On Sep 13, 2:46 pm, Ken Rudolph <[email protected]> wrote: > I resisted upgrading from 2.0.14 for all this time because of all the > controversy on this group. However today after daily reminders to > upgrade stared me in the face for the umpteenth time, I just bit the > bullet and clicked on "yes". The automated upgrading took all of 3 > minutes to download and install, and went flawlessly. I can't find a > single problem yet; and even some sites which didn't accept SM before > (due to non-supported browser), now do accept it. I suppose that is > because Firefox is now ID'ed instead of SeaMonkey? That's certainly OK > by me! > > So, thanks, developers. I can now feel ever so much safer again without > guilt. > > -- > Ken Rudolph
My situation was similar to yours - elected to update from 2.0x (2.0.0.14) to 2.3.3 after continuing reminders but would not be able to suggest update was flawless. Clearly we are dealing with a different format for Bookmarks now but in my update post-install I note that of my add-ons - only 10 of 20 installed extensions were "able" to work in 2.3.3 and thus I now have 10 add-ons - that are disabled in this version. Had the option to uninstall 2.3.3 to either revert to 2.0x or then move to 2.1 or 2.2 where more of these worked or "still-worked" - likely that route would have been taken by "me". TWT but likely a "required" update just due to security flaws that removes many of the "browser tools" users rely on is not going to be "widely appreciated". Rather than disable add-ons and then install and then check for add-on updates, a screen of add-ons and then advice which if any are supported by the new version prior to installation authorization is provided by user would "ruffle less feathers". My take.... _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
