On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 20:53:12 +1000, Daniel wrote:
Ken Rudolph wrote:
Martin Feitag wrote:
PS: As said for an alpha it's very stable, don't compare it too much
with other alphas you might have tested, as the codebase is pretty
mature. Of course it's not recommended to replace SM1 with SM2
Ken Rudolph wrote:
Martin Feitag wrote:
PS: As said for an alpha it's very stable, don't compare it too much
with other alphas you might have tested, as the codebase is pretty
mature. Of course it's not recommended to replace SM1 with SM2 yet in
a productivity environment but having SM2
NoOp wrote:
I've found, for the most part, that the 2.0b1pre is, IMO, more stable
than 2.0a. With the exception of one or two instances, the 2.0b1pre has
been pretty solid I use it on 4 production machines. I of course have
1.1.17 also installed as a backup, but so far the only time that I ever
On Tue, 07 Jul 2009 22:38:22 -0700, Ken Rudolph wrote:
All well and good; but the question is why is Seamonkey 1.1.17 so
much less robust than Firefox? And furthermore, why is the broken
site window so useless? Will SM 2.0 be more Foxy, at least?
You have to compare apples to apples:
Ken Rudolph wrote:
There's a site which keeps crashing Seamonkey 1.1.17 when I click on
it, at least lately (it didn't used to happen). The site doesn't
hang when I use Firefox 3.0.11. The site is:
http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/
On the SM Help menu there is a link to Report Broken Web
Ken Rudolph schrieb:
Daniel wrote:
Ken Rudolph wrote:
There's a site which keeps crashing Seamonkey 1.1.17 when I click on
it, at least lately (it didn't used to happen). The site doesn't
hang when I use Firefox 3.0.11. The site is:
http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/
On the SM Help menu
Martin Feitag wrote:
Ken Rudolph schrieb:
These sites aren't exactly malware, being fairly typical of important
web resources. The fact that SM 1x can't handle them, despite their
deficiencies, is all the more reason that SM 2x is necessary. I'm not a
beta kinda user...when IS 2.0 release
Ken Rudolph schrieb:
Martin Feitag wrote:
Ken Rudolph schrieb:
These sites aren't exactly malware, being fairly typical of important
web resources. The fact that SM 1x can't handle them, despite their
deficiencies, is all the more reason that SM 2x is necessary. I'm not a
beta kinda
Martin Feitag wrote:
PS: As said for an alpha it's very stable, don't compare it too much
with other alphas you might have tested, as the codebase is pretty
mature. Of course it's not recommended to replace SM1 with SM2 yet in a
productivity environment but having SM2 parallely doesn't harm
On 07/08/2009 04:49 PM, Martin Feitag wrote:
Ken Rudolph schrieb:
Even the thought of testing an alpha makes me shudder with angst. It
seems to me that the news-mail part of SM 1x is not nearly so deficient
and outdated as the browser portion. If it is Thunderbird 3 which is
holding up
There's a site which keeps crashing Seamonkey 1.1.17 when I click on
it, at least lately (it didn't used to happen). The site doesn't
hang when I use Firefox 3.0.11. The site is:
http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/
On the SM Help menu there is a link to Report Broken Web Site.
However when I
On 07/07/2009 06:41 PM, Ken Rudolph wrote:
There's a site which keeps crashing Seamonkey 1.1.17 when I click on
it, at least lately (it didn't used to happen). The site doesn't
hang when I use Firefox 3.0.11. The site is:
http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/
Doesn't crash mine, but drives
On 7/7/2009 6:41 PM, Ken Rudolph wrote:
There's a site which keeps crashing Seamonkey 1.1.17 when I click on
it, at least lately (it didn't used to happen). The site doesn't
hang when I use Firefox 3.0.11. The site is:
http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/
On the SM Help menu there is a
David E. Ross wrote:
On 7/7/2009 6:41 PM, Ken Rudolph wrote:
There's a site which keeps crashing Seamonkey 1.1.17 when I click on
it, at least lately (it didn't used to happen). The site doesn't
hang when I use Firefox 3.0.11. The site is:
http://www.losangelesmovietimes.com/
On the SM Help
14 matches
Mail list logo
