MozillaZine

Mozilla 0.8 Released!

Thursday February 15th, 2001

mozilla.org today released the Mozilla 0.8 Milestone. Builds can be found on mozilla.org's ftp site, and release notes are available at the releases page.


#1 Looks cool!

by zachlipton

Thursday February 15th, 2001 6:11 PM

Reply to this message

First, I wanted to say that I got the first comment. Also, it looks like a really cool milestone for us. A release that is well on the way to 1.0!

#2 Re: Looks cool!

by avisdurgan

Thursday February 15th, 2001 6:24 PM

Reply to this message

Is the Mozilla 0.8 found in pub/releases/mozilla-0.8 (2001021508) the final 0.8 version? Because I don't see any release notes stating that 0.8 has been released yet...

#6 yes

by zachlipton

Thursday February 15th, 2001 7:44 PM

Reply to this message

It really is. The release notes should be up soon

#10 Re: Re: Looks cool!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday February 15th, 2001 10:30 PM

Reply to this message

More accurately, it's probably a few days behind the current nightlies. The reason for this is because of a code freeze that occures in the days before a milestone is released, and only a few select bug fixes goes in while the main code trunk continues on without those restrictions. Off the top of my head I recall at least one bug fix that didn't went into Mozilla 0.7 that is in the currently nightlies.

Alex

#14 Re: Re: Re: Looks cool!

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Friday February 16th, 2001 2:10 AM

Reply to this message

You mean Mozilla 0.8?

#26 Re: Re: Re: Re: Looks cool!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday February 16th, 2001 1:47 PM

Reply to this message

oops, my mistake. It's Mozilla 0.8. Sorry about that. Thanks for pointing it out.

Alex

#16 yes but 0.8 is more stable than nightlies...

by RvR <mozillazine@mozillazine-fr.org>

Friday February 16th, 2001 2:36 AM

Reply to this message

this is the goal of every Milestone, as far as i understand it. being more stable than nightlies. nightlies are really for hardcore testers. Milestones are for the average surfer.

correct me people if i'm wrong.

-- Hervé - <http://mozillazine-fr.org/>

#22 yes, but

by Valker <ottoh@nic.fi>

Friday February 16th, 2001 6:01 AM

Reply to this message

I think I'm pretty much an "average surfer" but I still like to use nightlies because _usually_ they are as realiable and fast as milestones and sometimes they have some new cool things.

#25 re

by MenaX

Friday February 16th, 2001 9:56 AM

Reply to this message

Its one of those "Use at your own risk things" with the nightlies.

#27 Re: yes but 0.8 is more stable than nightlies...

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday February 16th, 2001 1:49 PM

Reply to this message

Yes and no. Initially a recent milestone is more stable than the nightlies, but after a while the nightlies will surpass the milestone in stability, performance, etc.

Despite the useful disclaimer that nightly builds are intended for "hard-core" testers, they are quite stable and very useable ... most of the time :)

Alex

#49 Re: Re: Re: Looks cool!

by ratman

Sunday February 18th, 2001 12:45 AM

Reply to this message

in this case, because the code freeze period seems to have been shorter than usual, the current nightlies are pretty much the same as 0.8 in terms of stability. the one notable exception might be the crasher with the font preferences seen in the nightlies but not present in mozilla 0.8.

#3 Links Panel

by hodeleri <drbrain@segment7.net>

Thursday February 15th, 2001 6:25 PM

Reply to this message

Don't forget to check out the Links Panel at <http://segment7.net/mozilla/links/links.html> It works just fine with Mozilla nightlies and .8!

#23 Re: Links Panel

by Yarnik

Friday February 16th, 2001 6:17 AM

Reply to this message

I was hoping this would have supported the LINK tag, see: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=2800>

#50 LINK toolbar

by lionheart <rlionheart@operamail.com>

Sunday February 18th, 2001 9:23 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, 38 votes show how many of us have been waiting and waiting for this. Meanwhile, while a patch has been awaiting review since before Netscape 6 branched off. Who do we have to bribe to get the LINK patch reviewed? :)

#55 Re: LINK toolbar

by FrodoB

Sunday February 18th, 2001 8:17 PM

Reply to this message

Twenty or thirty people who are concerned with coding quality. Last I heard, the patch wasn't quite up to snuff of Mozilla coding standards.

#4 Found first bug

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Thursday February 15th, 2001 6:31 PM

Reply to this message

Change themes. The View menu doesn't work.

