PDA

View Full Version : Firefox stores bookmarks where?


ktinkel
May 7th, 2006, 09:27 AM
I just modified my computer to create a larger boot volume, which involved a new installation of the OS. In the process I was able to restore many things, including applications and their preferences, but lost my Firefox bookmarks.

Any idea where I should look for them on a Mac? Or where can I find the information — I searched the Firefox web site to no avail.

Then I can go grapple with Adobe CS apps, which must be uninstalled and reinstalled. I am sure that will be great fun.

ndebord
May 7th, 2006, 11:36 AM
I just modified my computer to create a larger boot volume, which involved a new installation of the OS. In the process I was able to restore many things, including applications and their preferences, but lost my Firefox bookmarks.

Any idea where I should look for them on a Mac? Or where can I find the information — I searched the Firefox web site to no avail.

Then I can go grapple with Adobe CS apps, which must be uninstalled and reinstalled. I am sure that will be great fun.

Kathleen,

Caveat. I'm not running Macs much these days, so am not current.

This from a Mac OSX help site:

Firefox stores backup copies of prior bookmark files, and these files can accumulate, taking up a fair amount of space. I found 129 files, the most recent being 300 KB. Deleting all the backup files saved about 40 MB in disk space. These files are stored in your user's /Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles/bookmarkbackups folder.

davidh
May 7th, 2006, 11:45 AM
Perhaps the following info from a Windows 98 install of Firefox 1.5 might give you a clue where to start looking ?

The default FF user's (i.e. the first user to get a "profile" in the particular installation of FF) bookmarks.html file is stored in this folder:

C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\5drtsoj1.default

There may be some older backups of the default user's bookmarks.html file in a folder named like this (on a Windows system):

C:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\5drtsoj1.default\boo kmarkbackups

I suspect that the "5drtsoj1" part of the folder name, above, would not be the same from one install of FF to another different install of FF.

Assuming that your Mac has some kind of utility to allow you to search thruout the hard disk of the Mac, then some of these folder names might give you some search strings to plug into a search.

David H.

ktinkel
May 7th, 2006, 02:15 PM
These files are stored in your user's /Library/Application Support/Firefox/Profiles/bookmarkbackups folder.Thank you. Kelvyn gave me the path for Windows, and when I translated it to Mac, found the Firefox files just where you said: Library > Application Support.

Oddly, the Mozilla folder was loose in Library. Shrug. At least the problem is solved.

Thanks. Pretty good advice from someone who thinks he’s rusty!

ktinkel
May 7th, 2006, 02:17 PM
these folder names might give you some search strings to plug into a search.Indeed it does. I got the Windows path and searched on the file names and voila! got there.

It is always these little details that trip me up. Thanks very much for your help. Now to go unearth the next problem. It used to be so simple to rebuild a system, before the Mac got unixed! No more.

Mike
May 8th, 2006, 02:16 AM
It used to be so simple to rebuild a system, before the Mac got unixed! No more.
It used to be so simple to rebuild any sort of system. Windows did to the PC what OS X did to the Mac.

I have a new computer at work. It's pretty similar to the old computer, except it has a much higher resolution screen (the old one was limited to 1024x768, while the new one has 1280x1024 while docked, and 1400x1050 while mobile). Trying to find the settings and other information buried within the "Documents and Settings" was difficult, but I finally persevered. <g>

ndebord
May 8th, 2006, 03:42 AM
Thank you. Kelvyn gave me the path for Windows, and when I translated it to Mac, found the Firefox files just where you said: Library > Application Support.

Oddly, the Mozilla folder was loose in Library. Shrug. At least the problem is solved.

Thanks. Pretty good advice from someone who thinks he’s rusty!

Kathleen,

Glad you found it. I got worried after your post and went back and made a SIT file of my profile on my Mac laptop!

<g>

ktinkel
May 8th, 2006, 09:27 PM
Glad you found it. I got worried after your post and went back and made a SIT file of my profile on my Mac laptop!Oh, gee — sorry!

I am on this terrible medication that makes me stupider than I normally would be (Neurontin). So I undertake these complicated processes, and get lost in the middle!

Thanks for your help (I really do appreciate it!)

ktinkel
May 8th, 2006, 09:28 PM
It used to be so simple to rebuild any sort of system. Windows did to the PC what OS X did to the Mac.

. . . but I finally persevered. <g>So happy for you. I am trying to do as well. But it goes slowly.

