Philip Chee wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
The Gecko 1.8 branch was abandoned by the Mozilla Core devs a long, long
time ago. Only security and
Michael Gordon a écrit :
SM 2.x trashed my address books,
pass words, forms, and all of the extensions I used for creating and
testing we pages.
For the extensions, fair enough: not all of them are compatible (yet).
And much have been said about doing away with the much loved form manager.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:56:20 -0600, Michael Gordon wrote:
I have waited several months to see the improvements in SM 2.x, but all
I saw was a severely broken product. SM 2.x trashed my address books,
pass words, forms, and all of the extensions I used for creating and
testing we pages.
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:07:33 -0500, Phillip Jones wrote:
Philip Chee wrote:
Fortunately now that we have made the big move from the old XPFE backend
to the new toolkit, subsequent upgrades won't be as traumatic. If things
work out upgrades will be as seamless as Firefox
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
The Gecko 1.8 branch was abandoned by the Mozilla Core devs a long, long
time ago. Only security and
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we prefer
to use a
Ray_Net wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we
Martin Freitag wrote:
Philip Chee schrieb:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
You will say the same after switching to SM 2.1 ?
Unfortunately we may be forced to do that as well. Chrome seems to have
lit a fire under the Firefox devs and they plan to abandon the 3.5
(Gecko
John Doue wrote:
On 1/10/2010 12:13 PM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we prefer
to use a product instead
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Martin Freitag wrote:
Philip Chee schrieb:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
You will say the same after switching to SM 2.1 ?
Unfortunately we may be forced to do that as well. Chrome seems to have
lit a fire under the Firefox devs and
Philip Chee schrieb:
The ability to import/migrate *some* data (I think global history) from
1.x profiles will be lost in 1.9.2.
Download history actually. From all I know, global history will work for
a longer time.
Robert Kaiser
___
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we prefer
to use a
Phillip Jones wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change
and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this
Interviewed by CNN on 10/1/2010 16:07, Phillip Jones told the world:
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel
MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 10/1/2010 16:07, Phillip Jones told the world:
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people
Graham schrieb:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
All cases where you get a list on double-click on the field are the same
cases that show a selection when starting to type.
Password (and user name) fields also get automatically filled in if you
only have exactly one username/password saved for that
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
You will say the same after switching to SM 2.1 ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
The Gecko 1.8 branch was abandoned by the Mozilla Core devs a long, long
time ago. Only security and stability patches
Graham schrieb:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Could you define the actual problem you're having and what's not
decent in SM2 for that matter?
My personal beef with SM2's forms and password handling is that it is
entirely unpredictable. On a few sites, things are automatically filled
in. On some, a
Robert Kaiser wrote:
All cases where you get a list on double-click on the field are the same
cases that show a selection when starting to type.
Password (and user name) fields also get automatically filled in if you
only have exactly one username/password saved for that website.
Once you know
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:28:47 -0800, Rufus n...@home.com wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:39:20 -0600, Jay Garcia
j...@jaynospamgarcia.com wrote:
On 06.01.2010 07:13, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
--- Original Message ---
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:35:40 +0100, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I debated going back to SM 2.0 now but I'm spoiled by 1.18's much
simpler handling of passwords for apps that require them. Question:
is SM 2 going to be modified to handle passwords decently? And if
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:39:20 -0600, Jay Garcia
j...@jaynospamgarcia.com wrote:
On 06.01.2010 07:13, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
--- Original Message ---
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:35:40 +0100, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I debated going back to SM 2.0 now but I'm spoiled by 1.18's much
simpler handling of passwords for apps that require them. Question:
is SM 2 going to be modified to handle passwords
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Could you define the actual problem you're having and what's not
decent in SM2 for that matter?
My personal beef with SM2's forms and password handling is that it is
entirely unpredictable. On a few sites, things are automatically filled
in. On some, a double click in a
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:28:47 -0800, Rufusn...@home.com wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase
Graham wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Could you define the actual problem you're having and what's not
decent in SM2 for that matter?
My personal beef with SM2's forms and password handling is that it is
entirely unpredictable. On a few sites, things are automatically filled
in. On some, a
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused by some
RAM weakness. I did that - no ram errors.
However, when removing
On 06.01.2010 07:13, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
--- Original Message ---
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused by some
RAM
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I debated going back to SM 2.0 now but I'm spoiled by 1.18's much
simpler handling of passwords for apps that require them. Question:
is SM 2 going to be modified to handle passwords decently? And if so,
about when might that change be expected?
