 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / March 2006[Saab_c900] saab tool page updated
Hi everyone, I've updated the Saab tool page today at "http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900/tools.html" and added pictures of as many of the tools as possible. The main addition is to include reference to two slightly different oil filter wrench tools made by Klann Tools in Germany. One of the tools suits the genuine Saab oil filters that are 74 mm diameter, and the other has a slightly larger diameter (76 mm) to suit after-market oil filters such as the Ryco Z400 type. Both tools are designed for use with 15-flat filter casings. The 74 mm one is regularly sold on Ebay by Samstag Sales as a discounted price (I recently bought one for US$21 from them). The 76 mm version seems to be harder to get, but SamStag can supply them. Craig. -- Craig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. > Hi everyone, I've updated the Saab tool page today at > "http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900/tools.html" and added pictures of as many > of the tools as possible. Ah, so if I ever "productize" my brake piston turning tool that doesn't suck, would that be appropriate to list on there? I wouldn't be looking to make a fortune, more of a "Here, this is less of a hassle" kind of thing. Far as that goes - 93/95/96/97 rear brakedrum adjustment tool wouldn't be tough to fab, that oddball V4 tranny drainplug tool again wouldn't be tough...is there demand for such things? > Hi everyone, I've updated the Saab tool page today at > "http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900/tools.html" and added pictures of as many [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, > etc. Have a look at http://saab.spx.com/index2.asp , that should keep you busy for a while........ Regards, Tom, Saabtech. >Have a look at http://saab.spx.com/index2.asp >, that should keep you busy for a while........ >Regards, Tom, Saabtech. Thanks Tom. Unfortunately most of that site won't load properly in Firefox. Probably because it's asp-based site. Found another one the other day with the same sort of problem. I'm sure the site itself is fine, but it's probably built using a native Windows HTML generator which is expecting everyone to use IE to view created content... grrr. But I did get some of it to load - pretty extensive. Craig.  SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. >>Have a look at http://saab.spx.com/index2.asp > > Thanks Tom. Unfortunately most of that site won't load properly in Firefox. > Probably because it's asp-based site. Found another one the other day with > the same sort of problem. Well, .asp isn't the problem specifically, but, the w3c validator: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsaab.spx.com%2Findex2.asp ...shows 98 problems with their html. > I'm sure the site itself is fine, but it's probably built using a native > Windows HTML generator which is expecting everyone to use IE to view created > content... grrr. But I did get some of it to load - pretty extensive. Way I look at it, if a developer wants to limit their audience, I'm happy to pass on viewing their content. >>>Have a look at http://saab.spx.com/index2.asp >> >> Thanks Tom. Unfortunately most of that site won't load properly in Firefox. >> Probably because it's asp-based site. Found another one the other day with >> the same sort of problem. >Well, .asp isn't the problem specifically, but, the w3c validator: >http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsaab.spx.com%2Findex2.asp >...shows 98 problems with their html. >> I'm sure the site itself is fine, but it's probably built using a native >> Windows HTML generator which is expecting everyone to use IE to view created >> content... grrr. But I did get some of it to load - pretty extensive. >Way I look at it, if a developer wants to limit their audience, I'm >happy to pass on viewing their content. I'm sure most of my website content (I've written LOTS of it - not just the Saab stuff!) would fail the validation tests too. I hand-write all my HTML. 8-) I've never actually tried submitting any of my website code to a validator - given me an idea now... lol But you're right in that if a site is written with really bad coding, it won't display properly in clients which are 'non-denominational' (ie. devoted to one particular operating system). Windows IE is very definitely written with one OS in mind and so it will support all the Microsoft-specific extensions, but most other clients don't or won't. Craig. SignatureCraig's Saab C900 Page at | Craig's Classic Saab Workshop - Sydney .au http://lios.apana.org.au/~c900 | http://www.classicsaab.net and other URL's Email: c900@lios.apana.org.au | For Saab 99/C900/9000 Enthusiasts World-Wide! Alternate: saabonaut@gmail.com | Web-forums, galleries, library, links, etc. >>Way I look at it, if a developer wants to limit their audience, I'm >>happy to pass on viewing their content. > I'm sure most of my website content (I've written LOTS of it - not just the > Saab stuff!) would fail the validation tests too. I hand-write all my HTML. > 8-) I've never actually tried submitting any of my website code to a > validator - given me an idea now... lol Well, I write my html with vi, the way nature intended it as well. But I just learned about this sourceforge project called 'html tidy'. tidy.sourceforge.net