May we both win!

ndebord
May 8th, 2006, 11:38 PM
So happy for you. I am trying to do as well. But it goes slowly.

May we both win!


Kathleen,

OSX is an abomination. I have a dual boot (9.02 and Tiger) and I remember that when things went south before, you just dragged the folder to the trash can and all was well when you ran setup again. Nothing, absolutely nothing is the same now with OSX and I, for one, liked the older OS better.

Lindsey
May 9th, 2006, 01:10 AM
Trying to find the settings and other information buried within the "Documents and Settings" was difficult, but I finally persevered. <g>
Persevering is probably a necessary step, but the real question is: Did you prevail? :p :p

--Lindsey

Mike
May 10th, 2006, 01:30 AM
May we both win!
Indeed! I had a small victory today--now I'm able to connect to the office's network from home... a small configuration change was needed, but no one remembered what it was! <g>

Best of luck to whip your tiger into shape!

Mike
May 10th, 2006, 01:44 AM
Indeed, I ultimately prevailed, after finally persevering. <g>

In twelve steps or less^H^H^H^Hfewer.

Lindsey
May 10th, 2006, 11:59 PM
In twelve steps or less^H^H^H^Hfewer.
:p :p :p

--Lindsey

ktinkel
May 11th, 2006, 12:23 PM
OSX is an abomination. I have a dual boot (9.02 and Tiger) and I remember that when things went south before, you just dragged the folder to the trash can and all was well when you ran setup again. Nothing, absolutely nothing is the same now with OSX and I, for one, liked the older OS better.I actually do not. We have a couple of machines running older OS versions (one 8.6 and the other 9.0.2), and they seem sluggish and fussy to me, now that I am used to OS X.

But the transition was painful, I will say that. You must give up and submit to the will of the Panther or Tiger! I struggled at first — insisted on retaining my separate Applications and Files (aka Documents) partitions. It works with some apps, but others really insist you install in the System volume.

That’s why I had to rebuild — my boot volume was almost full, because of all the apps and other junk that accumulates in there.

That, in my mind, is lousy design. But they do not design computers these days for people with 4500 fonts (at last count), hundreds of documents, 8 web browsers, multiple programs of similar type (QuarkXPress, InDesign, PageMaker). They expect modest setups and try to make everything transparent for unsophisticated users.

Sigh.

ktinkel
May 11th, 2006, 12:28 PM
Best of luck to whip your tiger into shape!Thanks. I am just about there — just have to fix Fontographer (needed to beg for a new installer). Even got all my Adobe apps de-activated and re-activated with only about an hour and a half of grim labor!

Now I have to contront a problem with the network that occurred when I switched from DSL to cable a couple of months ago.

I cannot print to the big HP printer (have been using a local Epson, which is pretty silly). And no Airport for the laptop or web access for the old machines in the print room. Have made some desultory efforts, but believe I will have to sit down, read the damn manual, and do things the right way. I hate that. <g>

Mike
May 12th, 2006, 01:43 AM
We have a couple of machines running older OS versions (one 8.6 and the other 9.0.2), and they seem sluggish and fussy to me, now that I am used to OS X.
My partner still uses OS 9.0.4, and refuses to switch. I suspect you and he would get along well. ;-)

Mike
May 12th, 2006, 01:47 AM
... will have to sit down, read the damn manual, and do things the right way. I hate that. <g>
You and Brent definitely have to talk about this! ;-)

PS. You don't use Suitcase? <mk pretending to act like a Mac user>

ndebord
May 12th, 2006, 11:51 AM
My partner still uses OS 9.0.4, and refuses to switch. I suspect you and he would get along well. ;-)


Mike,

I've come close to getting rid of the dual boot and just sticking with 9.0.2. (I didn't even know they had put out a 9.0.4 which is great news).

But the reality has been that as OSX took over the Mac, I spent much more time in Windoze. Don't know, but as I look at it, it occurs to me that I am becoming a stick in the mud: OS9, W98se!

<sigh>

ktinkel
May 12th, 2006, 03:34 PM
My partner still uses OS 9.0.4, and refuses to switch. I suspect you and he would get along well. ;-)That would likely be true, but on the computer front, I imagine there would be a bunch of perhaps not so subtle jockeying between us to change someone’s mind!

The lurch from 9 to X is extreme, no doubt about it. But I am glad I did it.

