Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christian Biesinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
I'm quite sure that an external mail client is used if you don't install
MailNews.
How can you configure that? (linux)
Oh, I assumed you were using Windows.
Maybe Protozilla
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing is this is only started about four versions ago, Quicktime did
play some embedded sounds, images didn't flash on and off before then.
Image flashing is similar to
And it came to pass that Christian Biesinger wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
-lack of print preview
Print Preview exists in Mozilla nightly builds and will be
in the next release.
Sure, but that doesn't help anyone NOW. It will help
EVENTUALLY.
-inability to use external mail
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in
And it came to pass that Ian Davey wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
-lack of print preview
Print Preview exists in Mozilla nightly builds and will be in the next
release.
-inability to use external mail clients
I'm quite sure that an external mail client is used if you don't install
MailNews.
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christian Biesinger ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Christopher Jahn wrote:
-lack of print preview
Print Preview exists in Mozilla nightly builds and will be in the next
release.
-inability to use external mail clients
I'm quite sure that an external mail client is
Gervase Markham wrote:
I've repeatedly reported this here and get blown off as some sort of nut
case eccentric. Instead of asking others whether they have had similar
experiences.
Dude, we completely believe that it doesn't work _for_ _you_. No-one
doubts that. We promise :-) But
Travis Crump wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
As far as the web browser goes N6 is standards compatible. Communicator
4.X isn't.
OTOH: with the exception of allowing for muliple mailboxes and Mail
accounts. The Communicator still works much better.
The biggest fault is lack
Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 14 Nov 2001:
If they are placed in plugins folder how do you tell Moz or
Netscape Mac that they are in the folder?
In Communicator if a plugin is in the folder once the application
is quit
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
The thing is this is only started about four versions ago, Quicktime did
play some embedded sounds, images didn't flash on and off before then.
Image flashing is similar to
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=78505
which is a
Dude, we completely believe that it doesn't work _for_ _you_. No-one
doubts that. We promise :-) But that doesn't mean you can make
statements like plugins are broken on the Mac when they work for other
people.
If you are asking for other people's experiences, say Plugins don't
This was working (long time ago) and will be back in.. I checked it out recently..
not ready for adding back in, and may not make it in that soon. Its definetly part of
1.0.
The biggest fault is lack of the Location bar in Mail and news in two
pane mode.
Yes you can, try like closing
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
Also, given that netscape is focused on netscape 6, why do
they still even bother to support 4.x?
There
And it came to pass that dman84 wrote:
This was working (long time ago) and will be back in.. I
checked it out recently..
not ready for adding back in, and may not make it in that
soon. Its definetly part of 1.0.
The biggest fault is lack of the Location bar in Mail and
news in
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
-inability to use external mail clients
Works on Mac OS Classic *iff* Mozilla MailNews is left uninstalled.
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.clinet.fi/~henris/
Henri Sivonen wrote:
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as the web browser goes N6 is standards compatible. Communicator
4.X isn't.
OTOH: with the exception of allowing for muliple mailboxes and Mail
accounts. The Communicator still works much better.
Christopher Jahn wrote:
And it came to pass that dman84 wrote:
This was working (long time ago) and will be back in.. I
checked it out recently..
not ready for adding back in, and may not make it in that
soon. Its definetly part of 1.0.
The biggest fault is lack of the
Jay Garcia wrote:
Gervase Markham wrote:
Isn't one of the 'goals' of mozilla to as fast (why not faster ??) as
navigator 4.7x ??
Given the vastly-higher level of functionality, it's unlikely that
Mozilla will ever do much faster than 4.x. Although our page load times
seem to
I've repeatedly reported this here and get blown off as some sort of nut
case eccentric. Instead of asking others whether they have had similar
experiences.
Dude, we completely believe that it doesn't work _for_ _you_. No-one
doubts that. We promise :-) But that doesn't mean you can make
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Torgeir Veimo ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
Also, given that netscape is focused on netscape 6, why do they still
even bother to support 4.x?
Rant answer; mozilla focuses on functionality,
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
Also, given that netscape is focused
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
As far as the web browser goes N6 is standards compatible. Communicator
4.X isn't.
OTOH: with the exception of allowing for muliple mailboxes and Mail
accounts. The Communicator still works much better.
The biggest fault is lack of the Location bar in Mail and
And it came to pass that Gregory Spath wrote:
In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Christopher Jahn
([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
And it came to pass that Schelstraete Bart wrote:
--090503040007000902030100
Jay Garcia wrote:
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
Also, given that netscape is focused on netscape 6, why do they still
even bother to support 4.x?
There are many Corporate Enterprise users out there that PAID for the
application suite. Communicator will be
Jay Garcia wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?Also, given that netscape is focused on netscape 6, why do they stilleven bother to support 4.x?There are many Corporate Enterprise users out there that PAID for
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Jonathan Wilson
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
I encourage Netscape 4.x users to look for alternatives. However, here
are some reasons why (I think) some people are still sticking to nav 4.x:
* Linux
Isn't one of the 'goals' of mozilla to as fast (why not faster ??) as navigator 4.7x
??
Given the vastly-higher level of functionality, it's unlikely that
Mozilla will ever do much faster than 4.x. Although our page load times
seem to have it beat.
Gerv
Gervase Markham wrote:
Isn't one of the 'goals' of mozilla to as fast (why not faster ??) as
navigator 4.7x ??
Given the vastly-higher level of functionality, it's unlikely that
Mozilla will ever do much faster than 4.x. Although our page load times
seem to have it beat.
Gerv
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given the vastly-higher level of functionality, it's unlikely that
Mozilla will ever do much faster than 4.x.
Does anyone have performance data on Galeon vs. Nav 4.x on Linux?
--
Henri Sivonen
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
For me I use nav 4 for mail and moz for browsing, irc and newsgroups
(when it isn't broken). Everyone else in my house doesn't trust
netscape 6.2 yet so they continue to use nav4.
My friends use IE as opposed
As far as the web browser goes N6 is standards compatible. Communicator
4.X isn't.
OTOH: with the exception of allowing for muliple mailboxes and Mail
accounts. The Communicator still works much better.
The biggest fault is lack of the Location bar in Mail and news in two
pane mode. (You can't
Gervase Markham wrote:
Isn't one of the 'goals' of mozilla to as fast (why not faster ??) as
navigator 4.7x ??
Given the vastly-higher level of functionality, it's unlikely that
Mozilla will ever do much faster than 4.x. Although our page load times
seem to have it beat.
Gerv
In article [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
As far as the web browser goes N6 is standards compatible. Communicator
4.X isn't.
OTOH: with the exception of allowing for muliple mailboxes and Mail
accounts. The Communicator still works much better.
I think this is one argument
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
What in particular makes 4.x better than 6 for the users?
Also, given that netscape is focused on netscape 6, why do they still
even bother to support 4.x?
Rant answer; mozilla focuses on functionality, not usability.
--
-Torgeir
37 matches
Mail list logo