#5 Re: Found first bug

by redpants

Thursday February 15th, 2001 6:45 PM

Reply to this message

Read the release notes, this is a known issue and there is a work around.

Here is where bugs are reported: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org>

#7 Congratulations Mozilla Team

by phuk32

Thursday February 15th, 2001 9:10 PM

Reply to this message

I am following the work on Mozilla closely and want to congratulate everybody involved for their commitment. Mozilla is a great piece of software and it gets better by the day. Keep up the good work :-))

#8 How different than the dailies is this?

by Xiphoid

Thursday February 15th, 2001 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

Just wondering if anyone can spell out how the daily builds differ from the milestones. Are they compiled differently? Is 0.8 essentially just the 20010215 build? Thanks!

Josh - mp3.com/bluevitriol

#9 Re: How different than the dailies is this?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Thursday February 15th, 2001 10:28 PM

Reply to this message

Actually, Mozilla 0.7 is about a week behind the nightly builds. The main development trunk goes through a freeze where only a few select bug fixes are allowed, normally to fix recent regressions and some "polish" that normally doesn't go into a nightly build.

After a few days of this, a branch of the code is created. The main trunk opens up again to continue work on the next version (Mozilla 0.9 in this case). The branch then gets more polish and only very essential bug fixes that won't cause any possible stability problems and after a few this, it is released as a new milestone (Mozilla 0.8).

Alex

#11 Re: How different than the dailies is this?

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Thursday February 15th, 2001 10:33 PM

Reply to this message

Generally, the daily builds from mozilla.org have all the debugging code compiled in, which the milestones do not. Debugging stuff adds a small amount of bloat, so the milestones should be slightly smaller/ faster. Also the milestones have been code-frozen and thouroghly tested for about a week, so should contain less bugs and regressions than the rapidly changing daily trunk builds.

#12 Related site not shown after clicking

by parallel

Thursday February 15th, 2001 11:28 PM

Reply to this message

The main window doesn't refresh after I click on the "What's Related" link.

I know I should go to Bugzilla, but I am not going to. Someone can confirm it and report it.

XP (definitely not related to Windows XP)

#15 Re: Related site not shown after clicking

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Friday February 16th, 2001 2:15 AM

Reply to this message

#17 Re: Related site not shown after clicking

by fab

Friday February 16th, 2001 4:11 AM

Reply to this message

That is a known bug, but since apparently nobody cares about what's related anyway, it's a very low priority bug... or you can find one of your friends to fix it :-)

Cheers, Fabian

#21 What's related - known problem

by kiko <kiko@async.com.br>

Friday February 16th, 2001 5:28 AM

Reply to this message

This has been fixed on the trunk, I think. It's a known regression. No big deal. Apparently it works on Mac.

#13 kind of offtopic but...

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Friday February 16th, 2001 1:30 AM

Reply to this message

Could someone try clicking on the link below in Mozilla and tell me what you see?

<news://news.mozilla.org/3…05.7971EF63%40clarence.de>

Since when has Mozilla been displaying newsgroup posting in the browser window? I think it is cool, but is there any downside to this? Like security issues?

#18 Re: kind of offtopic but...

by locka <adamlock@eircom.net>

Friday February 16th, 2001 4:48 AM

Reply to this message

You should ask this kind of question in netscape.public.mozilla.security. Someone there might know.

One potential security problem I see is that the linked article would run with the security settings of your browser, not your mail/news viewer. For example it might execute the JS in HTML attachments even if you had turned JS off for mail/news.

#24 Re: Re: kind of offtopic but...

by WillyWonka

Friday February 16th, 2001 7:53 AM

Reply to this message

That message DOES have JavaScript in it. It doesn't run for me.

#19 Congrats

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday February 16th, 2001 4:53 AM

Reply to this message

Congratulations with another great release. I just wanted to note that the perfprmance on a Pentium 60 with 96 RAM is _very_ acceptable, and yes i'm talking about the UI :) I've noticed that the UI performance tends to be better on Windows, so good news for you M$ lovers out there ;) Anyway, great work people.

#20 *performance :)

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Friday February 16th, 2001 4:55 AM

Reply to this message

NT

#28 Great, but still too slow on older Pentiums

by avisdurgan

Friday February 16th, 2001 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

I tried Moz 0.8 on a completely new computer at uni today (it had 128MB RAM, BTW) and I found it to be fast as lightning.

However, I'm now using the same Mozilla 0.8 on an old Pentium 90 MHz which does have a decent amount of RAM (40MB, to be exact). Even with only Navigator + PSM installed, Moz is still too slow for everyday use on this ol' Win95 box.