But I should say I did it the easy way. Bought a new machine and it was set up in X. That beats trying to convert an older system with all its baggage.

ktinkel
May 12th, 2006, 03:45 PM
You and Brent definitely have to talk about this! ;-)About not liking to read the manual? Oh, that is fairly standard Mac behavior. For two decades we didn’t need to, you see. All this tricky unix stuff is messing with our personal freedoms!!!

PS. You don't use Suitcase? <mk pretending to act like a Mac user>Oh, boy — that taps into a big story. I used Suitcase, years ago; as well as MasterJuggler and, later, Font Reserve. But when Adobe brought out ATM Deluxe, I converted to that. It was the best font manager for the Mac, hands down. So of course Adobe killed it off — did not make a version for OS X.

So I bought Suitcase X; yuck: slow, crashes and freezes, and I don’t remember what all.

I retreated like a turtle into Apple’s included FontBook, but it doesn’t have auto-activation and other useful features. Someone recommended Font Agent Pro, so I bought that, and it was okay, for a while. Then it got slow and misbehaved a lot. (I have a LOT of fonts, you see.)

Now I am on the brink (this weekend, maybe) of installing Linotype Explorer, a new free font manager that is getting good reports, mostly, on Typophile.

If you (or Brent) wants to see a discussion or two on Mac font managers, check some of the discussions in DTP. No one is happy. The golden days are over. :(

Mike
May 13th, 2006, 02:03 AM
But I should say I did it the easy way. Bought a new machine and it was set up in X. That beats trying to convert an older system with all its baggage.
That is the easy way, and that method is the only way I've ever "upgraded" an OS. It's just not worth trying to migrate everything on the computer to a newer OS.

Brent won't upgrade until he has absolutely no other choice. His older apps still do what he needs, and the printer still accepts files from his version of Quark.

Mike
May 13th, 2006, 02:06 AM
About not liking to read the manual? Oh, that is fairly standard Mac behavior.
That's also standard Brent behavior. <g> If the manual must be read, the task gets delegated to me.

If you (or Brent) wants to see a discussion or two on Mac font managers, check some of the discussions in DTP. No one is happy. The golden days are over.
I'll keep that in mind, if/when Brent ever does upgrade. Until that time, there's no point. <g>

I'm just glad that Win2K and WinXP handle fonts just fine by themselves.

ktinkel
May 13th, 2006, 04:15 PM
I'm just glad that Win2K and WinXP handle fonts just fine by themselves.They do, so long as you do not need to manage more than a few dozen font families. Then Windows users also go seeking a solution.

Adobe ATM Deluxe still works on some Windows setups, but the Windows version never had auto-activation, so people are looking elsewhere. I don’t think they are a lot happier with Win Suitcase than I am, but there is a new version, a blend of Suitcase with Font Reserve, dubbed Fusion, which may be better (I don’t know).

Windows DTPers used to love Bitstream Font Navigator, but I fear it is no longer useful.

ktinkel
May 13th, 2006, 04:18 PM
That is the easy way, and that method is the only way I've ever "upgraded" an OS. It's just not worth trying to migrate everything on the computer to a newer OS.That is more and more true, as developers try to make so much stuff automatic, hidden, and easy for novices.

Brent won't upgrade until he has absolutely no other choice. His older apps still do what he needs, and the printer still accepts files from his version of Quark.Perfectly logical. Problems arise when you need to exchange files with more than just one or two people, including multiple printers. Then you need to keep up. An expensive and annoying game, imho.

Lindsey
May 13th, 2006, 10:04 PM
Brent won't upgrade until he has absolutely no other choice. His older apps still do what he needs, and the printer still accepts files from his version of Quark.
I like Brent already...

--Lindsey

Mike
May 14th, 2006, 01:15 AM
I like Brent already...
I've liked him for a long time. :-)

Mike
May 14th, 2006, 01:17 AM
Then Windows users also go seeking a solution.
I have a couple of freeware programs to allow me to find the fonts I need, but with Win2K and XP, I don't need to worry about activating the fonts--they're there all the time, and loaded as they're used.

ktinkel
May 14th, 2006, 12:20 PM
with Win2K and XP, I don't need to worry about activating the fonts--they're there all the time, and loaded as they're used.Does that mean they do not show up in your font menus? If so, that must be some form of auto-activation.

What I hate are long rambling font menus. A font manager allows me to control that (only somewhat in OS X, though — there are a bunch of fonts that must be “on” all the time, ones I would never use!)

