Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
70 messages Options
1234
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Lynn McGuire-2
On 11/5/2017 3:39 PM, Mark12547 wrote:

> In article <[hidden email]>,
> [hidden email] says...
>> Often it has my
>> old computer maxed out for CPU doing NOTHING, with a page rendering in
>> the background.  Often, like you, I can't even type until I either
>> escape from the page rendering, of 5000 ads, to allow me to type.
>>
>
> I have noticed a vast difference in performance between having a good ad
> blocker like uBlock Origin installed and running vs. not having any ad
> blocker. I'm not referring to bizarre sites, but Weather Underground,
> AVSForum and KATU (the local ABC affiliate), where the ads are so bad
> that Firefox doesn't get the cycles to render what I want to see.
>
> If a browser doesn't have an ad blocker, as far as I am concerned, it is
> worthless.
>
> uBlock Origin can be found on addons.mozilla.org and searching for the
> full name (there are other extensions that capitalize on uBlock Origin's
> name, so this is NOT uBlock, but uBlock Origin).
>
> Direct link to addons.mozilla.org for uBlock Origin
> https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/ublock-origin/
>
> uBlock Origin is already written as pure WebExtension, so it will
> continue to work when Firefox upgrades to 57 in just 9 days from when I
> post this posting.

I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137

Lynn


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Mark12547
In article <[hidden email]>, lynnmcguire5
@gmail.com says...
> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
>     https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>
>
>

I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).

I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
and larger computer systems.

At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by WaltS48-5
On 11/6/2017 12:20 PM, WaltS48 wrote:

> On 11/6/17 11:49 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>> Have you refreshed your profile?
>>
>>   No.  Too much loss when I do that.
>
> The only thing lost is extensions and those can be restored by copying
> the extensions folder from the profile in the Old Firefox Data folder,
> then starting Firefox and reinstalling them.
>
> Always worked for me.
>
>>
>>> What is the speed of your CPU? How much RAM? How much HD capacity?
>>>
>> 2.6gz dual processor  4GB Ram, 500GB HD.
>
> Windows 10: 2.2Ghz Quad-core, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD and I'm not thrilled
> with the performance of any application I have used on it.
>
> Linux Ubuntu 16.04: 3.2 Ghz 3 cores, 8GB RAM, 200GB HD (The 1TB drive
> died) and I have no problems. The 17 news sites I open in tabs take
> awhile to open. There are a lot of images and videos to load.
>>
>>> Does your system meet the system requirements?
>>>
>>
>> Yes
>
> Same
>
>>
>>
>>> What is your Internet connection speed?
>>>
>> 65mbps
>
> 7.6Mbps, and except for the sites noted above, Firefox is snappy on
> Ubuntu even when I'm downloading files, streaming music and running
> Thunderbird. I think Windows uses a lot of bandwidth for checking for
> updates making things a bit slower.
>
> The new 25Mbps service I signed up for today will be an interesting
> update. I should do some speed tests and take notes on the differences.
>
I am sure you will notice the difference, as download really are fast,
but remember the old saying about internet speed, we all wait at the
same speed, so if the server you contact is slow, or busy, or both, that
higher speed is quite ineffective.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Wolf K.
On 2017-11-07 02:47, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 11/6/2017 12:20 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 11/6/17 11:49 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>> Have you refreshed your profile?
>>>
>>>   No.  Too much loss when I do that.
>>
>> The only thing lost is extensions and those can be restored by copying
>> the extensions folder from the profile in the Old Firefox Data folder,
>> then starting Firefox and reinstalling them.
>>
>> Always worked for me.
>>
>>>
>>>> What is the speed of your CPU? How much RAM? How much HD capacity?
>>>>
>>> 2.6gz dual processor  4GB Ram, 500GB HD.
>>
>> Windows 10: 2.2Ghz Quad-core, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD and I'm not thrilled
>> with the performance of any application I have used on it.
>>
>> Linux Ubuntu 16.04: 3.2 Ghz 3 cores, 8GB RAM, 200GB HD (The 1TB drive
>> died) and I have no problems. The 17 news sites I open in tabs take
>> awhile to open. There are a lot of images and videos to load.
>>>
>>>> Does your system meet the system requirements?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes
>>
>> Same
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> What is your Internet connection speed?
>>>>
>>> 65mbps
>>
>> 7.6Mbps, and except for the sites noted above, Firefox is snappy on
>> Ubuntu even when I'm downloading files, streaming music and running
>> Thunderbird. I think Windows uses a lot of bandwidth for checking for
>> updates making things a bit slower.
>>
>> The new 25Mbps service I signed up for today will be an interesting
>> update. I should do some speed tests and take notes on the differences.
>>
> I am sure you will notice the difference, as download really are fast,
> but remember the old saying about internet speed, we all wait at the
> same speed, so if the server you contact is slow, or busy, or both, that
> higher speed is quite ineffective.
>
... and turn off Updates. You can always check manually.

