Bob Davis wrote:
> So is this a bug? It should be if it isn't
> bob
It's a known bug, view source downloads a new copy from the server
rather than taking the page from the cache
Daf wrote:
> "Garth Wallace" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 9j77tn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:9j77tn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>"Daf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>>Hi-
>>>I recently downloaded and installed Mozilla 9.02 to use as a ch
Thomas wrote:
> Ok, I now uploaded the report. You can see it at
>
> www.velosschrade.ch/test/report.htm
>
> click on "internal links" in the TOC. It's a 1.2 MB file, perhaps you
> need to download it to your HD to see the full effect. (Mozilla stops
> "throbbering" while loading...)
>
It too
Ashant wrote:
> Peter Lairo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> | Mozilla Employees | Volunteers
>>-
>>Top level developers (?) | 25| 15
>>Bugs Reported |500|
jukola wrote:
> jukola wrote:
>
>> Steve Bowen wrote:
>
>
>
> I was too fast claiming that there are no problems with images with
> 0.9.2. Check www.thaiairways.com and Press releases at the bottom of the
> page. :-(. Switching back to 4.77 again?
>
I'm looking, but I don't see exactly wha
Christian Mattar wrote:
> Hi!
>
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>
>
>
>>Since UDMA does nothing to hurt performance or stability in any way,
>>there is really no reason to NOT install busmastering drivers that
>>support it anyhow.
>>
>
> This is n
Mark wrote:
> One of the things that plagued me (not a major issue, but a real
> annoyance), was that whenever I minimized Mozilla, and tried to restore
> a previously minimized app, I had a 4 or 5 second delay. The system
> worked well otherwise, and was solid as a rock, but that really annoye
jukola wrote:
> Look here:
>
> You are currently using:
> Netscape Communicator 5.0
> Unknown language, Windows Win98, Standard Encryption
>
> This is the response when going to the download area of Netscape. I am
> though using Mozilla 0.9.2 nightly build 2001071408, at least that is
> what I
In Form Manager, under "Other saved information" - Concatenations, -
Name. The default name is "Mr. Kirby the wonder Ursuin." I did not set
this. Everything else is mine, IE zipcode and phone number, but not my
name. I can use the drop down to select "Jim", but I'm just curious if
Mr. Kirb
JTK wrote:
>
> Bill, I kindly ask of you to not pretend to know my motives, 'cause
> you're not much of a mindreader.
>
> Sorry Bill, this indeed was "one of those times". You made it clear you
> didn't know much about the situation, so I figured I'd give you the full
> skinny on it. I apolog
Peter Lairo wrote:
>
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
> >> Mozilla goes through the effort of .slt'ing user profiles, yes?
> >> Do you know how easy it is, though, to just go to %temp% and see
> >> a list of emails you've sent? Why doesn't Mozilla destroy these
> >> copies when it's done with th
Esben Mose Hansen wrote:
> Kent Perrier wrote:
>
>> You can give Opera "the finger" and it knows what you mean? :)
>
>
>
> Sort of ;-)
>
>
>>
>> Does it also understand that it might have been intended for the
>> underling
>> OS and not it?
>
>
> Yeah, windows sucks. When games go java,
Bernd Khalil wrote:
> Does anyone else here see this?
>
> Inside the browser window, the box containg the "Sky Pilot" (you know,
> the guy at the top right) is raised by about 1px for me (see attached
> picture).
I don't see it here, build 2001071004 (nightly from July 10th, 2001),
using th
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
>
>>Hey jack ass, why do you spell it "Maozilla" again? have you ever gone
>>to netscape.public.maozilla.general and wondered why it wasn't there?
>>
>
> He's doing it deliberately. Don't you get it Mao (as in Chairman Mao). He equating
> Mozilla with a communi
JTK wrote:
> Since Peter Lairo has repeatedly sought to silence the free exchange of
> ideas in this forum, and wishes me disability so that I am unable to
> participate in any such exchange, after much thought and with regret
> (since this is a last-resort Final Solution to the Peter Lairo Probl
Jamin W. Collins wrote:
> On 10 Jul 2001 12:11:21 +, George Wright wrote:
>
>>That is a terrible idea. I have posted a couple of Qs to this newsgroup
>>and lurked for a wee while, picking up hints and help along the way. I
>>have seen the 'debate' about 'JFK' spill over into real anger.
>>
JTK wrote:
> Anonymous wrote:
>
>>Very often backslashes get incorporated
>>into URLs on many websites, causing links
>>to work in Internet Explorer, but to fail
>>in mozilla.
>>
>>I know that backslashes may not be an
>>officially accepted standard. But why
>>not make mozilla automatically con
Peter Lairo wrote:
> NO, i think you have to "export" the bookmark from NC4.x to an ldif file
> first. Then in mozilla go to bookmarks and import "text" bookmarks.
> Select the ldif file and you#re done.
No, you import the bookmark.htm file
Jay Garcia wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>> Christopher Jahn wrote:
>>
>>> And it came to pass that DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>>>>
Christopher Jahn wrote:
> And it came to pass that DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>
>>Asa Dotzler wrote:
>>
>>
>>>DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>For the longest time now, the Bookmarks tab in My Sidebar
>>>>has been empty... I t
Asa Dotzler wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>> For the longest time now, the Bookmarks tab in My Sidebar has been
>> empty... I thought this was a bug still being worked on, but I just
>> installed the same nightly I'm running on my brother's machine (both
>
For the longest time now, the Bookmarks tab in My Sidebar has been
empty... I thought this was a bug still being worked on, but I just
installed the same nightly I'm running on my brother's machine (both Win
2k Pro) and his bookmarks panel works fine... So obviously it isn't
just a bug. Any
JTK wrote:
> Gervase Markham wrote:
>
>>>No, in principle it is not open source whatsoever. Netscape 6 branches
>>>from Mozilla at certain points in development and features propietary to
>>>6.x are added/refined, etc.
>>>
>>That's not true;
>>
>
> That is 100%+ true and you damn well know it M
Cexy© wrote:
>
> Oh get off the Microsoft Bashing, are you using a MAC/Apple based System?
> Do you have Windows,Word, or Office software on your PC, or are you using
> Linux?
>
>
Uncalled for bashing of a company is wrong. If I were to say "Final
Fantasy 8 is too hard, Square soft SUCKS!"
Cexy© wrote:
>
> Well I guess it all boils down to Choices.the world would
> be very boring if everybody used the same computer programs.
>
No. I use Eudora for email because I like it. I like how my mail is
presented to me. Some people use Pegasus, some use Outlook. The i
Cexy© wrote:
> "DeMoN_LaG" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>>>>Stick with plaintext. Or don't post.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>What/who are these many clients.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Using windows 2K
>
> goto http://www.independent.co.uk/
>
> run the mouse cursor up and down the list on the left of the screen
>
> crashes consistantly
>
Although it is abit slow, I can't make a crash happen here. Last
night's nightly, Win2k
>
>>Stick with plaintext. Or don't post.
>>
>
> What/who are these many clients.could it be the servers are
> filtering out RTF?
>
> Donna
These clients are every client on the planet that doesn't bow down to
what MS calls a web standard. Just cause Outlook Express does it
doesn
Cevpx wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm not advocating posting HTML in a newsgroup where the regulars don't
> want it. OTOH, I think software developers need to understand that this
> new generation getting hooked up to the internet just won't understand
> why a news readers doesn't have this capability
Cevpx wrote:
> Attributed Meowbot wrote:
>
>> Adam James Fitzpatrick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>> And often enough the poster hasn't written anything that actually
>>> *requires* HTML markup - it's just plain text anyway.
>>
>>
>> I even see some posters go to great lengths to make their HT
Ere Maijala wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I've noticed that at least a few of the latest (now using 20010701)
> Mozilla builds (running on Windows 2000 Server (SP2)) hang when loading
> the following address:
> http://www.huuto.net/fi/showlist.php3?tits=saab&status=N&cat=%&lcat=Z
>
> It seems that also
Brian Z Jones wrote:
>> 3. On mailing lists, I usually didn't write the original message, and so
>>there is no way I can remember "what I wrote".
I run my own mailing list for me and my friends. Just a place for
people to spill their thoughts and for us to plan stuff and such. It
gets a
Steve Carroll wrote:
> I'm having problems with jpg files on my web server not being displayed
> correctly in Mozilla. If I load any jpg file directly --
> http://sciastro.net/test.jpg for example -- only gibberish text is
> displayed. If that same file is included in an html file, it displ
Mark wrote:
> These days, with the variety of mail clients and personal tastes, it's
> hard to please everyone. However, what I'm attempting to do is
> configure Mozilla mail to send an HTML formatted sig with my HTML format
> messages. I send messages in both HTML and text (that might be
>
Brian wrote:
> Martin Poirier wrote:
>
>> yes, use a recent build, that prob is fixed (I'm pretty sure that all
>> builds newer than june 15 are fixed for this)
>>
>> Brian wrote:
>>
>>> How can I get Moz to stop importing IE favs?? Can it be done??
>>>
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>
> Thank you, now I have
JTK wrote:
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
You're either being paid by Microsoft
>>>Yeah that's the first time I've been accused of that by a religious zealot.
>>>
>>Uh, in the defense of the rest of we "religious zealot"s (your words,
>>not mine), Peter Lairo does not speak fo
JTK wrote:
> Carlfish wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 26 Jun 2001 08:06:14 +0100, Gervase Markham
>> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> somehow managed to type:
>>
>>>Actually, I think we have a hack in the cookie code you can turn on which
>>>prevents this... I was in there recently. It's some hidden pref.
>>>
>>>Sear
Carlfish wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Jun 2001 11:45:32 -0700, Blake Ross <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> somehow managed to type:
>
>
>>We have history, and also 500 other sidebar tabs that IE doesn't offer.
>>Get your facts straight before you flame, at the very least.
>>
>
> He doesn't need to. When pro
Greg Miller wrote:
> JTK wrote:
>
>> It's looking pretty polished folks, I suggest you take a look. The
>> world ain't standing still while Maozilla figues out how to draw
>> controls inside the lines.
>>
>
> With another hundred or so of these, maybe they'll catch up to Mozilla?
> Forward pr
Mama Cass Elliot wrote:
> In netscape.public.mozilla.general the people heard Greg Miller say these
> wise words:
>
>
>>Memory efficiency is likewise good enough that it doesn't affect me. I
>>don't care whether I have 20MB of wasted RAM or 50MB wasted.
>>
>
> Somehow, I doubt if a person wi
JTK wrote:
>
> No sir, just wanted to help Mr. Lag et al, who were having some trouble finding
> the competition. That's just the kind of "reprehensible" "slimeball" I am.
>
Speaking of which... What is different about the new version?
Still crashes as much
Still really doesn't render c
JTK wrote:
>
> OF COURSE IT'S FACT! But this fact doesn't make a very good excuse for why
> there isn't an AIM client in Maozilla.
This has absolutely nothing to do with AOL and Mozilla. Other people
have made clients that were AIM compatible. Unfortunately, they were
all blocked. As so
JTK wrote:
>>
>
> Take it anyway you want to Hixie, just as long as you take it with ya
> when you leave!*
>
> *That's just a little more humor for ya Hixie, I neither want nor expect
> you to leave, nor care whether you do.
Why do you assume that someone named Hickson is southern?
JTK wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, JTK wrote:
>>
>>>As for the "4 times", it was stated by somebody in .performance only
>>>a week or so ago to be ~8 times slower [than IE].
>>>
>>Yes. Things are moving fast.
>>
>>
>
> At the speed of light, I'd say! As in three light-YEA
JTK wrote:
> Just wanted to make sure nobody thought that Netscape is any different
> now than it was when Netscape 6.0 was released. From
> http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,44617,00.html:
>
> "Netscape 6 was absolutely the right product at the right time. It
> delivered the standard
JTK wrote:
> Ian Hickson wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 22 Jun 2001, JTK wrote:
>>
>>>Except 20MB and 8 times slower rendering.
>>>
>>Well, 10MB and 4 times, but who can blame you for exaggerating.
>>
>>
>
> Touche, mon ami. The difference between IE's memory usage and
> Mathuzilla's is in fact not ~20MB
JTK wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>>Valeri Todorov wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Hello,
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Huh? You mean where your "Favorites" are on the left side of the
>>>>>screen? That's been in IE forev
Sol Hell wrote:
> Depends on your operating system. Usually win98 version is released first.
>
I'm looking at the Windows Update site and at the IE6 preview site,
neither seem to have anything newer. I do, however, notice that IE6's
minimum install size on Win NT/2k is 75Megs, on 98/SE it's
Valeri Todorov wrote:
> Hello,
>
>>>Huh? You mean where your "Favorites" are on the left side of the
>>>screen? That's been in IE forever.
>>>
>>Yeah, but the Mozilla Sidebar is MUCH more than just a bookmarks pane. It is
>>like a secondary mini-browser, displaying a set of content YOU d
JTK wrote:
> Blake Ross wrote:
>
>>>Yeah, pretty much: "You work on the stuff we don't want to, we'll take
>>>it and bundle it with a bunch of stuff that's proprietary, and you get
>>>nada. So long, sucker!"
>>>
>>Dude, you don't know what you're talking about.
>>
>
> I know all too well of w
JTK wrote:
> Marc Leger wrote:
>
>>"JTK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>>It's looking pretty polished folks, I suggest you take a look. The
>>>world ain't standing still while Maozilla figues out how to draw
>>>controls inside the lines.
Redhat made 3.7m in profits this year, bringing them into the black ink
for the first time. Do you consider them a "business" now?
JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
>
>> JTK wrote:
>>
>>> Right there: Netscape has nothing to do with Mozilla. Your words, not
>>> mine. I suppose you believe Netscape 6.0 just packaged itself up and
>>> shipped?
>>>
>>
>> No, Netscape took a copy of the tree, added their proprietary crap,
>> bundl
JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
Or maybe it's opinion. Ever think of that?
>>>No.
>>>
>>Time you did then.
>>
>>
>>>Huh? "To show the progress that has been made"?!? I thought that was
>>>why 6.0 was released.
>>>
>>No, Netscape released 6.0 because they NEEDED to get a
jesus X wrote:
> K-M does not use everything in Mozilla except the UI. It's just the renderer in
> another app. This does not constitute proof. That's the equivalent of running
> Quake 3 on a Pentium with a double speed CD drive, then running it on an Athlon
> 4 with a 36x drive, and claiming the
JTK wrote:
>>Comments to Mozilla's 'bloat',
>>
>
> So you are going to tell me Mozilla is *not* a complete pig?
>
> BAHHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAA!
>
> But can you get a witness? I said can you get a witness brother!
Ok, let's talk about this one. How many DLLs does IE require?
JTK wrote:
>>>This better? I have to apologize, I am not nearly nerdly enough to have known
>>>that you needed a space after the two minuses. And I'm using a web-based
>>>newsgroup "reader", which Maozilla won't interface to to do such wonderful
>>>things for me.
>>>
>>*gasp* You are going to
JTK wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, DeMoN_LaG says...
>
>>>>Red Hat makes money off selling Linux CDs and Linux books, as well as
>>>>providing tech support. You can go to their web site and download Linux
>>>>for free. The only cat
jesus X wrote:
> JTK wrote:
>
>>Really? So I could take Maozilla, bundle it with my own Instant Messaging
>>utility (supporting both AOL's proprietary IM and non-proprietary,
>>standards-based ones), rework the email reader to read not only regular pop3
>>and imap email, but also AOL email, and
Carlfish wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2001 22:41:38 -0400, DeMoN_LaG
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> somehow managed to type:
>
>
>>to bring up mail/news, and I can browse any web site I want and it
>>renders correctly, and it renders faster than any other browser on my
>>Red Hat makes money off selling Linux CDs and Linux books, as well as
>>providing tech support. You can go to their web site and download Linux
>>for free. The only catch is you get no manuals, and they won't provide
>>tech support. HAHAHA, why am I telling you this? You are the know all
JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
>
>>Garth Wallace wrote:
>>
>>>MPL is more restrictive than the BSD license but not so much as the GPL,
>>>AFAICT.
>>>
>>To me, I consider the MPL more open than the GPL license, similar to the BSDL.
>>Why? Despite Roblimo's article in Open Magazine, the GPL is somewh
JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
>>I for one use Mozilla exclusively as
>>a browser now, it's so stable.
>>
>
> Well I'd hope so, as slow as it is. And the insane amount of memory it
> hogs.
It's actually quite fast. Takes me about 8 seconds to load, < 2 seconds
to bring up mail/news, and I can
JTK wrote:
> Stuart Ballard wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
>>>Garth Wallace wrote:
>>>
No. Webmail access, like AIM and Net2Phone, is one of the features that
Netscape adds to Netscape 6.x but does not contribute to Mozilla.
