MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.0 RC1 Released

Thursday April 18th, 2002

mozilla.org today released the first 1.0 Candidate, in preparation for a final 1.0 build. They'll be using RC1 to evaluate where the 1.0 branch stands as far as crash bugs, and other things that drivers@mozilla.org are tracking. RC1's changes since 0.9.9 include the abilty to view the source of a cgi (the most duped bug), reorganized context and main menus, LDAP over SSL, return recipts, new animated mail alerts on Windows, Download Manager, final xul syntax changes, and numerious other bug fixes.

You can download RC1 from mozilla.org's Releases Page or read the Release Notes. We highly encourage you to download the talkback enabled builds, so crashes can be found and logged prior to 1.0. (These pages haven't reached mozilla.org yet, you can grab builds from the FTP site.)

Once people start using RC1 and drivers@mozilla.org get a handle on how the reception of it goes, they will be deciding whether or not to release another candidate or 1.0 itself. We'll keep you updated on this process, and let you know what is decided.


#1 How come . . .

by DJGM2002

Thursday April 18th, 2002 2:56 PM

Reply to this message

The news of 1.0RC1 being unleashed appears here on Mozillazine before it even gets a whisper over on the homepage of Mozilla.org? Someone here is obviously very quick off the ball, and probably watches Mozilla's ftp servers like an open source hawk!

#2 Asa?

by thelem

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

I'm guessing having Asa on the list of contributors helps a little... I assume he would be in any meeting deciding if build x is RC1 or not.

#8 asa

by kryptolus

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:53 PM

Reply to this message

Well. Asa is a driver and he's one of the people know when it's going to be released.

#5 Re: How come . . .

by thegoldenear

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

knowing about it is just a case of being on the IRC channel at the time its first announced, as everything happens there before it happens on the web

#7 Re: How come . . .

by davidboydca

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:52 PM

Reply to this message

A half hour ago, I looked <http://www.mozillazine.org.> Nothing about RC1.

Then, for a lark, I decided to look at <http://www.mozilla.org.> RC1 was listed as released there.

I don't think you're right about MozillaZine having a jump on the news.

#3 woohoo! (n/t)

by Hendikins

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:10 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#17 Re: w00! (n/t)

by michaelg <mike@vee.net>

Thursday April 18th, 2002 6:22 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#4 Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by SomeGuy

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:44 PM

Reply to this message

What gives with the installer version not working on Windows 95? (Especially when the browser iteself does work on Windows 95.)

#6 Re: Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by thegoldenear

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:50 PM

Reply to this message

it would be even more helpful if you filed a bug about this then gave the bug number in this thread

#10 read the release notes people

by kryptolus

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:54 PM

Reply to this message

The bug he's talking about is mentioned in the release notes. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=135570>

#69 Re: Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by jorgenson

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:35 PM

Reply to this message

Using Windows 95 - read Release Notes on problem with loading Mozilla RC1 - downloaded "zip" file as per instructions. Used Norton swunzip utility to unzip the file.

Received very strange messages - could not overwrite Netscape6.exe, could not over write a "binary" file. Just could not open and use RC1.

Have tried everyting - any help?

#81 Re: Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by Benman

Friday April 19th, 2002 5:29 PM

Reply to this message

Try Winzip ( <http://www.winzip.com> ), as far as I know it works on win95.

#96 Re: Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by kberk <kberk@bigfoot.com>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 7:29 AM

Reply to this message

M$ does not support Windows 95 anymore, I think its time for people to upgrade. Perhaps to Linux:)

#9 Why do Release Notes Think JDK 1.4 is Not Out

by TonyG <tony.gorman@blueyonder.co.Yuk>

Thursday April 18th, 2002 3:54 PM

Reply to this message

"LiveConnect does work with Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 1 There remain some LiveConnect problems with the combination of Mozilla 1.0 Release Candidate 1 . and JDK/JRE 1.3.X. Fixes for a number of remaining LiveConnect problems are being incorporated into JDK 1.4 and will be available when that release of JDK/JRE is available later this year."

Its been out for nearly 2 months. Has someone forgot to enable LiveConnect for x86?

#11 Dream come true

by davidboydca

Thursday April 18th, 2002 4:01 PM

Reply to this message

I love the ability to add all your open tabs as one bookmark item. I've been wishing for something like this.

Also all the new managers are very cool, especially the ability to set a master password and encrypt your information.

New search options in the bookmarks are useful, though I wish, in the bookmark search results, it would show you what bookmark folder the bookmark resides in.

