Jay Garcia wrote: > > JTK wrote: > > > Jay Garcia wrote: > > > >>JTK wrote: > > >>> > >>No, YOUR cache is busted, not ours for whatever reason. > >> > >> > > > > No, *I* don't have a cache. Mozilla does. I had nothing to do with the > > development of it. In fact on my installation, I didn't even do > > anything whatsoever to change the settings from their defaults. It > > simply don't work right, right out of the box. > > I didn't mean it personally as if YOU had something to do with it fer > cryin' out loud. The cache on YOUR installation and machine is busted. I > have eight boxes here with various and sundry installs of Mozilla and > 6.xx
How do you use EIGHT computers simultaneously? Are you specifically using these for test? > and NONE experience the cache problem whatsoever at CNN or anywhere > else for that matter as far as I can tell. I do a lot of online trading > and I think if there was a cache problem I would be one of the first to > notice. > You use ALL EIGHT computers for online trading and looking at CNN every morning when you get to work? > > > >>Since /cache/ contains "files" written to specific areas of the HD maybe > >>a scan-disk and defrag may help and even a "complete sector check" may > >>provide relief .. who knows at this point, maybe worth a try. > >> > >> > > > > Neither are likely to do much on an NTFS disk. > > True, which leads to the likely conclusion that there is a problem with > W2K or other NT flavor Which only affects Mozilla, and only until the first time you hit "Reload" or until (apparently) the first page expiration period times out. Come on. > or a problem with Mozilla specifically and > W2K/NT, etc ... dunno, don't run that stuff here. Win32, ??? You mean Win98/WhyME? > AIX and UNIX > spoken here. > Well, perhaps that's the problem: nobody's using Mozilla on Windows, and only a handful of us masochists hear the tree falling. And the rest of the Mozilla user base (which is on Unix where there's not much option) denies that the tree ever existed. > >>Do you have another computer 'at hand' to attempt to dupe the problem ?? > >> > >> > > > > I do, but I have neither the time nor the patience. > > Well, that just MAY provide clues that you are unwilling to investigate > for whatever reason. Excuse me? On this issue alone, to date I've: - Exposed the problem and brought it to the attention of the Mozilla "community". - Explained the single step necessary to duplicate it. - Proven it's not Proxomitron. - Proven it's not Windows 2000 (==IE and NC4.7x work fine). - Proven it is Mozilla. - Come up with a few hypotheses as to what the source of the defect in Mozilla may be. As you can plainly see, I'm more than willing to do AOL's work for them for free. That's far more than AOL is willing to do for me or anyone else, even when paid. Note also that this is far and away more work than I've ever contributed to IE's development. Then again, IE's cache isn't broken. > Duplicate the problem on as many boxes as you have > and THEN blame Mozilla. Or, duplicate the problem repeatedly on Mozilla but not on any other browser, point out that others also have the same problem, and then get insulted, fed all manner of excuses, told "it's something you're doing wrong", and all but ignored. Same diff. > Ok, others are experiencing the same problem. > Then put together a compilation of operating paramaters, that's what > good investigative technique is all about. > Yep, and like I said, there's plenty of people at AOL paid to do exactly that sort of thing. Isn't there? You see, I don't get paid by AOL, or Time Warner, or Netscape (WOS of AOL). So from where I sit, it looks to me that I've more than done my duty for king and country already. Your welcome. > > > > For some strange reason, I suspect that AOL has plenty of computers to > > devote to Mozilla testing, even after buying Time Warner. And plenty of > > people paid to track down the source of such aggregious defects. They > > can do what they will, or won't, with the fact that Mozilla's cache is > > broken, as proven for them by myself and others. Gratis. > > > > And BTW, the very notion that "you're the only one seeing this" is an > > outrageous lie > > Only if you're accused of being the only one, which you weren't, at > least not by me !!! > That's how I read "No, YOUR cache is busted, not ours for whatever reason", and of course the outright accusations of lying from the illiterate Mr. LaG et al. (That was one hell of a movie BTW, "The Illiterate Mr. LaG"). Now perhaps you meant to say "Right, Mozilla's cache is not working for a number of people, but it's working for me"; I'll buy that for a dollar. > > even if several others hadn't reported the same problem: > > I use Mozilla's web browser virtually not at all. Perhaps twice a day > > max: once to download the latest nightly to see what still hasn't been > > fixed yet, and once to see week-old CNN. That's it. So either I'm a > > "heavy Mozilla user" (wouldn't surprise me), or a lot of AOL people are > > in severe denial as to the defectiveness of their software. > > > > Ahh, you're a pessimistic optimist !! Your half-filled glass is neither > being emptied OR filled . :-D No, it's just twice as big as it needs to be ;-).
