Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet

Firefox 0.9.1 and Thunderbird 0.7.1 Released 507

Posted by simoniker
from the feedback-schmeedback dept.
Dave writes "The Mozilla Foundation has just made available interim releases of Firefox 0.9.1 and Thunderbird 0.7.1. Apparently: 'These releases are designed to address early issues found in the new extension manager and automatic upgrade system as well as making changes to the new Firefox theme based on initial feedback.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Firefox 0.9.1 and Thunderbird 0.7.1 Released

Comments Filter:
  • Does anybody know if this will require a clean uninstall first??
  • by Tanami (601011) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:05AM (#9559107)
    I've upgraded to 0.9.1, and I still get notification that new updates are available.

    Anybody else getting this, or have I bodged something?
  • Thankfully (Score:5, Insightful)

    by La_Boca (201988) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:05AM (#9559108) Journal
    I'm honestly happy they haven't changed the name again. Trying to get your office to adapt to a new browser is hard enough when they are afraid to use software that doesn't "come in a box" much less when it keeps changing it's name.
    • Re:Thankfully (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jugalator (259273) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:44AM (#9559425) Journal
      They never changed the name for fun before, but because of unfortunate trademark problems. They've since learned their lesson and Firefox is now a registered trademark. It won't change anytime soon, not even to "Mozilla Browser", as far as I know.
    • by Tackhead (54550)
      > Trying to get your office to adapt to a new browser is hard enough when they are afraid to use software that doesn't "come in a box" much less when it keeps changing it's name.

      "Come in a box"? Eew. Bad, bad, name for it. For Chrissakes, don't let the devs hear that. And I like the fox just the way it is. I don't even want to think about the new throbber would have to look like.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:06AM (#9559119)
    You know IE is in trouble when a minor point release meant to address bugs only makes Slashdot headlines..

    Wait, then again, the smell of T-Rex's breath did too.. Never mind.......
    • Re:IE troubles.. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by galego (110613) <jsnsotheracct@gm a i l . com> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:29AM (#9559309)
      Or better yet ... when CERT reccommends [slashdot.org] using a 0.x release of another browser over the 6.x version of IE.
      • Re:IE troubles.. (Score:5, Informative)

        by FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) <fuzzybad AT gmail DOT com> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:53AM (#9560172)

        Comparing version numbers between different products is like comparing apples to oranges. Firefox/Mozilla has had at least as much development time as IE has, maybe more. One could just as well argue that IE's version number is grossly inflated.

        Just to be completely anal, let's look at the IE timeline [microsoft.com]:

        • 1995: Internet Explorer 1.0 (included in Microsoft Plus! For Windows 95)
          I've never used this, or even saw it installed on a computer. Based on NCSA Mosiac apparently.
        • 1995: Internet Explorer 2.0
          Played around with this one on an NT4 workstation. Incredibly primitive browser.
        • 1996: Internet Explorer 3.0
          Microsoft says this was a "completely rebuilt" browser, so probably the start of the current codebase. I found it extremely buggy at the time.
        • 1997: Internet Explorer 4.0
          Many improvements, IE is finally usable and competitive with Netscape. However, both browsers have their own proprietary DOMs.
        • 1998: Internet Explorer 5.0
          Again, numerous improvements. IE solidifies it's lead over Netscape 4, and implements W3C DOM compatibility.
        • 2001: Internet Explorer 6
          Minimal changes since IE5. Better cookie handling, print preview, etc. Numerous problems still exist with the CSS implementation, PNG support, and other issues.
        • So in a nutshell, I would consider the period from 1996-1998 to be the development time for IE. Everything since then has mainly been maintenance releases.

  • Adblock... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by shic (309152) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:07AM (#9559131)
    I hope this version either includes Adblock as standard or at least makes it easy to install as an extension. Adblock is a major reason to adopt Firefox - and it was a huge step backwards to find that 0.9 didn't support Adblock by default.
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Threni (635302) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:10AM (#9559153)
      I hope this version either includes Adblock as standard or at least makes it easy to install as an extension. Adblock is a major reason to adopt Firefox - and it was a huge step backwards to find that 0.9 didn't support Adblock by default.

      Given that previous versions of Firefox didn't include AdBlock either, how does continuing to not include it constitute a `huge step backwards`?
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:5, Informative)

      by MicroBerto (91055) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:13AM (#9559168)
      Adblock does rule - but it doesn't work until you go into their message board and use their recommended ruleset (which then works incredibly). They should make that default, or at least question the user upon installation if they would like to use that as default setup.
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:3, Informative)

      by shic (309152)
      In previous versions of Firefox (when I tried 0.8, for example) Adblock was available as the most recommended extension. Now, after I've advised others try Firefox, and they have installed 0.9, the Adblock extension is no-longer available. I've heard that this was due to compatibility problems with the extension manager - though I've no inside knowledge.
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Murf_E (754550) <{moc.liamtoh} {ta} {reggeyarrum}> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:13AM (#9559171)
      Extensions [mozilla.org] for 0.9.x can be found here
      It seems installing over 0.9.0 will keep your old extentions and themes

      install firesomething too its the best extention there is
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Kormac (466376) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:14AM (#9559176)
      The nightly builds of AdBlock seem to work fine for me under FireFox .9 and .9.1.
      (Although I did run into the "please wait while Mozilla finishes installing your extension" bug when upgrading from a previous version of AdBlock on my Mozilla .9 install -- but .9.1 fixes that issue)

      Get the AdBlock nighly builds at http://adblock.mozdev.org/dev.html [mozdev.org]

      Kormac
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:3, Informative)

      by gumpish (682245)
      You'll have to copy and paste, Mozilla doesn't like slashdot linking to their bugs:

      http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2482 79
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by cdrudge (68377) *
      The defeats the purpose that Firefox is working towards. Create a very extensible browser and only include the minimum. Firefox comes in at about 1/3 the size of it's big brother Mozilla.

      Then you can easily add the features and extensions that you want. AdBlock isn't a required feature for the browser to work so it rightfully shouldn't be included.
    • Re:Adblock... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:44AM (#9559423)
      Well I hope those pages you're blocking the Banner Ads on find a way to completely block you from their site soon.

      Seriously. You enjoy the services that some sites provide, the least you can do is to view their banner ads. That is still where a lot of revenue comes from. If everyone on the internet at one instance adopted FireFox with Adblock installed we would lose thousands of sites, or gain the most annoying advertising we have ever seen because someone thought they would be cool and block the banner ads.

      While not the only cause, blocking of banner ads is one thing that has made these new cover-up-everything flash ads, pop-ups, pop-unders, and so on come around. People blocked the banner ads, revue went down, more revenue was needed.

      It really comes down to this, if you block the banner ads, don't even both going to the site. If you can't simply let them get the fraction of a cent by some banner ad loading (yes CPM are still being used) you really have no right to use their free service. More and more sites will go away, employ more advertising that gets in your face, or go to a subscription model where you're going to have to pay your own hard earned money instead of just viewing an image.

      View the banner ads. If you do that, blocking pop-ups, flash take-over ads, that's fine, at least you're letting the simplest and least annoying advertising load and actually giving back for the free sevice you are using.
  • by mabu (178417) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:14AM (#9559177)
    When I upgraded from 0.8 to 0.9 a bunch of things stopped working; the browser would spawn new windows whenever I clicked on a URL regardless of the config settings, popup-blocking was less-reliable, sometimes the download manager wouldn't close itself after a download was complete, and other weirdness. I think I'm going to hold off this time on promptly upgrading because 0.9 was not an improvement over 0.8.
    • by carlmenezes (204187) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:56AM (#9559533) Homepage
      Well, let me guess :

      1) No tabbrowser extensions?
      Try here : http://extensionroom.mozdev.org/more-info/tbe (it works and I'm using it on 0.9 right now)

      2) No Adblock or it doesn't work right?
      Try here : http://adblock.mozdev.org/adblock-0.5-dev.xpi (again, it works perfectly on 0.9 and I'm using it)

      Finally, if stuff still does not work for you, use this old trick that has saved me a lot of times :

      Close Firefox.
      Rename your profile folder.
      Start Firefox again - it will re-create your profile folder. Close it.
      Copy over the following files to the new profile folder (overwriting the existing ones) :

      bookmarks.html
      history.dat
      formhistory.dat
      co okies.txt
      signons.txt

      That's it. Ofcourse, you will have to install your extensions all over again, but that does not take much time and it's worth the effort. Every single time I've used this procedure it's worked perfectly and Firefox has gone back to it's usual efficient self.

      Hope this helps.
  • Disappointed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Pedrito (94783) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:17AM (#9559199) Homepage
    I didn't start using Firefox until 0.8. For the most part, I loved it. The only problems I had were occasional page layout issues. Sometimes those required me to fall back on IE, which was a bit of a pain. Usually it had to do with certain web forms with multi-line text boxes that it showed way too small to be useful for writing lots of text.

    Then I upgraded to the 0.9rc and something got totally hosed. Some dialog boxes would pop up with no text in them (like the download dialog). It also seemed to hose a few other things as well.

    I tried uninstalling it and re-installing, but to no avail. So, for the moment, I'm sticking with IE, which is kind of sad. I mean, I loved some of the things in Firefox like the search plugins that let me search IMDB, dictionaries, and so forth. That's a cool feature. But I don't want to spend a lot of time trying to figure out why things aren't working.

    Maybe when 1.0 comes out I'll give it another shot. And hopefully they'll improve the install. I particularly hate the fact that I can't just type in an install directory name, but have to go browse the directory. It defaults to C:\Program Files\Firefox and I just want to change the C: to a D: Why does that have to be so difficult?
    • Re:Disappointed (Score:5, Informative)

      by linuxci (3530) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:26AM (#9559285)
      If you're having weird problems with Firefox it might be because there was a bug in some of ther nightly builds and maybe the release candidates (?) that could cause problems with your profile. If you've got nothing critical in your profile (bookmarks, passwords etc) then just try deleting all traces off it and starting again.

      In Windows your profile will live in the %APPDATA% directory which in 9x is usually c:\windows\application data and in 2k/XP C:\Documents and Settings\user\application data\ (folder may be hidden).

      In this directory delete the directories Phoenix, Firefox and the Firefox directory within Mozilla if it exists.

      As this is pre-1.0 software, sometimes problems may occur.
    • Re:Disappointed (Score:4, Informative)

      by twbecker (315312) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:29AM (#9559306)
      You must not have liked it too much to have given up so easily. Deleting your profile, either via the profile manager or manually and then reinstalling would have most likely solved your problem. Considering Firefox takes 1 minute to install, it's not that big a deal.
    • Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Informative)

      by upside (574799)
      A few nitpicks:
      -0.9rc is a release candidate so expect it to be buggy. In fact it's not even 1.0 so even the FireFox team considers current releases to be pre-releases.
      -You can set the install directory if you select Custom in the Setup Type dialog

      I'm currently trying to make an MSI installer out of 0.9.1 so I can deploy it across the network using GPOs. Anyone had success with this?
    • Re:Disappointed (Score:3, Informative)

      by tunah (530328)
      Maybe when 1.0 comes out I'll give it another shot. And hopefully they'll improve the install. I particularly hate the fact that I can't just type in an install directory name, but have to go browse the directory. It defaults to C:\Program Files\Firefox and I just want to change the C: to a D: Why does that have to be so difficult?

      I agree with your point, but you'll save time in the longrun by changing HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\Cur r entVersion\ProgramFilesDir to "D:\Program Files" in

  • Working mirrors (Score:5, Informative)

    by Halo- (175936) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:17AM (#9559204)
    http://mirrors.kernel.org/mozilla [kernel.org]
    ftp://mirrors.kernel.org/mozilla/ [kernel.org]
    http://mozilla.gnusoft.net/ [gnusoft.net]

    These worked for me. (Posted as AC to avoid whore-accusations. :) )

  • by techmuse (160085) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:18AM (#9559209)
    The old default theme in 9.0 looked very nice. Thsi one looks horrible! Can we revert? Please?
  • New theme (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sunspire (784352) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:19AM (#9559216)
    I was really skeptical of the new winstripe theme in Firefox 0.9, the new changes introduced in 0.9.1 however makes it a LOT better in my opinion. I just wish Thunderbird would now work to unify its theme with Firefox.

    It's the small things that makes the browser for me, the look and feel. It's hard to explain it in detail. Going back to IE after using Firefox for a long time just doesn't feel right. For example, there's all these little half-second pauses in IE when the controls and scrolling are unresponsive, times when the right-click context menu won't show up when it's still loading. Sometimes the window stops redrawing for a second or two (especially while running Windows Update, but otherwise too) etc. All these little glitches drive me crazy when I have to use IE.
    • Re:New theme (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Gr8Apes (679165)
      I believe those little pauses et al are a direct result of the original monolithic GDI, of which vestiges still run rampant through MS code.

      If you don't believe this, then try doing anything in an MS app while Outlook is grabbing a 50 or 100MB file from an exchange server. It's gotten better, but still not good. Now, to prove that this is solely a code problem on MS's part, download PMMail2000, and do any large file manipulations with it. The differences in system performance are astounding.

      Why something
      • Re:New theme (Score:3, Insightful)

        by SenseiLeNoir (699164)
        yes, and this is probably why mozilla/firefox is so "snappy" in comparison. All user layout is done by the gecko engine (including dialogs and chrome). this runs in a thread or two. then another thread for Network, and another for the scripting (i think).. etc..

        Given the maturity of gecko, it nicely renderes its queue withotu havign to "wait" for something else.

        An intresting point, because when mozilla was first previewed, everyone thoguht the whole idea of havign a XML renderer rendering the whole interf
  • by MicroBerto (91055) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:19AM (#9559219)
    I, among SEVERAL others, were one of those that was vehemently against a change to the dreaded new theme in 0.9. It was said that the new theme was set in stone, and that the arguments have been made.

    But that's what's great about this community. We complained anyway, and kept complaining. Our voices were heard - we have access to so many of the developers and are a vocal bunch. I'm not sure if the theme is switched back to Qute, which I like, but all I know is that the 0.9 theme just wasn't professional enough to "take over the world".

    Good job to all those who helped the project realize that we needed something better. Open-source is not just software - it's social too. Compared to OSS developers, closed developers don't have close to the conduits of communication to see what the users truly want. Especially when we're that passionate about such 'silly' things.

    So keep making your voices heard, and don't let autocracy-like decisions harm your favorite project.

    • Actually, what I heard was a bunch of whiners complaining about how the new theme was an abomination and they wanted their Qute back, despite the reasons for the change, the fact that it was a work in progress, and that Qute was clearly still available. The decision had been made, and still stands - the default 0.91 theme is a much-improved winstripe.

      (Don't get me wrong, I like Qute, and the 0.9 theme had problems, but the venom the devs got was ridiculous).

      It may be your favourite project, but the people who do the work get to make the decisions.

      • by RickHunter (103108) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @10:39AM (#9559952)

        Actually, what happened was that the developers arbitrarily decided that Qute wasn't "good enough" anymore and that it had "license problems". They then didn't even try to talk to the author, but simply decided to replace it. The author, as soon as he found out, made it known that he was willing to accomodate the license changes they wanted, but the developers told him, very rudely, to go away and stop boterhing them because his contribution wasn't wanted.

        So yes, the venom the devs got WAS warranted, because they were being asses. And I hope they KEEP getting it until they change back to Qute.

        • Here's an idea. Themes are generally not much bigger than 256k. There's already one included with Firefox. Why couldn't the Mozilla group include say the top 4 or 5 themes and extensions. That way, you would get Qute, WinStripe, Noia, maybe a version of Orbit and a Modern theme. They could also install few extensions like AdBlock, SingleWindow, etc...the default for these would be OFF, but this would certainly help folks trying to convert IE users over...
    • That's funny, I like the new theme.

      And what's funnier is that you can change it back if you want to.

      I'm a funny guy.

    • So we know what we are talking about without having to download firefox:

      http://tribbin.no-ip.org/pub/firefox-0.9.1.png
    • by jesser (77961) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @11:07AM (#9560355) Homepage Journal
      Stephen Horlander and Kevin Gerich, the creators of Winstripe, blogged [kmgerich.com] about the improvements to Winstripe in 0.9.1. I'm impressed with their openness.

      (It might be that only one of them wrote that blog post. I'm confused because it's attributed to Horlander but is on Gerich's blog.)
  • by NeoGeo64 (672698) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:20AM (#9559220)
    It's interesting to see how when releases of Firefox are made its only to fix minor bugs and add new features.

    However, when updates to Internet Explorer are made, its for massive security holes and exploits, of course, this is only after two weeks of Microsoft saying that a patch is not needed and to not click links [microsoft.com].

    Why are people still using IE6? Back in the old days of the Internet, people weren't interested in using inferior browsers, I wish that same mentality still existed today.

    Firefox and Thunderbird are great, however, I switched to Linux and use both applications (Firefox and Thunderbird) and a bunch of other cool Linux apps (Audicity rules!). It's great, because now I don't feel like I'm playing Russian Roulette every time I use my computer, hoping I don't get infested with adware or some random virus everytime I go to a webpage that I haven't been to before.
  • by cabazorro (601004) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:21AM (#9559235) Homepage Journal
    Netscape lost it's battle trying to follow IExplorer
    (jack-of-all-trades) app scheme. It became bloatware. Nobody cared that it could manage email, instant messages and newsgroups when all we wanted is to browse the damn web.
    Then came firefox.
    small, cute and F*A*S*T.
    Yep, Firefox is fast. Just like Google..whatever
    you are going to give, give it pronto.
    I did make Firefox my default browser. That is a lot to say after 5 years waiting for a viable alternative. Sure company services DEMAND to see
    IExplorer in the client info to support us. But at home...I built the net, there I'M GOD!
  • by clester (744726) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:23AM (#9559253) Homepage
    Firefox releases:
    Download newest Firefox to fix small known bugs..


    Internet Explorer:
    Home and small-business users: Scan your computer with Windows Update.
    IT professionals: See a list of all updates from the Security Bulletin Service.
    Download or get more information about the latest critical updates for Internet Explorer:
    Get the April Cumulative Update for Outlook Express (837009)
    Install the Windows Security Updates for April 2004, which include the Outlook Express update.
    Install the February Internet Explorer Security Update (832894)
    Read the February security bulletin and get the current updates for Internet Explorer and Windows.
    Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 (SP1) Download the most recent service pack, which sets a new standard in privacy, reliability, and flexibility.
    Use Office Update to Protect Your PC Check for updates that can help improve the stability and security of your Office system.
    Other Critical Updates
    Top of page More for Home and Small-Business Users
    Stay up-to-date automatically or on your own. After you install, there are a few options to keep your system up-to-date. For Internet Explorer users running Windows XP
    Windows automatic updating. Microsoft Windows XP lets you automatically download and install important updates to your computer, such as critical updates, service packs, and technology updates to Internet Explorer. When you connect to the Internet, these updates are downloaded to your computer in the background after you receive an onscreen notification. If you prefer, you can have the updates installed automatically without notification. Find out how to turn automatic updates on or off in Windows XP Professional or in Windows XP Home Edition.
    For all Internet Explorer users
    Windows Update services. As soon as security updates are released by Microsoft, they are available on Windows Update. When you connect to the Internet, Windows Update scans your system and alerts you via Windows Messenger. You can then download and install the updates.
    Internet Explorer Downloads page. Check here regularly for all critical updates, recommended releases, and other beneficial system updates for Internet Explorer.
    Sign up for the Microsoft Security Update Newsletter for Home Users. This free e-mail alert service for home users ensures that you never miss a Microsoft product security update announcement.
    Top of page More for IT Professionals
    Get the latest security news and find information on current security updates using these links:
    TechNet Security Bulletin Search page. This page makes it easy to find previously released bulletins, which link to updates available for download. If you're looking for an update in a particular form, there are several options.
    Microsoft security notification service. Subscribers to this free service receive an e-mail message that contains summary information within minutes of a bulletin's release.
  • by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:25AM (#9559266) Homepage
    They should have called this release "9.0 Optimized" just to force AOL to litigate them into yet another name change.
  • Yus! (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ckwop (707653) <Simon.Johnson@gmail.com> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:25AM (#9559269) Homepage
    Did anyone else notice the CSS/Drawing bug on Slashdot where the side panel overlapped the side panel slightly. That bug has been fixed in this release.

    I love firefox :D

    Si.
  • NOT for Win95! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:27AM (#9559290)
    FF .9 appears to not run properly on Win95. Now the interesting thing is that Mozilla initially stated that .8 was for 98 and later. However, it turned out to run fine on 95. So the web pages were changed to reflect that.

    This time, it said "98 and later" and I assumed that they'd made the same error again. But when I tried .9, it just didn't work right. So I went back to .8. But now several versions of Bookmark Link Checker fail to work, i.e., no UI (no buttons or menu choices appear).

    Wish they hadn't established the ambiguity in the first place. Had I known that .9 would fail, *I would've just kept using .8 and having the Link Checker work!*
  • by ville (29367) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:31AM (#9559321)
    Dunno if anyone noticed but some of the dialogs don't have a cancel button, or similar that will close the dialog. For example the Tools>Extensions dialog. All you can do is uninstall, update or check out more extensions.


    There should be a close/cancel button. How can the application assume there is a "close" provided by the WM.

    // ville

  • by chegosaurus (98703) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:43AM (#9559417) Homepage
    I do just want to say that as of 0.9 Firefox is freakin awesome (I had problems with it before), especially when kitted out with adblock and singlewindow and whatever other extension floats your boat.

    I think the abundance of extensions show how many capable and creative developers there are outside the cosy little Linux/Slashdot/sourceforge community. If Firefox only ran on Linux, how many extensions do you think there would be? I'm betting not many. There's a whole world full of Windows/Mac/Whatever developers just waiting to contribute to something cool that runs on their OS. We should all be trying to be as cross-platform as possible, but half of us are writing code which won't even compile if it can't include "linux/sys.h". (BSD? Solaris? Never heard of 'em. Don't even want to.)

    When I started this post I thought I'd get modded up for being a fanboy, now I'll probably get modded down for being "anti linux". Cool!
  • 0.9.1.
    Come on guys. I need 1.0 pronto.

    Everyone at home is using IE6 which as we all know has major unpatched holes which have already been exploited by the russian mob [slashdot.org].(P.S. do you think that had anything to do with the Akamai DNS outage [slashdot.org])
    Now this would not be a huge problem, except they're using their credit cards online, passwords etc. I've got some pretty critical stuff on that windows box and I don't want some jerk from Russia or the NSA snooping about my account, which of course on a windows box is everyone's account!

    Yesterday I finally decided to get Firefox 0.9(.0 >:|) for the XP computer. I was influenced in no small part by CERT's recommendation. If they've actually noticed other browsers, then something must be VERY wrong. I'm trying to get the family to use it, but you know how it is. "This isn't the proper internet!" . "What happened to the internet?" etc, etc, etc.
    But I'm past caring. The fact that MS haven't fixed the problem yet really was the last straw. I'm going to make them give up IE if it kills me. However Firefox on windows is still a little buggy, paticularly with autodissconnect. So Version 1.0 would be nice ASAP.

    My reasons for switching are of course manifest, but on top of all of that I have a hunch that MicroSoft are going to drop IE in the near future. I know, I know they've re-constituted the IE team [slashdot.org] but that doesn't mean the team will work exclusivly on IE. I figure since IE is so full of holes, MS will just prefer to start from scratch, maybe develop new goodies/lock-ins. Tellingly IE still runs on 'number' versions; IE4,IE5,IE6 instead of the usual MS versioning; 95,98,2000,XP,2003 etc. Think about it. Hmm?

    Well I'm not waiting around for them to dump the only windows browser I use, so I'm going to make a switch now. Hopefully I can keep the pain to a minimum, but it will mean downloading the ENTIRE Java runtime enviorment on a dialup... I'll see you in 2020.
    • by RichM (754883)
      Well I'm not waiting around for them to dump the only windows browser I use, so I'm going to make a switch now. Hopefully I can keep the pain to a minimum, but it will mean downloading the ENTIRE Java runtime enviorment on a dialup... I'll see you in 2020.
      You should really be using the Sun Java anyway though, even with IE, because Microsoft are no longer allowed to bundle any form of it (i.e. Java VM) with Windows.
    • by rlowe69 (74867)
      Come on guys. I need 1.0 pronto .... Version 1.0 would be nice ASAP.

      What's with the obsession with version numbers? Firefox has been terrific for months and has been getting great reviews from the press and guys like Joel Spolsky.

      This is something the Mozilla guys have to convey to the public a little better: Don't wait for 1.0, switch now!
  • by mksolutions (675229) <<ed.ykswokob> <ta> <ralavak>> on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @09:53AM (#9559497) Homepage
    Here [neilturner.me.uk]'s a screenshot of winstripe in 0.9.1.

    Looks much better than in 0.9 if you ask me. Good Job!
    • It's no Qute. (Score:3, Insightful)

      by gumpish (682245)
      Still no comparison to the refined elegance of Qute, not to mention Qute more nearly matches IE's theme, making converting the average IE user much easier.
  • I see no changes to the theme, at least not for Mac OS X users, it's still got the same garish icons that showed up inexplicably in 0.9, and the original Pinstripe theme is still not available.

    I don't care if the icons have square boxes around them or not, but they should at least make the low-intensity monochrome Safari-style symbols available for people who prefer them.
  • One question: (Score:3, Interesting)

    by MsGeek (162936) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @11:20AM (#9560490) Homepage Journal
    Did they fix the memory leak in FireFox 0.9 for Linux?
  • For Mac OS X users (Score:3, Informative)

    by majid (306017) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @12:24PM (#9561189) Homepage
    If you want the Tab Browser Extensions to work, use the "Smoke" theme instead of the default one. Kind of ironic that Firefox is standardizing on the OS X inspired theme on all platforms, when that theme is broken on OS X itself...
  • by JWW (79176) on Tuesday June 29, 2004 @12:26PM (#9561210)
    Has anyone had problems with /. rendering in mozilla.

    When the main page comes up with a banner ad on the side of the page it mangles the text in the column on the left and the main stories column?

    I thought 0.9.1 might fix this but no dice. Also it worked fine in 0.8.

Last yeer I kudn't spel Engineer. Now I are won.

Working...