully.

I saved my Bookmarks.html and Bookmarks.bak from the Windows's Profile,
NOT from the Profile under Program Files! and after installing her FF
shut down and overwrote her simliar BMs with mine from a floppy. That
worked but no other combo would. I was then able to change the throbber
to an icon of my own creation and make a User.js link to Google Advanced.
Also changed all the other icons (upper left) to that of the FF icon.

I did the latter because I'm a die hard anti-MS knut and it bugged me to
see the Flying Windows on my Window's Toolbar when FF was running. (Label
me coo coo.)

While in AL The Mr. Sid plug-in worked on IR but not FF for viewing
census records on Ancestry.com.

THAT I've never been able to do! But I neven have any problems with
Vital Search images: http://www.vitalsearch-worldwide.com/.

And I use Popup Stopper on IE. It will permit popups with the [ctrl].
I note that you have to tinker with FF to admit them.

That's about right. I have seen a "slide over" but that was done
withJS and there's evidently no way to block that.

BTW, I'm no expert, all the above messin' with FF was done with the
help of the Mozilla Champions in the Secure NGs for the Mozilla set.

Good luck,

Don


Hugh

I'm not an expert either but I did delete the extraneous FF files
after a search and before reinstalling.

An expert is one who gets so curious about something that will not
work right that he pursues it until it will. I have become
self-sufficient in a number of things because I have that gene!

I have no problem with being dumb, I just have a problem staying that
way!

Hugh

I hear you, Hugh, and that's my story too. As for the definition
of an expert I fall back to one I heard when I was in knee pants.

Pronounce the word slowly and listen to it: "Ex" is a has been, and
"spert" is a drip under pressure. `*8-o

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

Don


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob


Thanks for telling me everything is fine on your screen - I really

needed that!

Interestingly, but confusing, some of the screens appear sized on FF
as they do on IE.

I think the answer is try Opera which I didn't really like or stick
with IE which has never given me a problem. That begs the question why
do I want to change if I've never had a problem!

Since DOS I've gotten confusider and confusider.

Hugh

[Robert Heiling]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob


Thanks for telling me everything is fine on your screen - I really
needed that!

I understand that one,<g> but those examples are given only so that you can tell me what they
look like to you. I think they're ones you said you use.

Interestingly, but confusing, some of the screens appear sized on FF
as they do on IE.

"some of". Golly, that was really informative.<g> What's that saying about the 'best laid
plans ...'?

I think the answer is try Opera which I didn't really like or stick
with IE which has never given me a problem. That begs the question why
do I want to change if I've never had a problem!

I thought you were trying to keep up with the house in AL.

Since DOS I've gotten confusider and confusider.

I recommend CPM to you.<vbg>

Bob

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 15:28:22 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]>
wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob


Thanks for telling me everything is fine on your screen - I really
needed that!

I understand that one,<g> but those examples are given only so that you can tell me what they
look like to you. I think they're ones you said you use.

Interestingly, but confusing, some of the screens appear sized on FF
as they do on IE.

"some of". Golly, that was really informative.<g> What's that saying about the 'best laid
plans ...'?

I think my point was, that if the size problem is inconsistent between
some sites and others, there is probably no solution to the problem.

I couldn't access the Internet yesterday morning and the techie walked
me through some steps in the device manager. The only reason he could
come up with for inactivating was that I'm using XP which appears to
me "many slips 'tween the cup and the lip".

I think the answer is try Opera which I didn't really like or stick
with IE which has never given me a problem. That begs the question why
do I want to change if I've never had a problem!

I thought you were trying to keep up with the house in AL.

The hurrider I go the behinder I get!

Since DOS I've gotten confusider and confusider.

I recommend CPM to you.<vbg

Bob

Maybe what we need is XP Lite - I don't need a Hum-V on the
Interstate.

Hugh

[Gjest]

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob


Thanks for telling me everything is fine on your screen - I really
needed that!

Interestingly, but confusing, some of the screens appear sized on FF
as they do on IE.

I think the answer is try Opera which I didn't really like or stick
with IE which has never given me a problem. That begs the question why
do I want to change if I've never had a problem!

Since DOS I've gotten confusider and confusider.

Hugh

I hear you, buddy. I've so many DOS programs on my HD for genealogy I can't
even considre moving to XP, even if I wanted to. Sigh...

As for FF and 'why not IE?' take a look at:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004 ... 169813.htm

I'm Don, and I've approved of this message...


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 11:48:15 -0700, Don. wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 13:31:43 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:

Robert Heiling wrote:

"J. Hugh Sullivan" wrote:

On Tue, 19 Oct 2004 22:33:10 GMT, Robert Heiling <[email protected]
wrote:


Let's pick one we can both use:
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html

The main screen covers about 3/4 of the area with a sign in notice on
the right.

The original Mozilla screen shows full size.

Both Ancestry.com and Yahoo TV listings are 3/4 size along with most,
but not all, of my other bookmarks

One thing to look at. Click Tools-Options-Advanced and check the box for Multimedia
Resize etc. That may be the problem.

Did that - no change checked or unchecked.

Then it had been unchecked I assume? You need to quit the browser & start it again for
that to take effect.

Coises! Now mine is acting up too. More later..

I'm using V 1.0 Preview.

Right one! No point in any dowloading or installing again. In which way is your screen
smaller? Both up-down and right-left ? or is it just missing on the right with a
horizontal scrollbar?

The Comcast screen
http://www.comcast.net/chsi.html
has a horizontal scrollbar and nothing much on the right-hand side, but it's the same in
MSIE so it must be the website. Ancestry at
http://www.ancestry.com/search/rectype/ ... aspx?rt=40
is fine & no scrollbar
Yahoo at
http://dir.yahoo.com/News_and_Media/Television/
is AOK.

Bob


Thanks for telling me everything is fine on your screen - I really
needed that!

Interestingly, but confusing, some of the screens appear sized on FF
as they do on IE.

I think the answer is try Opera which I didn't really like or stick
with IE which has never given me a problem. That begs the question why
do I want to change if I've never had a problem!

Since DOS I've gotten confusider and confusider.

Hugh

I hear you, buddy. I've so many DOS programs on my HD for genealogy I can't
even considre moving to XP, even if I wanted to. Sigh...

As for FF and 'why not IE?' take a look at:
http://www.emediawire.com/releases/2004 ... 169813.htm

I'm Don, and I've approved of this message...


----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Based on my current view of FF the effort is terrorist sponsored.

I think I need training wheels on my computer!

Hugh

[singhals]

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

[serious snipping occurred here]

I think my point was, that if the size problem is inconsistent between
some sites and others, there is probably no solution to the problem.

You're probably sort of right. (g) However, look around for the control
option about what to let control screen size. Whateer it says now,
write it down somewhere you can find it (but won't wash it off in your
shower (g)), and change it to the other one. See if that fixes it.

Cheryl

[more serious snipping]

[J. Hugh Sullivan]

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:52:33 -0400, singhals <[email protected]>
wrote:

J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:

[serious snipping occurred here]


I think my point was, that if the size problem is inconsistent between
some sites and others, there is probably no solution to the problem.

You're probably sort of right. (g) However, look around for the control
option about what to let control screen size. Whateer it says now,
write it down somewhere you can find it (but won't wash it off in your
shower (g)), and change it to the other one. See if that fixes it.

Cheryl

[more serious snipping]

Must you be so serious all the time? Snipping is fine!

I've looked for the sizing button - if I found it, it didn't work.

This is something up with which I had not planned to put.

C'est la vie as Denis and Bob would say.

Hugh