For Windows 2.53 is rock stable (for me) with everything working.
Should be the same for Linux.
macOS gets limited testing mostly by me. I saw some reports last year about
memory consumntion with many fonts but nothing in the bug tracker. I was
unable to reproduce it.
Best you try it and report bugs. If you find a build that works keep it but
try new ones. 99% of our development time is now on 2.53 and 2.57.
2.57 is still not usable but 2.53 already has a lot of features and
performance enhancements from it.
FRG
Paul Bergsagel wrote:
Frank-Rainer Grahl wrote:
Back up your profile and find it out. For me much better than 2.49.x but
ymmv. Some old extensions might be broken because of all the changes.
FRG
JAS wrote:
How stable are the SM 2.53 builds by WG9s? I currently run SM 2.49.4 32 bit
on Win 7 Pro
Thanks,
JAS
One question-> Is there anything major that fails in the 2.53 builds by W9Gs?
Is the browser and email usable (i.e. bug proof enough) for use full time? I
am aware that the profile for 2.49.x and 2.53.x are not compatible. I using
an iMac and can revert to 2.49.x if need be using Time Machine. Is 2.53.x of a
quality that I can switch to it full time?
Thanks in advance for any replies.
_______________________________________________
support-seamonkey mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