--
Wolf K
kirkwood40.blogspot.com
"Wanted. Schrödinger’s Cat. Dead and Alive."
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

WaltS48-5
On 11/7/17 9:32 AM, Wolf K wrote:

> On 2017-11-07 02:47, Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 11/6/2017 12:20 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
>>> On 11/6/17 11:49 AM, Ron Hunter wrote:
>>>>> Have you refreshed your profile?
>>>>
>>>>   No.  Too much loss when I do that.
>>>
>>> The only thing lost is extensions and those can be restored by
>>> copying the extensions folder from the profile in the Old Firefox
>>> Data folder, then starting Firefox and reinstalling them.
>>>
>>> Always worked for me.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is the speed of your CPU? How much RAM? How much HD capacity?
>>>>>
>>>> 2.6gz dual processor  4GB Ram, 500GB HD.
>>>
>>> Windows 10: 2.2Ghz Quad-core, 6GB RAM, 500GB HD and I'm not thrilled
>>> with the performance of any application I have used on it.
>>>
>>> Linux Ubuntu 16.04: 3.2 Ghz 3 cores, 8GB RAM, 200GB HD (The 1TB drive
>>> died) and I have no problems. The 17 news sites I open in tabs take
>>> awhile to open. There are a lot of images and videos to load.
>>>>
>>>>> Does your system meet the system requirements?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes
>>>
>>> Same
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> What is your Internet connection speed?
>>>>>
>>>> 65mbps
>>>
>>> 7.6Mbps, and except for the sites noted above, Firefox is snappy on
>>> Ubuntu even when I'm downloading files, streaming music and running
>>> Thunderbird. I think Windows uses a lot of bandwidth for checking for
>>> updates making things a bit slower.
>>>
>>> The new 25Mbps service I signed up for today will be an interesting
>>> update. I should do some speed tests and take notes on the differences.
>>>
>> I am sure you will notice the difference, as download really are fast,
>> but remember the old saying about internet speed, we all wait at the
>> same speed, so if the server you contact is slow, or busy, or both,
>> that higher speed is quite ineffective.
>>
> ... and turn off Updates. You can always check manually.
>

Will see how it goes with my new ISP.

Even when I check manually it takes at least the amount of time it takes
me to walk the 1/2 mile to the bus stop, take the bus to the store, do
the grocery shopping, take the bus back and walk home. 😩

Windows sucks, but I was curious and wanted to see the differences in
Firefox and Thunderbird compared to them on Linux. My Windows must have
a better graphics card. They do look nicer on Windows.

--
Go Bills, Steelers, Pitt, Pens and Sabres!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Lynn McGuire-2
In reply to this post by Mark12547
On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:

> In article <[hidden email]>, lynnmcguire5
> @gmail.com says...
>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
>>      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>
>>
>>
>
> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).
>
> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
> and larger computer systems.
>
> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.

Gotcha.

One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
FireFox.  It is time.

Thanks,
Lynn


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Mozilla - General mailing list
On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>> In article <[hidden email]>, lynnmcguire5
>> @gmail.com says...
>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
>>>      https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>
>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).
>>
>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
>> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
>> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
>> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
>> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
>> and larger computer systems.
>>
>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
>> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
>> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
>
> Gotcha.
>
> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
> FireFox.  It is time.