Mozilla is a delicious treat!

#22 Re: Dream come true

by bmacfarland

Thursday April 18th, 2002 9:29 PM

Reply to this message

I agree. The multitab in one bookmark was on key item I've been looking for since, the MultiZilla days. This will make my web development so much easier, because I can open all my resources (a preview of my work, various manuals, HTML references and such). I think it would be better if it appended the tab group to any current tabs though. I've created my web development tab group, my baseball tab group, and my news tab group. Now, I have three Mozilla windows open which somewhat defeats the purpose of the tabs in the first place.

#25 Re: We need a Mozill News Site with an Attitude!

by grayrest

Thursday April 18th, 2002 10:36 PM

Reply to this message

Not at all, your windows are grouped by logical topic. I arrange my workspace in just such a hiearchical fashion. If you had all the tabs for all the groups in one window, that would be just like having a billion windows open. With the topical tabs in a window scheme I can find the tab I'm looking for much more quickly.

#49 Re: Dream come true

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:59 AM

Reply to this message

I can't seem to figure out how to do this? Explain?

#51 Re: Dream come true

by bmacfarland

Friday April 19th, 2002 9:08 AM

Reply to this message

Bookmarks --> File Bookmark --> Click the "File as Group" checkbox. You'll need to have all the tabs loaded with all the pages you want to save as the group.

#58 hmm

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:22 AM

Reply to this message

But there isn't any way to make it opens all the tabs at once? All I see if a folder with several bookmarks from my tabs in it, not exactly speedy to open.

#62 Only works in the bookmarks menu

by Ripat <ripat@spray.se>

Friday April 19th, 2002 12:34 PM

Reply to this message

It seems it doesn't work on bookmarks placed on the toolbar...

/Ripat

#97 Re: Only works in the bookmarks menu

by tjwhaynes

Saturday April 20th, 2002 9:52 AM

Reply to this message

Works fine on the 2002041521 build (linux) - I haven't got round to getting the RC1 yet.

Wow this is a killer feature though - load browser, click my quick start bookmark group on the toolbar and BAM six pages load into tabs ready for the morning's reading.

Amazing stuff.

#203 Re: Only works in the bookmarks menu

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 10:31 AM

Reply to this message

Yea, seems as though you have to use a new profile on builds very close to RC1 or after

#63 Re: Dream come true

by bmacfarland

Friday April 19th, 2002 12:57 PM

Reply to this message

I can open all the tabs at once. Once you have created a tab group (which looks different in the "Manage Bookmarks" view because it does NOT have a folder icon, but new icon that looks like group of bookmarks with a plus beside it), you can open it just as you would any bookmark and it should open all the contents in new tabs.

#105 Re: Re: Dream come true

by shipdoc1

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:59 AM

Reply to this message

How does one set up a tab group and startup tab group in Mozilla RC1? The only information I have been able to find comes from Multizilla and RC1 does not appear to have the same customization menus.

Many thanks

#108 Re: Dream come true

by bmacfarland

Saturday April 20th, 2002 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

#111 Re: Re: Dream come true

by shipdoc1

Saturday April 20th, 2002 12:13 PM

Reply to this message

My problem is inspite of a clean install under Bookmarks --> File Bookmark --> there is no "File as Group" checkbox. Do I need a plugin, an xpi file or is this function only available is cetain builds? Mine is 2002041711 Win Talkback Zip.

Thanks

#112 tabs open?

by jsgremlin <joshua@bluestarstudio.com>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

I'm running the same build, though I used the installer. This might be a dumb question, but do you have more than one tab open when you attempt this? The option only appears if there is more than one tab in the window.

#113 Re: Re: Dream come true

by shipdoc1

Saturday April 20th, 2002 12:56 PM

Reply to this message

Thats it. I had several tabs open on one window - all my medical sites - but only one tab on the Mozillazine window I was using to check the instructions. It's phenomenal!!!!! Thanks

#12 Did someone yet submit this to newsforge?

by Sander

Thursday April 18th, 2002 4:31 PM

Reply to this message

If not, now might be a good time to do so, before a certain unnamed party does so first...

#14 *grins sheepishly*

by Sander

Thursday April 18th, 2002 4:34 PM

Reply to this message

oh yeah, it's there already... - things move too fast for me, and I looked straight past it. Blame it on the excitement or something. :)

#30 Mozillaquest focus

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:48 AM

Reply to this message

Hm.. Ok. I know that we have talked ALOT about mozillaquest and that the most of you are bored with this but after reading his new article I just have to write down my oppinion regarding his focusing on bugs!