Could you define the
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused by some
RAM weakness. I did that - no ram errors.
However, when
On 27.12.2009 23:55, Ken Rudolph wrote:
--- Original Message ---
I have to say that last week I experienced the identical BSOD to the
above while running SM 2.0.1. It's one of the only times in 28 years of
running DOS and Windows on 11 different computers that this has
happened. It hasn't
Jay Garcia wrote:
On 27.12.2009 23:55, Ken Rudolph wrote:
--- Original Message ---
I have to say that last week I experienced the identical BSOD to the
above while running SM 2.0.1. It's one of the only times in 28 years of
running DOS and Windows on 11 different computers that this has
John wrote:
Jay Garcia wrote:
On 27.12.2009 23:55, Ken Rudolph wrote:
--- Original Message ---
I have to say that last week I experienced the identical BSOD to the
above while running SM 2.0.1. It's one of the only times in 28 years of
running DOS and Windows on 11 different computers that
In qi6dnwi9a_tfaaxwnz2dnuvz_i1i4...@mozilla.org, on 12/28/09
at 01:11 PM, chicagofan m...@privacy.net said:
And of course MS-DOS IBM PC Compatible was released in 1981 but didn't
produce any BSOD's that I can remember. And in fact I still have a NEW
copy of MS-DOS first release in a sealed
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:22:55 -0600, John jmcken...@cableone.net
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a full blue screen
On 12/28/2009 10:07 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
On 27.12.2009 23:55, Ken Rudolph wrote:
--- Original Message ---
I have to say that last week I experienced the identical BSOD to the
above while running SM 2.0.1. It's one of the only times in 28 years of
running DOS and Windows on 11 different
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:22:55 -0600, Johnjmcken...@cableone.net
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
/snip/
you should be able to look at event viewer and find out what caused the
problems--look for Red X's
What/where is Event Viewer? Hard to iimagine anything would be
avaiilable
On 09-12-28 11:07 AM, Jay Garcia wrote:
Followup set to .general
Just a note to anyone replying to Jay's post:
Jay put mozilla.general in the newsgroups header, not the followup-to
header, so your replies will still show up in mozilla.support.seamonkey.
If you reply, make sure you remove
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 18:22:55 -0600, John jmcken...@cableone.net
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a full blue screen with
white text stating memory had been dumped and a cold boot is required
- bad!! I've not
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a full blue screen with
white text stating memory had been dumped and a cold boot is required
Martin Freitag wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a full blue screen with
white text stating memory had been dumped and
Ken Rudolph wrote:
Martin Freitag wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a full blue screen with
white text stating memory
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I'm contemplating going back from 2.0 to 1.18 to get a working
ID/password recovery system. The current tricks in 2.0 to get the ID
password for different sites either don't work or take much too long
- old 1.18 would fill in the ID password as soon as I got to a site.
Or -
David Wilkinson wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I'm contemplating going back from 2.0 to 1.18 to get a working
ID/password recovery system. The current tricks in 2.0 to get the ID
password for different sites either don't work or take much too long
- old 1.18 would fill in the ID password as soon
Interviewed by CNN on 5/12/2009 16:37, David Wilkinson told the world:
For me the overwhelming advantage of SM2 is that it has the FireFox 3
rendering
engine. So many sites don't display well in SM1/FF2 these days.
There's that, certainly. For me, a few other things:
- My bank here in
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I'm contemplating going back from 2.0 to 1.18 to get a working
ID/password recovery system. The current tricks in 2.0 to get the ID
password for different sites either don't work or take much too long
- old 1.18 would fill in the ID password as soon as I got to a site.
Or -
question schrieb:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I'm contemplating going back from 2.0 to 1.18 to get a working
ID/password recovery system. The current tricks in 2.0 to get the ID
password for different sites either don't work or take much too long
- old 1.18 would fill in the ID password as soon as I
On or about 12/5/2009 6:40 PM, stango typed the following:
Martin Freitag wrote:
question schrieb:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I'm contemplating going back from 2.0 to 1.18 to get a working
ID/password recovery system. The current tricks in 2.0 to get the ID
password for different sites either don't
stango wrote:
Martin Freitag wrote:
question schrieb:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
I'm contemplating going back from 2.0 to 1.18 to get a working
ID/password recovery system. The current tricks in 2.0 to get the ID
password for different sites either don't work or take much too long
- old 1.18 would
53 matches
Mail list logo
