Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus schrieb: make sure the final release maintains previous content, please! As explained elsewhere, it does - but the opposite isn't true, the old release doesn't maintain newer content due to SQLite file/library compatibility limitations. Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/23/2011 4:19 PM, Rufus wrote: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/20/2011 8:28 PM, Rufus wrote: ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? Well "Universal Binary" does not in fact mean exclusively |PPC+Intel| it means |Mixed architetchure binary| which this is, just in this case a 32bit+64bit. In Apple parlance it means Intel+PPC exclusively, at this time. That may change down the road. In some camps, that is presumed, yes. but those camps are wrong, even apple docs [sorry no link handy] indicate it as what I said. Pretty much fact, and marketing supports - http://guides.macrumors.com/Universal_Binary http://www.doc4design.com/articles/universal-binaries/ ...though I expect that to change with/post Lion. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
On 4/23/2011 4:19 PM, Rufus wrote: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/20/2011 8:28 PM, Rufus wrote: ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? Well "Universal Binary" does not in fact mean exclusively |PPC+Intel| it means |Mixed architetchure binary| which this is, just in this case a 32bit+64bit. In Apple parlance it means Intel+PPC exclusively, at this time. That may change down the road. In some camps, that is presumed, yes. but those camps are wrong, even apple docs [sorry no link handy] indicate it as what I said. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
PhillipJones wrote: Rufus wrote: MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 23/04/2011 02:57, Rufus told the world: I found a Terminal command line to change my 'Book and now it boots 64 bit by default. It felt snappier at first, but now that it's settling in I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about...or maybe I've just gotten used to it - I'm thinking that all I'm really getting is more efficient use of RAM?. Haven't encountered an installed app that won't run as of yet...which I guess I shouldn't expect to? Well, it's not so much "more efficient use of RAM" but "capable of using more RAM." The Intel 32-bit architecture cannot address more than 4 Gb directly. There are indirect methods to do so, but they are a bit tricky. I don't know how Apple managed the issue, but in the Windows world at least, Microsoft opted to not allow consumer-level machines and low-end servers (which, back in the days before AMD64 and E64T extensions, didn't even have enough sockets for more than 4Gb anyway) to use those indirect methods. Rule of the thumb: if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 64-bit mode won't make much of a difference. If you have 4Gb, depending on a number of factors, you may see some more free RAM. If you have more than 4Gb, you probably should be using 64-bit mode. Which is probably why my Book now feels "snappier" - I have 8G of RAM in it. Mine does as well , though some software doesn't seem to make any difference. For me SeaMonkey, FireFox 3 and 4, Camino didn't seem to benefit. Chrome, iCab. iCab does best I am using version specifically for 64 bit. I don't use Safari all that much so I can say. Yeah...I don't use Safari much either now that I can browser spoof. BTW - I also discovered that running 2.1b3 alongside my 2.0.13 install torched my more important cookies on my iMac by blanking everything to defaults and I had to rebuild them by grabbing the files off my PowerBook profile. I won't be doing that again - make sure the final release maintains previous content, please! -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus wrote: MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 23/04/2011 02:57, Rufus told the world: I found a Terminal command line to change my 'Book and now it boots 64 bit by default. It felt snappier at first, but now that it's settling in I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about...or maybe I've just gotten used to it - I'm thinking that all I'm really getting is more efficient use of RAM?. Haven't encountered an installed app that won't run as of yet...which I guess I shouldn't expect to? Well, it's not so much "more efficient use of RAM" but "capable of using more RAM." The Intel 32-bit architecture cannot address more than 4 Gb directly. There are indirect methods to do so, but they are a bit tricky. I don't know how Apple managed the issue, but in the Windows world at least, Microsoft opted to not allow consumer-level machines and low-end servers (which, back in the days before AMD64 and E64T extensions, didn't even have enough sockets for more than 4Gb anyway) to use those indirect methods. Rule of the thumb: if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 64-bit mode won't make much of a difference. If you have 4Gb, depending on a number of factors, you may see some more free RAM. If you have more than 4Gb, you probably should be using 64-bit mode. Which is probably why my Book now feels "snappier" - I have 8G of RAM in it. Mine does as well , though some software doesn't seem to make any difference. For me SeaMonkey, FireFox 3 and 4, Camino didn't seem to benefit. Chrome, iCab. iCab does best I am using version specifically for 64 bit. I don't use Safari all that much so I can say. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 23/04/2011 02:57, Rufus told the world: I found a Terminal command line to change my 'Book and now it boots 64 bit by default. It felt snappier at first, but now that it's settling in I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about...or maybe I've just gotten used to it - I'm thinking that all I'm really getting is more efficient use of RAM?. Haven't encountered an installed app that won't run as of yet...which I guess I shouldn't expect to? Well, it's not so much "more efficient use of RAM" but "capable of using more RAM." The Intel 32-bit architecture cannot address more than 4 Gb directly. There are indirect methods to do so, but they are a bit tricky. I don't know how Apple managed the issue, but in the Windows world at least, Microsoft opted to not allow consumer-level machines and low-end servers (which, back in the days before AMD64 and E64T extensions, didn't even have enough sockets for more than 4Gb anyway) to use those indirect methods. Rule of the thumb: if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 64-bit mode won't make much of a difference. If you have 4Gb, depending on a number of factors, you may see some more free RAM. If you have more than 4Gb, you probably should be using 64-bit mode. My MacBook Pro, has 8 GB DDR3 1067MHz Memory. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 23/04/2011 02:57, Rufus told the world: I found a Terminal command line to change my 'Book and now it boots 64 bit by default. It felt snappier at first, but now that it's settling in I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about...or maybe I've just gotten used to it - I'm thinking that all I'm really getting is more efficient use of RAM?. Haven't encountered an installed app that won't run as of yet...which I guess I shouldn't expect to? Well, it's not so much "more efficient use of RAM" but "capable of using more RAM." The Intel 32-bit architecture cannot address more than 4 Gb directly. There are indirect methods to do so, but they are a bit tricky. I don't know how Apple managed the issue, but in the Windows world at least, Microsoft opted to not allow consumer-level machines and low-end servers (which, back in the days before AMD64 and E64T extensions, didn't even have enough sockets for more than 4Gb anyway) to use those indirect methods. Rule of the thumb: if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 64-bit mode won't make much of a difference. If you have 4Gb, depending on a number of factors, you may see some more free RAM. If you have more than 4Gb, you probably should be using 64-bit mode. Which is probably why my Book now feels "snappier" - I have 8G of RAM in it. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Interviewed by CNN on 23/04/2011 02:57, Rufus told the world: > I found a Terminal command line to change my 'Book and now it boots 64 > bit by default. It felt snappier at first, but now that it's settling > in I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about...or maybe I've just > gotten used to it - I'm thinking that all I'm really getting is more > efficient use of RAM?. Haven't encountered an installed app that won't > run as of yet...which I guess I shouldn't expect to? Well, it's not so much "more efficient use of RAM" but "capable of using more RAM." The Intel 32-bit architecture cannot address more than 4 Gb directly. There are indirect methods to do so, but they are a bit tricky. I don't know how Apple managed the issue, but in the Windows world at least, Microsoft opted to not allow consumer-level machines and low-end servers (which, back in the days before AMD64 and E64T extensions, didn't even have enough sockets for more than 4Gb anyway) to use those indirect methods. Rule of the thumb: if you have less than 4Gb of RAM, 64-bit mode won't make much of a difference. If you have 4Gb, depending on a number of factors, you may see some more free RAM. If you have more than 4Gb, you probably should be using 64-bit mode. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Bugatti Veyron. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.0.13 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/20/2011 8:28 PM, Rufus wrote: ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? Well "Universal Binary" does not in fact mean exclusively |PPC+Intel| it means |Mixed architetchure binary| which this is, just in this case a 32bit+64bit. In Apple parlance it means Intel+PPC exclusively, at this time. That may change down the road. And I assume with the launch mode selection in the Info pane? This I (we) don't have a clue about, download 2.1b3 and try for yourself please. and PLEASE let us know if it does. ...which was my point in my reply here. Yes, it does...and I didn't even have to install it to find that out - just do a "Get Info" on the open Disk Image. But I would think that any of the Mac developers would have known that. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: I'm sure the "average user" with an older 64 bit boot capable Mac doesn't even know or care... Right, that's why the "universal" images we also deliver always select the appropriate mode to run in automatically - users should not need to care. For 2.0.