At 07:50 06/02/2001 -0700, Jerry Baker wrote:
>Daniel Veditz wrote:
> >
> > mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth
> > promulgated by the same folks who thump the side of their TV to fix the
> > reception. Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to b
And it came to pass that Daniel Veditz wrote:
>Peter Lairo wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>
>> > And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>> >> I have been installing the nightly builds every day for
>> >> the past
>> >> 10+ weeks by simply copying the new files over the old
>>
Mark Hammond wrote:
>
> Daniel Veditz wrote:
>
> > mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth
> > [] Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to be
> > corrupted, which is unlikely in any case.
>
> Unfortunately, it _is_ true that this file must be
Daniel Veditz wrote:
> mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth
> promulgated by the same folks who thump the side of their TV to fix the
> reception. Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to be
> corrupted, which is unlikely in any case.
Unfortun
Jerry Baker wrote:
>
> Daniel Veditz wrote:
> >
> > mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth
> > promulgated by the same folks who thump the side of their TV to fix the
> > reception. Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to be
> > corrupted, which
Daniel Veditz wrote:
>
> mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat don't need to be deleted. This is a myth
> promulgated by the same folks who thump the side of their TV to fix the
> reception. Mozilla will work just fine even if these files happen to be
> corrupted, which is unlikely in any case.
>
> -Da
Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>
> > And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
> >> I have been installing the nightly builds every day for the past
> >> 10+ weeks by simply copying the new files over the old ones.
> >> Occasionally, I will delete the mozilla directory
Christopher Jahn wrote:
> And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>> I have been installing the nightly builds every day for the past
>> 10+ weeks by simply copying the new files over the old ones.
>> Occasionally, I will delete the mozilla directory and copy
>> the new files into
And it came to pass that Peter Lairo wrote:
>I have been installing the nightly builds every day for the
>past 10+ weeks by simply copying the new files over the old
>ones. Occasionally, I will delete the mozilla directory and
>copy the new files into a new directory.
>
>Unfortunately, it seems t
Roy R. Campbell, Jr. wrote:
> I generally update with each nightly, too, on Win98. I download the
> "mozilla-win32-installer.exe" and rename it to something like
> "mozilla-012720-installer.exe" (for the nightly build of 1/27, for
> example). This way I can keep a few nightlies on hand, in c
I am in the same perdicament... upgrade nightlies nightly (heh), but i
fear that some of my profile has been corrupted over time. i'm having
many problems which i believe are profile related, because i don't get
the same problems on other machines. for example, none of my page
settin
I generally update with each nightly, too, on Win98. I download the
"mozilla-win32-installer.exe" and rename it to something like
"mozilla-012720-installer.exe" (for the nightly build of 1/27, for
example). This way I can keep a few nightlies on hand, in case one
breaks something that used t
I have been installing the nightly builds every day for the past
10+ weeks by simply copying the new files over the old ones.
Occasionally, I will delete the mozilla directory and copy the new
files into a new directory.
Unfortunately, it seems that there are aspects of mozilla that are
not b
13 matches
Mail list logo
