Oh - I STILL see some women with this hairstyle - fewer and fewer.. I so hope that if we ever go to war again, each and every person is as involved, as busy, as caring, as were the greatest generation. There is not enough to say for the women of that era...factory work, hair styles be damned, two jobs cause there was no one else, keeping a military putting their home fires at bay while they went off for Gawd knows what. A promise of normalsy, or welcome no matter what, keeping the home fires burning, and ready to give it all back to them on their return. Yes, the greatest generation men were wonderful, but so were the women. Victory rolls and all.

When it comes to security, though, isn't there something to be said in favor of FF + NoScript, esp. in light of all the dangerous things out there that use Java ? (I speak as a huge novice here.) Being able to selectively allow scripts with NoScript (which blocks all by default) is a bit of an advantage to other browsers with functions which only allow users to turn Java on or off. Or, in Opera's case, one can 'edit site preferences' to allow or disallow all scripts on a per site basis, but it's still allowing ALL scripts on a given site. One cannot select which ones to allow/disallow. Giving the user the ability to allow just a script associated with the main site while blocking all other unnecessary scripts from running is a boon for web-surfers, no ? I realize that there are some NoScript wannabees out there (NotScript, ScriptNo) which work with Chrome & Opera, but a lot of comments I read about them suggest they are not as user-friendly and not as efficient as the original NoScript, which (unfortunately for IE, Chrome and Opera users) only works with FF. How important should this matter be for chas045 and the rest of us when choosing a browser ?

there is a thread here about it http://ths.gardenweb.com/forums/load/comphelp/msg0914250819103.html?13 I have not tried it, I have my firefox so customized I would miss too much stuff. I have looked at a lot of screenshots of it and did not like the look much, but have heard it is fairly quick but it already has a few security holes that have been found. It will be another good alternative browser and any competition always makes everyone in the field work harder to get their browser on top so we should all profit in that aspect.

I use Iron (based on Chrome) once in a while. It opens quickly and is rather speedy with loading web pages. It's no frills at the moment, though I did manage to get it to load some of Chrome's Themes. Can't get it to work with Chrome's mouse gestures yet. I'll have to wait til SRWare puts them in Iron natively. Other than that, it's a nice, fast browser. I don't know if CCleaner works with either Chrome or Iron yet. Here is a link that might be useful: SRWare's Iron