*, that means they always will run on 32bit mode on Intel (but the builds still work on PPC as well), while for 2.1, this means they get 64bit mode when their OS runs in 64bit mode as well, and 32bit mode else (and PPC isn't supported any more). Robert Kaiser That makes sense, other than that users will surely lament the passing of PPC support. I still have three perfectly viable PPC machines - two G4 and one G5 - myself. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus schrieb: I'm sure the "average user" with an older 64 bit boot capable Mac doesn't even know or care... Right, that's why the "universal" images we also deliver always select the appropriate mode to run in automatically - users should not need to care. For 2.0.*, that means they always will run on 32bit mode on Intel (but the builds still work on PPC as well), while for 2.1, this means they get 64bit mode when their OS runs in 64bit mode as well, and 32bit mode else (and PPC isn't supported any more). Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
NoOp wrote: On 04/22/2011 05:16 PM, MCBastos wrote: Interviewed by CNN on 22/04/2011 17:58, Robert Kaiser told the world: Interesting, as AFAIK all Core architecture chips support EM64T - could be that it's only Core2 though and Apple shipped some of the older "crap" that was called "Core" but wasn't actually a new architecture at all (and I know for sure that Core2 has EM64T). That's right. The first generation of Intel Core CPUs was actually based on an enhanced P6 (Pentium Pro/II/III) architecture codenamed "Yonah", which was 32-bit only. Some of the early "Pentium Dual-Core" were also P6-based. The new "Core" architecture debuted only on the Core 2. AFAIK, it's an evolution of the Yonah with, among other things, 64-bit extensions added. So it's still a descendant of the venerable Pentium Pro. Although Intel had a really, really confusing policy for a while, in which it was hard to guess if a given CPU was 64-bit capable, had hardware virtualization and other stuff -- they disabled features from some chips aiming for market segmentation. So I wouldn't swear that all Core 2 and later are actually 64-bit capable, because some of them may have this feature disabled. I've run across this when attempting to install a 64bit virtual machine in VMWare. They've a pretty good article on this at: http://kb.vmware.com/kb/1003945 Turns out that the 64bit laptop that I bought awhile back for 64bit testing with a 'Pentium Dual-Core CPU T4300 doesn't support VT (it does support EM64T). Really pissed me off, so next time I'll check all of the CPU specs before buying another laptop/desktop. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37253 Yeah...some homework yet to do on this capability. I saw no reason to run my Macbook Pro in 64 bit mode until a few nights ago when this subject came up. And as I noted, even though this machine *is* supported to boot the 64 bit kernel under 10.6.7 that *isn't* its default boot mode. I'm sure the "average user" with an older 64 bit boot capable Mac doesn't even know or care...I knew, but I hesitated until now. I found a Terminal command line to change my 'Book and now it boots 64 bit by default. It felt snappier at first, but now that it's settling in I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about...or maybe I've just gotten used to it - I'm thinking that all I'm really getting is more efficient use of RAM?. Haven't encountered an installed app that won't run as of yet...which I guess I shouldn't expect to? -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. All Intels that have ever been shipped by Apple were Core2 or later, IIRC, and therefore 64bit-capable. If they don't run 64bit on them, that's their problem, I don't want to care too much what the masters of the golden cage dictate their users to do. ;-) Robert Kaiser No. That is not true. Not even according to Apple - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 None of the single core or Core Duo Intel Macs are 64 bit capable, but they will still run OS 10.6. Interesting, as AFAIK all Core architecture chips support EM64T - could be that it's only Core2 though and Apple shipped some of the older "crap" that was called "Core" but wasn't actually a new architecture at all (and I know for sure that Core2 has EM64T). Robert Kaiser The Core Solos were Apple's initial foray into the Intel world...lots of those machines are still out there, running SnoLep. There seems to be more to it than just the processor itself - EFI firmware (which I suppose is similar to the PC hardware BIOS, dunno) is the one component I know about...but even my Core 2 Duo iMac running 10.6.7 can't be booted into 64 bit mode - the EFI won't let it. It is "hardware capable" but unsupported. Supposedly I could hack the EFI on my Core 2 Duo iMac to make it to boot into 64 bit mode, but I run the risk of bricking my machine...not something I'll even consider not knowing all of the tech and risk involved. My guess would be that some other portion of the mother board architecture might get in the way - like memory addressing scheme/pipeline, bus architecture, or something else hardware related that isn't part of the CPU die itself. But that's just a guess... -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
On 04/22/2011 05:16 PM, MCBastos wrote: > Interviewed by CNN on 22/04/2011 17:58, Robert Kaiser told the world: > >> Interesting, as AFAIK all Core architecture chips support EM64T - could >> be that it's only Core2 though and Apple shipped some of the older >> "crap" that was called "Core" but wasn't actually a new architecture at >> all (and I know for sure that Core2 has EM64T). > > That's right. The first generation of Intel Core CPUs was actually based > on an enhanced P6 (Pentium Pro/II/III) architecture codenamed "Yonah", > which was 32-bit only. Some of the early "Pentium Dual-Core" were also > P6-based. > > The new "Core" architecture debuted only on the Core 2. AFAIK, it's an > evolution of the Yonah with, among other things, 64-bit extensions > added. So it's still a descendant of the venerable Pentium Pro. > > Although Intel had a really, really confusing policy for a while, in > which it was hard to guess if a given CPU was 64-bit capable, had > hardware virtualization and other stuff -- they disabled features from > some chips aiming for market segmentation. So I wouldn't swear that all > Core 2 and later are actually 64-bit capable, because some of them may > have this feature disabled. > I've run across this when attempting to install a 64bit virtual machine in VMWare. They've a pretty good article on this at: http://kb.vmware.com/kb/1003945 Turns out that the 64bit laptop that I bought awhile back for 64bit testing with a 'Pentium Dual-Core CPU T4300 doesn't support VT (it does support EM64T). Really pissed me off, so next time I'll check all of the CPU specs before buying another laptop/desktop. http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=37253 ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Interviewed by CNN on 22/04/2011 17:58, Robert Kaiser told the world: > Interesting, as AFAIK all Core architecture chips support EM64T - could > be that it's only Core2 though and Apple shipped some of the older > "crap" that was called "Core" but wasn't actually a new architecture at > all (and I know for sure that Core2 has EM64T). That's right. The first generation of Intel Core CPUs was actually based on an enhanced P6 (Pentium Pro/II/III) architecture codenamed "Yonah", which was 32-bit only. Some of the early "Pentium Dual-Core" were also P6-based. The new "Core" architecture debuted only on the Core 2. AFAIK, it's an evolution of the Yonah with, among other things, 64-bit extensions added. So it's still a descendant of the venerable Pentium Pro. Although Intel had a really, really confusing policy for a while, in which it was hard to guess if a given CPU was 64-bit capable, had hardware virtualization and other stuff -- they disabled features from some chips aiming for market segmentation. So I wouldn't swear that all Core 2 and later are actually 64-bit capable, because some of them may have this feature disabled. -- MCBastos This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized use will be prosecuted under the DMCA. -=-=- ... Sent from my Bic. *Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.0.13 * Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus schrieb: Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. All Intels that have ever been shipped by Apple were Core2 or later, IIRC, and therefore 64bit-capable. If they don't run 64bit on them, that's their problem, I don't want to care too much what the masters of the golden cage dictate their users to do. ;-) Robert Kaiser No. That is not true. Not even according to Apple - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 None of the single core or Core Duo Intel Macs are 64 bit capable, but they will still run OS 10.6. Interesting, as AFAIK all Core architecture chips support EM64T - could be that it's only Core2 though and Apple shipped some of the older "crap" that was called "Core" but wasn't actually a new architecture at all (and I know for sure that Core2 has EM64T). Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. All Intels that have ever been shipped by Apple were Core2 or later, IIRC, and therefore 64bit-capable. If they don't run 64bit on them, that's their problem, I don't want to care too much what the masters of the golden cage dictate their users to do. ;-) Robert Kaiser No. That is not true. Not even according to Apple - http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 None of the single core or Core Duo Intel Macs are 64 bit capable, but they will still run OS 10.6. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus schrieb: That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. All Intels that have ever been shipped by Apple were Core2 or later, IIRC, and therefore 64bit-capable. If they don't run 64bit on them, that's their problem, I don't want to care too much what the masters of the golden cage dictate their users to do. ;-) Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
On 4/20/2011 8:28 PM, Rufus wrote: ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? Well "Universal Binary" does not in fact mean exclusively |PPC+Intel| it means |Mixed architetchure binary| which this is, just in this case a 32bit+64bit. And I assume with the launch mode selection in the Info pane? This I (we) don't have a clue about, download 2.1b3 and try for yourself please. and PLEASE let us know if it does. ...which was my point in my reply here. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
PhillipJones wrote: Rufus wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: Both machines are running 10.6.7 - you can't really say that 10.6 is "64 bit boot by default" without knowing a bit more about what machine it's being run on. Oh, well. Still, AFAIK, when a universal binary is 32bit+64bit, like SeaMonkey 2.1* versions are, then 64bit is used by default when you run the OS in 64bit mode (but you can run in 32bit mode optionally), while 32bit is always used when you run the OS in 32bit mode. Yes, I believe that's true. But what needs to be kept in mind is that OS 10.6 is not "64 bit by default" as had been stated previously in that it does not "always" boot using the 64 bit kernel. That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. What will happen when Lion is released is anybody's guess at this point...I guess... In the Info window for some apps there's a checkbox for "Launch in 32 bit mode" once you're in 64 bit boot, but I didn't see such for SM 2.0.13 after I booted my MBP in 64 bit mode. Sure, 2.0.* don't support 64bit on Mac, only 2.1* do. From 2.0 to 2.1, we dropped PPC support but instead added 64bit support. Robert Kaiser ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? And I assume with the launch mode selection in the Info pane?..which I'm guessing is handled by the OS itself... Well I am running 2.0.13 with my Macbook Pro set to 64bit Me too...now. But that's only because I changed it's default start up last night. My iMac won't boot 64 bit kernel, even though it's hardware capable. So I get to keep doing it both ways... -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus wrote: Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: Both machines are running 10.6.7 - you can't really say that 10.6 is "64 bit boot by default" without knowing a bit more about what machine it's being run on. Oh, well. Still, AFAIK, when a universal binary is 32bit+64bit, like SeaMonkey 2.1* versions are, then 64bit is used by default when you run the OS in 64bit mode (but you can run in 32bit mode optionally), while 32bit is always used when you run the OS in 32bit mode. Yes, I believe that's true. But what needs to be kept in mind is that OS 10.6 is not "64 bit by default" as had been stated previously in that it does not "always" boot using the 64 bit kernel. That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. What will happen when Lion is released is anybody's guess at this point...I guess... In the Info window for some apps there's a checkbox for "Launch in 32 bit mode" once you're in 64 bit boot, but I didn't see such for SM 2.0.13 after I booted my MBP in 64 bit mode. Sure, 2.0.* don't support 64bit on Mac, only 2.1* do. From 2.0 to 2.1, we dropped PPC support but instead added 64bit support. Robert Kaiser ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? And I assume with the launch mode selection in the Info pane?..which I'm guessing is handled by the OS itself... Well I am running 2.0.13 with my Macbook Pro set to 64bit -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Robert Kaiser wrote: Rufus schrieb: Both machines are running 10.6.7 - you can't really say that 10.6 is "64 bit boot by default" without knowing a bit more about what machine it's being run on. Oh, well. Still, AFAIK, when a universal binary is 32bit+64bit, like SeaMonkey 2.1* versions are, then 64bit is used by default when you run the OS in 64bit mode (but you can run in 32bit mode optionally), while 32bit is always used when you run the OS in 32bit mode. Yes, I believe that's true. But what needs to be kept in mind is that OS 10.6 is not "64 bit by default" as had been stated previously in that it does not "always" boot using the 64 bit kernel. That was my real point, as far as testing requirements go - there are *lots* of Intel Macs out there that will be running 10.6.x in 32 bit mode by default, and/or because they can't boot in 64 bit mode. What will happen when Lion is released is anybody's guess at this point...I guess... In the Info window for some apps there's a checkbox for "Launch in 32 bit mode" once you're in 64 bit boot, but I didn't see such for SM 2.0.13 after I booted my MBP in 64 bit mode. Sure, 2.0.* don't support 64bit on Mac, only 2.1* do. From 2.0 to 2.1, we dropped PPC support but instead added 64bit support. Robert Kaiser ...and I guess that's my real question - even though it's no longer UB, it's still 32/64 bit bilingual? And I assume with the launch mode selection in the Info pane?..which I'm guessing is handled by the OS itself... -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus schrieb: Both machines are running 10.6.7 - you can't really say that 10.6 is "64 bit boot by default" without knowing a bit more about what machine it's being run on. Oh, well. Still, AFAIK, when a universal binary is 32bit+64bit, like SeaMonkey 2.1* versions are, then 64bit is used by default when you run the OS in 64bit mode (but you can run in 32bit mode optionally), while 32bit is always used when you run the OS in 32bit mode. In the Info window for some apps there's a checkbox for "Launch in 32 bit mode" once you're in 64 bit boot, but I didn't see such for SM 2.0.13 after I booted my MBP in 64 bit mode. Sure, 2.0.* don't support 64bit on Mac, only 2.1* do. From 2.0 to 2.1, we dropped PPC support but instead added 64bit support. Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Robert Kaiser wrote: PhillipJones schrieb: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 6:50 PM, PhillipJones wrote: as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. And as of [upcoming] 2.1 all SeaMonkey Mac builds are Intel Universal Binaries of 32 bit and 64 bit builds. will they be like in which you can switch to 64 bit by going to application selecting type command Key-I (for get info) and checking box for 64 bit. On 10.6, it will automatically launch in 64bit mode (as AFAIK the OS itself runs at 64bit by default, contrary to what you claim), on 10.5, it will automatically launch in 32bit mode. That depends on what machine you're using: http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 And even this is misleading - by this, my 24" Core 2 Duo iMac should be able to boot in 64 bit mode, but it won't - even with a 6/4 key start up; 64 bit boot is not supported by EFI firmware even though it's running OS 10.6.7. But my Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro *will* boot into 64 bit mode, but not by default - it's default is/was 32 bit mode...but I changed that last night by doing this: http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3773 Both machines are running 10.6.7 - you can't really say that 10.6 is "64 bit boot by default" without knowing a bit more about what machine it's being run on. To really know you need to launch System Profiler.app and look at the Software line - it will tell you which kernel is actually booted and in use (but not which is default). I have no idea on manual switches as I thankfully can avoid touching the golden cages from Apple, but I'm told that you can launch SeaMonkey in 32bit mode on 10.6 somehow - you probably know better than me how to do that. And, as Callek said, best to try it out, the "almost done" last beta is available for testing! Robert Kaiser In the Info window for some apps there's a checkbox for "Launch in 32 bit mode" once you're in 64 bit boot, but I didn't see such for SM 2.0.13 after I booted my MBP in 64 bit mode. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
PhillipJones schrieb: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 6:50 PM, PhillipJones wrote: as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. And as of [upcoming] 2.1 all SeaMonkey Mac builds are Intel Universal Binaries of 32 bit and 64 bit builds. will they be like in which you can switch to 64 bit by going to application selecting type command Key-I (for get info) and checking box for 64 bit. On 10.6, it will automatically launch in 64bit mode (as AFAIK the OS itself runs at 64bit by default, contrary to what you claim), on 10.5, it will automatically launch in 32bit mode. I have no idea on manual switches as I thankfully can avoid touching the golden cages from Apple, but I'm told that you can launch SeaMonkey in 32bit mode on 10.6 somehow - you probably know better than me how to do that. And, as Callek said, best to try it out, the "almost done" last beta is available for testing! Robert Kaiser -- Note that any statements of mine - no matter how passionate - are never meant to be offensive but very often as food for thought or possible arguments that we as a community needs answers to. And most of the time, I even appreciate irony and fun! :) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
On 4/19/2011 10:25 PM, PhillipJones wrote: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 6:50 PM, PhillipJones wrote: as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. And as of [upcoming] 2.1 all SeaMonkey Mac builds are Intel Universal Binaries of 32 bit and 64 bit builds. Here is an example: http://www.screencast.com/t/C2Oejo8F having a switch for 32 or 64 bit. I'm not sure on those mac specifics (I am a windows user myself); however if you want to test: http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/releases/2.1b3-real/mac/ Choose your locale, and install. Then if it work's you can let me (and list) know so that I know for future :-) -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
PhillipJones wrote: Rufus wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 11:08 AM, upscope wrote: As a fairly new user of SeaMonkey can I as why x86_64 is not supported. I have been running SeaMonkey(2.0.13) on my openSUSE 11.4 Linux system and have not really experience many problems. Main problem I've seen is distribution lists do not always import csv files correctly. Can I install 2.0.14 in parallel with 2.0.13. Because we don't have the hardware (at the moment) to run the full test suite/etc. on linux64. And we do not feel comfortable officially supporting a build we don't run tests on. as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. I think more correctly that they are 64 bit capable; but the default boot is still 32 bit, even under 10.6.7. Only the XServe will boot directly into 64 bit mode by default. Also, whether or not an Intel Mac is capable of 64 bit boot is still dependent on firmware and hardware configuration - some of the older ones are not, even though they can still run 10.6.7. So not "all" of the Intel ones out there (just because of the OS), just all of the latest ones. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 In order to do a 64 bit mode boot, you need to hold the "6" and "4" keys down at startup, or use a utility like Startup Mode Selector to get 64 bit boot by default - http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html I have two that are 64 bit capable (iMac and a Macbook Pro; both Core 2 Duo) but I haven't tried 64 bit mode on either of them. Mine MacBook Pro 17" I bought I Feb says 64bit Processor (i7) and the system explained run native in 64 bit. in order to run 32 bit you have restart with a key combination that includes the numbers 3 and 2 Yes...and I just went looking and found my iMac won't boot 64 bit mode but my Macbook pro will. My iMac is hardware capable, but it's firmware doesn't support it. However, I also found out a way via Terminal command to make my Macbook Pro boot 64 bit mode by default, or as I choose...gonna do that now, as my 'Book sure feels snappier in 64 bit mode - http://support.apple.com/kb/HT3773 -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 6:50 PM, PhillipJones wrote: as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. And as of [upcoming] 2.1 all SeaMonkey Mac builds are Intel Universal Binaries of 32 bit and 64 bit builds. Here is an example: http://www.screencast.com/t/C2Oejo8F having a switch for 32 or 64 bit. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 6:50 PM, PhillipJones wrote: as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. And as of [upcoming] 2.1 all SeaMonkey Mac builds are Intel Universal Binaries of 32 bit and 64 bit builds. will they be like in which you can switch to 64 bit by going to application selecting type command Key-I (for get info) and checking box for 64 bit. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Rufus wrote: PhillipJones wrote: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 11:08 AM, upscope wrote: As a fairly new user of SeaMonkey can I as why x86_64 is not supported. I have been running SeaMonkey(2.0.13) on my openSUSE 11.4 Linux system and have not really experience many problems. Main problem I've seen is distribution lists do not always import csv files correctly. Can I install 2.0.14 in parallel with 2.0.13. Because we don't have the hardware (at the moment) to run the full test suite/etc. on linux64. And we do not feel comfortable officially supporting a build we don't run tests on. as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. I think more correctly that they are 64 bit capable; but the default boot is still 32 bit, even under 10.6.7. Only the XServe will boot directly into 64 bit mode by default. Also, whether or not an Intel Mac is capable of 64 bit boot is still dependent on firmware and hardware configuration - some of the older ones are not, even though they can still run 10.6.7. So not "all" of the Intel ones out there (just because of the OS), just all of the latest ones. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 In order to do a 64 bit mode boot, you need to hold the "6" and "4" keys down at startup, or use a utility like Startup Mode Selector to get 64 bit boot by default - http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html I have two that are 64 bit capable (iMac and a Macbook Pro; both Core 2 Duo) but I haven't tried 64 bit mode on either of them. Mine MacBook Pro 17" I bought I Feb says 64bit Processor (i7) and the system explained run native in 64 bit. in order to run 32 bit you have restart with a key combination that includes the numbers 3 and 2 -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
On 4/19/2011 6:50 PM, PhillipJones wrote: as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. And as of [upcoming] 2.1 all SeaMonkey Mac builds are Intel Universal Binaries of 32 bit and 64 bit builds. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
PhillipJones wrote: Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 11:08 AM, upscope wrote: As a fairly new user of SeaMonkey can I as why x86_64 is not supported. I have been running SeaMonkey(2.0.13) on my openSUSE 11.4 Linux system and have not really experience many problems. Main problem I've seen is distribution lists do not always import csv files correctly. Can I install 2.0.14 in parallel with 2.0.13. Because we don't have the hardware (at the moment) to run the full test suite/etc. on linux64. And we do not feel comfortable officially supporting a build we don't run tests on. as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. I think more correctly that they are 64 bit capable; but the default boot is still 32 bit, even under 10.6.7. Only the XServe will boot directly into 64 bit mode by default. Also, whether or not an Intel Mac is capable of 64 bit boot is still dependent on firmware and hardware configuration - some of the older ones are not, even though they can still run 10.6.7. So not "all" of the Intel ones out there (just because of the OS), just all of the latest ones. http://support.apple.com/kb/ht3696 In order to do a 64 bit mode boot, you need to hold the "6" and "4" keys down at startup, or use a utility like Startup Mode Selector to get 64 bit boot by default - http://www.ahatfullofsky.comuv.com/English/Programs/SMS/SMS.html I have two that are 64 bit capable (iMac and a Macbook Pro; both Core 2 Duo) but I haven't tried 64 bit mode on either of them. -- - Rufus ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Justin Wood (Callek) wrote: On 4/19/2011 11:08 AM, upscope wrote: As a fairly new user of SeaMonkey can I as why x86_64 is not supported. I have been running SeaMonkey(2.0.13) on my openSUSE 11.4 Linux system and have not really experience many problems. Main problem I've seen is distribution lists do not always import csv files correctly. Can I install 2.0.14 in parallel with 2.0.13. Because we don't have the hardware (at the moment) to run the full test suite/etc. on linux64. And we do not feel comfortable officially supporting a build we don't run tests on. as of this year all Mac Computers with Intel chips are 64 bit only X.6.5 and up are 64 bit. -- Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it" http://www.phillipmjones.netmailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