Lindsey
May 14th, 2006, 10:55 PM
I've liked him for a long time. :-)
Well, yeah, but I've never even met him!

--Lindsey

Mike
May 18th, 2006, 02:01 AM
Hie thee over here and you can! :-)

Mike
May 18th, 2006, 02:03 AM
Does that mean they do not show up in your font menus? If so, that must be some form of auto-activation.
The fonts do show in the selection menus, but in 99% of the programs, I can type the first letter of the font I want to go directly there, and I only have to browse when I want to view the fonts.

Lindsey
May 18th, 2006, 10:37 PM
Hie thee over here and you can! :-)
Actually, I'm headed for your side of the continent tomorrow morning, but I'll be way south of you...

--Lindsey

ktinkel
May 19th, 2006, 09:44 PM
The fonts do show in the selection menus, but in 99% of the programs, I can type the first letter of the font I want to go directly there, and I only have to browse when I want to view the fonts.You just don’t have enough fonts!!!

Mike
May 22nd, 2006, 01:03 AM
Actually, I'm headed for your side of the continent tomorrow morning, but I'll be way south of you...
One of these months, you'll have to find a way to visit at my end of this expansive state. :-)

fhaber
May 26th, 2006, 03:48 PM
>You just don’t have enough fonts!!!

From a geek:

I had limited experience with OS 8/9, but Panther and Tiger are better, as in night and day better. They're solid. 8/9 weren't. They're fast enough, given some RAM. 10.3.9/10.4.x both hold your hand, if you want, have a consistent style, if it amuses, and cave quickly if you get tired of paternalism, grab your sabre and go to the commandline.

Note how people react very differently (g). I'm pleased, in any case. I feel for your situation, though.

Now, there's this nagging little thing. All my sentient Mac user friends are pleased as punch with Tiger, except for the publishing pros. My sympathies.

The design/CAD/3D types were already ecumenical in their choice of operating system.

Mike
May 27th, 2006, 03:08 AM
You just don’t have enough fonts!!!
I only have about 450 font files on this machine. I think there are about 500 on my work machine.

Caveat: on a Windows machine, one font file may simply be a based on another file but with an attribute applied; e.g., there may be a file for the Arial font, and another for Arial Bold.

I also have a bunch that aren't "installed," which I'll do when I'm ready to use them. <g>

ktinkel
May 27th, 2006, 09:54 PM
All my sentient Mac user friends are pleased as punch with Tiger, except for the publishing pros.Apple provides lots of free fonts, and a free font “manager” — it works fabulously with the provided set and a few dozen more.

After that, pffffft. Aside from that, it leaves menus full of unusable, uninteresting and altogether useless fonts. Before you add any good ones, you need to scroll past eleventy-dozen unwanted fonts in elegant scripts that do not make you any money.

So no, publishing types are not happy with OS X from that point of view.

That is not to say that OS X is not good in other ways, mind you!

ktinkel
May 27th, 2006, 09:57 PM
Windows has a can of worms (or two or three) and so does Mac OS X. If I did not need to use fonts for a living, OS X would be fine and dandy.

Apple bends backwards to disavow the graphic arts and printing users who have kept them afloat in lean times . . . Very annoying.

Mike
May 27th, 2006, 10:54 PM
Windows isn't exactly friendly to designers. <g>

Judy G. Russell
May 27th, 2006, 11:39 PM
Windows isn't exactly friendly to designers. <g>Or anybody else, for that matter!

Mike
May 28th, 2006, 02:04 AM
Or anybody else, for that matter!
As your S-I-L would say...

ktinkel
May 28th, 2006, 04:27 PM
As your S-I-L would say...All true. Apple is marginally better, because it has so many loud mouth designer types who work in the printing-ink-on-paper businesses. But I would not give either company a gold (or even a silver) star.

Their business is to make as much money as possible and gratify their shareholders. Oh, and do enough to hang on to the mainstream customers. Not too helpful to be a niche customer in all that.

Judy G. Russell
May 29th, 2006, 12:12 AM
I would not give either company a gold (or even a silver) star.Ditto. (Uh oh. I'm not turning into a dittohead, am I? YEEP!)

ktinkel
May 29th, 2006, 02:54 PM
Ditto. (Uh oh. I'm not turning into a dittohead, am I? YEEP!)Definitely not! :eek:

Judy G. Russell
May 29th, 2006, 03:02 PM
Definitely not! :eek:Whew... what a relief...