Mozilla 1.2 Betas Start Flowing 367
Asa Dotzler writes "Today mozilla.org released Mozilla 1.2alpha. This is a preview of what's to come with Mozilla 1.2 expected in early November. The new alpha contains great new features like Type Ahead Find which allows quick web page navigation when you type a succession of characters in the browser. In addition to the new features Mozilla 1.2a contains stability and perfomance improvements including a major boost in the speed of downloading mail on Mac OS X.This release comes on the heels of the security and bugfix follow-up to Mozilla 1.0. If you're a 1.0 user and you're not upgrading to Mozilla 1.1 or newer then you are strongly encouraged to get Mozilla 1.0.1 for security and stability fixes."
Don't forget... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't forget... (Score:2)
Well played!
Well at this rate... (Score:2, Interesting)
Seriously beyond the commonplace protocol upgrades and reworks I think that IE 7.0 will end up being quite the hard sell for the typical Windows User. This may present an opportunity for Mozilla/Netscape to steal a bit of marketshare if things go right. This will happen anyway as AOL is planning to move their browser engine over to Moz (already been done for the MacOSX version I believe) and the Gecko AOL betas run quite well.
J
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:4, Insightful)
Really? IE6 has mouse gestures, tabbed browsing and pop-up blocking?
Sounds to me like Mozilla is already more feature complete than IE... little conveniences like type-ahead find really don't compare to the three I mentioned above...
Those features in IE (Score:5, Funny)
IE6 has mouse gestures
Is Mickey [ O ] sticking his middle finger up enough of a "mouse gesture"?
tabbed browsing
Maximize IE, and your taskbar becomes a tab bar. Or install CrazyBrowser.
and pop-up blocking?
Press Ctrl+W real quick before the pop-up finishes loading.
Such are the workarounds IE users employ to emulate Mozilla features.
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:2)
Does anyone know if it's possible to selectively allow pop-ups on some sites you visit, but disallow from all others?
There are a couple of web-based applications I use for work that require pop-ups be enabled. I want and need popups for that specific domain, but no others.
Sort of like Apache's Allow From and Deny From commands.
Anyone? Bueller?
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:3, Insightful)
Mozilla *thinks* the popups are unrequested, but, as part of the application, the behavour is desired.
At times, the onLoad event of the document object opens one or more new windows as part of the application.
Among other things, this is what the pop-up blocker blocks. 99.9% of the time, this is exactly what I want. But for this particular application, I really *do* want (need) one or more new windows to be opened on a document onLoad event.
I have not found a way to enable or disable Mozilla's behavior in this regard on a per-site basis.
After make the earlier post, I realized that what I need, for pop-up blocking, is the same as already offered with cookie and image management.
Mozilla lets me block or allow cookies and images on a per-site basis. I'd like the same level of granularity for pop-up blocking.
Is this possible? Does anyone else have this need?
Have you tried the preferences toolbar (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Have you tried the preferences toolbar (Score:2)
That'll do in a pinch. Thanks!
Note: I couldn't install the plugin under my regular user account. I had to install the plugin while running mozilla a root, and then copy the prefbar.rdf file to my regular acount's
But nice to have. Thanks again!
There is no uninstall for the preferences toolbar (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:2)
I absolutly hate it. The majority of the use I've gotten from blocking comes from searching for some information, rather than sites I regulary visit. I really hope they add an option to choose betwean this behavior and the old style before the offcial 1.2 release.
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:4, Interesting)
How about that goddamned modal dialog window [mozilla.org] that pops up when it can't load an unreachable embedded element.
Please don't whine [mozilla.org] about how it's not nice to alias whatever.doubleclick.com to 127.0.0.1 in my hosts file. I know it's a kludge, but it's my hosts file. I don't want any traffic to go to those domains, whether it's from Mozilla or any other application.
Bug 28586 has been open for over two years and has 115 votes against it. (Moz team, please just swallow your pride and deal with the fact that your users just might not use their machines the way you do.)
(And the fact that hosts-based blocking is a kludge doesn't change the fact that modal dialogs for "document contains no data" or "ain't no host there" are just plain evil. The domain serving an image might be Slashdotted, for instance.)
Until I switch to Mozilla for everything, I still need my hosts-based blocking for the crap my proxy doesn't catch.
Of course, if I keep having to click on its goddamn modal dialogs instead of just seeing "X"s or broken image icons when a site's images are Slashdotted or blocked by my hosts file or firewall, I'll never use Mozilla as a web browser, let alone switch other parts of my life over to it. Pity. Apart from this bug, it looked pretty cool. But with this bug, it's unusable.
This has to go into the main builds.
(Disclaimer: if this made it into the 1.1 release, I confess I never bothered checking. Anyone knwo if it made it into 1.2? I can apply the patch and build the damn binaries myself if I have to, but most Joe Sixpack users can't.)
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:5, Insightful)
user_pref("browser.xul.error_pages.enabled", true)
So next time, try READING instead of posting a useless flame about your favorite bug.
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:2)
I love the Proxomitron. I can't believe the crap non-users put up with on their browsers -- pop ups, gratuitous flash advertisements, etc. My only complaint about the Proxomitron so far is that I'd like to be able to write a filter that would allow me to "whitelist" or "blacklist" a site via the right-click popup menu, or via a small toolbar at the page bottom. (I also use proxomitron as a gateway, and don't have it running on the computer where I have the browser.)
Ob Mozilla 1.2a comment: Type ahead find is, well, "interesting." It may take me a while to get used to it. But I have to say that I think the old find tool was kind of clunky to use, so anything will be an improvement. Other than that, I have seen no differences. It kept my old settings and plug ins. I can't tell if it's much faster or slower (this is a fairly fast box with plenty of free RAM.) And I don't use the mail and/or newsgroups, so they don't matter to me either.
Now, if they'd just go back to the old "salamander" icons instead of these heinous wagon wheels that are just more rectangular blobs on a screen overly crowded with rectangular blobs. They're too busy for fast, easy recognition, and have no inherent meaning. A salamander has no meaning, either, but it's a single color in an odd shape, making it very easy to spot.
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:2)
Check out JD5000 [rr.com]'s custom configuration files for Proxomitron. They have this feature and lots of others. One cool feature is to split all links into two: one that opens normally and another that opens in a new window. Beats right clicking.
Only complaint is that it's a bit of a pain to install.
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:3, Funny)
Easy. An all-new and improved EULA that gives Billg and the RIAA total control over your computer. After all, if you won't agree to such a reasonable thing, you're an Evil Terrorist Content Pirate(tm).
Re:Mostly nonstandard features (Score:2)
http://uabar.mozdev.org/ [mozdev.org]
A site that discriminates against mozilla users (Score:2)
What sites are you talking about?
The DMCA part was a joke, but the discrimination against Mozilla users is real. For example, click this link with Mozilla [tvthemetunes.net], and you get "You have accessed this page because you are trying to view MeTV in a browser other than Internet Explorer. To enter the site, please click here and download the latest version of Internet Explorer. (Mac users click here.)" For more such bugs click here [makeashorterlink.com].
Now watch them lose 30% of their market when AOL 8.5 for Windows switches to Gecko. (AOL for Mac and CompuServe for Windows have already switched, but AOL for Windows has more market share.)
Re:A site that discriminates against mozilla users (Score:2)
Re:Well at this rate... (Score:3, Insightful)
No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2, Interesting)
And I wonder if they're ever going to do anything about the memory footprint. Together with Windows 2000's awful VM handling, I'm in swap city every time I copy a large file, having to wait more than 30 seconds for my Mozilla window to be swapped back in.
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:3, Informative)
If you are looking for "major improvements worthy of a version jump", you need to compare 1.1final and 1.2final (for example.) Comparing 1.1final and 1.2alpha is not correct, because not all the 1.2 features are in yet.
I had Win2K swap trouble too, but new versions appear to be a lot better.
Gerv
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2, Insightful)
Having many features and good accessibility is far more important if you want to reach a big crowd of users. IMHO it's mostly the techies and programmers who keep whining about it being too slow or too big.
Yes, i can imagine my mother complaining about speed, but only if there is a very excessive lag (which is not the case in moz.), and even then she would probably blame it on the connection or so. Something like a memory footprint would never even come up in the mind of most regular users. It is easy handling, accessibility and standards support that will make mozilla a big player, and the type ahead feature is just one of the things i was waiting for.
Fixing performance can wait, companies like MS and Apple know this (remember releases of Win95, 98, OS X etc)...
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2)
It is not complete yet, though, so you may find that certain features are missing -- for instance, the cookie manager isn't there yet. You may also miss certain items that they yanked to unclutter the interface -- for instance, the ability to right-click on an image and block future images from that server.
Nightly builds are here: http://komodo.mozilla.org/pub/phoenix/nightly/late st-trunk/ [mozilla.org]
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2, Redundant)
If you are looking for feature jumps, you need to compare 1.1final and 1.2final (for example.)
Gerv
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2)
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2)
Anyway, since I've got 192mb of SDRAM in here, I'm not complaining. It would still be nice to see Moz shrink the footprint, though!
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:5, Interesting)
http://themes.mozdev.org/skins/pinball.html [mozdev.org]
That said, Moz can be quite the memory hog, especially on graphically intense pages. One of the big mistakes I see that can aggrivate this is the practice of tiling single-pixel graphics over a huge area. I'm not familiar with the gecko code, but I'm guessing that rather than rendering the tiled image once and keeping a handle for the resulting bitmap, Moz renders the image over and over again as it tiles and keeps a handle for each tile.
PHPBB sites are particularly bad about this, since the 'Sub Silver' theme uses several images that are about 5 pixels wide x 30 pixels tall. 150 pixels total. If you have to cover an area that is 1000 pixels wide, you need 200 repetitions of that 5 pixel wide image. If you repeat that area 25 times, and keep seperate instances of the image for each tile, you end up keeping the image in memory 5000 times.
Anyone more familiar with Gecko willing to comment on the actual mechanism of how it handles tiled images like this?
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No major news, and still a memory hog (Score:2)
Alpha suddenly equals Beta? (Score:4, Funny)
The headline states Mozilla 1.2 "Beta" only to be told that the MOzilla 1.2 Alpha was released.
I swear you're like my wife who says's it's almost 7:00 at 6:30.
It's all relative I guess.
Cheers,
Jonathan
I swear you're like my wife who says's it's almost (Score:2, Funny)
Download Manager with no restart functionality? (Score:4, Interesting)
I have to wonder what the rationale behind including a download manager with no scheduling or restart functionality is.
Oh well. I assume that this will come along eventually, just like everything else. The team has fixed both the bugs I submitted for 1.1a (table layout problems), so I will assume that they will eventually get around to this kind of functionality.
Re:Download Manager with no restart functionality? (Score:2)
No more .zip? (Score:2)
The release notes even say "In this release the feature does not work in installer-builds you need to get a
Re:No more .zip? (Score:2)
Re:No more .zip? (Score:2)
Unzip the exe (Score:2)
It's an alpha. (Score:5, Informative)
1.0.1 [mozilla.org] was also released recently. This is a bugfix release for those people using 1.0 who don't want to upgrade to 1.1final or 1.2alpha.
Gerv
switch from Opera to Mozilla? (Score:2)
Re:switch from Opera to Mozilla? (Score:2)
Re:switch from Opera to Mozilla? (Score:2)
Also, I don't use Opera so I don't know but I'm under the impression that if you don't pay for it then it displays ads. Is that correct?
-jfedor
Re:switch from Opera to Mozilla? (Score:2)
I was an affirmed IE snob and I now use Mozilla for 90% of my surfing.
Question (Score:2)
Is there some sort of preferences manager that deals with all the options this new functionality is bringing about? The reason I ask is that whilst type ahead find looks and sounds rather nice, I don't think that adding a line of text to a flat text file is exactly the most user-friendly way of doing things. Especially not in a Windows world anyway.
On a side note, it's like when NS7 is mentioned without the pop up ad filter and you invariably get the posting that says "edit this file, add this line, remove this comment and it's done!". Might be easy to us, but probably not to those people that we'd like to encourage to use something apart from IE.
Re:Question (Score:2)
Also, 10Mb at 3k per second -> 55 minutes. In actual fact, it's about 13Mb so it might take you an hour and a quarter. I don't know where you live, but that shouldn't cost you more than a pint of beer in local currency.
Gerv
Type ahead find (Score:2, Interesting)
That is the problem with the behaviours of the mozilla interface widgets : they don't behave like any plateform.
Would it be too hard to make the widgets behave diffently depending on the plateform ? For example, when you click once in the address bar, all the text gets selected. That works on Windows, but not on the Mac, where the standard is to insert the bar cursor at the point where you clicked. The same for clicking in the scrolling bars : it only pages once, not repeatedly like on a Mac. The same for the dropdown menu (see the comparison of the windows drop down menu and the mac one by Bruce Tognazzini), etc etc.
I think people like visual inconsistency (themes, skins), but hate behavioural inconsistency.
XFT builds... (Score:2)
Does this mean I'll be able to download a version with XFT anti-aliased font support, like I did with 1.0? I have 1.0 with XFT which I downloaded from here [mozilla.org], and I've been waiting to upgrade but I couldn't bear to lose my AA fonts.
In case you haven't seen it, I have a screenshot of Mozilla with AA fonts here [swoo.net].
For
--Jon
Re:XFT builds... (Score:2)
--Jon
Spellchecker may not work (Score:2)
Normally, at this point, I would mention that there's a Spellchecker available for Mozilla [mozdev.org]. However, it appears that the Spellchecker is broken with all nightly builds after August 30th [mozdev.org] (and I'm not certain whether 1.2alpha is affected as well)
The spellchecker-broken bug [mozdev.org] has been filed as a "blocker" (highest possible severity), but there's been no progress since August 31st (when the bug was filed). :-/
Re:Spellchecker may not work - what about 1.1? (Score:3, Informative)
I can confirm that the version on the Spellchecker installation page [mozdev.org] does indeed work with builds from mid-August and earlier (likely including 1.0 and 1.1).
Really, it's just the recent nightlies (and possibly 1.2alpha) for which the Spellchecker is broken.
Bayesian anti-spam filters (Score:3, Interesting)
Remember that Slashdot article [slashdot.org] on Paul Graham's method of spam blocking through Bayesian filters [paulgraham.com]?
In case not, the basic idea is that spam can be fairly reliably detected through statistical analysis of word choice. For instance, a message containing the word "GNU" probably isn't spam, while one containing "remove" might just be (but see the write-up [paulgraham.com] for more detail).
Anyhow, there's been a bug filed [mozilla.org] requesting Bayesian filtering for Mozilla. If you're interested in the feature, you may wish to vote for the bug [mozilla.org] (of course, you'll need a free Bugzilla account [mozilla.org] to vote).
Re:Bayesian anti-spam filters (Score:2)
But how a bout a Bayesian filter for virus mails?
Opening new windows (Score:2)
I just can't use a program which randomly overwrites my open windows.
'Solution' (Score:2)
Re:Opening new windows (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Opening new windows (Score:2)
And when opening 15 links from my RSS reader program, I really don't fancy switching back and forth that many times.
I hope they fix it soon, and then I'll happily join in the fun.
VI syntax for searching (Score:5, Interesting)
Wonder if it supports ? for backwards searching, i for case insensitive...
Yes! Yes! Yes! (Score:2)
Thanks, you just made my night...
Cheers,
Jim
Type ahead find (Score:2)
Type ahead find (Score:5, Interesting)
However, I'm slightly concerned about the description [mozilla.org] of this feature. I gather this appeared in IE, and I fear that mozilla is more concerned with "parity" than with the most usable implementation. (Do you realize that when using the mouse wheel to change text size, going up makes the text smaller? Copied from IE. Won't fix. Bug 146491 [mozilla.org])
It appears to start searching as soon as you type a letter. This rules out all other possible uses for the letter characters. All of the most accessible keys on the keyboard "used up", just to avoid having to hit a command key to start searching in links. Even though you already have to hit a command key ("/") to search in the full text. If we want more keyboard functions, only punctuation keys (or key combinations) are available. For example, to seach for "foo" I can type "/foo", but to get the next hit, I have to do Ctrl-G, instead of something convenient like "n". This seems shortsighted.
Well, I'll have to try it before I can be sure of my criticism, but from what I understand, this feature could become much more powerful if the implementors design it well, instead of merely copying IE.
Re:Type ahead find (Score:2)
For fun, click that link. You'll see this:
-----
Ook! (title)
Sorry, links to Bugzilla from Slashdot are disabled.
-----
So, copy the link, then open a new window and paste. (You think you can protect your servers from the likes of us? mwa ha ha ha ha!)
Re:Type ahead find (Score:2, Informative)
And there is no way to prevent it from the application side. But Mozilla promised a fix in the next week for that problem.
chregu
Re:Type ahead find (Score:2)
Ah well, different folks, strokes etc.
--Jon
Re:Type ahead find (Score:2)
I can see that, actually. You might also think of it as a "zoom" operation, so scrolling down makes the eye go down and the text get bigger (never mind that it affects only the text, so it's not truly zoom). But it's hard for me to believe that many people would find this intuitive. Even when I think "zoom", I have to model it consciously in my head before I can decide which way to scroll. Moreover, the feature is called "change text size" (or something like that--not running mozilla ATM), which clearly implies that up should increase the size.
So while I believe you, I think there is a much stronger case for "up means bigger" as the default. I also think it should be customizable, but the mozilla people have decided that software, the most malleable stuff we can create, should not be adaptable to the user.
Waste of keys (Score:2)
I think it is a waste of keys. It is better to activate type ahead find with some key (such as
Moz 1.0.x is better than 1.1 (Score:2)
I tried the Moz 1.1 RPM on my RH 7.2 system, and suddently, the textarea tag screwed up constantly. Text did not wrap, and an "A" tag would cause not only the text in the textarea to become a link, but also submit buttons, and just about everything in the form!
I couldn't even post to
rpm -e `rpm -qa | grep mozilla`; rpm -Uvh
Now it's better...
Re:Moz 1.0.x is better than 1.1 (Score:2, Informative)
speed (Score:2)
I try to use Mozilla but I'm always drawn back to IE because its just snappier. I think that Microsoft pins the IE pages also. Even when I keep Mozilla resident, my system swaps like no tomorrow when using Mozilla on a PIII 866Mhz system w/ 384mb RAM
Its the same experience I have with emacs. I keep trying but always succumb to vi. vi is just more responsive.
Re:speed (Score:2)
I try to use Mozilla but I'm always drawn back to IE because its just snappier. I think that Microsoft pins the IE pages also. Even when I keep Mozilla resident, my system swaps like no tomorrow when using Mozilla on a PIII 866Mhz system w/ 384mb RAM
What the hell do you have loaded? With five tabbed pages in Moz with maybe forty sites visited, my memory usage (Linux) is clocking eight processes sharing 57MB. My TOTAL memory usage for the whole system is around 197MB (of which 110MB is currently in RAM, the rest is swapped out) and that includes Emacs, Lotus Notes running on Wine, Gnumeric and all the GNOME libs supporting that, system monitors, IM app running on Java and about 25 remote processes running through XFree. If you are swapping on 384MB RAM, you need to tune your system more carefully or something else is swallowing your memory, cause Moz is not the problem. And yes, all those processes are running on a PII 400MHz with 256MB ram so it's not as though I'm sitting on a God-like box.
By the way, vi is way too restrictive for the uses I put Emacs to. Maybe if vi gets a Lisp engine I'd use it for more than basic editing :-)
Cheers,
Toby Haynes
Re:speed (Score:2)
I think my problems with Moz at home relate to my frequent game playing. Mozilla just gets swapped out to disk because its got so much resident. Meanwhile, IE is integrated into the OS and its pages are pinned in memory so that it can't get swapped. I'll admit that its not fair however Opera seems to manage just fine. I recently opened an IE window, an Opera window, and a Mozilla window. I then started Medal of Honor::Allied Assault and played for a few minutes. I quit, and opened all three windows (such that they were all visible). IE popped up nearly instantaneously. Opera was next. Mozilla was chugging on the disk for about 10 seconds before its contents were displayed.
By the way, vim has the option to integrate a python interpreter. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer a Python engine to a Lisp engine any day of the week
Killer feature! (Score:2, Interesting)
Got mozilla: Open new windows in a tab?? (Score:2)
It's nice, however I'd far rather than when a new window is opened, it is put in a new tab rather than firing up a new window. CrazyBrowser [crazybrowser.com] does this and it's great!
Finally, is there any way (a la CrazyBrowser again) that I can set up a "Group" of bookmarks, so with one click I can open 7 or 8 pages in tabs all at once?
These two features alone (including the pop-up blocker) keep me with CrazyBrowser. If Moz can't do them (and I'm sure it can) then it would be a shame because I'd end up probably sticking with what I have.
Re:Got mozilla: Open new windows in a tab?? (Score:2)
Edit->Preferences->Navigator->Tabbed Browsing->
Open tabs instead of windows for->
Middle-click or control-click of links in a Web page.
Still waiting for deb... (Score:3)
Usability bugs (Score:2, Insightful)
These include the broken line wrapping that happens occasionally, the bizarrely greyed-out `launch file' option after downloading some types of files and finally, the irritating way in which if you download a file which turns out to 404, mozilla happily creates the file on your disc containing the 404 html and doesn't tell you!
Re:Usability bugs (Score:3, Insightful)
Thank you, Mozilla team. (Score:2)
Thank you, Mozilla team. I'm typing this into the 31st tab of one instance of Mozilla 1.0.1. I have two other instances of Mozilla running with a total of 14 tabs.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:4, Insightful)
That you can't do in Opera? Don't know, I don't use Opera.
That you can't do in IE:
1. Tabbed Browsing
2. Use mouse gestures
3. use radial context menus
4. use type ahead search (ala Emacs)
5. Use Mycroft search plugins to search from the URL bar or Sidebar.
6. Use other neat Sidebar plug-ins
7. use custom themes to "skin" the browser.
8. chat on IRC
I'm sure there are other things as well, but those are the first ones that come to mind.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2, Insightful)
10) Block pop-ups
11) Trust that the browser is not spying on me
The 3 "killer features" of mozilla for me.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2)
Must be hardwork tabbing to all the links
The beauty of having mouse gestures/pie menus is you dont need to alternate between mouse and keyboard. I wish mozilla would have the rmb+lmb =forward/back buttons that Opera uses, that is really easy to use.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2)
What exactly are you doing with your other hand? For me, keyboard+mouse is faster than mouse only or keyboard only. Left hand hits all the keyboard shortcuts, mouse in the right hand clicks all the links and scrolls. I never really have to adjust. If you are using the keyboard completely, then you have a lot of time on your hands. If you are using only your mouse, well...you have a lot of other stuff on your hand.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2, Informative)
And those who don't like tabbed browsing, I believe, haven't given it a try. Take Slashdot, for example. I middle-click on all sorts of associated links on the right of the screen, which load in tabs in the background, while I continue reading the page. I can then peruse the other tabs at my leisure, and close them with another middle-click.
Another feature Mozilla has that IE doesn't: shortcuts to bookmarks. For example, if I type "gg [something]" in my location bar that does a search of Google Groups for that thing. "PW" takes me to Pricewatch. "Dict" to Dictionary.com. These can be combined with Javascript ("bookmarklets") for truly nifty automation.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2, Funny)
Seriously though you are right there is an open source bias on this forum (one which I share), piss and moan all you want, if you dont like it dont use mozilla. Its not supposed to be for everyone, we believe in having software choice here, something the developers of IE dont want.
You seem to be one of those people who has to pan something because they dont like it, its not that youre trolling its that youre a bitter person.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2)
How long did you actually use this? Have you
The very first time I tried it, I stumbled, closed the wrong windows, and thought "man, this is a step back." But I kept working with it.
Now, I'm never going back. Middle-click mapped to "open in new tab" let's me browse articles with ease. An article has links to 3 sites that look interesting. I middle-click and it opens the tabs
Hmm. . . (Score:2)
Unless the percieved value of the alternative product is 'lower' than the one you happen to currently use, you feel hunted, ill at ease and inferior.
Head spaces like this tend to also lean heavily on denial structures in order to maintain a mental comfort level, which leads in turn to increasingly faulty and difficult to maintain world-views. This causes the whole system to cycle whenever somebody points out a flaw in your belief structure. Round and round you go!
Hint: The easiest way to escape from such a merry-go-round is simply to step off. (You are NOT the products you use. You are far better. Products are there to serve you. If a new product comes along which serves you better than an older one, then using it instead does not mean you were a fool for making your initial decision. All it means is that you are allowing yourself to learn and grow stronger without needless resistance. There is ALWAYS room for upward movement; nobody is 'done', and nobody need feel bad for not being 'done'. Embrace this thinking and you will grow very quickly indeed; so quickly that others will step back and look at you in awe.)
-Fantastic Lad
Re:Hmm. . . (Score:2)
I just want measure everything against the same yardstick.
If IE's only "innovation" was mouse gestures and a strip of tabs across the top, there would be nothing but bashing and flaming going on here.
I dunno what the blue hell your banter is supposed to be saying, nor any of the other flames attached to my post. I don't care.
I'm not going to become a cheerleader for a something just because it's "free".
"If a new product comes along which serves you better than an older one, then using it instead does not mean you were a fool for making your initial decision"
It doesn't serve me better. In fact, its incompatible with a great many sites. The fact that it may be due to the "narrow-mindedness" of web designers is irrelevent.
Bah, why bother.
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2)
Triv
Re:Umm.. Just a question... (Score:2)
Re:Mail *downloading* speed? (Score:2)
Gerv
Re:Can i use ANY mail software? (Score:4, Informative)
Put the following line in prefs.js, which is in your Mozilla profile directory.
user_pref("network.protocol-handler.external.ma
Re:Can i use ANY mail software? (Score:2)
Re:Can i use ANY mail software? (Score:2)
Two caveats though:
1) Slashdot inserted a space in the line. Took me a few restarts before I noticed that
2) This still opens a second Mozilla window which needs to be closed.
So thanks to you for the info, and a good job to the Mozilla developers for putting this in.
Re:Can i use ANY mail software? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Type Ahead Find (Score:2)
Re:Great - now when will they make it good? (Score:2)
Linux @ 750MHz Athlon - Runs great, nice and quick
HPUX @ 440MHz PA-RISC - Runs great, not sluggish, but not snappy
HPUX @ 300 MHz PA-RISC - Runs a little slow, but is pretty good after first loading.
OS X @ 500MHz MAC - Runs about as fast as OS X seems to run, could be faster all around.
Win2k @ 800MHz Intel - Runs great, nice and quick.
I don't see why it runs so slow on your solaris machine? I have run it on Solaris briefly a while ago and it seemed pretty decent. On Linux I think it runs great. I guess it depends on what you think a fast machine is?
Re:Great - now when will they make it good? (Score:2)
Something I've learned from endless Mac-OS-X-is-slow discussions-- don't just say 'fast' or 'slow', measure!
Re:Netscape 6 email, or a possible better client? (Score:2)
Stripping html from emails is possible. Importing mail from Netscape worked with the IMAP accounts, and it will convert the profiles. Nobody ever complained about missing any of their locally filed mail - so I'm guessing it works fine. YMMV.
Back up your Netscape mail (you do that anyway, right ?) and try and convert the profile to Moz. If it works, fantastic. If it doesn't you lost an hour and have a current backup of your mail 9which you wanted anyway).
Re:Spell Checker? (Score:3, Informative)
You have to download a JRE with the plugin (Score:3, Informative)