On 4/19/2011 11:08 AM, upscope wrote: As a fairly new user of SeaMonkey can I as why x86_64 is not supported. I have been running SeaMonkey(2.0.13) on my openSUSE 11.4 Linux system and have not really experience many problems. Main problem I've seen is distribution lists do not always import csv files correctly. Can I install 2.0.14 in parallel with 2.0.13. Because we don't have the hardware (at the moment) to run the full test suite/etc. on linux64. And we do not feel comfortable officially supporting a build we don't run tests on. -- ~Justin Wood (Callek) ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
As a fairly new user of SeaMonkey can I as why x86_64 is not supported. I have been running SeaMonkey(2.0.13) on my openSUSE 11.4 Linux system and have not really experience many problems. Main problem I've seen is distribution lists do not always import csv files correctly. Can I install 2.0.14 in parallel with 2.0.13. On Tuesday, April 19, 2011 06:28:02 AM Ian Neal wrote: > Hi everyone, > > All the builds for SeaMonkey 2.0.14 have been created (updates are > available on the betatest channel soon), so it's time for starting > tests on them to ensure we get an update out there that is worth > shipping to all our 2.0.x users. > > Please help us testing the Windows installers, Mac disk images and > Linux packages, all available in 24 languages including US English. > The packages are available in the linux-i686, mac, and win32 > sub-directories of > http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/2.0.14-candi > dates/build1/ > > Once again, the linux-x86_64 build is NOT OFFICIAL and NOT ENDORSED. > It will be listed as "contributed build" even if it was technically > created by our build system, and it will be treated in no other way > than usual contributed builds. In other words, it's just an > experiment. > > Please use the builds for any usage patterns you can think of, > possibly also doing a > https://litmus.mozilla.org/run_tests.cgi?test_run_id=7 smoketest run > on them. I know that Litmus run isn't perfect, but it's the best we > have right now. > > Localizers, please test the builds in your locale, any updates can be > taken with further sign-offs (in the new tool) which was introduced > for 2.0.13 and future updates. > > If no problems come up in testing those builds, they will probably go > live as the official 2.0.14 on April 26, in sync with Firefox and > Thunderbird updates that will fix the same set of security issues. > > The list of bugs fixed in this update contains 28 public reports thus > far, 18 security issues are currently hidden and only to be disclosed > upon release of our updates. The bug query to find the issues is > https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Core&product=Toolkit > &product=Testing&product=MailNews+Core&product=SeaMonkey&product=Othe > r+Applications&field0-0-0=keywords&type0-0-0=anywords&value0-0-0=fixe > d-seamonkey2.0.14&field0-0-1=cf_status_191&type0-0-1=anywords&value0- > 0-1=.19-fixed&field0-0-2=cf_status_thunderbird30&type0-0-2=anywords&v > alue0-0-2=.14-fixed ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Testing SeaMonkey 2.0.14 candidates - help wanted!
Hi everyone, All the builds for SeaMonkey 2.0.14 have been created (updates are available on the betatest channel soon), so it's time for starting tests on them to ensure we get an update out there that is worth shipping to all our 2.0.x users. Please help us testing the Windows installers, Mac disk images and Linux packages, all available in 24 languages including US English. The packages are available in the linux-i686, mac, and win32 sub-directories of http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/2.0.14-candidates/build1/ Once again, the linux-x86_64 build is NOT OFFICIAL and NOT ENDORSED. It will be listed as "contributed build" even if it was technically created by our build system, and it will be treated in no other way than usual contributed builds. In other words, it's just an experiment. Please use the builds for any usage patterns you can think of, possibly also doing a https://litmus.mozilla.org/run_tests.cgi?test_run_id=7 smoketest run on them. I know that Litmus run isn't perfect, but it's the best we have right now. Localizers, please test the builds in your locale, any updates can be taken with further sign-offs (in the new tool) which was introduced for 2.0.13 and future updates. If no problems come up in testing those builds, they will probably go live as the official 2.0.14 on April 26, in sync with Firefox and Thunderbird updates that will fix the same set of security issues. The list of bugs fixed in this update contains 28 public reports thus far, 18 security issues are currently hidden and only to be disclosed upon release of our updates. The bug query to find the issues is https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?product=Core&product=Toolkit&product=Testing&product=MailNews+Core&product=SeaMonkey&product=Other+Applications&field0-0-0=keywords&type0-0-0=anywords&value0-0-0=fixed-seamonkey2.0.14&field0-0-1=cf_status_191&type0-0-1=anywords&value0-0-1=.19-fixed&field0-0-2=cf_status_thunderbird30&type0-0-2=anywords&value0-0-2=.14-fixed -- Ian Neal (IanN) on behalf of Justin Wood (Callek) SeaMonkey Council Member ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