What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
It's not like there's no choice.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Lynn McGuire-2
On 11/7/2017 2:27 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:

> On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>>> In article <[hidden email]>, lynnmcguire5
>>> @gmail.com says...
>>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
>>>>       https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>>
>>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).
>>>
>>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
>>> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
>>> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
>>> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
>>> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
>>> and larger computer systems.
>>>
>>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
>>> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
>>> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
>>
>> Gotcha.
>>
>> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
>> FireFox.  It is time.
>
> What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
> It's not like there's no choice.

Not everyone has the expertise to do so.

Thanks,
Lynn


_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

The Real Bev
On 11/08/2017 11:49 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:

> On 11/7/2017 2:27 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>> On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>>>> In article <[hidden email]>, lynnmcguire5
>>>> @gmail.com says...
>>>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has happened.
>>>>>       https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>>>
>>>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 & 16).
>>>>
>>>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because "rich
>>>> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
>>>> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished playing.
>>>> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources, even
>>>> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as faster
>>>> and larger computer systems.
>>>>
>>>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they haven't
>>>> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
>>>> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
>>>
>>> Gotcha.
>>>
>>> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
>>> FireFox.  It is time.
>>
>> What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
>> It's not like there's no choice.
>
> Not everyone has the expertise to do so.

That's really hard to believe.

--
Cheers, Bev
   "The problem with homeopathy is that it's so potent that if you
    stop taking it you can overdose."  --AnonymousCoward, slashdot

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

WaltS48-5
On 11/8/17 3:55 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> On 11/08/2017 11:49 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>> On 11/7/2017 2:27 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>> On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>>>>> In article <[hidden email]>,
>>>>> lynnmcguire5
>>>>> @gmail.com says...
>>>>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has
>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>       https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 &
>>>>> 16).
>>>>>
>>>>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because
>>>>> "rich
>>>>> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
>>>>> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished
>>>>> playing.
>>>>> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources,
>>>>> even
>>>>> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as
>>>>> faster
>>>>> and larger computer systems.
>>>>>
>>>>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they
>>>>> haven't
>>>>> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
>>>>> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
>>>>
>>>> Gotcha.
>>>>
>>>> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
>>>> FireFox.  It is time.
>>>
>>> What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
>>> It's not like there's no choice.
>>
>> Not everyone has the expertise to do so.
>
> That's really hard to believe.
>

A friend doesn't know what a browser is, doesn't want one, but uses one
to check email on the web and has no clue.

She opens the browser, clicks the search bar, clicks gmail in her search
history, then clicks the search result every time she wants to check mail.

She just switched from Comcast to Verizon FiOS. The technician suggested
the gmail account, Now she has two gmail accounts because she could not
get her Comcast mail and set up an account while still on Comcast.

Not that hard to believe that some users are computer illiterate.

--
Go Bills, Steelers, Pitt, Pens and Sabres!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

caver1-5
On 11/8/17 4:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/8/17 3:55 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 11:49 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2017 2:27 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[hidden email]>,
>>>>>> lynnmcguire5
>>>>>> @gmail.com says...
>>>>>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing has
>>>>>>> happened.
>>>>>>>        https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report (comments 14 &
>>>>>> 16).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker because
>>>>>> "rich
>>>>>> content" ads were consuming too many resources and blocking the
>>>>>> rendering of the web page until the "rich content" had finished
>>>>>> playing.
>>>>>> It's ironic that today ads are still consuming too many resources,
>>>>>> even
>>>>>> when our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well as
>>>>>> faster
>>>>>> and larger computer systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means they
>>>>>> haven't
>>>>>> forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get any traction before the
>>>>>> teething problems of the Firefox Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotcha.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad blocker inside
>>>>> FireFox.  It is time.
>>>>
>>>> What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker?
>>>> It's not like there's no choice.
>>>
>>> Not everyone has the expertise to do so.
>>
>> That's really hard to believe.
>>
>
> A friend doesn't know what a browser is, doesn't want one, but uses one
> to check email on the web and has no clue.
>
> She opens the browser, clicks the search bar, clicks gmail in her search
> history, then clicks the search result every time she wants to check mail.
>
> She just switched from Comcast to Verizon FiOS. The technician suggested
> the gmail account, Now she has two gmail accounts because she could not
> get her Comcast mail and set up an account while still on Comcast.
>
> Not that hard to believe that some users are computer illiterate.
>

My mother-in-law doesn't think she has the internet even though she is
constanly on it for Facebook, Instagram, her email, whatever. Just can't
convince her of that fact.