>>>That doesn't sound very "Open" of them. Oh that's right, the
JTK wrote:
> Garth Wallace wrote:
>
>>A Concerned Denizen wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I am using the latest release build of Mozilla 0.91 {2001060703}Win32.
>>>
>>>Can I download my Netscape WebMail imap account with Mozilla?
>>>It looks like I have all of my settings correct, but fail to connect
>>>to serv
>
> Indeed, which makes it all the more distasteful when those in-the-know
> try to misinform people that AOL/Time Warner/Netscape is somehow not in
> complete control of this project. Well, as far as the project is under
> complete control *COUGH*almostfouryearsnow*HACK*.
>
If you consider
JTK wrote:
> Marc Leger wrote:
>
>>"Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>>
>>>jesus X wrote:
>>>
>>Can you guys take this private!?! You're cluttering valuable Mozilla room.
>>
>>:)
>>
>>MarcZilla
>>
>
> Yeah now, co
JTK wrote:
> Jay Garcia wrote:
>
>>jukola wrote:
>>
>>>JTK wrote:
>>>
>
> [snip]
>
>
Wh... why does *MOZILLA* have a registry key that says *NETSCAPE* not
once, but *twice*?!?!?!? Mozilla and Netscape are completely and
utterly separate entities, the Netscape Maozilla Politburo s
Chuck Simmons wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>>Holger Metzger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 6/10/01 6:20 PM, Chuck Simmons wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>Holger Metzger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>&g
Holger Metzger wrote:
> On 6/10/01 6:20 PM, Chuck Simmons wrote:
>
>
>>Holger Metzger wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 6/10/01 4:19 PM, Mark wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
After calling Netscape Communications on Friday evening when
Netscape's secured news servers (secnews.netscape.com, port 563)
when it bec
Chris Withers wrote:
> Tim Wunder wrote:
>
>>BTW, I hope you never used return receipts in NC4x, they're missing from
>>Moz. It will neither ask for receipts nor return them. They may be
>>implemented some day.
>>
>
> Cool, now I have an excuse ;-)
>
> I _hate_ return receipts but enver wanted
JTK wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>>Mustafa Hirji wrote:
>>
>>
>>>In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>says...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Did you even read the article? The talks between AOL and Microsoft have
>
Mustafa Hirji wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> says...
>
>>Did you even read the article? The talks between AOL and Microsoft have
>>broken down.
>>
>
> But then the started talking again.
>
Kast I heard they weren't talking. Maybe AOL will realize they have
en
JTK wrote:
> jesus X wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
However, IE leads the way in bringing my whole
system down in the field of about 6 to 0. Mozilla has never killed my
OS. IE 6 has. IE 5.5 has. IE 5.0 has. I don't consider that
acceptable for my web browser
>>>I don't consi
Marc Leger wrote:
>>Oh, but it is. Thet's common knowledge that when IE crashes it's very easy
>>
> for
>
>>it to take down the whole OS, necessitating a reboot. There have been
>>
> utilities
>
>>created by users to help work around that, but it's still a necessary
>>
> evil.
>
>>That's due t
JTK wrote:
> Ashant wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 05 Jun 2001 15:31:48 -0500, JTK <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I and everyone else on the planet despise software which requires
>>>rebooting after install. Especially if doing so is only so that said
>>>software can load (or rather, "preload") a bunc
Tim Wunder wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>> JTK is a troll that does nothing but complain and bitch, and also on
>> occasion has a tendancy to bend the truth or flat out lie. He always
>> complains and says Mozilla sucks and they should just stop working on
>> it now
JTK wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, DeMoN_LaG says...
>>
>
> Um, which ones? I've used them all, FINISHED, betas available to the general
> public, and betas not available to the general public, on both the Win9x and
> WinNT series OSs, and none of
Marc Leger wrote:
>>Now now, you IE users don't want that. Really, think aboout it: Mozilla
>>/ netscape etc goes away.
>>
>
> I want Microsoft everything. I want to call a .NET webservice and my dog
> brings me the paper.
>
>
>>No competition for IE. Not really a compelling reason to keep im
jesus X wrote:
> Marc Leger wrote:
>
>>You're telling me Microsoft is going from 86% to 20%. That's a decrease of
>>66%.
>>
>
> Umm, there was a time when Netscape had 90+ percent of the market, and MS was
> nowhere to be found. Pinhead.
He's just saying it's impossible for that to reverse.
fire-eyes wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>> JTK wrote:
>>
>>> I and everyone else on the planet despise software which requires
>>> rebooting after install. Especially if doing so is only so that said
>>> software can load (or rather, "preload&qu
JTK wrote:
> DeMoN_LaG wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I and everyone else on the planet despise software which requires
>>>rebooting after install. Especially if doing so is only so that said
>>>software can load (or rather, "preload&q
JTK wrote:
> I and everyone else on the planet despise software which requires
> rebooting after install. Especially if doing so is only so that said
> software can load (or rather, "preload") a bunch of crap into memory
> which I don't want there until I need it.
>
I installed the nightly fro
JTK wrote:
> bob wrote:
>
>>JTK wrote:
>>
>>
>The correct answer is about 3 years and 3 months but there was maybe 6
>months background preparation. A bit of a false start and the
>concentration of the mail/news team on Communicator 4.5 produced a loss
>of 9 months to one year de
Orrin Edenfield wrote:
>> When AOL ships the next versions of their product, why would they
>> agree to
>> use Microsoft IE products as the default product for AOL instead of
>> imbedding Mozilla? Is it that important to AOL to be on the Windows XP
>> desktop?
>
>
>
> Yes, most of their cust
StOo wrote:
> i am going through the (nasty but spiritually rewarding) process of making
> my sites standards compliant.. i can now get some pages on my site to
> validate successfully as valid HTML 4.01 Strict and valid CSS..
>
> the site looks great in IE5.5 and Oprah.. however, Netscrape 6 an
jesus X wrote:
> Carlfish wrote:
>
>>The simple fact is the Win32 platform is lost. Netscape lost to
>>Internet Explorer back when Netscape was still producing a superior
>>browser, because Microsoft owned the desktop, and had the resources to
>>under-sell and out-market Netscape.
>>
>
> I disa
Carlfish wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2001 20:48:26 -0400, Bill Lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> somehow managed to type:
In response to the Win32 platform comments:
How many AOL users are there? Do you know that all AOL users appear as
MSIE users to web servers? So if the current market is 68% 18
JTK wrote:
> Hans-Peter Fischer wrote:
>
>>"JTK" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>>
>>>Of course, that could easily be corrected by taking a few seconds to
>>>make the browser's built-in downloading more efficient and less
>>>susceptible
Dave V wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to access and manipulate an instance of Word from within
> client-side Javascript. I can do it easily enough from IE using VBScript,
> but my knowledge of Netscape is limited. Is there any way to do this?
VB script is a hack waiting to happen, as you have pr
Howard M. Stark wrote:
> My system, mozilla 2001051804 win 98, seems to take an awful amount of
> time resolving host when I brouse to a new URL. What is it doing? Is it
> doing it on my system or the ISP? Can it be made faster. If it is a
> Mozilla issue it should be checked into.
>
> Thanks
Alex wrote:
> Justin E. Harlow III wrote:
>
>> I can't find any info on whether Mozilla 0.9 supports 128 bit
>> encryption, although I suspect it does not. I went to a site that
>> wanted this feature, and it directed me to a Netscape download site
>> that said I was using Netscape 5.0 (is t
Olaf Titz wrote:
>>It seems that Mozilla now contains code that copies each url you visit
>>into a OS readable textfile that can then be read by anyone on the
>>internet (particulary Media Matrix). This seems to mean that anyone
>>
>
> You're not helping the cause the least by presenting such ra
JTK wrote:
> So my posting is somehow preventing people from working on Maozilla's biggest
> problems, i.e. crazy memory hoggage and slowness?
I'm going to say it again. IE 6 uses over 11,000k to display a blank
page. Keep in mind, large portions of IE are built into the operating
systems k
> You mean Doom MXXXIV? No, I grew tired of fighting the exact same "Seargent"s
> with the exact same shotgun about thirty-six episodes into that "series".
Um, ya see, there are no "Seargent"s in Quake 3. It's an online game.
You kill other people. You need reflexes, skills and thinking to w
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>
>
> Apparently so is insane memory usage, and commie graphics. Unfortunately they
> all add up to nobody using Mozilla.
You want insane memory usage? You are one of those people who bitch
that Mozilla opens and takes 20,000k of RAM to display a blank web page
a
96 matches
Mail list logo