I'm guessing. Cleans it up, keeps it looking the same, and open-source. > But you're right in that if a site is written with really bad coding, it > won't display properly in clients which are 'non-denominational' (ie. > devoted to one particular operating system). Windows IE is very definitely > written with one OS in mind and so it will support all the > Microsoft-specific extensions, but most other clients don't or won't. Yup. And websites who develop and test only with IE on Windows need to wake up and realize that they're sacrificing usability for "cutesy bullshit". > > Windows IE is very > > definitely written with one OS in mind and so it will support all the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wake up and realize that they're sacrificing usability for "cutesy > bullshit". I've found Firefox pretty crappy; especially in its ability to cope with the worst of the IE only pages but Opera can deal with most. Whilst not wanting to get into a browser spat I agree with the view that if a commercial organisation limits their audience by being browser specific then that's their loss but a lot of the information stuff I miss is /my/ loss. I also think it's less of the "cutesy bullshit" and more of the "it's easier" to take an IE only line. SignatureSimon >> Yup. And websites who develop and test only with IE on Windows need to >> wake up and realize that they're sacrificing usability for "cutesy >> bullshit". > I've found Firefox pretty crappy; especially in its ability to cope with > the worst of the IE only pages but Opera can deal with most. So, Firefox is "pretty crappy", because it can't render broken webpages as well as Opera? Wow. Way to lose focus on the problem there sparky. > Whilst not wanting to get into a browser spat I agree with the view that > if a commercial organisation limits their audience by being browser > specific then that's their loss but a lot of the information stuff I miss > is /my/ loss. (shrug) most of the stuff that isn't compliant is someone's special effects rather than actual content. > I also think it's less of the "cutesy bullshit" and more of the "it's > easier" to take an IE only line. Great. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters. Don't forget your security updates. > >> Yup. And websites who develop and test only with IE on Windows need > >> to wake up and realize that they're sacrificing usability for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > So, Firefox is "pretty crappy", because it can't render broken webpages > as well as Opera? Wow. Way to lose focus on the problem there sparky. "I deny myself access to information to maintain my idealogical purity". It's almost Sovietesque ... > > Whilst not wanting to get into a browser spat I agree with the view > > that if a commercial organisation limits their audience by being [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (shrug) most of the stuff that isn't compliant is someone's special > effects rather than actual content. Blimey, you're now sounding all 1997 ... You're also wrong. It's not special effects or cutesy bullshit it's simply easier and quicker, unfortunately, for web designers to take the easy option (time is money and all that) and only cater for 80% of the browser market; so I have to work round them. Opera does this slickly Firefox doesn't. Both are free. One is better: simple really. As I said if its commercial that's their loss but the vast majority of the stuff I want to look at isn't and most of the big players work with any browser (which explains why they may be big players). As you can see we're broadly agreeing but without the self righteous "Firefox or Death!" approach. > > I also think it's less of the "cutesy bullshit" and more of the "it's > > easier" to take an IE only line. > > Great. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters. Don't forget > your security updates. I think you may be blinded by both your Linux OS (I see you use Slrn) and your idealogical purity here. Linux is many good things but a desktop OS is not one of them - Incidentally IME of both Suse and Red Hat the security updates came thick and fast for them too. SignatureSimon >> So, Firefox is "pretty crappy", because it can't render broken webpages >> as well as Opera? Wow. Way to lose focus on the problem there sparky. > > "I deny myself access to information to maintain my idealogical purity". > It's almost Sovietesque ... You've once again missed the point completetly. Almost like it's intentional; a parody of someone being remarkably dense. >> (shrug) most of the stuff that isn't compliant is someone's special >> effects rather than actual content. > Blimey, you're now sounding all 1997 ... 1997? Yeah, there were people putting stupid things into webpages then too, what's your point? > You're also wrong. It's not special effects or cutesy bullshit it's > simply easier and quicker, unfortunately, for web designers to take the > easy option (time is money and all that) and only cater for 80% of the > browser market; so I have to work round them. That's great. If you want to inflict an inferior tool upon yourself so you can visit some webpage made by a lazy braindeaded developer who can't be bothered to test his site properly, go for it. The fact is, you have to go out of your way to make something _not_ work in browsers other than IE. It's no longer a case of "Oh, I didn't know there were others" (always a lie, just more so now), it's a case of willful disregard of that market or audience segment. > Opera does this slickly Firefox doesn't. Both are free. One is better: > simple really. OK, great. I use Opera when I'm testing encryption settings on webservers. Not real fond of it otherwise, for reasons I'm not going to bother to go into because of course you'll tell me I've got that wrong too somehow. > As I said if its commercial that's their loss but the vast majority of > the stuff I want to look at isn't and most of the big players work with > any browser (which explains why they may be big players). I honestly can't think of the last time I tried to do something with firefox and it didn't work. Maybe you just need help with plugins or something. > As you can see we're broadly agreeing but without the self righteous > "Firefox or Death!" approach. You're using quote marks there, which implies that it's a quote. That's why they're called quote marks, you see. I never made such a statement, so kindly refrain from trying to be my spokesman. Thanks. >> > I also think it's less of the "cutesy bullshit" and more of the "it's >> > easier" to take an IE only line. >> Great. As long as you're happy, that's all that matters. Don't forget >> your security updates. > I think you may be blinded by both your Linux OS (I see you use Slrn) and > your idealogical purity here. I think you may be making a boatload of assumptions. The system I use for an internet gateway, is a linux box. My desk at home has a mac. In the workshop I've got a few sun and SGI boxes. At work I admin ~500 systems with a team, and in the last week I've worked on, let's see...hpux, aix, sco, solaris, suse, redhat, ...um, I think that's all. This has nothing to do with your "idealogical purity" theory, it's simply a matter of functionality. I can get to everything I need to with firefox, and I see no reason to inflict IE and it's inherent security problems, usability problems, and so on, upon myself. I just don't need it for everyday web browsing. If you can't get something to work with firefox, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Or maybe we just go to entirely different sites, who knows. > Linux is many good things but a desktop OS is not one of them - 5 years ago that was sortof true, if you were a user-level person who doesn't 'grok' Unix. These days, systems like Knoppix, Ubuntu, and others, make the install process painless, and the suite of tools is complete. > Incidentally IME of both Suse and Red Hat the security updates came thick > and fast for them too. Of course. Is this the point where we need to talk about exposure, risk, and magnitude of security releases, or can we just stipulate that Windows is a screen door when it comes to security, because of it's inherent design flaws? The '86 c900 is leaking oil. They all do that. That's how you know it's got oil in the engine. > That's great. If you want to inflict an inferior tool upon yourself so > you can visit some webpage made by a lazy braindeaded developer who > can't be bothered to test his site properly, go for it. The fact is, > you have to go out of your way to make something not work in browsers > other than IE. I don't use IE, never said I did; now who's being deliberately dim? > OK, great. I use Opera when I'm testing encryption settings on > webservers. Not real fond of it otherwise, for reasons I'm not going to > bother to go into because of course you'll tell me I've got that wrong > too somehow. I'd actually be interested why as you're not the only person who's said they don't get on with it. I always liked it and have paid for it from version 5. > > As you can see we're broadly agreeing but without the self righteous > > "Firefox or Death!" approach. > > You're using quote marks there, which implies that it's a quote. > That's why they're called quote marks, you see. I never made such a > statement, so kindly refrain from trying to be my spokesman. Thanks. It's a quote but not necessarilly yours. > This has nothing to do with your "idealogical purity" theory, it's > simply a matter of functionality. I can get to everything I need to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > work with firefox, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Or maybe we > just go to entirely different sites, who knows. Firefox is a good alternative and makes migrating from IE very easy and unthreatening for the average user but I always found it clunky looking and just, well, crappy. It's one of those subjective things. That and back to the original point of it balking on more websites than was helpful. > > Linux is many good things but a desktop OS is not one of them - > > 5 years ago that was sortof true, if you were a user-level person who > doesn't 'grok' Unix. These days, systems like Knoppix, Ubuntu, and > others, make the install process painless, and the suite of tools is > complete. The installation process isn't the problem. It took *two* *weeks* and several builds to get Unreal Tournament running on Suse; Mandrake (as was) was just as awkward for installing third party stuff - I started wanting to commit penguicide after that. It's very good for specific jobs but as an average user after an average users desktop OS it was a PITA. Which was a shame as it really appealed to me. > The '86 c900 is leaking oil. They all do that. That's how you know > it's got oil in the engine. Mine doesn't ... No, honestly. SignatureSimon >> That's great. If you want to inflict an inferior tool upon yourself so >> you can visit some webpage made by a lazy braindeaded developer who >> can't be bothered to test his site properly, go for it. The fact is, >> you have to go out of your way to make something not work in browsers >> other than IE. > I don't use IE, never said I did; now who's being deliberately dim? What does that have to do with badly written webpages? My point stands regardless of what's on your desktop. Bad web developers are the problem, not how a standards-compliant browser renders them. >> OK, great. I use Opera when I'm testing encryption settings on >> webservers. Not real fond of it otherwise, for reasons I'm not going to >> bother to go into because of course you'll tell me I've got that wrong >> too somehow. > I'd actually be interested why as you're not the only person who's said > they don't get on with it. I always liked it and have paid for it from > version 5. I paid a while ago too, maybe 2 years ago or so, because I was using it for those encryption tests and I figured I should thank them with money. But it just never turned into a daily-driver for me, so to speak. >> > As you can see we're broadly agreeing but without the self righteous >> > "Firefox or Death!" approach. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's a quote but not necessarilly yours. Riiiiight. So word games then. Loverly. >> This has nothing to do with your "idealogical purity" theory, it's >> simply a matter of functionality. I can get to everything I need to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> work with firefox, perhaps you're doing something wrong. Or maybe we >> just go to entirely different sites, who knows. > Firefox is a good alternative and makes migrating from IE very easy and > unthreatening for the average user but I always found it clunky looking > and just, well, crappy. It's one of those subjective things. That and > back to the original point of it balking on more websites than was > helpful. (shrug) I just don't see enough differentiating factors with Opera to bother switching to it. >> > Linux is many good things but a desktop OS is not one of them - >> >> 5 years ago that was sortof true, if you were a user-level person who >> doesn't 'grok' Unix. These days, systems like Knoppix, Ubuntu, and >> others, make the install process painless, and the suite of tools is >> complete. > The installation process isn't the problem. It took *two* *weeks* and > several builds to get Unreal Tournament running on Suse; Mandrake (as > was) was just as awkward for installing third party stuff - I started > wanting to commit penguicide after that. Sounds like two problems. First, you're quite possibly using the wrong tool for the job. If you want to play Unreal Tournament, why not keep a windows install around for gaming? The mandrake installation issues, well, sounds like a training issue. > It's very good for specific jobs but as an average user after an average > users desktop OS it was a PITA. Which was a shame as it really appealed > to me. (shrug) Doesn't matter to me. There are at least two popular window managers to choose from, perhaps if you cared you could try whichever one you didn't. (Note: if you're now about to explain that technically, gnome and KDE aren't 'window managers' but are instead something subtly different that acts like, but technically isn't a 'window manager', save yourself some time and don't bother.) >> The '86 c900 is leaking oil. They all do that. That's how you know >> it's got oil in the engine. > Mine doesn't ... No, honestly. You'd better check to make sure there's oil in there. Seriously. At the very least the valve cover gasket should be leaking. > >> That's great. If you want to inflict an inferior tool upon yourself so > >> you can visit some webpage made by a lazy braindeaded developer who [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > back to the original point of it balking on more websites than was > > helpful. Would you like a car with wheels that bend very easily when hitting potholes? > Would you like a car with wheels that bend very easily when hitting > potholes? Sure, I wouldn't mind having a Viggen. Of course, I'd install better wheels that aren't so prone to damage, even if 1% of the people who saw them would tell me my wheels weren't original Saab wheels. Hm, almost an exact metaphor for a crappy browser being replaced by a better one. >>>Windows IE is very >>>definitely written with one OS in mind and so it will support all the [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I also think it's less of the "cutesy bullshit" and more of the "it's > easier" to take an IE only line. Adblock is the reason I'll put up with any flaws with Firefox. I absolutely hate banner ads and popups, obnoxious animated signatures, etc. Adblock lets me nuke all that stuff and clean up the net. > Adblock is the reason I'll put up with any flaws with Firefox. I > absolutely hate banner ads and popups, obnoxious animated signatures, > etc. Adblock lets me nuke all that stuff and clean up the net. As good a reason as any. Worth noting Opera also has adblocking, popup controls etc. "Firefox: It's got no clothes on!" SignatureSimon |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.