--
Caver1
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

The Real Bev
In reply to this post by WaltS48-5
On 11/08/2017 01:09 PM, [hidden email] wrote:

> On 11/8/17 3:55 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 11:49 AM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>> On 11/7/2017 2:27 PM, Christian Riechers wrote:
>>>> On 11/7/17 7:13 PM, Lynn McGuire wrote:
>>>>> On 11/6/2017 4:34 PM, Mark12547 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <[hidden email]>,
>>>>>> lynnmcguire5 @gmail.com says...
>>>>>>> I filed a bug on the ads burning cpu and ram but nothing
>>>>>>> has happened.
>>>>>>> https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1392137
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm the "Mark" that participated in that Bug report
>>>>>> (comments 14 & 16).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I remember back three decades ago installing an ad blocker
>>>>>> because "rich content" ads were consuming too many
>>>>>> resources and blocking the rendering of the web page until
>>>>>> the "rich content" had finished playing. It's ironic that
>>>>>> today ads are still consuming too many resources, even when
>>>>>> our Internet connection is 100,000 times faster, as well
>>>>>> as faster and larger computer systems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> At least that bug report got a priority of P3, which means
>>>>>> they haven't forgotten about it yet. I doubt it will get
>>>>>> any traction before the teething problems of the Firefox
>>>>>> Quantum 57 rollout is complete.
>>>>>
>>>>> Gotcha.
>>>>>
>>>>> One of the resolutions might be to include a minimal ad
>>>>> blocker inside FireFox.  It is time.
>>>>
>>>> What prevents you from simply installing an ad blocker? It's
>>>> not like there's no choice.
>>>
>>> Not everyone has the expertise to do so.
>>
>> That's really hard to believe.
>
> A friend doesn't know what a browser is, doesn't want one, but uses
> one to check email on the web and has no clue.
>
> She opens the browser, clicks the search bar, clicks gmail in her
> search history, then clicks the search result every time she wants to
> check mail.
>
> She just switched from Comcast to Verizon FiOS. The technician
> suggested the gmail account, Now she has two gmail accounts because
> she could not get her Comcast mail and set up an account while still
> on Comcast.

I hope she's getting the cheapest plan available -- speed is wasted on
her.

> Not that hard to believe that some users are computer illiterate.

OK, I believe it.  Real shame.  It's like being actually illiterate.

We forced a computer on my mom (78, 2 years older than I am now), who
swore she didn't want one.  We got her hooked on solitaire, then
introduced email, then browsing.  She loved it.

--
Cheers, Bev
   Is the Pope Catholic?  Do bears shit in the woods?
   Did Rose Kennedy have a black dress?
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

WaltS48-5
On 11/8/17 4:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> I hope she's getting the cheapest plan available -- speed is wasted on
> her.

She indicated the cost was the same as Comcast, around $172. She has a TV.

My plan for Internet and Voice from Comcast is going to cost me around
$68.00 for a year, then rise to $107 after a year. I am getting the only
plan available. That's about a $100 dollar savings from my current
Verizon DSL account and still a deal after a year.

I should have gone to the service center and picked up the modem.
Waiting for it is stressful. Found out after asking them to ship it that
public transportation could get me there.

Verizon FiOS was a consideration, but the apartment is already wired for
cable. FiOS installation in these old houses converted into apartments
isn't pretty, with the cable running out the side of the house, up the
outside of the building, back into the apartment, and who knows how they
get it to the spot the user wants it. My friends comes out under a
closet door in her living room, across a section of the floor to her TV
stand. My living room has no walls or closet facing an outside wall.
Kitchen, and the two bedrooms do have outside facing walls. My plan was
to put the Modem/router and phone on the kitchen table.

Anybody know a Modem/Router that works with Comcast/Xfinity Internet and
Voice? Let me know so I can save $10 a month on the modem rental fee. I
did do some window shopping, but didn't  find anything at Best Buy or
Target.

