Philip Chee wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
The Gecko 1.8 branch was abandoned by the Mozilla Core devs a long, long
time ago. Only security and
Michael Gordon a écrit :
SM 2.x trashed my address books,
pass words, forms, and all of the extensions I used for creating and
testing we pages.
For the extensions, fair enough: not all of them are compatible (yet).
And much have been said about doing away with the much loved form manager.
On Tue, 12 Jan 2010 12:56:20 -0600, Michael Gordon wrote:
I have waited several months to see the improvements in SM 2.x, but all
I saw was a severely broken product. SM 2.x trashed my address books,
pass words, forms, and all of the extensions I used for creating and
testing we pages.
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 13:07:33 -0500, Phillip Jones wrote:
Philip Chee wrote:
Fortunately now that we have made the big move from the old XPFE backend
to the new toolkit, subsequent upgrades won't be as traumatic. If things
work out upgrades will be as seamless as Firefox
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
The Gecko 1.8 branch was abandoned by the Mozilla Core devs a long, long
time ago. Only security and
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we prefer
to use a
Ray_Net wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we
Martin Freitag wrote:
Philip Chee schrieb:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
You will say the same after switching to SM 2.1 ?
Unfortunately we may be forced to do that as well. Chrome seems to have
lit a fire under the Firefox devs and they plan to abandon the 3.5
(Gecko
John Doue wrote:
On 1/10/2010 12:13 PM, Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we prefer
to use a product instead
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Martin Freitag wrote:
Philip Chee schrieb:
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
You will say the same after switching to SM 2.1 ?
Unfortunately we may be forced to do that as well. Chrome seems to have
lit a fire under the Firefox devs and
Philip Chee schrieb:
The ability to import/migrate *some* data (I think global history) from
1.x profiles will be lost in 1.9.2.
Download history actually. From all I know, global history will work for
a longer time.
Robert Kaiser
___
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this frequency, however we prefer
to use a
Phillip Jones wrote:
Ray_Net wrote:
Stanimir Stamenkov wrote:
Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, /Ray_Net/:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change
and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel each month ... may be not this
Interviewed by CNN on 10/1/2010 16:07, Phillip Jones told the world:
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people compiling
the kernel
MCBastos wrote:
Interviewed by CNN on 10/1/2010 16:07, Phillip Jones told the world:
Philip Chee wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jan 2010 10:41:01 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Thanks for this clear answer ... But we don't like to chenge, change and
change again the versions this looks like Linux people
Graham schrieb:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
All cases where you get a list on double-click on the field are the same
cases that show a selection when starting to type.
Password (and user name) fields also get automatically filled in if you
only have exactly one username/password saved for that
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
You will say the same after switching to SM 2.1 ?
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
On Sat, 09 Jan 2010 17:16:19 +0100, Ray_Net wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
YMMV, but in any case, if we would not
have moved to it, SeaMonkey would be dead by now.
Why ?
The Gecko 1.8 branch was abandoned by the Mozilla Core devs a long, long
time ago. Only security and stability patches
Graham schrieb:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Could you define the actual problem you're having and what's not
decent in SM2 for that matter?
My personal beef with SM2's forms and password handling is that it is
entirely unpredictable. On a few sites, things are automatically filled
in. On some, a
Robert Kaiser wrote:
All cases where you get a list on double-click on the field are the same
cases that show a selection when starting to type.
Password (and user name) fields also get automatically filled in if you
only have exactly one username/password saved for that website.
Once you know
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:28:47 -0800, Rufus n...@home.com wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:39:20 -0600, Jay Garcia
j...@jaynospamgarcia.com wrote:
On 06.01.2010 07:13, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
--- Original Message ---
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:35:40 +0100, Robert Kaiser ka...@kairo.at
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I debated going back to SM 2.0 now but I'm spoiled by 1.18's much
simpler handling of passwords for apps that require them. Question:
is SM 2 going to be modified to handle passwords decently? And if
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 07:39:20 -0600, Jay Garcia
j...@jaynospamgarcia.com wrote:
On 06.01.2010 07:13, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
--- Original Message ---
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 15:35:40 +0100, Robert Kaiserka...@kairo.at
wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I debated going back to SM 2.0 now but I'm spoiled by 1.18's much
simpler handling of passwords for apps that require them. Question:
is SM 2 going to be modified to handle passwords
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Could you define the actual problem you're having and what's not
decent in SM2 for that matter?
My personal beef with SM2's forms and password handling is that it is
entirely unpredictable. On a few sites, things are automatically filled
in. On some, a double click in a
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 17:28:47 -0800, Rufusn...@home.com wrote:
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the
Graham wrote:
Robert Kaiser wrote:
Could you define the actual problem you're having and what's not
decent in SM2 for that matter?
My personal beef with SM2's forms and password handling is that it is
entirely unpredictable. On a few sites, things are automatically filled
in. On some, a
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused by some
RAM weakness. I did that - no ram errors.
However, when removing and
On 06.01.2010 07:13, JohnW-Mpls wrote:
--- Original Message ---
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused by some
RAM
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I debated going back to SM 2.0 now but I'm spoiled by 1.18's much
simpler handling of passwords for apps that require them. Question:
is SM 2 going to be modified to handle passwords decently? And if so,
about when might that change be expected?
Could you define the
JohnW-Mpls wrote:
In Dec I went back to 1.18 because my XP had a half dozen BSODs since
I installed 2.0 in late Oct. I have not had a BSOD since returning to
1.18.
Someone suggested running Ramtest incase the BSODs were caused by some
RAM weakness. I did that - no ram errors.
However, when
Ken Rudolph wrote:
Martin Freitag wrote:
JohnW-Mpls schrieb:
I switched back from 2.01 because it MAY have been the culprit that
caused my system to crash 6 times in the last 2 months (after I moved
to 2.0). Crashes were immediate appearance of a full blue screen with
white text stating memory
34 matches
Mail list logo