But I guess that eventually (when the version number is 1.0 or sooner) this great browser will not have these monster system requirements anymore, and will not at least run any slower than any other Win9x app on the same machine (or at least NS4.x). Then I can finally enjoy Mozilla on all of my computers, not just the ones with gigabytes of RAM.

#30 Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiums

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 5:59 AM

Reply to this message

Actually -anyone correct me if i'm wrong- i dont think you'll see such a significant decrease in memory usage even in the 1.0 release. Best thing to do is just buy some old computer from somewhere (presuming that P90 is yours) take out the simms and add them to the P90.. it really doesnt make sense on running mozilla on a computer that'll have to swap to the HD. For comps with little RAM i'd sugguest Opera, its fast and lean, and the banner is _far_ less annoying than any you'd come across on a website.

#32 win3.xx win 95

by billi_kid

Saturday February 17th, 2001 6:57 AM

Reply to this message

win 95 goes in history like win3.xx are you still use it? even MS don't want ppls to do that:))))

#69 YOU ARE WRONG!! :-Ţ

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 1:31 AM

Reply to this message

Seriously, for the mail and news part there are efforts to speedup and decrease memory usage with the thread pane display. There are also efforts to balance speed and memory usage of cache. I'm still watching lots of performance related bugs in bugzilla that are being worked on.

I agree with you though, that currently opera is better for low mem systems.

Basic

PS: Someone could also create a special chrome that would use less resource (less features) for low memory systems (and Mac).

#70 YOU ARE WRONG!! :-Ţ

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 1:32 AM

Reply to this message

Seriously, for the mail and news part there are efforts to speedup and decrease memory usage with the thread pane display. There are also efforts to balance speed and memory usage of cache. I'm still watching lots of performance related bugs in bugzilla that are being worked on.

I agree with you though, that currently opera is better for low mem systems.

Basic

PS: Someone could also create a special chrome that would use less resource (less features) for low memory systems (and Mac).

#34 Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiums

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:10 AM

Reply to this message

I think you have to look at it in this way: Mozilla is the browser of the future, not of the past (like NS4.xx). Therefore, it requires hardware of the future (like at least 128 megs of RAM), not hardware of the past (anything below 300Mhz and 128 megs of ram) Likewise, you're not running win2k on your P90 right? You stick to win95 because it can't handle the newer OS'ses. Why would the browser be any different?

#35 Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiums

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:13 AM

Reply to this message

I think you have to look at it in this way: Mozilla is the browser of the future, not of the past (like NS4.xx). Therefore, it requires hardware of the future (like at least 128 megs of RAM), not hardware of the past (anything below 300Mhz and 128 megs of ram) Likewise, you're not running win2k on your P90 right? You stick to win95 because it can't handle the newer OS'ses. Why would the browser be any different?

#40 Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pentiums

by avisdurgan

Saturday February 17th, 2001 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

> You stick to win95 because it can't handle the newer OS'ses. Why would the browser be any different?

Well, you may say that. But if I were to accept that, then I also have to accept MSIE as my primary browser on this machine (since MSIE5 runs fairly well on my P90). Do you really think that is fair? :)

#41 Re: Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pen

by garfieldbond

Saturday February 17th, 2001 12:52 PM

Reply to this message

Well, maybe after 1.0 someone can port the Mozilla Embedded version so that it does the same things but very non-system intensive.

#42 my comp runs it ok

by googleplex <inexio@netscape.net>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 1:10 PM

Reply to this message

I have a 200 mhz pentium pro with 128 megs of ram and it runs ok. It is perfectly fine when I am using it by itself or with a few other low memory programs but once i start to use other things (staroffice, napster, etc.) it slows down. The most annoying part is mozilla causes my music to sometimes stop for a second then come back in. It runs great on faster computers though. I would like to see however the embedded version worked on a little more so it could be used on older computers. It is a little buggy now and you can\'t really do much with it.

googleplex

#54 Re: Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pen

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Sunday February 18th, 2001 5:26 PM

Reply to this message

Well you could use NS4.xx..... or Opera perhaps (have to admit, I never tried that one). Adding more memory will help btw, it's not so much the processor that's keeping things slow, its the memory. Before I got my new Athlon 1200 w/ 512 megs of RAM I was doomed to run Win2000 on a P1-225 with 80 megs of RAM. Believe me, it was not fun :(. It runs just soo much better on 128MB even if the processor is not that much faster.

#61 Re: Re: Re: Great, but still too slow on older Pen

by sleepy

Monday February 19th, 2001 2:38 PM

Reply to this message

Try getting rid of IE and see if Mozilla (or any other apps) is any faster. When I installed IE4, Win95 slowed to a crawl.

#71 Re: Win32 has been left in the dust

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 2:04 AM

Reply to this message

I've been running Mozilla on Linux since... M10 (was it really that long ago?) At M18 it reached the threshhold of usuability. At 0.7 it was as fast as IE 5 on Windows, and it became my daily browser. At 0.8 it was absolutely flying on my machine, and memory use was lower than ever.

I have a AMD 450 w/ 64 MB RAM, btw.

I could not understand the complaints about Mozilla being slow (well, on old machines < 200 MHz I would understand.)

Then I decided to try Mozilla 0.8 on Windows. Now I see why everyone was whining. You all must run Windows! Page rendering is at least 5 times slower on Windows than on Linux. I'm not sure if there are outstanding performance bugs in the Win32 builds, or if Win32 just isn't getting the amount of developers attention as Linux, or if this is just evidence of the fundamental inferiority of the Windows platform.

In any case, I feel sorry for those of you that are Linux impaired.

#72 Re: Re: Win32 has been left in the dust

by pirat

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 11:48 AM

Reply to this message

Hmm, almost everyone I know with Linux uses NN4.7 cause Mozilla is a way slower. And even the ones with Windows uses NN4.7 or other programs for mail... (But I still believe in Mozilla :) BTW - if your Linux Mozilla runs quicker than W32 IE, believe me - I'm not the only one who'd like to see that.

#74 Re: Re: Re: Win32 has been left in the dust

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 2:48 PM

Reply to this message

On very basic pages, Netscape 4.6 may be faster, but for pages with complex tables and lots of graphics, Mozilla 0.8 is definitely faster than Netscape, seems faster than IE 5.0 running on the same machine. I'm going to do a time test, and I'll let you know the results.

#29 off topic -- cpu usage on downloads

by oopsilon <mozillazine.20.oopsilon@spamgourmet.com>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 12:19 AM

Reply to this message

Congrats to all developers on such an awesome project from a lowly EE undergrad :p

This is quite off topic, but I noticed that when I'm downloading files with Mozilla builds over the past few months my cpu temperature rises to 50+ degrees celcius -- as hot as when I'm running cpu-intensive games -- during the download. As a comparison, using Netscape 4.76 during a download hardly increases the cpu usage +1 degree celcius. Is there some feature that speeds up downloads (and eats up lots more cpu)?

Other than the cpu temp/usage annoyance, I'm very satisfied with the latest builds. Keep up the good work!

Sherman

#36 Re: off topic -- cpu usage on downloads

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:17 AM

Reply to this message

I think there was a bug about a month ago which caused Mozilla to hog up 100% CPU when FTP'ing... but that should've been fixed long ago by now... Can't think of anything else that might be causing this...

#38 Re: off topic -- cpu usage on downloads

by klee

Saturday February 17th, 2001 9:58 AM

Reply to this message

That's bug 65220 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=65220>. The is fix ready, but not checked in yet.

#39 Wrong link

by klee

Saturday February 17th, 2001 10:00 AM

Reply to this message

#45 Re: Re: off topic -- cpu usage on downloads

by oopsilon <mozillazine.20.oopsilon@spamgourmet.com>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 4:22 PM

Reply to this message

Already fixed? Can't wait to see this show up in the nightlies. Thanks!

#31 Wondering...

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 6:01 AM

Reply to this message

I was wondering. I'm aware Moz has some way of applying a stylesheet to all the pages you view.. but is there some way to turn Flash movies on low quality and to turn off "loop"?

#33 Re: Wondering...

by WillyWonka

Saturday February 17th, 2001 7:53 AM

Reply to this message

No, that would have to be done by Macromedia as part of the plugin.

#37 Re: Re: Wondering...

by Brendon <forbiddentears@crosswinds.net>

Saturday February 17th, 2001 9:30 AM

Reply to this message

Darn, ah well.. thanx anyway

#43 Java plugin

by charlesccli

Saturday February 17th, 2001 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

If I already download sun\'s Java 1.3 and install the plugin. Do you have to download the java plugin again for Mozilla 0.8? Thank you.

#47 Re: Java plugin

by l_j

Saturday February 17th, 2001 8:34 PM

Reply to this message

No, you don't need to download it again. Just copy "javasoft\jre\1.x.x\bin\NP*.*" into "mozilla 0.8\plugins". (There should be five files).

Start mozilla, and try java.sun.com.

#48 re: java plugin

by damian <daemonc@netscape.net>

Sunday February 18th, 2001 12:39 AM

Reply to this message

or if you run Linux and have already installed the plugin it will be registered and work without you doing anything.

#51 Re: re: java plugin

by skeeterow <skeetersrow@netscape.net>

Sunday February 18th, 2001 9:52 AM

Reply to this message

Hi this is the same that I see in the windows nightlies and M 0.8 I do a simple uninstall over the control pannel, install the new and the needed files are in the plugin folder.

#44 Java plugin

by charlesccli

Saturday February 17th, 2001 1:27 PM

Reply to this message

If I already download sun\'s Java 1.3 and install the plugin. Do you have to download the java plugin again for Mozilla 0.8? Thank you.

#46 won't install

by catthief

Saturday February 17th, 2001 4:29 PM

Reply to this message

Anyone have error starting the install? I'm getting uninstall.exe file is linked to missing export shell32.dll? thanks

#53 Re: won't install

by ola <ib-syd@swipnet.se>

Sunday February 18th, 2001 2:33 PM

Reply to this message

I had the same problem running Windows ME with 98lite IV, (so I can blast away all of IE) It looks that Mozilla recognise an old installed mozilla but couldn´t uninstall it. I tried to uninstall in Windows controllpanel and by hand file by file but still there was something left. Then of other reason I cleaned my harddisk and made a new installation of windows and then the installation of Mozilla 0.8 worked.

#56 Re: Re: won't install

by CatamountJck

Monday February 19th, 2001 12:03 AM

Reply to this message

I had this problem as well on another computer running Win98. I'm not quite sure of the problem but I'll check ASAP to try and remember what I did to fix it. I do recall searching the computer for anything with "mozilla" in the filename and deleting everything I found, but there may have been something else too. I know I did some similar registry editing but I don't recommend that and I don't think it made a difference. It will be a few days but I'll see what I can do.

#58 Re: won't install

by urichter <udo_richter@gmx.de>

Monday February 19th, 2001 1:33 AM

Reply to this message

I know that bug. A previous setup run dumped a folder c:\temp\ns_temp (or whereever your temp is). Delete the folder manually and setup should run without problems.

I did not check Bugzilla for this by now. Any volunteers? :)

#67 Re: Re: won't install

by Salsaman

Tuesday February 20th, 2001 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

#68 Sorry here is the correct link !

by Salsaman

Tuesday February 20th, 2001 8:57 AM

Reply to this message

#52 Mathml-SVG When

by skeeterow <skeetersrow@netscape.net>

Sunday February 18th, 2001 9:59 AM

Reply to this message

Hi Would one of you nice persons of higher abilities form planet Mozilly turn on the Mathml-SVG in M 0.8, please.

steve

#59 Re: Mathml-SVG When

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday February 19th, 2001 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

mathML and SVG enabled builds as well as builds on some of the more exotic platforms are contributed by folks interested in building with those features. If you know of someone willing to submit those builds please point them to the ports page where they can find instructions on submitting builds. Thanks

--Asa

#66 I hope they will be swiched on for 1.0

by Salsaman

Tuesday February 20th, 2001 5:44 AM

Reply to this message

N/T

#81 Re: Mathml-SVG When

by AlMalossi <AlMalossi@gmx.net>

Monday February 26th, 2001 9:11 PM

Reply to this message

Accoriding to this mozilla.org page

<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/>

" In the meantime, you can download nightly builds of mozilla with MathML and SVG support from Jeremy Baker's site (windows only). "

You can use this source: <http://jerbaker.dhs.org/mozilla/> ... ... at least if you have an Windows-System

#57 Stability

by hfoucher

Monday February 19th, 2001 1:08 AM

Reply to this message

I'd like to mention that stability has really been improved. Before 0.8 I had lot of "infinite loop detected" or crashes. Now everything runs fine.

I am waiting for 1.0 and I am sure not to be disappointed.

Congrats!

#60 Open back in new window

by jonde <joona.nuutinen@pp.inet.fi>

Monday February 19th, 2001 10:32 AM

Reply to this message

Yes I know this is offtopic and a crazy idea, but why not? It sounds stupid, but sometimes it could be handy. Why shouldn't this kind of new feature be available? Sometimes I click a link, and want to open the previous page also in another window. So my propotion is to be able to open links listed in back in a new window. What do you think?

#62 Re: Open back in new window

by thelem

Monday February 19th, 2001 2:52 PM

Reply to this message

File a bug.

I'd suggest making it so that when you held ctrl and selected back it opened in a new window, much like when you click a link.

#63 Re: Re: Open back in new window

by vondo

Monday February 19th, 2001 6:40 PM

Reply to this message

Or for those of us with middle mouse buttons, clicking on that. Been thinking of filing an RFE myself for middle clicking on links in the toolbar. So often I want to fire a new window with one of my most used sites.

Does a bug like this exist?

#65 New features

by fab

Tuesday February 20th, 2001 2:39 AM

Reply to this message

Remember that such enhancements are REALLY easy to hack, using XUL and JS. You only need to know the basics and copy some keybindings and you're done. It's good to file a bug, but don't rely only on others to get all the features in moz ;)

#64 Suggestion

by rgelb <nospam@nospam.com>

Monday February 19th, 2001 9:45 PM

Reply to this message

This should normally go into news.mozilla.wish (or something similar) but Earthlink's NGs are down. Anyway, how difficult would it be to add "Email this picture" menu item when right clicking on an image? Is this someting handled by XUL?

#73 Re: Won't even start on WinNT

by janbenes <janbenes@usa.net>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 1:56 PM

Reply to this message

After installing M0.8 I have got splash screen for few seconds, then it closed and - nothing. Removing profile, reinstallation and restart does not help. Chrome is original.

#75 Re: Re: Won't even start on WinNT

by arnoudb <arnoudb@dds.nl>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 4:43 PM

Reply to this message

Did you also remove the files mozver.dat and mozregistry.dat from your Windows directory?

#77 Re: Won't even start on WinNT

by janbenes <janbenes@usa.net>

Thursday February 22nd, 2001 10:57 AM

Reply to this message

Deleted and still does not start. M 0.7 starts fine. Jan

#76 Just For Kicks

by jpsimons <jpsimons@u.washington.edu>

Wednesday February 21st, 2001 8:45 PM

Reply to this message

I went back and used Netscape 4.08. Haven't used it in ages, but man, looking at that makes you realize how far Mozilla has come!

One things, though, I couldn't find a bug on this -- my memory cache hasn't ever worked. Every time I go back or forward, my modem lights up. In IE, I go back and forward with no network action at all.

Other than that, Mozilla is looking great!

#78 Preloader...

by Frithiof <curdt88@yahoo.com>

Saturday February 24th, 2001 1:33 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know all that much about coding myself, but I think that it would be interesting if someone were to create an optional preloader for Mozilla that ran when you started up Windows that loaded up some of the, uh, core files and stuff so that there wouldn't be so much of a wait every time you load Moz for the first time (not that it's the WORST wait in the world, I'm just saying there is room for improvement still, right?)

#79 Re: Preloader...

by klee

Sunday February 25th, 2001 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

That request is bug 36283.

#80 Re: Re: Preloader...

by Frithiof <curdt88@yahoo.com>

Sunday February 25th, 2001 2:26 PM

Reply to this message

oh... I just read about that... I'm glad to see it's being worked on (I hope?)

I just have one little beef with that, though, I hope when they create a preloader for the Win32 systems, they stick the link inside the Startup directory, and not in the registry (the Windows registry is the greatest abomination known to man), because it's a real pain in the ass to clean up defunct references in there when faulty programs don't clean up after themselves (and slow my 'puter to a crawl eventually)

#82 Yum

by kerz <jason@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday February 27th, 2001 4:21 PM

Reply to this message

This is cool.

#83 Java Plugin Installation

by gsarwar <gsarwar@technologist.com>

Wednesday February 28th, 2001 1:04 PM

Reply to this message

First time, I tried to install Java plugin on linux for mozilla0.8, it didn't work. I've found a workaround and want to share if somebody else is facing the same problem: Let me tell you what I did. I went to java.sun.com, it asked me to download javaplugin, yes and I select Java Plugin for linux. It started installing and then it said "Java Plugin Installation Successful". I closed mozilla and opened it again, browsed java.sun.com, it again prompted for the plugin. What is wrong? I observed that it created a dir java2 in plugins dir. I just had to create a symlink: ln -s /usr/local/mozilla08/mozilla/plugins/java2/plugin/i386/ns600/libjavaplugin_oji.so /usr/local/mozilla08/mozilla/plugins/libjavaplugin_oji.so Now, when I restart the browser and viisted java.sun.com, it worked.

Good Luck!