Results 1 to 10 of 10
  1. #1
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts

    Why Nevercookie?

    With regard to Nevercookie, I must be missing something. When I collapse my sandbox, surely all detritus including cookies are vaporized.

    Most often I run my browser from the Sandboxie sandbox, I still have WOT, NoScript, BetterPrivacy, and Ghostery, embedded in Firefox to alert me to whatever annoyance or evil lurks on a web page. I don't employ add-ons in my other browsers.

    The only time I run Firefox, Chrome, Opera, or Internet Explorer outside the sandbox is to install or update each browser, addons, and any customizations. These would all be undone and disappear upon deleting the sandbox which I do at the end of each browsing session. Surely this also takes care of Evercookies or am I wrong?

  2. #2
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    Peter, Welcome to the Lounge. It always nice to see new posters.

    I believe the reference to Nevercookie was in conjunction with using a browser that is not sandboxed. I also have Sandboxie installed, and use it when visiting unknown sites. I found however that it does tend to slow things a bit so when visiting my regular sites I do not use the sandbox. The vast majority of users do not use Sandboxie or another like app so their browsing experience could be affected by these evercookies.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to Medico For This Useful Post:

    Peter F (2011-07-24)

  4. #3
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, Ontario
    Posts
    1
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    I tried to install Nevercookie, but it told me at Firefox 5 is not supported> Is that true or do I have something misconfigured here?

  5. #4
    Super Moderator jscher2000's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Silicon Valley, USA
    Posts
    23,112
    Thanks
    5
    Thanked 93 Times in 89 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by CrankyOldFred View Post
    I tried to install Nevercookie, but it told me at Firefox 5 is not supported> Is that true or do I have something misconfigured here?
    The extension lists this range of compatible versions:

    <em:minVersion>3.5</em:minVersion>
    <em:maxVersion>3.9.*</em:maxVersion>


    End users can "hack" that information so Firefox will install it anyway, or use the Add-on Compatibility Reporter to override version checking. But I have no idea whether the add-on actually is compatible with Firefox 4-5+.

  6. #5
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Myers View Post
    Peter, Welcome to the Lounge. It always nice to see new posters.

    I believe the reference to Nevercookie was in conjunction with using a browser that is not sandboxed. I also have Sandboxie installed, and use it when visiting unknown sites. I found however that it does tend to slow things a bit so when visiting my regular sites I do not use the sandbox. The vast majority of users do not use Sandboxie or another like app so their browsing experience could be affected by these evercookies.


    Thanks for the input, Ted.
    My system experiences slowdowns from innumerable causes that I can't specifically attribute any to Sandboxie. I haven't performed any tests to compare page access speeds between my browsers running within or without the sandbox. While I routinely destroy the box on my way out, I neglected previously to mention that it is possible to update the browser and its add-on components without running the browser outside the sandbox. One may recover the updates from the sandbox before destroying it. It's a bother though since the relevant file names are often obscure and it requires too much head scratching on my part.

    Other than Sandboxie, Avast anti-virus and Comodo firewall also insist on providing sandboxes. This could get a little out of hand. If all were to be enabled it may become a situation of who's on first...or who's not on at all. Me, for instance. However, one can't get any safer than being offline. :-)

  7. #6
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    Slightly off topic, but after you mentioned slow system, the first thing I would do is install What's in Startup to see and stop unneeded apps that start with Windows. Most apps think they are so important that they should be running in the back ground. This just ain't so.

    What'sInStartup.jpg

    I start my AV/AM, touchpad for laptop, S/W firewall and my mouse S/W, that's it. I'll bet you have many apps running that you do not need.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Medico For This Useful Post:

    Peter F (2011-07-24)

  9. #7
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Myers View Post
    Slightly off topic, but after you mentioned slow system, the first thing I would do is install What's in Startup to see and stop unneeded apps that start with Windows. Most apps think they are so important that they should be running in the back ground. This just ain't so.

    What'sInStartup.jpg

    I start my AV/AM, touchpad for laptop, S/W firewall and my mouse S/W, that's it. I'll bet you have many apps running that you do not need.

