add-ons for firefox - Mozilla

This is a discussion on add-ons for firefox - Mozilla ; JM wrote: > Chris Barnes wrote: >> JM wrote: >>> What's wrong with windows 2000? I personally find it better than any >>> other operating system Microsoft has made, including XP. It is very >>> stable and most software applications ...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6
Results 101 to 103 of 103

Thread: add-ons for firefox

  1. Re: add-ons for firefox

    JM wrote:
    > Chris Barnes wrote:
    >> JM wrote:
    >>> What's wrong with windows 2000? I personally find it better than any
    >>> other operating system Microsoft has made, including XP. It is very
    >>> stable and most software applications made these days that I use still
    >>> run on it. I find it hard to believe that you would say running
    >>> windows 2000 is worse than running XP.

    >> * 2000 is slower than XP

    >
    > It requires far less RAM, so it really isn't.


    Minimum requirements vs "what it really takes to run" are 2 different
    things.

    Both will have performance problems with 256mb or less.


    If I had to run a computer w/ less than 512mb of memory, I'd run Linux
    (without the gui interface). And then I'd shoot myself in the head and
    pour lemon juice in it. That might help me forget the torture I was
    putting myself through by running archaic machines.

    --

    + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
    Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes
    chris@txbarnes.com Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes

    You always have freedom of choice, but you never have freedom of
    consequence.

  2. Re: add-ons for firefox

    Chris Barnes wrote:
    > JM wrote:
    >> Chris Barnes wrote:
    >>> JM wrote:
    >>>> What's wrong with windows 2000? I personally find it better than any
    >>>> other operating system Microsoft has made, including XP. It is very
    >>>> stable and most software applications made these days that I use
    >>>> still run on it. I find it hard to believe that you would say
    >>>> running windows 2000 is worse than running XP.
    >>> * 2000 is slower than XP

    >>
    >> It requires far less RAM, so it really isn't.

    >
    > Minimum requirements vs "what it really takes to run" are 2 different
    > things.
    >
    > Both will have performance problems with 256mb or less.


    I've never had a performance problem with windows 2000. And believe me,
    I know bad performance when I see it. I used to run windows ME.

    >
    >
    > If I had to run a computer w/ less than 512mb of memory, I'd run Linux
    > (without the gui interface). And then I'd shoot myself in the head and
    > pour lemon juice in it. That might help me forget the torture I was
    > putting myself through by running archaic machines.
    >


    Suit yourself.

  3. Re: add-ons for firefox

    On 2008-08-19, Chris Barnes wrote:

    > If I had to run a computer w/ less than 512mb of memory, I'd run Linux
    > (without the gui interface). And then I'd shoot myself in the head and
    > pour lemon juice in it. That might help me forget the torture I was
    > putting myself through by running archaic machines.


    I run linux on a Thinkpad-240X (450mHz, 192MB RAM). X with xfce,
    Firefox, Thunderbird, OOo, etc. Wireless network. Works fine.

    --

    John (john@os2.dhs.org)

+ Reply to Thread
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 4 5 6