WLS wrote:
Ken wrote:
DrSlider wrote:
Anyone else have any experience with this? Losing my browsing history
is no big deal. Having to reconstruct my passwords file is a very big
deal.
Love the Philip Taylor sig, but I have to disagree with dsavitsk on
the 4x3 screens. Widescreen is much better
Ken schrieb:
I gather that Password Manager just lists passwords and doesn't
actually fill them in automatically
You gather wrong.
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
a
Ken wrote:
DrSlider wrote:
Anyone else have any experience with this? Losing my browsing history
is no big deal. Having to reconstruct my passwords file is a very big
deal.
Love the Philip Taylor sig, but I have to disagree with dsavitsk on
the 4x3 screens. Widescreen is much better IMHO. There
DrSlider wrote:
Anyone else have any experience with this? Losing my browsing history is no big
deal. Having to reconstruct my passwords file is a very big deal.
Love the Philip Taylor sig, but I have to disagree with dsavitsk on the 4x3
screens. Widescreen is much better IMHO. There are a lot
Anyone else have any experience with this? Losing my browsing history is no big
deal. Having to reconstruct my passwords file is a very big deal.
Love the Philip Taylor sig, but I have to disagree with dsavitsk on the 4x3
screens. Widescreen is much better IMHO. There are a lot of old guys here
WLS wrote:
From the metrics page.
https://metrics.mozilla.com/stats/seamonkey.shtml
I think the developers do a great job considering the suite has so few users,
compared to Firefox, which had 110405504 active installations yesterday.
I don't know how they get these figures and can not vo
Daniel wrote:
WLS wrote:
W3BNR wrote:
On 7/23/2011 5:17 PM PhillipJones submitted the following:
Rufus wrote:
Personally, I'll champion the 1.1.x series because even though I
didn't
use the Forms Manager there were enough people here who did to make it
seem a very desired feature. 2.0.14 is w
WLS wrote:
W3BNR wrote:
On 7/23/2011 5:17 PM PhillipJones submitted the following:
Rufus wrote:
Personally, I'll champion the 1.1.x series because even though I didn't
use the Forms Manager there were enough people here who did to make it
seem a very desired feature. 2.0.14 is working just fin
W3BNR wrote:
On 7/23/2011 5:17 PM PhillipJones submitted the following:
Rufus wrote:
Personally, I'll champion the 1.1.x series because even though I didn't
use the Forms Manager there were enough people here who did to make it
seem a very desired feature. 2.0.14 is working just fine for me...I
On 7/23/2011 5:17 PM PhillipJones submitted the following:
Rufus wrote:
Personally, I'll champion the 1.1.x series because even though I didn't
use the Forms Manager there were enough people here who did to make it
seem a very desired feature. 2.0.14 is working just fine for me...I'll
be stickin
Rufus wrote:
Personally, I'll champion the 1.1.x series because even though I didn't
use the Forms Manager there were enough people here who did to make it
seem a very desired feature. 2.0.14 is working just fine for me...I'll
be sticking with it.
I agree. But if you have to go to 2 series. th
Ken wrote:
And, if so, might somebody be kind enough to recommend me a good, stable
version to install - with which I'm prepared to stay until I die.
You must know that with SM you always need to upgrade, upgrade, upgrade
and upgrade forever The developpers don't want to maintain ONE
st
Personally, I'll champion the 1.1.x series because even though I didn't
use the Forms Manager there were enough people here who did to make it
seem a very desired feature. 2.0.14 is working just fine for me...I'll
be sticking with it.
--
- Rufus
PhillipJones wrote:
Best version ever pu
Best version ever put out in the 2 serious is 2.0x version. From 2. on
goes down hill fast.
Ken wrote:
Gratitude to Philip Taylor for his response. Thanks, Philip. I saw one
of your earlier posts (I think it was yours) about unwanted tabs in SM
2.2 and understood and sympathised completely.
> Philip Taylor. who understands the "the world must move on" philosophy,
> but who nonetheless finds Windows/XP, Classic View, Office 2003
> and so on infinitely more user friendly than any of the more recent
> developments).
And 4x3 screens on laptops!
___
On 7/23/11, Ken wrote:
> Gratitude to Philip Taylor for his response. Thanks, Philip. I saw one
> of your earlier posts (I think it was yours) about unwanted tabs in SM
> 2.2 and understood and sympathised completely.
>
> Please, anyone, what earlier version of SM might you recommend as
> partic
On 7/23/2011 6:54 AM Ken submitted the following:
Gratitude to Philip Taylor for his response. Thanks, Philip. I saw one of your
earlier posts (I think it was yours) about unwanted tabs in SM 2.2 and
understood and sympathised completely.
Please, anyone, what earlier version of SM might you reco
Gratitude to Philip Taylor for his response. Thanks, Philip. I saw one
of your earlier posts (I think it was yours) about unwanted tabs in SM
2.2 and understood and sympathised completely.
Please, anyone, what earlier version of SM might you recommend as
particularly stable?
Also - slightl
Ken --
Hi guys. I have already posted the following as an adjunct to other threads but
got no response. I will clarify below what I am seeking:
>Looks like I can't go back to SM 2.0.18 (I think it was - but it may have
been 2.0.11). The 'Known Issues' note for SM 2.2 is headed (in bold), 'Da
Hi guys. I have already posted the following as an adjunct to other
threads but got no response. I will clarify below what I am seeking:
>Looks like I can't go back to SM 2.0.18 (I think it was - but it may
have been 2.0.11). The 'Known Issues' note for SM 2.2 is headed (in
bold), 'Data los
20 matches
Mail list logo