    Hi Ted,

    I do concern myself somewhat with startups but I should provide further information about my system that reveals other influences to my speed issues. Web page loads and response times are not consistent. Can depend on time of day and possibly even routing. I haven't traced any routes recently nor have I run any router speed tests for almost a year so that I can't confirm suspicions. Pragmatically, I put up with system performance in view of this system's hardware limitations running XP SP3 on a 1.2GHz single core Duron with 512MB RAM and an old Radeon 7000 AGP card with 64 MB of VRAM. I built this system in 2002 and my expectations are low.

    I have a dual-boot setup with Win98SE that I installed in 2002 and has never needed repair or re-install. 98 is more adept, responding more quickly in the older software so that speed loss isn't particularly apparent. Unfortunately, the hardware I've added in recent years does not provide 98 drivers so that more and more I've had to boot XP. Also, most of the software I now update such as browsers and security software requires XP and up.

    I have another system built around the Intel Q6600 processor fed by 2GB of DDR2 and more current 512 MB PCIe graphics card. This is also an XP SP3 system. I use it mainly for heavier multimedia grunt work and only go online for Windows and other software updates. I don't browse with it. This system I intend to replace the Duron while I assemble my latest system based on an Intel Core i5 2500K with 4GB DDR3 that I'd like to install Win7 x64. That will become my multimedia station for both multi-track audio and video.

    I appreciate your kind assistance to my current irritation but as I phase out this old Duron workhorse, I expect I shall have fewer concerns about speed - at least in the short term. Regardless of how quick a new system may seem, in time one takes it for granted and then it seems slow again. Until response becomes instant to keep up with the operator's brain function, computers will still seem slow.

    Just for the heck of it, I downloaded and ran the WhatInStartup utility to illustrate for you my current Startup list.
    Startup.gif

    Peter

  10. #8
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    You might not have great concerns about speed, but understand all these apps that want to load in startup can slow you down. Not too long ago some one ran What's In Startup and discovered 28 entries. Imagine her slow down. I also stop all the update schedulers, etc. I manually update using 3rd party apps to assist. This way the start ups can be elliminated, because even on faster systems they add up.
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Medico For This Useful Post:

    Peter F (2011-07-24)

  12. #9
    New Lounger
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    4
    Thanks
    3
    Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ted Myers View Post
    You might not have great concerns about speed, but understand all these apps that want to load in startup can slow you down. Not too long ago some one ran What's In Startup and discovered 28 entries. Imagine her slow down. I also stop all the update schedulers, etc. I manually update using 3rd party apps to assist. This way the start ups can be elliminated, because even on faster systems they add up.
    Hi Ted,

    Thanks, as always, for your input.

    I appreciate the effect of excessive (and likely peculiar) startups but of the 8
    startup applications in my list, I have considered them all previously and
    permit them to stand.

    Also and even more worthy of my scrutiny are the several services, supporting
    both operating system and applications, that initialize at startup and
    remain resident.Observe their activity in Process Explorer. For the most part,
    they are dormant until called by their owners. Some will periodically
    consume a miniscule amount of CPU attention while my System Idle process remains
    above 96%

    Among the heavy resource users are my security programs when they are stimulated
    to activate. Avast A-V and Comodo Firewall are serious culprits that I'll have
    to tame some more. They are more intrusive than I require. ESET NOD32 and
    Sunbelt Vipre were even worse on this old system.

    Even so,my HiJackThis log remains the shortest of any I have had the displeasure
    of observing in others' submissions for analysis to various forums.

    I routinely disable automatic update checks on installed software. However, for
    applications that constantly require security updates, for example Java and
    Acrobat Reader, I prefer to let them automatically check.

    With regard to applications updates, if they ain't broke I see no need to fix
    them with spurious updates that might provide features presented as solutions to
    problems I don't have. I see no need to consistently monitor all my applications
    for the availability of newer versions.

    Drivers I will update if I encounter hardware faults where the stop code points
    to a driver fault. Otherwise, I leave them alone.

    Anyway, I think if we continue this thread, we ought to move it out of here lest
    we confound with off-topic discussion those who search earnestly on the original
    thread.

    Peter

  13. #10
    Plutonium Lounger Medico's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    12,631
    Thanks
    161
    Thanked 936 Times in 856 Posts
    Amen to that
    BACKUP...BACKUP...BACKUP
    Have a Great Day! Ted


    Sony Vaio Laptop, 2.53 GHz Duo Core Intel CPU, 8 GB RAM, 320 GB HD
    Win 8 Pro (64 Bit), IE 10 (64 Bit)


    Complete PC Specs: By Speccy

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •