How do I save a video from my RAM memory

[j***@myplace.com]

I just watched a youtube video using K-Meleon browser. I'm on dialup
so it takes awhile for the video to load. I wait till it's loaded and
hit the REPLAY button, where I can watch the whole thing without
breaks. Ok, this all worked fine even though it took a long time.

I just went to the CACHE folder for K-Meleon, expecting to find a
large file in there, which I'd normally save to another folder, give
it a useful name and an extension of either .FLV or .MP4 (whichever
one works).

Well, I looked in the cache folder, and the largest file is about
270KB. Well, I know that's not it, because this is over a 7 minute
video.

Ok, I look in the Windows/Temp folder. It's not there. I use the
Win98se FIND and search for ALL files created in the past ONE Day. I
find lots of cache entries, an attachment from my email programs, a
couple files of data from this Forte Agent newsreader and a text note
I created with notepad. But NO LARGE VIDEO FILE.

At this point, I loaded Norton System Info and look at what's stored
in the computer's memory. That's where I find a 27.6MB file loaded in
memory and given the name of that video I have sitting idle in my
browser.

OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.

But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

Does anyone know?

Yes, I am aware that there is an Addon for Firefox called "Download
Helper" which will save most videos from youtube and some other places
on the web. (K-Meleon dont have such a thing). But even with Firefox
and Download Helper, sometimes I just can not save certain videos
other than to "steal" them from the cache. Not a problem from the
harddrive CACHE folder, but it seems impossible from the memory.

Thanks for all help.

[Lostgallifreyan]

***@myplace.com wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

.
.
.

Post by j***@myplace.com
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

HxD *hex editor) can open RAM for a loaded process and see the data file
opened in it too. I saved a 539 byte REG file opened in TextPad, to file,
compared to the original and it matched exactly.

Whether this is easy for large files I don't know, because I saw two copies,
one broken (likely old copy from previous load) and one intact one with lots
of zeros fore and aft. Even if it's one contiguous chunk, you'll have to
figure out the start and end points. FLV files begin with literal FLV, but I
don't know how to find the end point unless it's contguous, and you already
know the exact file size in bytes from the Norton thinger.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
HxD *hex editor) can open RAM for a loaded process and see the data file
opened in it too. I saved a 539 byte REG file opened in TextPad, to file,
compared to the original and it matched exactly.

I also tried a 350MB XviD opened in TextPad (I wanted it all in RAM, a video
player wouldn't do that). I could see it all in one chunk, and the start and
end were clearly marked too. I couldn't extract a copy though. Straight copy
failed with an 'out of memory' error. Not surprising, really.. So you could
do it this way IF you had a lot of RAM compared to the file size you're
after. HxD hasn't got a way to directly read or export the selection to file,
as far as I know. I looked for one, but can't see any way to do that.

[j***@myplace.com]

On Tue, 26 Apr 2011 05:07:27 -0500, Lostgallifreyan

Post by Lostgallifreyan
.
.
.

Post by j***@myplace.com
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

HxD *hex editor) can open RAM for a loaded process and see the data file
opened in it too. I saved a 539 byte REG file opened in TextPad, to file,
compared to the original and it matched exactly.
Whether this is easy for large files I don't know, because I saw two copies,
one broken (likely old copy from previous load) and one intact one with lots
of zeros fore and aft. Even if it's one contiguous chunk, you'll have to
figure out the start and end points. FLV files begin with literal FLV, but I
don't know how to find the end point unless it's contguous, and you already
know the exact file size in bytes from the Norton thinger.

I'd be willing to give this hex editor a try. Where do I get it (for
Win98 or 2000).

Thanks

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by j***@myplace.com
I'd be willing to give this hex editor a try. Where do I get it (for
Win98 or 2000).

Google. :) It works for this one, the coder used a name that doesn't get lost
in noise if you look for 'HxD hex editor' without quotes.

[thanatoid]

***@myplace.com wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

<snip>

Opera has ALWAYS saved every 99.9% (see below) of any flv I
watched in the cache. It's (although the LEAST important, since
Flash is pure evil) one of the reasons Opera is and always will
be the best browser.

(I think I can risk saying that, considering it's been over 15
years and no one has written a perfect browser yet - Opera comes
closest. FFox is garbage, and in spite of a very cute icon, IMO
K-Meleon is just not worth the hassle, like 95% of the stuff
from sourceforge.net.)

I think in all the years I have come MAYBE upon one or two sites
where the video file was NOT saved in the cache directory, but
for all I know it may have been a different format, or some
sites have figured out a way of circumventing even Opera's
handling of this annoyance.

[j***@myplace.com]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:58:40 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid

Post by thanatoid
<snip>
Opera has ALWAYS saved every 99.9% (see below) of any flv I
watched in the cache. It's (although the LEAST important, since
Flash is pure evil) one of the reasons Opera is and always will
be the best browser.
(I think I can risk saying that, considering it's been over 15
years and no one has written a perfect browser yet - Opera comes
closest. FFox is garbage, and in spite of a very cute icon, IMO
K-Meleon is just not worth the hassle, like 95% of the stuff
from sourceforge.net.)
I think in all the years I have come MAYBE upon one or two sites
where the video file was NOT saved in the cache directory, but
for all I know it may have been a different format, or some
sites have figured out a way of circumventing even Opera's
handling of this annoyance.

You sound like a very knowledgable person regarding Win98 and other
stuff, but dont waste your time trying to get me to install Opera,
because it's not going to happen. I've told you before I hate Opera
and I always will. I believe the first version I tried was BELOW
version 1, (although I do not really recall the numbering). I do
recall installing a version 5 and at least one other ver before that
(2 or 3). I think I also tried 6 and 8 or something like that.
Honestly, I have always hated it more than most any other piece of
software ever written. Opera is pure garbage and I wont waste my time
saying more. To complicate matters, every time I have removed it, I
have spent hours getting my system to run properly again, so mark my
word, I will never even look at Opera again.

K-Meleon is actually a fine piece of software, easy to use and fast to
load. It does have one bug in ver 1.54 which often causes script
errors, disabling Java Script fixes that. Their new beta version is
supposed to fix that, except that this beta wont run in Win98, and
they have already heard from me about that.

Firefox is superior to K-Meleon, but it's new versions are becoming
too bloated. (Of course that's the trend with all software these
days). The biggest flaw in FF is that it takes far too long to load.
Because of that, I use K-Meleon for 90% of my browsing. I normally
only use FF for youtube, so I can use the "Download Helper" addon to
save videos.

You're right, no browser is perfect, but FF and K-M are the best of
the bunch in my opinion. I'd rate Opera as the worst with IE as
second worst. But thats my opinion and dont let me stop you from
enjoying that POS Opera. Different strokes.........

I'm still looking for a method to save a video stored in memory if
anyone has a simple method. Better yet, is there a way to FORCE FF or
any other browser to save all CACHE to disk? That would be the best
solution. I dont undertand why it's being saved to memory anyhow, I
have 500 megs of RAM on this older P3 1ghz machine, seems rather
stupid to be using so much ram to store a video, when it can be
written to hard drive cache.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by j***@myplace.com
Better yet, is there a way to FORCE FF or
any other browser to save all CACHE to disk? That would be the best
solution.

While I said in another post that anythign added to Proxomitron would dilute
it, this is a possible exception, if someone modifed it to take a copy of the
incoming data and divert copies of streaming files as they come in. As it
could easily be used to define rules on what to copy and divert to disk, it
would be helpful for that, as no matter what various sources do to police
that stream, then MUST give it to you intact if they want you to see it at
all.

I guess you're aware that if you seek to a new position it most likely starts
grabbing remote file at that position, so if you want it all you'll have to
grab it in full sequence from start to end. I just put the pause on, then
grab the file. Sometimes not all videos (on YouTube, never mind between
sites) act the same. Some stay in the cache, others are deleted as soon as
the last part is in RAM so you never get the end, or maybe the file is too
big for the cache setting, too (HxD MOST useful then, if nothing else, grab
chunks, reassemble them after finding exact splice points...) Usually it's
enough to find the incoming file in the cache (usually looks like latest,
with 0 bytes, but can be copied. But to avoid playing catch-up set it read-
only. As it's open for writing it finishes, but to delete it, it must first
be closed, and FireFox at least honours the read-only attribute and the file
stays. Most times these tricks aren't needed, but you'll likely always find
times when you need them.

On the browser wars thing, I just got into using Opera. I tried it many times
and turned away every time. I only kept looking because it kept changing, and
because FireFox was doing some VERY wird things just because I changed the
shell arrangements in the OS. These pleased damn near everything I could
throw at it except FireFox, and I got so annoyed by its weird way with
profile paths. As my shell mods changed NONE of those, it had no business
thinking it had, so I looked for something that played straight like
everythign else in the system. I think I got lucky, because OperaUSB keeps
itself to itself, being aimed to do exactly that. The only way it could screw
with the system (beyond an actual crash which I have only seen once when a
dodgy mouse button was launching double instances of windows all over the
place in many programs) is if you set it to be default browser. It might be
polite about reversing those changes though, it is VERY self-contained. I'm
keeping the v10.63 one. WHile it has a few annoyances, it's actually easy to
make it look and work like FireFox v2, I think they did that deliberately to
avoid putting people off.

[j***@myplace.com]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 08:03:18 -0500, Lostgallifreyan

Post by Lostgallifreyan

Post by j***@myplace.com
Better yet, is there a way to FORCE FF or
any other browser to save all CACHE to disk? That would be the best
solution.

While I said in another post that anythign added to Proxomitron would dilute
it, this is a possible exception, if someone modifed it to take a copy of the
incoming data and divert copies of streaming files as they come in. As it
could easily be used to define rules on what to copy and divert to disk, it
would be helpful for that, as no matter what various sources do to police
that stream, then MUST give it to you intact if they want you to see it at
all.
I guess you're aware that if you seek to a new position it most likely starts
grabbing remote file at that position, so if you want it all you'll have to
grab it in full sequence from start to end. I just put the pause on, then
grab the file. Sometimes not all videos (on YouTube, never mind between
sites) act the same. Some stay in the cache, others are deleted as soon as
the last part is in RAM so you never get the end, or maybe the file is too
big for the cache setting, too (HxD MOST useful then, if nothing else, grab
chunks, reassemble them after finding exact splice points...) Usually it's
enough to find the incoming file in the cache (usually looks like latest,
with 0 bytes, but can be copied. But to avoid playing catch-up set it read-
only. As it's open for writing it finishes, but to delete it, it must first
be closed, and FireFox at least honours the read-only attribute and the file
stays. Most times these tricks aren't needed, but you'll likely always find
times when you need them.
On the browser wars thing, I just got into using Opera. I tried it many times
and turned away every time. I only kept looking because it kept changing, and
because FireFox was doing some VERY wird things just because I changed the
shell arrangements in the OS. These pleased damn near everything I could
throw at it except FireFox, and I got so annoyed by its weird way with
profile paths. As my shell mods changed NONE of those, it had no business
thinking it had, so I looked for something that played straight like
everythign else in the system. I think I got lucky, because OperaUSB keeps
itself to itself, being aimed to do exactly that. The only way it could screw
with the system (beyond an actual crash which I have only seen once when a
dodgy mouse button was launching double instances of windows all over the
place in many programs) is if you set it to be default browser. It might be
polite about reversing those changes though, it is VERY self-contained. I'm
keeping the v10.63 one. WHile it has a few annoyances, it's actually easy to
make it look and work like FireFox v2, I think they did that deliberately to
avoid putting people off.

I'll look for that hex viewer on google.

The last time I used Opera 8.x, it repeatedly crashed. Almost
everytime I opened it, it would crash. If it did run, it insisted on
setting itself as my default browser. (I removed it and installed it
several times, it would crash. And my Win98 setup is very stable.
Opera also had several other very annoying features and the menu
sucked. That's the last time I used it and that was several years
ago. There was absoultely nothing I liked about it. From what I
recall, the support is horrible too because it's from another
continent.

I often hear people saying to upgrade to XP or higher because Win98 is
unstable and crashes. I find the opposite. Win98 is very stable, but
IE 5.x and IE 6.x crashed regularly. I removed IE altogether and
never crash anymore. The only program I have ever installed that
crashed MORE than IE was Opera. FF rarely crashes these says.
K-Meleon rarely too, but it gets those script errors that will cause
it to hang at times, unless I have java script turned off. It dont
lock the OS, just itself, and after a minute or so it gets a "Script
Error" message which gives me the option to STOP SCRIPT.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by j***@myplace.com
The last time I used Opera 8.x, it repeatedly crashed. Almost
everytime I opened it, it would crash. If it did run, it insisted on
setting itself as my default browser.

That totally sucks, I remember sessions like that. But trust me, that
OperaUSB 10 IS a very different beastie. Rarely crashes, and defaults no NON-
default browser. I don't know how many changes and customisations the maker
had to do to the original Opera, but it's good work, likely to influence the
original developers.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by j***@myplace.com
I often hear people saying to upgrade to XP or higher because Win98 is
unstable and crashes. I find the opposite. Win98 is very stable...

I agree. If a breakage occurs it can spread through the system to make a
spectacular crash, but the same can occur in WXP, I've seen WXP spontaneously
reboot often enough to make me wish I saw an honest blue-screen! In a reduced
core, carefully built and tested, there is less to go wrong, and less to
trigger the collapse. As reducing W98 is FAR easier than reducing WXP, it
will be a long time before WXP has people doing what can be done for W9X.
Worse, W9X is qualitatively different, based on direct hardware accesses that
are denied by the recent NT OS's. In the long run, WXP is more truly bound
for obsolescence than W98, because W98 is the end of a useful line, and WXP
is not.

[Bill in Co]

Post by Lostgallifreyan

Post by j***@myplace.com
I often hear people saying to upgrade to XP or higher because Win98 is
unstable and crashes. I find the opposite. Win98 is very stable...

I agree. If a breakage occurs it can spread through the system to make a
spectacular crash, but the same can occur in WXP, I've seen WXP spontaneously
reboot often enough to make me wish I saw an honest blue-screen! In a reduced
core, carefully built and tested, there is less to go wrong, and less to
trigger the collapse. As reducing W98 is FAR easier than reducing WXP, it
will be a long time before WXP has people doing what can be done for W9X.
Worse, W9X is qualitatively different, based on direct hardware accesses that
are denied by the recent NT OS's. In the long run, WXP is more truly bound
for obsolescence than W98, because W98 is the end of a useful line, and WXP
is not.

I respectfully disagree. :-)
I can't count on one hand the number of times I've had XP blue screen. I
have had a rare lockup on some occasions (with some particular software).
But comparing all this to Win98SE ... is like night and day. But I still
like Win98SE too, and have both here (XP is on the new one, 98SE is on the
old computer).

As for anything newer (and more bloated) than XP, don't even get me started!
:-)

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by Bill in Co
I can't count on one hand the number of times I've had XP blue screen. I
have had a rare lockup on some occasions (with some particular software).
But comparing all this to Win98SE ... is like night and day.

It wasn't a bluescreen though, that's what annoyed me, it might have been
better if it had been. It just kept quitting and rebooting at odd intervals
without any apparent provocation. It might have been one of the hacks done in
it to reduce it. I know a guy in Texas who was into trying various small
releases like the Nuhi ones, XP-Lite and such. That's partly why I prefer W98
though, reducing that tends to make it better, reducing WXP likely doesn't,
it's inherently too big and too full of tiny files. W98 has enough as it is,
but hundreds turn to several thousands the moment any NT OS is installed.

Once WXP gets shelved by M$ (and it will), people will have to go one of two
ways (assuming they don't quit Microsoft OS's entirely), they either accpept
the utterly unmanageable, paying regularly on a service model basis for ever
increasing complexity they cannot control, or they go back to the last truly
manageable OS that was anything liek capable of the stuff they think they
need. Once people decide they don't want to keep paying through the nose, and
demand their independence back, there's a good chance that even M$ might
rethink this and revive older systems if that's what people turn to. If
nothing else, they might turn over the source code to people who will make an
industry of it. Not that it even needs it. W98 doesn't seem to need an army
of paid coders to keep it going now. THAT is why it will succeed long after
all the 'smart' people wrote its obituaries.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by j***@myplace.com
It dont
lock the OS, just itself, and after a minute or so it gets a "Script
Error" message which gives me the option to STOP SCRIPT.

I've seen that a lot, but from what I can tell, all browsers seem to have the
same weakness. Sometimes I want a STOP button, and if I click it a second
time I want it to STOP NOW!!! Sadly, no browser seems to respect this
request. To protext data in an active session in a machine, this can be
vital, but all browsers seem to treat system timers and other resources as if
they thought that They, Themselves were the British Empire at full swing.

[thanatoid]

Post by j***@myplace.com
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:58:40 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid

Post by thanatoid
Opera has ALWAYS saved every 99.9% (see below) of any flv I
watched in the cache.

<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com
You sound like a very knowledgable person regarding Win98
and other stuff, but dont waste your time trying to get me
to install Opera, because it's not going to happen. I've
told you before I hate Opera and I always will.

I have a bad memory.

Post by j***@myplace.com
I believe
the first version I tried was BELOW version 1, (although I
do not really recall the numbering). I do recall
installing a version 5 and at least one other ver before
that (2 or 3). I think I also tried 6 and 8 or something
like that. Honestly, I have always hated it more than most
any other piece of software ever written.

Have you ever tried Nero Burning ROM? ;-) (I /vaguely/ recall
you saying that you did. Nero is the worst-designed, most
illogical and infuriating piece of software /I/ have ever
encountered.)

There were minor problems with earlier versions, just like with
all software. The one that is as close to perfection as anything
is Opera10USB. No install, designed to run off a USB stick. Runs
like a dream.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Opera is pure
garbage and I wont waste my time saying more. To
complicate matters, every time I have removed it, I have
spent hours getting my system to run properly again, so
mark my word, I will never even look at Opera again.

It sounds like you're talking about MSIE. Since I know you are
not, I am VERY confused.

<snip>

[j***@myplace.com]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:17:00 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid

Post by thanatoid

Post by j***@myplace.com
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 02:58:40 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid

Post by thanatoid
Opera has ALWAYS saved every 99.9% (see below) of any flv I
watched in the cache.

<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com
You sound like a very knowledgable person regarding Win98
and other stuff, but dont waste your time trying to get me
to install Opera, because it's not going to happen. I've
told you before I hate Opera and I always will.

I have a bad memory.

Post by j***@myplace.com
I believe
the first version I tried was BELOW version 1, (although I
do not really recall the numbering). I do recall
installing a version 5 and at least one other ver before
that (2 or 3). I think I also tried 6 and 8 or something
like that. Honestly, I have always hated it more than most
any other piece of software ever written.

Have you ever tried Nero Burning ROM? ;-) (I /vaguely/ recall
you saying that you did. Nero is the worst-designed, most
illogical and infuriating piece of software /I/ have ever
encountered.)

I dont know what Nero has to do with this topic, but I dont burn any
CDs (or even have a burner drive) in Win98. My laptop came with Win
XP and Nero installed. I rarely burn CDs, but Nero works easily on
there. I dont like XP, but it's needed to use the WIFI on that
machine, so I just use it as it came from the store. I keep trying to
make XP work like Win98, but it's still annoying with all the stupid
shit that constantly pops up.

Post by thanatoid
There were minor problems with earlier versions, just like with
all software. The one that is as close to perfection as anything
is Opera10USB. No install, designed to run off a USB stick. Runs
like a dream.

Maybe the latest versions are better, but I tried at least 6 different
versions and never liked any of them. Ver 8.x (and I think 6.x too)
both crashed all the time.

Post by thanatoid

Post by j***@myplace.com
Opera is pure
garbage and I wont waste my time saying more. To
complicate matters, every time I have removed it, I have
spent hours getting my system to run properly again, so
mark my word, I will never even look at Opera again.

It sounds like you're talking about MSIE. Since I know you are
not, I am VERY confused.

Just telling you how it worked for me (or did not work). Opera's menu
sucked too.

MSIE was easy to disable. I just replaced IEXPLORE.EXE with CALC.EXE
and renamed calc to iexplore. In essence, I did not really remove IE,
because I know parts of it are needed to run Windows. It's the file
iexplore.exe that caused the crashes. Now it's gone.

I dont recall why I had problems removing Opera anymore. That was
years ago, and I cant recall anymore. I just know it left my system
unstable with left over residue that was hard to remove. I had to
manually edit Opera from my registry, and from what I can remember,
there was some Windows file (probably a .DLL) that was changed by
Opera that had to be restored from the Windows install CD.

Put your hand in fire, get burned, and sooner or later you'll stop
putting your hand in the fire. I learned to stay as far away from
Opera as I can.

[thanatoid]

***@myplace.com wrote in news:***@4ax.com:

<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by thanatoid
There were minor problems with earlier versions, just like
with all software. The one that is as close to perfection
as anything is Opera10USB. No install, designed to run off
a USB stick. Runs like a dream.

Maybe the latest versions are better, but I tried at least
6 different versions and never liked any of them. Ver 8.x
(and I think 6.x too) both crashed all the time.

Yeah, I read that in your previous post. I have NEVER had Opera
crash unless I opened 15 tabs with a lot of java and flash
content - IOW, my own stupid fault. Even OB1 will crash if I run
20 instances of it.

<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by thanatoid

Post by j***@myplace.com
mark my word, I will never even look at Opera again.

It sounds like you're talking about MSIE. Since I know you
are not, I am VERY confused.

Just telling you how it worked for me (or did not work).
Opera's menu sucked too.

It is 1,000% customizable. Opera is rated the SAFEST , most
secure browser, it has consistently been the most innovative,
and it is the most customizable program I have ever seen,
although it WILL take a little work, because it is not Notepad.

Anyway, we might as well stop discussing it. We really don't
care what the other one uses for a browser, do we?

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by thanatoid
It is 1,000% customizable. Opera is rated the SAFEST , most
secure browser

With good grounds, apparently. A small command-line program called FindSSV
(Google actually finds this one) looks for ways programs can make themselves
vulnerable to hacking, C functions that are vulnerable to buffer overflows,
etc, odd locations in executables that can be used to store extra code un-
noticed by most people... It reports in detail, and I tried it on stuff one
night recently. OperaUSB v10.63 got a better report than FireFox v2.
Opera.exe had 5 anomolies reports but I got actual vulnerabilty and risk
warnings for FireFox.exe, 8 of them, plus 4 anomalies.

[j***@myplace.com]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 09:25:38 +0000 (UTC), thanatoid

Post by thanatoid
<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by thanatoid
There were minor problems with earlier versions, just like
with all software. The one that is as close to perfection
as anything is Opera10USB. No install, designed to run off
a USB stick. Runs like a dream.

Maybe the latest versions are better, but I tried at least
6 different versions and never liked any of them. Ver 8.x
(and I think 6.x too) both crashed all the time.

Yeah, I read that in your previous post. I have NEVER had Opera
crash unless I opened 15 tabs with a lot of java and flash
content - IOW, my own stupid fault. Even OB1 will crash if I run
20 instances of it.

Opera would crash the instant I opened it, and did so at least every
other time I opened it. I only recall this because I keep a running
text file of notes from defective software, for future reference if
needed. Aside from that, I have completely forgotten about Opera
since it's nothing I'll ever use again.

Funny thing, I can and often do have 20 to 30 tabs open in K-Meleon,
and without problem. Being on dialup, I open tabs in the background
while I'm reading email or on newsgroups, and eventually go back to
those sites to read the content. The worst thing that happens with
that many open sites is that my resources get low and the icons on my
desktop turn black. Normally just closing a few sites or my
newsreader fixes that. I have done the same in FF, but I use K-Meleon
as my default browser so it's gets much more use.

Post by thanatoid
<snip>

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by thanatoid

Post by j***@myplace.com
mark my word, I will never even look at Opera again.

It sounds like you're talking about MSIE. Since I know you
are not, I am VERY confused.

Just telling you how it worked for me (or did not work).
Opera's menu sucked too.

It is 1,000% customizable. Opera is rated the SAFEST , most
secure browser, it has consistently been the most innovative,
and it is the most customizable program I have ever seen,
although it WILL take a little work, because it is not Notepad.
Anyway, we might as well stop discussing it. We really don't
care what the other one uses for a browser, do we?

Browser wars are stupid. Everyone has different tastes. I never
liked the Opera layout, so I'd not be inclined to use it much. Yet it
was the crashing that made me get rid of it completely. On the other
hand, I always did like IE as far as the layout, but it's crashing
caused me to get rid of it too. I'm not real worried about security.
I dont have any confidential or even any banking info on my computer,
and Win98 is not very vunerable to virus attacks these days. I use
other methods to block some of the crap on the web too, esp. my HOSTS
file. I know I have close to 30 entries in my HOSTS file for
Facebook, which is one huge offender online these days, and I'd not
use Facebook for anything short of a million bucks. Facebook is the
most worthless thing to ever happen on the internet.

Anyhow, enjoy your browsers, whatever you use. I do like trying all
of them. I have tried all the better known ones. I still like
Firefox, even if it's slow and getting too bloated. K-Meleon does not
get enough support, because it has a lot to offer. And for grins, I
still have Netscape 3.0 Gold installed. (That's from Windows 3.x). I
mostly use it to create simple web pages, but it will connect to some
sites that dont have much flash crap. And then there's Offbyone.
Works for reading text and blocking everything else, but pretty
useless beyond that. That's the 4 browsers I have installed.

On my laptop with XP, I do still have IE installed. I think it's IE
version 8???? I only used it once, to download FF when I first got
that computer. It did not cause any problems. I think the newer
versions of IE are more stable, or maybe it's the combination with XP.
I also have FFox and K-Meleon on the laptop.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by j***@myplace.com
Put your hand in fire, get burned, and sooner or later you'll stop
putting your hand in the fire. I learned to stay as far away from
Opera as I can.

Registry lock? Little batch file:

@ECHO OFF
ECHO.
SET X=%1
IF NOT "%X%"=="A" GOTO QUERY
GOTO CONFIRM
:QUERY
CHOICE /N /T:.,2 /C:. "To allow Registry changes, press Escape. . . "
IF ERRORLEVEL 2 ECHO Registry changes ACCEPTED.
IF ERRORLEVEL 2 GOTO EXIT
:CONFIRM
ATTRIB -S -H -R C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DA?
COPY /V C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DA0 C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DAT > NUL
ATTRIB +S +H +R C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DA?
ATTRIB -S -H -R C:\WINDOWS\USER.DA?
COPY /V C:\WINDOWS\USER.DA0 C:\WINDOWS\USER.DAT > NUL
ATTRIB +S +H +R C:\WINDOWS\USER.DA?
ECHO Registry changes REFUSED.
:EXIT
SET X=
ECHO.


=================================

Needs CHOICE.COM and ATTRIB.EXE, native to W98...
To use this, put in in Windows\Command, add CALL REG-LOCK to Autoexec.bat. At
boot, you always get the registry you last set to save. Press ESC repeatedly
at boot till you see it say ACCEPTED if you want it to update, like when
testing stuff that wants reboot to finish install. If you like what you see,
or if you don't, you let it refuse update next boot if you want to retry or
abandon the effort, till you're happy either way with some new program, then
you use another script, called REG-SAVE (also in the Command dir), to store
the new changes, like this:

ATTRIB -S -H -R C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DA?
COPY /Y C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DAT C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DA0
ATTRIB +S +H +R C:\WINDOWS\SYSTEM.DA?
ATTRIB -S -H -R C:\WINDOWS\USER.DA?
COPY /Y C:\WINDOWS\USER.DAT C:\WINDOWS\USER.DA0
ATTRIB +S +H +R C:\WINDOWS\USER.DA?

Never automate a call to REG-SAVE unless you have some very specific need to.

There is always Ghost, and Acronis, etc, too, but registry locking is my way
to keep the system clean most of the time. With that, very little can go
wrong, and nothing happens that can't easily be undone.

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
ECHO.
SET X=%1
IF NOT "%X%"=="A" GOTO QUERY

I'd completely forgotten I'd written that bit. :) I think it means that you
can add a space and an A to the command, like "CALL REG-LOCK A" in
Autoexec.bat if you want to make it always lock down the registry against
changes without promping for input. That can increase boot time too, as it
won't wait for you for two seconds as it does otherwise.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@216.196.109.145>,
Lostgallifreyan <no-***@nowhere.net> writes:
[]
[useful stuff]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
Never automate a call to REG-SAVE unless you have some very specific need to.
There is always Ghost, and Acronis, etc, too, but registry locking is my way
to keep the system clean most of the time. With that, very little can go
wrong, and nothing happens that can't easily be undone.

I find ERU/ERD, a little utility that was on the Windows 95 CD (under
something like misc/other) - I can never remember if it's there on any
of the '98 ones - serves just as well, though you have to remember to
use it, such as before a trial install. Like your batch, it saves a copy
of the registry, though in a folder of your choice rather than just by
changing the last character to "?", and it also saves other files, about
a dozen (by default - you can change it). And it makes a (DOS-runnable,
which is useful in case you completely break Windows) executable that
puts them all back, and stores it in the same directory. It works fine
with '98, and I understand ME. (And someone's written something similar
for the NT-based systems - NT, XP, Vista, and I think even 7 - called
ERUNT - though to be able to use them if Windows breaks you need an
alternative boot: I use BartPE after ERUNT's author recommended it when
I asked him, but I _think_ the Recovery Console might work if you know
your way around it.)

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find ERU/ERD, a little utility that was on the Windows 95 CD (under
something like misc/other) - I can never remember if it's there on any
of the '98 ones - serves just as well, though you have to remember to
use it, such as before a trial install. Like your batch, it saves a copy
of the registry, though in a folder of your choice rather than just by
changing the last character to "?", and it also saves other files, about
a dozen (by default - you can change it).

I forgot about that one, and ERUNT too though I do remember seeing that one's
name. I like the batch file best though, because it uses files native to a
standard install. If it didn't have user intervention and need to handle file
attributes, it would need nothign but COMMAND.COM to support it.

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And it makes a (DOS-runnable,
which is useful in case you completely break Windows) executable that
puts them all back, and stores it in the same directory.

I like that idea a lot, but I can't work out immediately if it's a help or a
hindrance. :) Might be bad if it has to use Windows to make changes to the
operation. Batch is nice because again, at a pinch, you could do ALL the
config even if you had nothing but COMMAND.COM, you could 'type' it to
screen, then 'echo' text redirected into a new file, with whatever changes
needed. I like to be sure that anything used as an emergency toolkit can be
changed in the most extremely stringent conditions the OS can support. Not
least, it is easy to change in any of the more luxuriant possible conditions.

About that ERUNT state of needing an alternative boot, that's one of many
reasons I decided against WXP and NT generally. If experienced coders cannot
over-ride that need, it is surely all but impossible to engineer M$'s closed
sourced files without being a coding genius and breaking the law (unless you
can claim DMCA exemption for interoperability), and having to go to those
lengths to get even the simplest lockdown on starting config of a complex
system is a damn good reason not to use such a system, even if NO other
considerations apply, for the simple reason that feasible damage limitation
is impossible without forver going out of your way. Imagine having to drive
50 miles every time you need bread... People just don't do it, do they? I bet
most who trust WXP will also trust its own roll-back and such, but when
something really breaks that's like transporting a kicking and screaming
baby. W98 lets you carry it asleep in its cot. Much more sensible to allow
that, I think. Also, if there was a bent copper in the force, would you trust
the police alone to root him out? In XP-land people have to, in W98, they
don't.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

Post by Lostgallifreyan

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
I find ERU/ERD, a little utility that was on the Windows 95 CD (under
something like misc/other) - I can never remember if it's there on any
of the '98 ones - serves just as well, though you have to remember to
use it, such as before a trial install. Like your batch, it saves a copy
of the registry, though in a folder of your choice rather than just by
changing the last character to "?", and it also saves other files, about
a dozen (by default - you can change it).

I forgot about that one, and ERUNT too though I do remember seeing that one's
name. I like the batch file best though, because it uses files native to a
standard install. If it didn't have user intervention and need to handle file
attributes, it would need nothign but COMMAND.COM to support it.

I'm pretty sure ERU/ERD doesn't require any files (other than the [tiny]
executable itself, and of course your batch file needs itself!).

Post by Lostgallifreyan

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
And it makes a (DOS-runnable,
which is useful in case you completely break Windows) executable that
puts them all back, and stores it in the same directory.

I like that idea a lot, but I can't work out immediately if it's a help or a
hindrance. :) Might be bad if it has to use Windows to make changes to the
operation. Batch is nice because again, at a pinch, you could do ALL the
config even if you had nothing but COMMAND.COM, you could 'type' it to
screen, then 'echo' text redirected into a new file, with whatever changes
needed. I like to be sure that anything used as an emergency toolkit can be
changed in the most extremely stringent conditions the OS can support. Not
least, it is easy to change in any of the more luxuriant possible conditions.

Having looked at what it does, I think all that is needed to restore an
ERU/ERD saveset is some renaming and some moving, which could indeed be
done manually from DOS - the utility (as I said, that runs under DOS
too) just automates it.

Post by Lostgallifreyan
About that ERUNT state of needing an alternative boot, that's one of many
reasons I decided against WXP and NT generally. If experienced coders cannot

It's the NTFS that needs the boot: I think for an XP system that was
installed onto a FAT-based system, you wouldn't need the boot (provided
you had _some_ sort of boot such as a DOS boot floppy). ERUNT makes the
convenient restore executable, but again you could do a restore by just
manually renaming and moving files.
[]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
50 miles every time you need bread... People just don't do it, do they? I bet
most who trust WXP will also trust its own roll-back and such, but when

Most who used (I don't know about "trusted") '98 probably relied on its
automatic backups, at least until after the first time they went over a
week before noticing something was corrupt.
[]

[Lostgallifreyan]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
It's the NTFS that needs the boot: I think for an XP system that was
installed onto a FAT-based system, you wouldn't need the boot (provided
you had _some_ sort of boot such as a DOS boot floppy). ERUNT makes the
convenient restore executable, but again you could do a restore by just
manually renaming and moving files.
[]

Post by Lostgallifreyan
50 miles every time you need bread... People just don't do it, do they?
I bet most who trust WXP will also trust its own roll-back and such, but
when

Most who used (I don't know about "trusted") '98 probably relied on its
automatic backups, at least until after the first time they went over a
week before noticing something was corrupt.
[]

I think you've got it, but follow through with that thought, and you'll see
why I do what I do. You've seen that that ERU/ERUNT basically automate things
that we can do anyway. Also, that people often used the W98 backups till they
found corruption in them making them useless. (Which sort of proves that the
M$ active backup scheme rot set in early, but equally that perhaps M$
shouldn't be blamed for causing this, only enabling it). As I see it, most of
the computing world looks to someone else for an answer the moment a problem
arises. That's bred a hoarde of loons purveying virtual white boxes of
SOLUTIONS at silly prices, that no-one knew they needed till someone tried to
sell it to them. And while I'm not guilty of falling for it, like many
people, over a decade I've followed enough strange notions of my own and
built up a collection of stuff most of which I'll never really need. I even
paid for some of it. >:)

In the end it's down to what we can do. That way we know our limits better,
and know more about what we need from others. So as I see it, a batch file we
can write ourselves is good for morale, especially when things go wrong and
we can fix it. I'd rather write my own that use another program, for that
reason alone. Although, I did choose Ghost after a few months of slow batched
backups of W95. Ghost was FAST, that was more important to me than being
easier, but it was that too. Once DIY gets boring because it works but is
repetitive, it's hard to beat a good power tool.. Batch files qualify though,
if I don't have to change them a lot, and changes I need I get full control
of. I rarely lose a stored program, but if I did I'd prefer it was a script I
wrote myself, that way I have my best shot at getting it back.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <***@4ax.com>, ***@myplace.com
writes:
[]

Post by j***@myplace.com
At this point, I loaded Norton System Info and look at what's stored
in the computer's memory. That's where I find a 27.6MB file loaded in
memory and given the name of that video I have sitting idle in my
browser.
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video

Faster access maybe?

Post by j***@myplace.com
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

Can't say for K-Meleon, but for Firefox, I think for almost exactly the
same problem (wanting to save a video I'd just downloaded), I got the
CacheViewer addon. (I also upped the cache size.) It's an "Extension"
(as opposed to a "Plugin" - I'm not sure what the difference is), and I
have version 0.6.3; sorry, I don't have the URL.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Does anyone know?
Yes, I am aware that there is an Addon for Firefox called "Download
Helper" which will save most videos from youtube and some other places
on the web. (K-Meleon dont have such a thing). But even with Firefox
and Download Helper, sometimes I just can not save certain videos
other than to "steal" them from the cache. Not a problem from the
harddrive CACHE folder, but it seems impossible from the memory.

Yes, sometimes Download Helper saves a video you've just watched, almost
immediately, but sometimes it seems to insist on fetching it again.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Thanks for all help.

Hope the above is of some use.

[Bill in Co]

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by j***@myplace.com
At this point, I loaded Norton System Info and look at what's stored
in the computer's memory. That's where I find a 27.6MB file loaded in
memory and given the name of that video I have sitting idle in my
browser.
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video

Faster access maybe?

Post by j***@myplace.com
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

Can't say for K-Meleon, but for Firefox, I think for almost exactly the
same problem (wanting to save a video I'd just downloaded), I got the
CacheViewer addon. (I also upped the cache size.) It's an "Extension"
(as opposed to a "Plugin" - I'm not sure what the difference is), and I
have version 0.6.3; sorry, I don't have the URL.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Does anyone know?
Yes, I am aware that there is an Addon for Firefox called "Download
Helper" which will save most videos from youtube and some other places
on the web. (K-Meleon dont have such a thing). But even with Firefox
and Download Helper, sometimes I just can not save certain videos
other than to "steal" them from the cache. Not a problem from the
harddrive CACHE folder, but it seems impossible from the memory.

Yes, sometimes Download Helper saves a video you've just watched, almost
immediately, but sometimes it seems to insist on fetching it again.

Actually, IIRC, there are several FF YouTube (or other videos service)
download plug-ins available, so if one doesn't work, just try the next.

Added to this problem is that YouTube periodically changes their downloads
so that you need a newer version of the plug-in to work properly.

If you use IE, however, I think the video file is normally cached in a
usable FLV form - unlike in FF. where it's in an often unrecognizable dat
form, as I recall.

In general , from what I've seen in using these video downloaders with
YouTube is that you pretty often can have a choice of FLVs or MP4s for the
video files using different compression settings. I normally stick with
the 360p setting as a reasonable compromise between speed and quality (don't
need or want any HD files over here)..

[j***@myplace.com]

On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:48:51 -0600, "Bill in Co"

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by j***@myplace.com
At this point, I loaded Norton System Info and look at what's stored
in the computer's memory. That's where I find a 27.6MB file loaded in
memory and given the name of that video I have sitting idle in my
browser.
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video

Faster access maybe?

Post by j***@myplace.com
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

Can't say for K-Meleon, but for Firefox, I think for almost exactly the
same problem (wanting to save a video I'd just downloaded), I got the
CacheViewer addon. (I also upped the cache size.) It's an "Extension"
(as opposed to a "Plugin" - I'm not sure what the difference is), and I
have version 0.6.3; sorry, I don't have the URL.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Does anyone know?
Yes, I am aware that there is an Addon for Firefox called "Download
Helper" which will save most videos from youtube and some other places
on the web. (K-Meleon dont have such a thing). But even with Firefox
and Download Helper, sometimes I just can not save certain videos
other than to "steal" them from the cache. Not a problem from the
harddrive CACHE folder, but it seems impossible from the memory.

Yes, sometimes Download Helper saves a video you've just watched, almost
immediately, but sometimes it seems to insist on fetching it again.

Actually, IIRC, there are several FF YouTube (or other videos service)
download plug-ins available, so if one doesn't work, just try the next.

Can you recommend any others besides "Download Helper"? (URLs
appreciated to download them).

Post by Bill in Co
Added to this problem is that YouTube periodically changes their downloads
so that you need a newer version of the plug-in to work properly.

Yes, I found that out. I upgrade Download Helper more often than any
other program on my computer.

Post by Bill in Co
If you use IE, however, I think the video file is normally cached in a
usable FLV form - unlike in FF. where it's in an often unrecognizable dat
form, as I recall.

Yes, IE does save files in their actual name, but I dont even have IE
installed. IE is unstable and became even more unstable was with
using FLASH in it.

Post by Bill in Co
In general , from what I've seen in using these video downloaders with
YouTube is that you pretty often can have a choice of FLVs or MP4s for the
video files using different compression settings. I normally stick with
the 360p setting as a reasonable compromise between speed and quality (don't
need or want any HD files over here)..

I generally use the 360p MP4s myslf these days. I used to always get
the 240p FLVs to speed up downloading (on dialup), but the quality is
quite better in 360p and MP4's play better too. I have to really like
a video real much to get it in HD format, and that's something I
normally will do when I got to the library with my laptop. I just
keep a list of youtube URLs that I click on at the library to get the
HD versions. WhenI get home I copy them to my external harddrive to
save space on the laptop.

[Bill in Co]

Post by j***@myplace.com
On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 21:48:51 -0600, "Bill in Co"

Post by Bill in Co

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by j***@myplace.com
At this point, I loaded Norton System Info and look at what's stored
in the computer's memory. That's where I find a 27.6MB file loaded in
memory and given the name of that video I have sitting idle in my
browser.
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video

Faster access maybe?

Post by j***@myplace.com
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

Can't say for K-Meleon, but for Firefox, I think for almost exactly the
same problem (wanting to save a video I'd just downloaded), I got the
CacheViewer addon. (I also upped the cache size.) It's an "Extension"
(as opposed to a "Plugin" - I'm not sure what the difference is), and I
have version 0.6.3; sorry, I don't have the URL.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Does anyone know?
Yes, I am aware that there is an Addon for Firefox called "Download
Helper" which will save most videos from youtube and some other places
on the web. (K-Meleon dont have such a thing). But even with Firefox
and Download Helper, sometimes I just can not save certain videos
other than to "steal" them from the cache. Not a problem from the
harddrive CACHE folder, but it seems impossible from the memory.

Yes, sometimes Download Helper saves a video you've just watched, almost
immediately, but sometimes it seems to insist on fetching it again.

Actually, IIRC, there are several FF YouTube (or other videos service)
download plug-ins available, so if one doesn't work, just try the next.

Can you recommend any others besides "Download Helper"? (URLs
appreciated to download them).

I don't remember now. What I did (when I was using FF or Flock) was go to
their plug-in site and read some the reviews there on some of their
plug-ins.

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by Bill in Co
Added to this problem is that YouTube periodically changes their downloads
so that you need a newer version of the plug-in to work properly.

Yes, I found that out. I upgrade Download Helper more often than any
other program on my computer.

Post by Bill in Co
If you use IE, however, I think the video file is normally cached in a
usable FLV form - unlike in FF. where it's in an often unrecognizable dat
form, as I recall.

Yes, IE does save files in their actual name, but I dont even have IE
installed. IE is unstable and became even more unstable was with
using FLASH in it.

I haven't had many "stability" issues over here with IE. What I *have*
seen is some occasional web sites that just don't work right in IE (i.e.,
display with everything shown on the page, including radio buttons that
actually work and do something, when clicked).

Post by j***@myplace.com

Post by Bill in Co
In general , from what I've seen in using these video downloaders with
YouTube is that you pretty often can have a choice of FLVs or MP4s for the
video files using different compression settings. I normally stick with
the 360p setting as a reasonable compromise between speed and quality (don't
need or want any HD files over here)..

I generally use the 360p MP4s myslf these days. I used to always get
the 240p FLVs to speed up downloading (on dialup), but the quality is
quite better in 360p and MP4's play better too.

Yup. Definitely better. But 240p is much faster to download as you say
(and a lot smaller in filesize).

Post by j***@myplace.com
I have to really like
a video real much to get it in HD format, and that's something I
normally will do when I got to the library with my laptop. I just
keep a list of youtube URLs that I click on at the library to get the
HD versions. WhenI get home I copy them to my external harddrive to
save space on the laptop.

And if you ever try to mess around with a video file by attempting to edit
or clean it up, HD is much more difficult and time consuming (and computer
resource intensive) to deal with than SD. Plus all the extra disk space it
needs. I still only have an older SD 20" TV, and that's just fine by me.
:-)

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <p_CdnR-***@earthlink.com>, Bill in Co
<***@earthlink.net> writes:
[]

Post by Bill in Co
Actually, IIRC, there are several FF YouTube (or other videos service)
download plug-ins available, so if one doesn't work, just try the next.

Indeed.

Post by Bill in Co
Added to this problem is that YouTube periodically changes their downloads
so that you need a newer version of the plug-in to work properly.

I find Download Helper keeps up pretty well.

Post by Bill in Co
If you use IE, however, I think the video file is normally cached in a
usable FLV form - unlike in FF. where it's in an often unrecognizable dat
form, as I recall.

That's why I got Cache Viewer.

Post by Bill in Co
In general , from what I've seen in using these video downloaders with
YouTube is that you pretty often can have a choice of FLVs or MP4s for the
video files using different compression settings. I normally stick with
the 360p setting as a reasonable compromise between speed and quality (don't
need or want any HD files over here)..

I normally pick the one that Download Helper highlights, as that's most
likely to be the one in the cache already.

[j***@myplace.com]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 02:17:06 +0100, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

Post by J. P. Gilliver (John)
[]

Post by j***@myplace.com
At this point, I loaded Norton System Info and look at what's stored
in the computer's memory. That's where I find a 27.6MB file loaded in
memory and given the name of that video I have sitting idle in my
browser.
OK, what I now learn is that the video was cached to memory, not to my
hard drive. I'm not sure why it does this, but that's where the video

Faster access maybe?

Post by j***@myplace.com
is being held, and I can replay it as many times as I like as long as
I dont close the browser window.
But here is the stumper. How the heck do I SAVE the file from memory?
Is there some software that I can download to do this? Or is there
some command line to run? (or maybe this is not possible)?

Can't say for K-Meleon, but for Firefox, I think for almost exactly the
same problem (wanting to save a video I'd just downloaded), I got the
CacheViewer addon. (I also upped the cache size.) It's an "Extension"
(as opposed to a "Plugin" - I'm not sure what the difference is), and I
have version 0.6.3; sorry, I don't have the URL.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Does anyone know?
Yes, I am aware that there is an Addon for Firefox called "Download
Helper" which will save most videos from youtube and some other places
on the web. (K-Meleon dont have such a thing). But even with Firefox
and Download Helper, sometimes I just can not save certain videos
other than to "steal" them from the cache. Not a problem from the
harddrive CACHE folder, but it seems impossible from the memory.

Yes, sometimes Download Helper saves a video you've just watched, almost
immediately, but sometimes it seems to insist on fetching it again.

Post by j***@myplace.com
Thanks for all help.

Hope the above is of some use.

I have Cache Viewer installed in FF. Download helper dont always
work, but normally I run it as soon as I get to the video, stop the
video on the webpage, and just let it download. Otherwise it's
actually downloading it twice and on a dialup connection that really
slows things down. Sometimes Download Helper just refuses to download
a video. I have the latest version.

I found a setting in K-Meleon that says "Allow saving cache to
memory". I disabled that. I upped the disk cache from 32 megs to 200
megs too. I'm going to try the same video again.