I think he is forgetting a very important fact when he looks at all the bugs he can find on bugzilla.mozilla.org.

Everyone can view and file in bugs to bugzilla! And because of that:

* because it's so easy to file in a bug alot of people are doing it. If I'm using a program and the program crashes there is a very tiny chance that the programmers will be aware of this. I might go to the companys webpage and look for someone to contact. But it is very often you don't find a proper emailadress to send to. It's the opposite when it comes to Mozilla.

You just open up an account an send in the bug. Very easy... And you also feel that you are apart of the project (who would feel that sending in a bug to microsoft ?).

I don't deny that the Mozilla browser has alot of bugs left... BUT I'm just saying why there is so many of them. In my oppinion there could be 100 000 more bugs in Mozilla. Don't care aslong as I'm satisfied with my browser :)

#13 Mozilla1.0.rc1=great

by _rgw_ <webbs@fayette.net>

Thursday April 18th, 2002 4:34 PM

Reply to this message

Despite some UI problems, rc1 is great. The tab border problem in classic is annoying, and the print preview (in winxp) height problem is ugly. If those problems and some top crashes get fixed, mozilla1.0 will be great.

#15 Composer Shortfalls

by CosmicDreams <cweber@gac.edu>

Thursday April 18th, 2002 4:50 PM

Reply to this message

I enjoyed using mozilla for about 3 years now and I'm very happy that a 1.0 release is quickly approaching. I know that only a few key bugfixes stand between this release candidate and primetime. I would like to take this time to talk a little about were I'd like to see my favorite component (Composer) by the next release (2.0)

These issues are composer as I see it:

1. Lack of Composer specific sidebars. Dom inspector, Javascript editor, and especially Advanded editing would be great to have as side bars or a collection of sidebars.

2. Nasty parser bugs: My personal most hated bug, Composer reformats source code (even though turned off in prefs) is still haunting composer. There are a few other parser bugs still spooking around that should be squashed if serious web programming with composer is mozilla's aim.

3. In the far future we main even be able to implement rudimentary command compleletion, code snippets, and other features advanced (yet current-generation) programming development interfaces use.

4. Support for WebDAV, CSS, XML, MathML, P3P, and the W3's Web Accessibility Initiative integrated into the GUI as well as the app.

Thankfully this time around we won't have to reinvent the wheel again. With higher system requirements, dedicated programmers, and cooperation within the community this is all possible.

I hope that someone directly involved with composer can comment on what it will take to make this happen and how I can get started in grasping the scope of these issues.

#16 There is DOM Inspector sidebar

by arsa

Thursday April 18th, 2002 5:21 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#38 Great Ideas

by _rgw_ <webbs@fayette.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 5:49 AM

Reply to this message

Those things might be here by 2.0! All things consider, composer has made a lot of improvements since I started to use mozilla.

#152 Re: Composer Shortfalls

by pbreit

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:50 PM

Reply to this message

I'd like to take some time to talk about where I'd like to see my LEAST favorite component go: in the trash!! Composing has NOTHING to do with browsing and is a complete waste of very precious and very limited mozilla bandwidth. MozCompose will never make it into AOL. MozCompose will never compete effectively with Dreamweaver, FrontPage, et. al. If Moz takes your suggestions, it will be another 4 years before 2.0 is ready.

#153 Re: Re: Composer Shortfalls

by zontar

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:58 PM

Reply to this message

I don't have much use for Composer, either, preferring Dreamweaver for rough layout and a text editor for fine-tuning. OTOH, NS4 Composer was the constant butt of jokes among site developers, ranking above FrontPage only because it didn't pretend to be a tool for professionals, so I don't blame NS/Moz for wanting to come up with something better.

#156 browser

by pbreit

Monday April 22nd, 2002 3:53 PM

Reply to this message

Forms? You're kidding. And, of course I do not use MozMail.

I know how an end-user can install a browser only. I also know how Mozilla could have delivered a stable, high performance, standards-compliant *browser* two years ago!

#163 How?

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 9:15 PM

Reply to this message

Ok, how Mozilla could have delivered a stable, high performance, standards-compliant browser two years ago?

Which of the developers who has been working on non-browser components would have spent time working on a single purpose browser-only project?

How many Mozilla contributors would not have contributed anything if Mozilla were just a browser and not a suite?

I know beyond a doubt that I would not be involved in Mozilla if it did not have the mail and composer components.

#164 faster? yes but...

by niner

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 12:46 AM

Reply to this message

I too think the browser could have reached 1.0 faster without the other components. Two years? *lol* of course not. maybe a few months that's all. And then I'd have to use any other mail client and would miss the quick generating features of a composer which does a great job at putting together a quick page that is still standards compatible and not full of nonsense.

Yes it would have been slightly faster but it would lack many important things that make it so useful for everyday's work.

#160 About Composer

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 8:01 PM

Reply to this message

Some call composer a "butt of jokes" and that it "ramks only above FrontPage" because it didn't pretend to be a development tool for professionals. Others cpomplin about composer delaying the "browser only" progress and making the project over two years late.

Well I like to view the situation very differently. I view composer as a very vital part of the Mozilla project. Without composer Mozilla would be much less the project it is today. Here is why I feel this way:

1. Many users want an alternative for Microsoft's email offerings which seem to disregard security Some are staying with NS 4.7 simply becuase of its mail program. Without composer could Mozilla deliever a quality Mail program?

2. Web Development. There is (at the moment) no alternative to Frontpage for Web development. Sure there are professional programs, such as Dreamweaver but this program, as good as it is, is much too costly and complicated to meet the needs of the low end market. Besides, Frontpage is very closely tied to Internet Explorer and Windows only. Frontpage is only fully compatable with IE. We need a cross platform alternative to FrontPage, and an alternative which respects the W3C standards and produces pages that any W3C standard's browser can view. At the low end FrontPage is used by many commercial sites. I don't like the fact that Microsoft, through its development of FrontPage, can control the standards used on the Web. I want an alternative which doesn't favour any one browser as long as it follows W3C standards. (Two years ago the Internet seemed headed to a future were the user reuired Windows and IE. Today, thanks to Mozilla and the continued development of Composer the prospect of an open Internet where theend user is free to select his/her own OS/platform and browser seems much brighter.)

3. I want Mozilla to be the prefered browser for web development and for this to happen Mozilla requiresweb development tools. It needs the Java console, Javascrip console, Javascript debugger, DOM Viewer and yes it needs Composer. Maybe Composer needs futher development and is not all it could be right now. But if we want to encourage Web Developers to use Mozilla for Web development Composer is a must. Sure the high end developers will still use tools such as DreamWeaver. But there is still a need for composer. If a developer needs to quickly change an item on a page and doesn't want to hand code the change will appreciate Mozilla all the more for Composer. Sure Composer requires more work. One day soon It will be good enough for the causual Web designer, amd eventually I forsee the day when even the the mid end Web designer will feel comfortable using Composer. Composer need to be developed and promoted. The more composer is used for Web design, the more likely the Web will retain the W3C standards and stay "open" as it was intended at its conception. The more Mozilla's Web development features attract Web designers to Mozilla, the more the Web will remain open and patform and browser independent.

I for one, cannot concieve of Mozilla without Composer. Composer is essential to the Mozilla project. It is essential to keeping the Internet aopen and free from proprietary issues. COMPOSER must not be abandoned! IT MUST NOT!

#162 I agree.

by joschi

Monday April 22nd, 2002 9:14 PM

Reply to this message

While composer is far from perfect (and really, come on, its a 1.0 release, how much can you demand?) its place is very valueable in the web world. As it matures, Moz will become THE primire development environment largely due to the awseom integration with the Dom Inspector and Java Script debugger which have nothing that can even compete. Many people are so short sighted in their view of things, I really look forward to the whole suite of Moz 2.0

#191 I would like to see a Composer Forum

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 6:56 PM

Reply to this message

Zontar,

"Thanks for bringing up these issues -- they're important, and they do merit serious thought and discussion. Maybe we should start a Composer topic in the Forums?"

I would like to see a composer forum--maybe such a forum could be set up here or in the newsgroups.

Let me clarify my reference to FrontPage:

1. I know that few persons doing serious web design are using FrontPage. Still it is used a lot by persons doing mid and low end work. The high end users use something better.

2. Composer and Frontpage are targeting a similar group of developers. Many develope non-comercial sites, but some commercial sites are presaently developed with Frontpage, although most of these comercial sites use Frontpage because of its low cost.

3. Often when a site fails to work in Mozilla, especially the non comercial or siyes developed by smaller companies Frontpage has been used to develope the site. If Composer was further developed and improved, maybe more people would choose it over IE.

