Re: best version

[Martin Feitag]

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.


Unfortunately, this isn't really true for security updates, and often
is followed to the point of exaggeration. See: Conficker infections.

Unfortunately, most of these answers don't address my underlying
question. Are the newer versions of Seamonkey backwards compatable with
my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated hardware?
Also, do they hog resources the way that newer versions of windows do?
In other words, my old PIII-900 with 256 megs of RAM runs Win2K pretty
well, but I suspect it would bog down under XP, which is one reason I've
not upgraded. But at this point it is also tying me back to legacy
versions of some software and I'm wondering if Mozilla/Seamonkey falls
into that category.

Ok, let us give it a try.

First, running XP on 256megs of ram is going to be kind of sluggish,
unless you are very careful to minimize the startup programs. Also make
sure you have ample space on the hard drive for a large page file. One
possibility is using XP Lite; I have no personal experience of it but I
have heard very positive comments.>  http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html

I see no reason why Seamonkey would not work correctly on this machine
with XP. Just don't expect it to be very fast, but it will work. Sure.

One last thing: resist the temptation to simply "upgrade" from 2k to XP.
A clean install is way preferable.



Why should he upgrade to XP if Semonkey2.0 will work fine on Win2k, 
anyway? As far as I understood him, he will stick to Win2k it it does. :-)


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: When we need to instantly search drives...

[JR WG]

RE: When we need to truly instantly search our drive(s) for SeaMonkey and other 
files...

And you don't have a small footprint (344KB or so) HDD indexer tool to use for 
the lightning-fast searches to locate directory(s), files, certain suffixed or 
certain spelled files, parts of names, etc.
 
Strongly suggest visit: http://www.voidtools.com/

Search Everything (aka Everything to some) is phenomenal, well done, caring 
programmer, NO ad-ware / nagware / nasties, and did I mention that it's still 
no charge ?

Currently in both installable and portable version:

Everything-1.2.1.371.exe (334 KB)
OR
Everything-1.2.1.371.zip (portable, 272 KB)

And SOMEWHERE, did I mention that it's still no charge, yet donations accepted 
and the programmer deserves it.

Joe


___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

legal highs

[HECTOR LOPEZ]

party pills, bzp, www.herbavigor.com 
___

support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Runtime error R6034

[NoOp]

On 05/14/2009 06:34 PM, Ken wrote:

> Jeff, I don't believe the message I quoted was 'screaming' at me what to 
> do.  And in fact not much of what you have gone on to quote from the Web 
> - thank you kindly for your research - means a lot to 
> not-greatly-technically-savvy me.  Note, btw, my earlier observation 
> that I don't have the problem if I use Internet Explorer, only when I 
> use my preferred browser, SM.  (That discrepancy puzzles me.)  Also, the 
> problem HAS now been sort-of solved - as I reported - by uninstalling my 
> VLC media player.  Now, while using SM, I can run the video clips in 
> question.  (Ideally, I would like to be able to run them with the VLC 
> media player loaded, but unfortunately I don't understand the stuff on 
> the Web about manifests and various dlls, and such.)

Perhaps you can find a solution here:



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: oops

[Benoit Renard]

Roger Fink wrote:

You can try doing a search on your computer for bookmarks.html.


Do remember to check the option that makes it search in hidden 
directories/folders as well.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: Runtime error R6034

[JeffM]

NoOp wrote:
>Perhaps you can find a solution here:
>http://www.google.com/search?complete=0&hl=en&q=VLC+%2Bruntime+error+R6034&btnG=Search

The problem with their Gecko plug-in is known:
http://google.com/search?q=site:videolan.org+R6034

The solutions for the OP are:
1a) Reinstall VLC--this time without the plug-in
1b) Right-click on video links
 and download them OUTSIDE the browser window
1c) Double-click **the download** to watch the video.

   or
2) Use another media player with a non-broken Gecko plug-in.

   or
3) Use another browser with non-broken VLC support.

   and
Don't forget to add your vote for directed development efforts:
http://google.com/search?q=site:videolan.org+%22+report.bugs
   or
4) Learn to code and fix the problem yourself
on that Open Source Software project
http://google.com/search?q=solution+firefox+OR+mozilla+OR+seamonkey+R6034+site:videolan.org
http://google.com/search?q=cache:9pejx8liP10J:forum.videolan.org/viewtopic.php?f=16%26t=31395+firefox+OR+mozilla+solution+R6034+site:videolan.org&strip=1
.
.
Note to NoOp:
complete=0 is noise
&btnG=Search is noise

&hl=enshould restrict returns to English-only pages
--but that works so poorly, you may as well not bother to include it.

http://google.com/search?q=VLC+%22+runtime.error.R6034
should be at least as effective as your bloated URL.

If you are trying to make a point about how non-rare a problem is
you could even do this:
http://google.com/search?q=VLC+%22+runtime.error.R6034&num=100
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: best version

[Daniel]

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.



Unfortunately, this isn't really true for security updates, and often 
is followed to the point of exaggeration. See: Conficker infections.


Unfortunately, most of these answers don't address my underlying 
question. Are the newer versions of Seamonkey backwards compatable 
with my older version of Windows (Win2kpro)running on outdated 
hardware? Also, do they hog resources the way that newer versions of 
windows do? In other words, my old PIII-900 with 256 megs of RAM runs 
Win2K pretty well, but I suspect it would bog down under XP, which is 
one reason I've not upgraded. But at this point it is also tying me 
back to legacy versions of some software and I'm wondering if 
Mozilla/Seamonkey falls into that category.

Ok, let us give it a try.

First, running XP on 256megs of ram is going to be kind of sluggish, 
unless you are very careful to minimize the startup programs. Also make 
sure you have ample space on the hard drive for a large page file. One 
possibility is using XP Lite; I have no personal experience of it but I 
have heard very positive comments.> http://www.litepc.com/xplite.html




I've used 98lite for many years, without problems...even think I sent 
them a few bucks by way of saying thanks.


Daniel

I see no reason why Seamonkey would not work correctly on this machine 
with XP. Just don't expect it to be very fast, but it will work. Sure.


One last thing: resist the temptation to simply "upgrade" from 2k to XP. 
A clean install is way preferable.



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey