On 04/12/2001 at 18:44 Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
delenda est
Everyone was using a utility called something like Drive Space or
Double Space that would let you hold 40megs of info on a 20 meg
hard drive. Using this utility though at the time, the hard drives
tended to fail in a short
On Mon, 03 Dec 2001 19:42:12 -0700,
Chuck Simmons [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
:DeMoN LaG wrote:
: Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
: [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Dec 2001:
: I retired the summer after the first version of W-95 came out. We
: mostly used
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Dec 2001:
I retired the summer after the first version of W-95 came out. We
mostly used Windows 3.1.1. at the four high schools were the only
ones allowed to try
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
On 02/12/2001 at 21:38 Christian Biesinger wrote:
DeMoN LaG wrote:
You can technically format a drive to about 80% and then cancel it and
not have a problem, as the drive's FAT is not written until the end, at
which point data is unrecoverable.
Data is not
Simon P. Lucy wrote:
On 02/12/2001 at 21:38 Christian Biesinger wrote:
DeMoN LaG wrote:
You can technically format a drive to about 80% and then cancel it and
not have a problem, as the drive's FAT is not written until the end, at
which point data is unrecoverable.
Data is not
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Dec 2001:
I retired the summer after the first version of W-95 came out. We
mostly used Windows 3.1.1. at the four high schools were the only
ones allowed to try W-95. Am I remembering wrong
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 03 Dec 2001:
I retired the summer after the first version of W-95 came out. We
mostly used Windows 3.1.1. at the four high schools were the only
ones allowed to try W-95.
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Phillip:
The problem is that you are constantly making comments, responding to
others posts and critisizing using completely erroneous information.
That doesn't add any credibility to you, on the contrary. Sometimes you
respond to people with answers that
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not believe that I am the only one having the problem if the
Netscape Champions program recommends not puting both on the same
partition on the same hard drive.
replay
Installing them on the same
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 01 Dec 2001:
Yeah... Sure. You seem to imply that the Mac going bye bye would
affect Unix somehow? The Mac does not compete in the same market
as Unix. The Mac has no
RV wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Phillip:
The problem is that you are constantly making comments, responding to
others posts and critisizing using completely erroneous information.
That doesn't add any credibility to you, on the contrary. Sometimes you
respond to people
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Disk Images? You mean save the Netscape 6 entire install as a SMI
format?
Yes. (But the disk image does not need to need a self-mounting image
[smi] a regular image will do.)
Move the entire Netscape 6 folder on a disk image. Then
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Dec 2001:
1. I remember you once stating that you have limited experience in
programing and as an example you mentioned that years ago you used
to edit autoexec.bat files for MS DOS. That was
DeMoN LaG wrote:
You can technically format a drive to about 80% and then cancel it and
not have a problem, as the drive's FAT is not written until the end, at
which point data is unrecoverable.
Data is not necessarily unrecoverable.
Firstly, only the FAT is overwritten, so the actual
DeMoN LaG wrote:
--snip--
The Mac needs more than fax software to give Windows and the PC platform
a run for it's money
--
ICQ: N/A (temporarily)
AIM: FlyersR1 9
email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_ = m
I agree, they need more support from software vendors, and Distributors,
and Developers.
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 02 Dec 2001:
1. I remember you once stating that you have limited experience in
programing and as an example you mentioned that years ago you used
to edit autoexec.bat
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Do you use DiskCopy. to make image.
Yes.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.hut.fi/u/hsivonen/
Asa Dotzler wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
snip
As I've been chided here often. Don't make broad brush assumptions.
while on 'nix and windows you can do this Netscape 6 and Communicator up
to 4.7.8 do conflict with each other.
Please stop stating that is if it was the case
Asa Dotzler wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
snip
The reason why the the browser works but not necessarily mail and news.
Is because all emphasis is being placed in the Browser. The Mail and
news is considered an after thought.
What gives you any authority to make
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Asa Dotzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 30 Nov 2001:
What gives you any authority to make statements like that? Are you
involved in any way in the planning that goes into this project.
Are you being intentionally insulting
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 01 Dec 2001:
Are you being intentionally insulting to the people that work long
hours trying to make _all_ of the product better? Are you just
bitter or mean?
No I am not biter or mean but I am
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Asa Dotzler wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
snip
As I've been chided here often. Don't make broad brush assumptions.
while on 'nix and windows you can do this Netscape 6 and Communicator up
to 4.7.8 do conflict with each other.
Chuck Simmons wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Asa Dotzler wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
snip
As I've been chided here often. Don't make broad brush assumptions.
while on 'nix and windows you can do this Netscape 6 and Communicator up
to 4.7.8 do
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I can not believe that I am the only one having the problem if the
Netscape Champions program recommends not puting both on the same
partition on the same hard drive.
replay
Installing them on the same disk might mix up icons and the
DeMoN LaG wrote:
-snip-
You have been this way as long as I can remember.
Actually, when i first started on these groups I wasn't. But the more i
saw things deteriate (inthe program) and the more I asked what was
going on or reported bugs, or voted on bugs, or offerred comments then
was
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 01 Dec 2001:
Yeah... Sure. You seem to imply that the Mac going bye bye would
affect Unix somehow? The Mac does not compete in the same market
as Unix. The Mac has no bearing on Unix at
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Okay please explain for admonition by the Champs Not to place
Communicator and netscape 6 on the same partion on your hard Drive.
I realize that Mozilla and netscape 6 can actaully use one anothers
preferences because the path to preferences is Name (name
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
I can not believe that I am the only one having the problem if the
Netscape Champions program recommends not puting both on the same
partition on the same hard drive.
Where did you come up with this bit of info ??? The Champions Program
has never made this
Asa Dotzler [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 30 Nov 2001:
What gives you any authority to make statements like that? Are you
involved in any way in the planning that goes into this project.
Are you being intentionally insulting to the people that work
Pratik wrote:
> Appears to look right for me on Communicator 4.7.8. The opening page
> appears to show description of various html code marked in green
in places.
But see, that is not what its supposed to look like. Take a look at
it
in Mozilla or IE. Thats how its suppossed to look like
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 04 Nov 2001:
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
!doctype html public -//w3c//dtd html 4.0 transitional//en
html
nbsp;
pPratik wrote:
div
Pratik wrote:
On 11/02/01 03:49 PM, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
> I've never run into CSS problems with Communicator using any version
4.5
> or later.
Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/pratiksolanki
The site uses CSS and doesn't render correctly on NS 4.72 on Linux.
I
got the css and
. and some instability basically works pretty
nicely. Is it worth it to check out Netscape 6.2, or is it still
betaware/bugware? Be honest, too, please. I am not an MS troll; I am
just looking for some honest answers and do not want to hear shills.
TIA!
--
Never meddle
Lucas MacBride wrote:
Chris Hoess wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jay Garcia wrote:
4.78 does in fact support CSS and quite well unless it runs into
proprietary non-standard CSS.
Huh? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a web developer who agrees
with that. IIRC,
Appears to look right for me on Communicator 4.7.8. The opening page
appears to show description of various html code marked in green in places.
But see, that is not what its supposed to look like. Take a look at it
in Mozilla or IE. Thats how its suppossed to look like (unless both
Mozill
other than no
support of CSS, etc. and some instability basically works pretty
nicely. Is it worth it to check out Netscape 6.2, or is it still
betaware/bugware? Be honest, too, please. I am not an MS troll; I am
just looking for some honest answers and do not want to hear
Richter wrote:
Joe Camel wrote:
X-No-archive:yes
I was just over in the Netscape 6 group and frankly, 6.2 still looks a
little buggy for my tastes. I am now on 4.78, which other than no
support of CSS, etc. and some instability basically works pretty
nicely. Is it worth
of CSS, etc. and some instability basically works pretty
nicely. Is it worth it to check out Netscape 6.2, or is it still
betaware/bugware? Be honest, too, please. I am not an MS troll; I am
just looking for some honest answers and do not want to hear shills.
TIA!
4.78 does in fact
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
X-No-archive:yes
I was just over in the Netscape 6 group and frankly, 6.2 still looks a
little buggy for my tastes. I am now on 4.78, which other than no
support of CSS, etc. and some instability basically works pretty
nicely. Is it worth it to check out
On 11/02/01 03:49 PM, Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
I've never run into CSS problems with Communicator using any version 4.5
or later.
Take a look at http://www.geocities.com/pratiksolanki
The site uses CSS and doesn't render correctly on NS 4.72 on Linux. I
got the css and html
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
The reason why the the browser works but not necessarily mail and news.
Is because all emphasis is being placed in the Browser. The Mail and
news is considered an after thought.
Though to be fair, the recent couple of versions (Moz 0.93 and later)
have
works pretty
nicely. Is it worth it to check out Netscape 6.2, or is it still
betaware/bugware? Be honest, too, please. I am not an MS troll; I am
just looking for some honest answers and do not want to hear shills.
TIA!
--
Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you
Chris Hoess wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jay Garcia wrote:
4.78 does in fact support CSS and quite well unless it runs into
proprietary non-standard CSS.
Huh? I think you'd be hard-pressed to find a web developer who agrees
with that. IIRC, 4.x's CSS support is a hack that
Duane Clark wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote NS6.2/Moz9.5
Other reasons for upgrading:
Another preference allows me to set a minimum font size. Very handy for
us old guys with weak eyes.
How? I don't see that in Preferences/Appearances/Fonts, and as you
mention, it sure would be
lal_truckee wrote:
Duane Clark wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote NS6.2/Moz9.5
Other reasons for upgrading:
Another preference allows me to set a minimum font size. Very handy for
us old guys with weak eyes.
How? I don't see that in Preferences/Appearances/Fonts, and as you
Duane Clark wrote:
lal_truckee wrote:
Duane Clark wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote NS6.2/Moz9.5
Other reasons for upgrading:
Another preference allows me to set a minimum font size. Very handy
for us old guys with weak eyes.
How? I don't see that in
version.
Is it worth to upgrade ?
Pete
PROTECTED], Peter
Moscatt [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am currently using Mozilla 0.8 and now see there is a newer version.
Is it worth to upgrade ?
Pete
Peter Moscatt wrote:
I am currently using Mozilla 0.8 and now see there is a newer version.
Is it worth to upgrade ?
The message filters did not work for me on 0.8.1
Just installed 0.9 and now it works.. :-)
Peter Moscatt wrote:
I am currently using Mozilla 0.8 and now see there is a newer version.
Is it worth to upgrade ?
Pete
0.8.1 is a little more stable than 0.9 and 0.8 both but 0.9 has some
major performance improvements in mail-news and PSM. see the release
notes at http
I am currently using Mozilla 0.8 and now see there is a newer version.
Is it worth to upgrade ?
Pete
Thanks Bill. well yep, you have answered all questions :-)
Thanks Bill.
Pete
Bill Lee wrote:
Peter Moscatt wrote:
I am currently using Mozilla 0.8 and now see there is a newer version.
Is it worth to upgrade ?
Pete
It doesn't crash any less if that's what you're asking
52 matches
Mail list logo
