InformAction Forums

[quote="GµårÐïåñ"].... And I meant easier for the vendors not the users.[/quote]
LOL Gotcha. :lol:

That's what I said, the file is still there, the information is in the registry instead of the setup file. And I meant easier for the vendors not the users.

[quote="GµårÐïåñ"]the OEM info was in an ini/inf file before now the logo files are in the the same place but the information is coded in the registry... [/quote]
The info and support info, yes, but the logo was simply a system32 file called oemlogo.bmp -- for which any .bmp can be substituted. :twisted:
[quote="GµårÐïåñ"]... loading a registry payload was deemed easier for branding purposes...arguments can be made for/against both methods.[/quote]
I think you mean, "harder for users to remove the brand logo". :evil:

I don't see any argument "for", except for the one above. ;)

Correct, the OEM info was in an ini/inf file before now the logo files are in the the same place but the information is coded in the registry, as part of the pre-coding by manufacturers, loading a registry payload was deemed easier for branding purposes, personally I always wipe and clean install any machine I get anyway, so never been an issue for me. If I am doing it for people, I put the support information needed for them to get a hold of ME for help, but that's about it. I have a slip script for both, so it takes seconds but yeah arguments can be made for/against both methods.

[quote="GµårÐïåñ"]Of course silly, I was just having a little fun...pre-vista you put it in the system32 folder now you have to do it in the registry but the basic files are all the same. ish.[/quote]
Another "regression" in Vista. :mrgreen: -- no messing with the registry to change OEM logo in XP. 8-)

Of course silly, I was just having a little fun...pre-vista you put it in the system32 folder now you have to do it in the registry but the basic files are all the same. ish.

[quote="GµårÐïåñ"]If only my manufacturer would look that good supporting me, I would be a happier hacker :twisted:[/quote]
Surely an advanced hacker like yourself knows how to put whatever image is desired in that box, in place of a dull OEM logo ... :D

If only my manufacturer would look that good supporting me, I would be a happier hacker :twisted:

Here's the System Properties box:

[url=http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/715/systemproperties.png/][img]http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/67/systemproperties.png[/img][/url]

[quote="Kirby"]Does the comment of "unsupported" also pertain to the other computer being mentioned (with issues, too) running at least 9.0.1 Firefox?
The 3.5+ Firefox machine is an older Dell and has limited memory/chip size and will probably be relegated to second line use soon.[/quote]
I'm on a machine from 2005, low-end laptop. Firefox 4+ was a memory hog, but they've been working on that, and it's gotten better over the years.
If you can run Fx 9, you can run Fx 12, including the portable version I pointed to. Try that out, because there's no "installation" required.

Do you happen to know the amount of RAM and the speed of the chip?
Here's a quick way to find out.
Find the "Windows" key, the one with the wavy-flag Microsoft Windows logo.
Push that and the "Pause/Break" key simultaneously. ***

On the General tab, In the lower right should be the amount of RAM. (I'll post a pic)
On that box, ("System Properties"), click the Hardware tab.
Then click "Device Manager"
Click the + sign next to "Processors"
It should list the brand, model, and speed of your processor, e. g. "Intel Super-Cool 1.2 GHz".

Yes, Fx 9 is unsupported. Supported means that the vendor still fixes flaws, including any security flaws discovered or reported.
This is the issue with "unsupported" -- that there may be known security flaws, or "vulnerabilities', as they say, that will not be patched in that version -- *ever*.

So there is some risk.

Try F12, portable or otherwise. Any questions, just ask.
But in any case, there's no reason why we shouldn't be able to get that site working perfectly.
[quote]I always appreciate cogent comments, but sometimes SWAG's just don't seem so cheery.[/quote]
How's this:
Cheers, [img]http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-eatdrink004.gif[/img]
Tom

*** Three other ways to get to the same place:
1) Start > Control Panel (or Start > Settings > Control Panel, depending on your setup) and double-click "System".
2) Right-click "My Computer" icon and click Properties.
3)Start > Run and in the run box, type:
[b]sysdm.cpl[/b] and click OK or Enter.

There are others. But the keyboard shortcut is awesomely cool. 8-)

Kirby, working for Charter or such for no matter how many years, doesn't make them savvy. I have neighbors and friends who have Charter service and the techs, both on the phone, in the field and even senior ones with 10+ years under their belts have been 99% clueless to the technical specs of the lines and how to configure the routers and modems and such. To the point, that _I_ had to be present, at their request, to explain to the techs what they are doing wrong, use THEIR OWN tools to show them what they are doing wrong and how to properly do it and fixed the issue, after they followed what I suggested, in that visit, which had taken in one case 7 visits by them prior with no resolution and in another 4 visits by them and still not working. Most of them are so arrogant they don't acknowledge they don't know squat, but the two techs that I encountered at least had the appreciation to say, thanks man, they didn't teach us any of this shit and now I get it and in fact what you told me is going to help me fix 3 other service calls that I wasn't able to figure out and I am going back to fix them now that I know. One manager even called me to ask me if I would work for them, I said you can't afford me. So being in the in the field and working for a major company and being titled an IT tech or whatever, doesn't equal knowing what the hell they are doing, thought that needed to be said. A common misconception that ooh they are knowledgeable because they do this for a living. Like a secretary that uses the database wizard to setup a database and says, so what's the big deal about being a database designer, I just built one myself - like that's the same thing.

Currently there is only stable version Mozilla Firefox targeted to home users on Windows that is supported and that's Firefox 12.
Prior versions have or might have known vulnerabilities. The hardware requirements have not really much changed.
I wouldn't touch your computer with a ten foot pole. ;)

Does the comment of "unsupported" also pertain to the other computer being mentioned (with issues, too) running at least 9.0.1 Firefox?


The 3.5+ Firefox machine is an older Dell and has limited memory/chip size and will probably be relegated to second line use soon.

I always appreciate cogent comments, but sometimes SWAG's just don't seem so cheery.

Thanks again.

Kirby

[quote="Tom T."]We'd rather fix the issue than have you use an out-of-date NoScript that lacks the protections and tweaks in later versions.[/quote]Give it up, he's on a unsupported Firefox version, so it seems like he doesn't care much about such "details". ;)
Ain't I right, Kirby?

[quote="Kirby"]...I may not be that capable to start with a "clean install" since I let my computer buddy do that stuff....[/quote]
Not talking about a "clean install", talking about a clean [url=http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile]profile[/url] for your existing install of Firefox. Please read the linked article.
If after reading it, you still need help, let us know, but it's pretty step-by-step. I'll make it even more so if necessary.
[quote]PS
I understand that it says latest development build, but I was just wondering why the latest upgrade at Mozilla is 2.3.9, since I thought that might just be the most current stable version, and maybe the 2.4rc~ stuff was BETA.[/quote]
NoScript uses "development build" rather than "beta".
You'd have to ask Giorgio himself for the exact reason, but i think the implication is that "beta", as in Windows or Firefox, implies stuff that is still experimental, may cause problems, and should only be used by advanced users. Most NS dev builds are small, incremental changes, which Giorgio has tested, rather than radical things. Many non-tech users use them.

Every once in a while, a slight regression creeps in. (The new dev build breaks something.) Rapid reporting by the many users ensures that these are quickly fixed. You can always go back to the previous version if you can't wait for the fix. It doesn't happen very often.
[quote] I'm not deliberately trying to be thick, but may come across as an almost rank beginner because I want to verify certain details. Sorry if it seems estupido from an otherwise smart guy.[/quote]
There are no stupid questions; only stupid people who are unwilling to ask them and to learn something new.

None of us was born knowing any of this; I'm still learning every day. Otherwise, I'm stuck at this level of ignorance for the rest of my life. :)