I will give you one example why the improvement of Composer is so important. I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba. The only web site listing Movie times and links to trailer was developed by FrontPage. Guess what? Mozilla could not go beyond the first page and find out which movies were playing at which theater. I emailed the web designer and he said he would not change it since it worked im Internet Explorer. The fix was very simple and I am not a very accomplished web coder, but I drafted up a compatible page. Now it works. This would not have happened if Composer was able to do more and be more functional and had better acceptance among more users.

If we want sites such as this one to drive people away from W3C compatible browser to IE then abandon Composer. If we want people to be able to use W3C compatible browsers (i.e. Mozilla) then Composer must recieve continued developement and much needed attention. At the low end, cost wise, for web development there is only FrontPage. In this category Composer needs to be a strong player.

#193 Re: About Composer

by zontar

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 10:37 PM

Reply to this message

I see your point(s).

I'd prefer it if you started a new topic in the forums here. Any other votes on this?

#179 AOL

by pbreit

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

So when AOL puts 30 million users on Gecko and zero on Mail, Composer, Chat and News, can you conceive of Mozilla without Composer? Thot so.

#184 Re: About Composer

by zontar

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:53 AM

Reply to this message

1. Composer in NC4 sucked with a loud sucking sound.

2. I'm not saying that Moz Composer has to suck just because the old Communicator version did.

3. I totally agree 110% with your remarks concerning FrontPage. However, serious Web developers don't use FP any more than they use(d) NC Composer.

4. All I was saying is that I don't really need Moz Composer because I have other and better tools.

5. Last time I checked, Moz Composer was still using FONT tags. Give it a way to use CSS la TopStyle or Dreamweaver so users who want to roll their own Web pages can be brought out of the Stone Age. (Part of enabling users is educating them, no? Tell them CSS is like styles in Word, only better, and they'll get the idea.)

6. Composer or no Composer, IMO Moz already is the browser of choice for serious web development -- it's already got the truly important stuff. Excellent HTML/CSS/JS/DOM support. A kickass JS console and debugger. A good View Source (finally -- and thank you Moz Developers for fixing that "generated pages" bug!). And of course the Mighty DOM Viewer, which is a godsend. Tabbed browsing -- so handy when you're checking multiple pages or need to keep a couple of references handy.

I now build for Moz and then degrade for other browsers. :) I couldn't do this a year ago.

Erm, I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think Moz is already the best thing out there for Web developers. Give me a good Composer, and I'll use it (or at least give it an honest try). I'm not knocking it. But I don't really need it.

Thanks for bringing up these issues -- they're important, and they do merit serious thought and discussion. Maybe we should start a Composer topic in the Forums?

Sorry, I'm just rambling so I'll shut up now. :)

#186 Re: Mozilla censors?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 3:22 PM

Reply to this message

"Last time I checked, Moz Composer was still using FONT tags. Give it a way to use CSS la TopStyle or Dreamweaver so users who want to roll their own Web pages can be brought out of the Stone Age."

Edit > Preferences > Composer > Use CSS styles instead of HTML elements and attributes

Alex

#187 Re: About Composer

by zontar

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 3:41 PM

Reply to this message

Good deal, thanks for the tip!

jon.

#154 Re: Re: Composer Shortfalls

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 3:03 PM

Reply to this message

"Composing has NOTHING to do with browsing"

So you don't use Web page forms? Or write emails? They reuse Composer code.

Mozilla was started by Netscape to make a complete replacement for Communicator. That includes Navigator, Messenger (now Mail & Newsgroups), Address Book and Composer.

If you want a browser only, you may want to follow the progress of mozilla/browser <http://lxr.mozilla.org/mo…ource/browser/README.html>

Alex

#18 Cryptic downloads?

by foamy

Thursday April 18th, 2002 7:40 PM

Reply to this message

I'm on OSX and for the first time in ages I'm seeing those godforsaken cryptic download names like yjs2ljjj.sit

Anyone else see this?

#20 Seems okay now.

by foamy

Thursday April 18th, 2002 7:45 PM

Reply to this message

I restarted Moz and now it seems okay.

#19 1.0 Hurray--but

by myklgrant

Thursday April 18th, 2002 7:41 PM

Reply to this message

I am extremely pleased to see an (almost?) mozilla1.0 finally out. One tiny nitpick. I am tired of losing all the old themes (esp. GrayModern this time) every time a new milestone release comes out. Uncle already! Otherwise hurray, hurray, hurray.

