Computing desk
< January 30	<< Dec \| January \| Feb >>	February 1 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Computing Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

January 31

Web browser-like program to display HTML pages

Hello

Is there any program that just displays web pages but has absolutely no networking ability? Like a web browser designed for browsing local html only? The "work offline" function of Firefox is inadequate because it is easily overridden and the networking functions are still loaded into memory and take up RAM. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cablequestion90784 (talk • contribs)

You can always physically disconnect the Internet connection, but of course the RAM issue is not addressed by this. And, obviously, any links to web sites won't work. StuRat (talk) 17:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Does Comparison of HTML editors help?--Shantavira|^{feed me} 20:09, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

N-no, not really? I wanted viewers/browsers, not editors. But thanks anyway. Cablequestion90784 (talk) 12:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Microsoft Word, LibreOffice and probably others can view HTML, but they are also editors. -- Gadget850^talk 13:18, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

They also have some networking ability. (Well at least Microsoft Word, I presume LibreOffice does as well.) That said, the question is a little weird anyway. I can understand not wanting any networking ability for security reasons and why you may not trust a browser's offline mode considering the risk of bugs or it being deactivate. But the RAM point is just weird. Sure the networking code may take some RAM and CPU cycles, but a HTML viewer designed in a certain way could easily use significantly more RAM and CPU cycles than one designed to be lean which has networking code. Nil Einne (talk) 16:06, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A hacky solution is to use a web browser with the proxy for all protocols set to a nonexistent address. I'm pretty sure Firefox supports per-profile proxy settings. I'm not sure this will work with plugins like Flash and Java, though. On Windows you could also run the browser inside a Sandboxie sandbox with network access forbidden.

I wouldn't worry about networking code wasting RAM. Executable files are demand paged, not loaded as a lump into memory. Probably only a small part of the networking code would ever be in RAM if every attempt to make a connection failed. -- BenRG (talk) 00:44, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I think plugins are a problem. I know the people behind Tor generally caution against their use for this reason. Besides Sandboxie, you could also run in a VM with network access disabled, but this isn't exactly a low memory solution. Nil Einne (talk) 13:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be more productive if you told us what the problem is that you're trying to solve. We're working backwards on your proposed solution to some problem, even though that solution may actually be the wrong one. The first step in solving a problem is to define what the problem is.—Best Dog Ever (talk) 05:43, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

firefox AVG malware removal

Hi. Firefox 35.0.1. I have had problems with AVG security toolbar, something to do with the "Ask Jeeves" scam. I have uninstalled and reinstalled firefox, removed the firefox directory from c:\Programs (x286), and uninstalled AVG using the uninstaller. But when I click on "Add-ons manager" in firefox, the AVG security toolbar is still there. The other addon (a typing tutor) has "disable" and "remove" options. But the AVG scam addon is still there. It is disabled, but the only option is "enable". There is no "remove" option. This makes me nervous. I tried starting firefox in safemode, same story. Can anyone advise? Robinh (talk) 23:06, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like one way [1] is to enable the toolbar, and then click on 'Uninstall' in the toolbar menu. Try looking for in uninstall programs (in the control panel) as well. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 03:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this unicodesnowman. I saw the page you linked to, but was suspicious because it was produced by AVG. Surely malware pushers are not going to give good-faith instructions for removing their own malware. Am I right to be wary here? If I follow the instructions, is there anything I can do to mitigate the risk (such as safemode?). Thanks again, Robinh (talk) 07:34, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that AVG toolbars are more malware than not, but AVG is an incorporated company and I'd imagine an uninstall button that doesn't actually uninstall falls under deceptive/misleading conduct (something that's illegal in many countries). I doubt you are going to get any sustained damage to your PC by enabling it just to uninstall, and safe mode won't help because you need to enable to plugin to use the built-in uninstall function. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ProCite

So I've been using ProCite for a couple of years--it's clunky and not very user-friendly, but it's what I had. Unfortunately, it is no longer made, updated, supported. Who knows of a comparable program which will also accept my old ProCite files? Thanks. Drmies (talk) 23:13, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The company that bought ProCite sells a reference manager called EndNote, and it can import and convert a ProCite database. (Depending on your ProCite version, this process may be complicated with one or more intermediate steps). There might be other options, but at least this one will get your data into a more modern piece of software. Nimur (talk) 10:31, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Nimur, thank you so much--it seems like you did legwork for me that I c/should have done myself. I appreciate it. Drmies (talk) 16:26, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It really depends on what you need to do, and how many features you want out of your bibliographic management software. Also depends a bit on what field, as this can skew how bib refs are shared. Another factor is cost (i.e. do you want to pay or have it free, is open source an issue, etc.) BibTeX is great, but probably not worth it unless you want to also use LaTeX (which I recommend for most academic purposes). Another option is Zotero. Both can be made to import ProCite e.g. [2] [3], with differing levels of hassle depending on circumstances. Both work well with the RIS format [4] as an intermediary for conversion. SemanticMantis (talk) 14:57, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]