--
Go Bills, Steelers, Pitt, Pens and Sabres!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

The Real Bev
On 11/08/2017 02:33 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
> On 11/8/17 4:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> I hope she's getting the cheapest plan available -- speed is wasted on
>> her.
>
> She indicated the cost was the same as Comcast, around $172. She has a TV.

Damn.  Charter charges $29/month each for internet, voice and TV (basic,
I assume) for the first year.

> My plan for Internet and Voice from Comcast is going to cost me around
> $68.00 for a year, then rise to $107 after a year. I am getting the only
> plan available. That's about a $100 dollar savings from my current
> Verizon DSL account and still a deal after a year.

The Ooma VOIP device (between $80 and $100 depending on when/where you
buy it) works really well.  ~$4/month for the required taxes thereafter.
  Add a Sentry device ($50 or so) and banish all robocalls and 95% of
telemarketers forever.

I guess most people use cell rather than landlines so that information
isn't all that useful, but I have a $10/year prepaid cell plan (no
longer available) and rarely need to phone anyway.

> I should have gone to the service center and picked up the modem.
> Waiting for it is stressful. Found out after asking them to ship it that
> public transportation could get me there.
>
> Verizon FiOS was a consideration, but the apartment is already wired for
> cable. FiOS installation in these old houses converted into apartments
> isn't pretty, with the cable running out the side of the house, up the
> outside of the building, back into the apartment, and who knows how they
> get it to the spot the user wants it. My friends comes out under a
> closet door in her living room, across a section of the floor to her TV
> stand. My living room has no walls or closet facing an outside wall.
> Kitchen, and the two bedrooms do have outside facing walls. My plan was
> to put the Modem/router and phone on the kitchen table.
>
> Anybody know a Modem/Router that works with Comcast/Xfinity Internet and
> Voice? Let me know so I can save $10 a month on the modem rental fee. I
> did do some window shopping, but didn't  find anything at Best Buy or
> Target.

We've always used standard Motorola cablemodems with Charter, but the
latest one is a Cisco.  Mostly from yardsales.  What does Comcast say is
required?

--
Cheers, Bev
   "Calling someone an asshole for being rude to a telemarketer
    is like accusing someone who's shot a burglar in his home
    of being a poor host."                        -- W.S.Rowell

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

PietB-2
In reply to this post by caver1-5
Caver1 wrote:
> My mother-in-law doesn't think she has the internet even though she
> is constanly on it for Facebook, Instagram, her email, whatever.
> Just can't convince her of that fact.

If she makes the common mistake "internet = www" she's right.

-p

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

WaltS48-5
In reply to this post by The Real Bev
On 11/8/17 11:11 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 11/08/2017 02:33 PM, WaltS48 wrote:

<snip>

>>
>> Anybody know a Modem/Router that works with Comcast/Xfinity Internet and
>> Voice? Let me know so I can save $10 a month on the modem rental fee. I
>> did do some window shopping, but didn't  find anything at Best Buy or
>> Target.
>
> We've always used standard Motorola cablemodems with Charter, but the
> latest one is a Cisco.  Mostly from yardsales.  What does Comcast say is
> required?
>

After doing some research last night, it appears I can get the Arris
Model No: SVG2482AC Modem/Router for $239.99 plus tax from Best Buy.

AIUI from reading the reviews, it is the one I will be renting. I'll
probably buy it next year after I've banked some of that savings.

I do recall seeing a $239.99 price tag on the shelf at Best Buy, but
didn't look at the product because of the cost.

--
Go Bills, Steelers, Pitt, Pens and Sabres!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

caver1-5
In reply to this post by PietB-2
On 11/9/17 3:34 AM, PietB wrote:
> Caver1 wrote:
>> My mother-in-law doesn't think she has the internet even though she
>> is constanly on it for Facebook, Instagram, her email, whatever.
>> Just can't convince her of that fact.
>
> If she makes the common mistake "internet = www" she's right.
>
> -p
>

Most people I know don't know the difference and if you try to explain
the difference they just get more confused.

