On 2/24/2020 9:17 PM, Danny Kile wrote:
> What is the best version of Adobe Flash Player to run on Windows 7 Home
> Premium and SeaMonkey 2.49.5?
>
> Thank you,
>
> Danny
>
Adobe's corporate blog indicates that Flash will no longer be maintained
or distributed a
On 2/24/2020 9:17 PM, Danny Kile wrote:
What is the best version of Adobe Flash Player to run on Windows 7 Home
Premium and SeaMonkey 2.49.5?
Danny, the (lat/new)est version from https://get.adobe.com/flashplayer/.
Currently, it is at 32.0.0.330. FYI, Adobe usually release a new version
What is the best version of Adobe Flash Player to run on Windows 7 Home
Premium and SeaMonkey 2.49.5?
Thank you,
Danny
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Frank Booth Snr wrote:
On 14 May, 21:10, Karl Anderson wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
John Doue wrote:
The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
satisfaction.
Notif that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched
in the next version.
The wise man
On 14 May, 21:10, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Benoit Renard wrote:
> > John Doue wrote:
>
> >> The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
> >> satisfaction.
>
> >Notif that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched
>
John Doue wrote:
Karl Anderson wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
John Doue wrote:
The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
satisfaction.
Not if that version has publicly known exploits that have been
patched in the next version.
The wise man does not rush
John Doue schrieb:
Karl Anderson wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
John Doue wrote:
The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
satisfaction.
Not if that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched
in the next version.
The wise man does not rush
Karl Anderson wrote:
Benoit Renard wrote:
John Doue wrote:
The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
satisfaction.
Not if that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched
in the next version.
The wise man does not rush.
Unfortunately, this
On 05/14/2009 01:10 PM, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Benoit Renard wrote:
>> John Doue wrote:
>>
>>> The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
>>> satisfaction.
>>
>>
>> Not if that version has publicly known expl
On 05/14/09 13:10, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Benoit Renard wrote:
>> John Doue wrote:
>>
>>> The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
>>> satisfaction.
>>
>>
>> Not if that version has publicly known exploits that hav
Benoit Renard wrote:
John Doue wrote:
The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
satisfaction.
Not if that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched
in the next version.
The wise man does not rush.
Unfortunately, this isn't really tru
John Doue wrote:
The best version is the one you have been using for a while to your
satisfaction.
Not if that version has publicly known exploits that have been patched
in the next version.
The wise man does not rush.
Unfortunately, this isn't really true for security updates, and
Benoit Renard wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
Why not creating a version without "vulnerabilities" ... i'ts ennoying
to always upgrade, upgrade, and upgrade ...
You talk as if that's possible. :)
Patches welcome.
The best version is the one you have been using for a while t
Ray_Net wrote:
Why not creating a version without "vulnerabilities" ... i'ts ennoying
to always upgrade, upgrade, and upgrade ...
You talk as if that's possible. :)
Patches welcome.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.or
NoOp wrote:
On 05/01/2009 06:38 AM, Benoit Renard wrote:
NoOp wrote:
For best web page rendering I'd recommend the pre-released 2.0
You shouldn't recommend an alpha version to an end user. All kinds of
funky things might (and do) occur.
Perhaps. But the link I provided does include a bright
On 05/01/2009 06:38 AM, Benoit Renard wrote:
> NoOp wrote:
>> For best web page rendering I'd recommend the pre-released 2.0
>
> You shouldn't recommend an alpha version to an end user. All kinds of
> funky things might (and do) occur.
Perhaps. But the link I provided does include a bright warni
NoOp wrote:
For best web page rendering I'd recommend the pre-released 2.0
You shouldn't recommend an alpha version to an end user. All kinds of
funky things might (and do) occur.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.or
On 04/30/2009 10:39 AM, Karl Anderson wrote:
> Is the current version of SeaMonkey compatable with older systems?
>
> My P3-900 with win2k has Mozilla 1.7.3 installed along with plugins for
> Flash, Shockwave, Adobe Reader, Realplayer, Quicktime and Flashblock,
> Mozilla Calendar 200502-cal,
SeaMonkey 1.1.16 works as far back as Windows NT 3.51. I'm using it on
Windows 95 right now.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Is the current version of SeaMonkey compatable with older systems?
My P3-900 with win2k has Mozilla 1.7.3 installed along with plugins for
Flash, Shockwave, Adobe Reader, Realplayer, Quicktime and Flashblock,
Mozilla Calendar 200502-cal, . It's worked well for many years, but
I'm finding i
20 matches
Mail list logo