#24 Re: 1.0 Hurray--but

by joschi

Thursday April 18th, 2002 10:04 PM

Reply to this message

well... some good news for you: the reasons themes kept getting outdates was that XUL's syntax was never frozen and went through major changes on the march to 1.0 ... the good news is: it is stable from here on out! 1.0 will be supported for a long time :)

#135 Re: 1.0 Hurray--but

by seymour <chris@blackplasma.net>

Sunday April 21st, 2002 7:18 AM

Reply to this message

I was annoyed about losing GrayModern this time too, but there is now a 1.0 version here: <http://www.xulplanet.com/…ory=skins1.0&view=all>

#155 Great :-) Now Mozilla is looking twice as good...

by afranke

Monday April 22nd, 2002 3:27 PM

Reply to this message

I've been missing an up-to-date GrayModern version for quite a while. Now with this pointer, using Mozilla is fun again. :-) Thanks for the link. Actually, I had to go to the main page over there (the original one gave me an error for detailView.dat), but from the main page it installed without problems:

<http://www.xulplanet.com/…tegory=skins&view=all>

#21 Mac OS 9.x: Cursor Problem

by TommyBee

Thursday April 18th, 2002 8:30 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know why, but occasionally when I browse web sites with Mozilla 1.0 RC1 under Mac OS 9.2.2, the cursor turns into the sidebar resize cursor when I move the mouse over the toolbar, menus, etc. and some functionality is lost. I only regain the proper cursor by either expanding and collapsing the sidebar or making the sidebar go away altogether in the View menu. I've filed a bug and was wondering if anyone else has come across it.

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=136809>

Tommy

#39 Re: Mac OS 9.x: Cursor Problem

by bandido

Friday April 19th, 2002 6:04 AM

Reply to this message

I have had that problem many times before. I usually get the right-left arrow cursor when I click on the Sidebar separator at the top (at the level of multiple webpages tabs. And as you mention, the cursos stays as a double arrow even as i try to click on any of the buttons on the navigation toolbar, personal toolbar or page tabs. I am using RC1 on Win XP Pro. I have noticed the same problem since 0.98. To bring the pointer to the normal state, I click on the Sidebar grippy.

#23 bookmark this page not working

by riconeo

Thursday April 18th, 2002 9:54 PM

Reply to this message

did u guys try that?

#26 Re: bookmark this page not working

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday April 18th, 2002 11:48 PM

Reply to this message

wfm

-asa

#27 Mac OS X URL bar bug?

by bobersona

Friday April 19th, 2002 12:22 AM

Reply to this message

Ever since I purchased my iBook and installed mozilla in OS X, I have never been able to hit <Enter> in the URL bar and have moz load up the address I've typed. I have to use File>Open Web Location. Has anyone else had this problem? Does anyone have suggestions?

#29 I have had this problem.

by foamy

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:34 AM

Reply to this message

I would use profile manager and create a new profile, then see if it still happens with the new profile.

If it works, then move over bookmarks and cookies, etc and delete the old one.

#146 Re: I have had this problem.

by bobersona

Monday April 22nd, 2002 12:26 PM

Reply to this message

The deletion of the profile fixed it. Thanks for your help.

#82 Re: Mac OS X URL bar bug?

by MXN

Friday April 19th, 2002 5:38 PM

Reply to this message

For now, you might try enabling the Go button on the toolbar.

#28 Internet Explorer Favourites Import

by Kris

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:22 AM

Reply to this message

I see they still haven't fixed the Internet Explorer Favourites import problem... it's only importing favourites during the initial account creation and thats it... :(

I was hoping that this would be fixed earlier... but as each nightly (and now RC1) goes by... it's still there.

Ah well... we can but live and hope...

#33 Re: Internet Explorer Favourites Import

by zreo2 <aa@globecom.se>

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:09 AM

Reply to this message

Have you filled it in as a bug ? I guess it would be easy for them to fix this (mostly because the code allready is there somewhere)

#41 No need to...

by Kris

Friday April 19th, 2002 7:06 AM

Reply to this message

I believe it's already logged... and has been for some time... but as always... it never gets fixed straight away. :(

#55 not a bug...

by wtmcgee

Friday April 19th, 2002 10:08 AM

Reply to this message

the bug was the fact that you couldn't remove IE favorites if you wanted.... THAT was fixed.

#110 erm... is a bug... read what I said properly.

by Kris

Saturday April 20th, 2002 12:10 PM

Reply to this message

I was referring to the fact that IE Bookmarks are no longer imported *except* for the time the account is created.

What used to happen is:

1. Load Moz 2. Load IE and add a Favourite in IE 3. Close IE 4. Open Moz and the bookmark would be there too...

Now, I can add thousands of new bookmarks, and Mozilla will *not* pick them up, until I create a new account or totally reinstall Mozilla.

#143 Making bookmarks mirror the favourites directory

by DanX

Monday April 22nd, 2002 5:12 AM

Reply to this message

1. Put C:\Windows\Favorites in the URL bar (or whatever it's called on your system).

2. Bookmark it.

3. In the Bookmarks menu, the bookmark you just made will be a folder that contains a mirror of whatever's in the favourites folder.

#217 This works, is it documented anywhere?

by jayseye

Saturday June 29th, 2002 6:19 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for posting this, DanX, it does exactly what I need. Do you know whether it's documented anywhere?

#177 Re: Internet Explorer Favourites Import

by tny

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 10:55 AM

Reply to this message

Most users would consider the behavior that you want to be a regression. So it's not really a bug.

#216 Re: Internet Explorer Favourites Import

by thrunner

Wednesday June 12th, 2002 11:18 AM

Reply to this message

This is not a solution but it is useful for IE users such as myself who are starting to try out Mozilla:

Favtool Have you ever wanted to switch browsers but were worried whether your bookmarks would survive the move? This utility converts your bookmarks from Netscape Navigator to Microsoft Internet Explorer and vice versa. <http://www.pcworld.com/do…_description.asp?fid=6052>

***************************** You appear to be using Windows. If you are on Windows NT/2000/XP: C:\documents and settings\<windows login>\application data\mozilla\<profile name>\xxxxxxxx.slt\bookmark.html

on Windows 95/98/SE/ME: c:\windows\application data\mozilla\<profile name>\xxxxxxxx.slt\bookmark.html -- ******************************

PS, I tried to bookmark c:\windows\favorites as another user suggested but got only a text link on Mozilla such as: <http://google....url>

#31 Themes

by zemoko <moko@yahoo.com>

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:56 AM

Reply to this message

The themes don't work anymore, I can just use the Classic one, for the others Mozilla said me thaht they have beeen designed for an earlier version of mozilla :( even the Modern one doesnt work :( Does anyone have the same problem ?

#36 Re: Themes

by seymour <chris@blackplasma.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:45 AM

Reply to this message

I had the same problem, so I just uninstalled 0.9.9 completely, removing (well, renaming the folders) the Mozilla folders in Program Files and the Application Data - it works fine now. Hopefully GrayModern <http://www.xulplanet.com/…skins&view=graymodern> will work with 1.0 soon!

#37 Re: Themes

by dxrobertson

Friday April 19th, 2002 5:00 AM

Reply to this message

Sometime after 9.9, the themes changed. I removed the old 9.9 themes .jar files from my profiles chrome folder, then installed the post-9.9 version of mozilla (now rc1), and can now use the new themes. Get the themes from the 1.0 page at xulplanet. I personally find Pinball an excellent theme; small and clean.

#144 Re: Themes

by fletchsod

Monday April 22nd, 2002 6:54 AM

Reply to this message

Yea, I have that problem. When I make the change from Classic to Modern. It said I need to restart the browser. That is after I clicked "Okay". THen restart the browser and it still show the classic theme. Oh well! I can wait until the final Moz 1.0 to come out.

Scott

#32 Text zoom broken?

by arpa

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:57 AM

Reply to this message

in page <http://www.wincustomize.c…ments_full.asp?NewsID=765> when using text zoom (from toolbar or keyboard) mozilla freezes. Anyone else seeing this? On other sites it works as planned.

#34 Re: Text zoom broken?

by borggraefe

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:22 AM

Reply to this message

I also see this problem. Using RC1/WinXP.

