Hello MAU & everyone else,
on 27-Nov-2005 at 11:52 you (MAU) wrote:
> I'm currently testing 3.63.05, a real beta, and if I have problems with
> it I revert to 3.62.14. If that tells you something :)
Same here - 3.62.14 is very stable & reliable, just as it should be. :)
--
Best regards,
Alexa
Hello Alexander!
On Sunday, November 27, 2005, 5:14 AM, you wrote:
>>> Everyone who does a direct comparison of the graphics rendering
>>> speed in 3.0.1.33 vs. 3.62.14 will notice the difference - 3.62.14
>>> is ALWAYS slower, thats the issue...
>> But, as I commented on TBBETA, it has not been
Hello Mary Bull & everyone else,
on 27-Nov-2005 at 11:59 you (Mary Bull) wrote:
>> Everyone who does a direct comparison of the graphics rendering
>> speed in 3.0.1.33 vs. 3.62.14 will notice the difference - 3.62.14
>> is ALWAYS slower, thats the issue...
> But, as I commented on TBBETA, it has
Hello Alexander!
On Sunday, November 27, 2005, 3:38 AM, you wrote:
>> The only thing that keeps me waiting a bit longer is whether
>> anybody finds out why on some machines, opening messages in
>> seperate window takes several seconds. This has been experiecned by
>> three people, the other hundr
Hello Roman,
> Safe: does not cause loss of data and/or settings and will not force me to
> roll back.
> Should be a matter of course for release versions of any software.
I'm currently testing 3.63.05, a real beta, and if I have problems with
it I revert to 3.62.14. If that tells you something :
Hello Thomas Fernandez & everyone else,
on 27-Nov-2005 at 04:47 you (Thomas Fernandez) wrote:
> The only thing that keeps me waiting a bit longer is whether anybody
> finds out why on some machines, opening messages in seperate window
> takes several seconds. This has been experiecned by three pe
I fired up ThunderBird that I hadn't used it days. In a few seconds
it had all folders checked and updated. No problem.
I guess a few exits and restarts. Cleaning the caches etc. just might
make things better but...
Phew! I was beginning to feel that I was the only one in step with these
pa
On Saturday, November 26, 2005, 15:33:25, John Phillips wrote:
> Can you define "safe"?
Safe: does not cause loss of data and/or settings and will not force me to
roll back.
Should be a matter of course for release versions of any software.
Regards,
Roman
--
There are two tragedies in life.
Hello Roman,
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:22:59 -0500 GMT (27/11/2005, 02:22 +0700 GMT),
Roman Katzer wrote:
RK> is 3.62.14 safe to use? I know it's the latest release (sic) version, but
RK> many people seem to have a multitude of problems with it. I'm running
RK> 3.62.07.
Hi Roman,
On Sat, 26 Nov 2005, at 14:22:59 [GMT-0500] (which was Sun, 6:22:59
Australian Eastern Time) you wrote:
> is 3.62.14 safe to use?
Can you define "safe"?
--
John Phillips, Sydney, Australia
Using The Bat! v3.62.14 on Windows XP 5.1 Build 2600
Service Pack 2
Federal
Mary Bull wrote:
> People running IMAP still aren't completely happy--if at all.
I had fired it up earlier this morning. However, I got a couple 'message
not loaded'. Additionally, the TBBETA and TBUDL folders had the unread
folder colour icons, though there were no unread message counts.
I ope
Hello Roman!
On Saturday, November 26, 2005, 1:22 PM, you wrote:
> is 3.62.14 safe to use? I know it's the latest release (sic)
> version, but many people seem to have a multitude of problems with
> it. I'm running 3.62.07. Update or not?
Depends on what you are using it f
Hi all,
is 3.62.14 safe to use? I know it's the latest release (sic) version, but
many people seem to have a multitude of problems with it. I'm running
3.62.07. Update or not?
Regards,
Roman
--
I love the culture of victimhood.
13 matches
Mail list logo