--
Caver1
_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by WaltS48-5
On 11/9/2017 7:40 AM, WaltS48 wrote:

> On 11/8/17 11:11 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 11/08/2017 02:33 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>>
>>> Anybody know a Modem/Router that works with Comcast/Xfinity Internet and
>>> Voice? Let me know so I can save $10 a month on the modem rental fee. I
>>> did do some window shopping, but didn't  find anything at Best Buy or
>>> Target.
>>
>> We've always used standard Motorola cablemodems with Charter, but the
>> latest one is a Cisco.  Mostly from yardsales.  What does Comcast say
>> is required?
>>
>
> After doing some research last night, it appears I can get the Arris
> Model No: SVG2482AC Modem/Router for $239.99 plus tax from Best Buy.
>
> AIUI from reading the reviews, it is the one I will be renting. I'll
> probably buy it next year after I've banked some of that savings.
>
> I do recall seeing a $239.99 price tag on the shelf at Best Buy, but
> didn't look at the product because of the cost.
>
I would NOT buy a cable modem.  My cable company supplies a modem
compatible with their service, and will replace it free should it fail.
  I have never been able keep a cable modem working more than two or
three years before it fails, or the service upgrades the service, and
replaces it with a different model.  At $240, you might get three or
four years out of it, then have to replace it out of your own pocket.  I
don't pay extra for the modem any more, so I can't see taking on that
obligation.

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

Ron Hunter
In reply to this post by caver1-5
On 11/9/2017 9:43 AM, Caver1 wrote:

> On 11/9/17 3:34 AM, PietB wrote:
>> Caver1 wrote:
>>> My mother-in-law doesn't think she has the internet even though she
>>> is constanly on it for Facebook, Instagram, her email, whatever.
>>> Just can't convince her of that fact.
>>
>> If she makes the common mistake "internet = www" she's right.
>>
>> -p
>>
>
> Most people I know don't know the difference and if you try to explain
> the difference they just get more confused.
>
My sister in law, and my wife both consider the internet 'the computer'.
  My wife will wake me up and tell me 'the computer is down', and I have
to ask her what she was trying to do, and 'I can't get on email.'  Of
course the computer isn't down, and a couple of quick tests reveals that
the Charter email servers are down, again.  Wait an hour or two, and the
computer is magically fixed...

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Worst Browser Ever, but could be the best.

WaltS48-5
In reply to this post by Ron Hunter
On 11/9/17 1:03 PM, Ron Hunter wrote:

> On 11/9/2017 7:40 AM, WaltS48 wrote:
>> On 11/8/17 11:11 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> On 11/08/2017 02:33 PM, WaltS48 wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Anybody know a Modem/Router that works with Comcast/Xfinity
>>>> Internet and
>>>> Voice? Let me know so I can save $10 a month on the modem rental
>>>> fee. I
>>>> did do some window shopping, but didn't  find anything at Best Buy or
>>>> Target.
>>>
>>> We've always used standard Motorola cablemodems with Charter, but
>>> the latest one is a Cisco.  Mostly from yardsales.  What does
>>> Comcast say is required?
>>>
>>
>> After doing some research last night, it appears I can get the Arris
>> Model No: SVG2482AC Modem/Router for $239.99 plus tax from Best Buy.
>>
>> AIUI from reading the reviews, it is the one I will be renting. I'll
>> probably buy it next year after I've banked some of that savings.
>>
>> I do recall seeing a $239.99 price tag on the shelf at Best Buy, but
>> didn't look at the product because of the cost.
>>
> I would NOT buy a cable modem.  My cable company supplies a modem
> compatible with their service, and will replace it free should it
> fail.  I have never been able keep a cable modem working more than two
> or three years before it fails, or the service upgrades the service,
> and replaces it with a different model.  At $240, you might get three
> or four years out of it, then have to replace it out of your own
> pocket.  I don't pay extra for the modem any more, so I can't see
> taking on that obligation.
>

Thanks for the input.

So you are not paying a $10 monthly rental fee?

I don't recall them telling me it was included with the service once the
promotional period was over.

--
Go Bills, Steelers, Pitt, Pens and Sabres!
Coexist <https://www.coexist.org/>
National Popular Vote <http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>
Ubuntu 16.04LTS - Unity Desktop

_______________________________________________
general mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/general
1234