Stefan

#35 Text zoom broken?

by arpa

Friday April 19th, 2002 3:40 AM

Reply to this message

#40 Why is it slower

by Humbletester

Friday April 19th, 2002 6:48 AM

Reply to this message

After 0.9.9, I switched to using Mozilla full time (over IE). The main reason was speed on Win32 platform. Is it just me or RC1 actually is quite a bit slower than 0.9.9 for rendering pages and opening links (even on this page, without much text). In fact Mozilla is now (much) slower than IE for doing this. (If this is a bug, I don't know how to report/file it). I have AMD600Mhz+256RAM+Matrox G400

#48 Re: Why is it slower

by GreyPoopon

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:46 AM

Reply to this message

I can't make any comments about speed in comparison to 0.9.9, but I can say that it seems significantly faster than 0.9.8. Mozilla now appears just about right on par with IE for me when rendering pages. And opening links seems to be much faster than IE (for some reason, my IE pauses for a few seconds before acting on a clicked link). What is everybody else seeing?

#71 Fixed it

by Humbletester

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:41 PM

Reply to this message

Just needed to erase the previous profile and create a new one (I think it had to do with using language pack that was outdated in the previous profile).

#60 Re: Why is it slower

by krischi27

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:32 AM

Reply to this message

I hav a machine that is comparable to yours. The thing that bothers me most is performance. Scrolling speed on complex webpages is slower than IE, as well as opening html-files stored on the local machine. I have a nic test file. It is the manual of MySQL (version 3.23.47) in html-format. This file has about 2Megs and it takes the absolutely unbelievable time of 56 seconds (!!!, I did not mistype) to render it. You are right that RC1 is slower than 0.9.9. With that release it took an average ov 45 seconds (sad but true and: reproducable) for the same task. Tested the same file with IE 5.5SP1 and guess which browser was faster... Guess which browser is second best for browsing that file... I did not post this on bugzilla because there are already some bugs related to slow performance on opening pages. But I would really like to know if I am the only one with such performance problems.

#196 Re: Why is it slower

by jmd

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 3:11 AM

Reply to this message

<i>I did not post this on bugzilla because there are already some bugs related to slow performance on opening pages</i>

You can add your comments on theses pages, and suggest that what you describe as an interesting test to do, with comparisons between browser and browser versions.

#68 Re: Why is it slower

by mattdm <mattdm@mattdm.org>

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:30 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmm. I have a PIII 450 + 256MB ram + crappy ATI card at work, and performance is fine -- it's quite snappy, in fact. (Under Linux...)

#42 problems

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Friday April 19th, 2002 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

Well, it feels faster to me... however, there are some serious usability regressions.

1. Preferences panel is worthless. clicking on the left side of the panel does nothing. 2. Pressing the "Go" button is REQUIRED to view an URL typed into the URL bar. I've tried everything I could think of to get the Enter key to work, but so far no luck.

I'm about to go back to .9.9. I too am using mozilla as my daily browser, and I at least have to have #2 (and it kind of makes sense to have #1, don't you think? ;)

I'm on Windows 2000

#43 Re: problems

by cochonou <cochonou@captured.com>

Friday April 19th, 2002 7:39 AM

Reply to this message

I don't see this (yet). Have you tried creating a new profile and deleting registry.dat ?

#52 fixed

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Friday April 19th, 2002 9:08 AM

Reply to this message

I uninstalled RC1 then deleted all instances of registry.dat and mozregistry.dat. Then I reinstalled mozilla. This time, it created a profile in Docs and Settings\user\Application Data\Mozilla rather than in Program Files\Mozilla. From there on out, everything worked perfectly. I copied over some of the old files from my old profile, and now everything seems to be at 100%.

RC1 is a definite improvement over .9.9 for me.

#54 Re: Great!

by Wildcard

Friday April 19th, 2002 9:31 AM

Reply to this message

Program Files\Mozilla ? SInce when was the profile stored in there ? Its alwasys been in the same location for WIn2k at least

#65 Re: Great

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:38 PM

Reply to this message

It was always there for me. Of course, I've been using the same generally installation of Win2k (some installs over the top, but nothing fresh) since August 2000. I think I've installed every major milestone (over the top) of mozilla since M15 or so. I have downloads back to M5, but I'm pretty sure that I didn't install those on this particular install. FWIW, I started using mozilla full-time at .9.8. The speed improvements for the windowing system were what did it for me.

So I guess you could say that just like with Windows, my mozilla installation was in desperate need for a fresh install. ;)

#93 That is ususally the problem.. :-)

by dman84

Saturday April 20th, 2002 1:05 AM

Reply to this message

apparently you've never read the release notes or visited the newsgroups if you say you've actually been following mozilla.. I've been following mozilla since about M14 too.. but you certain got to read.. mozilla community has stressed new build directories and build profiles.. and installing over top of a milestone while it is still being defined from one to the next is generally not a good idea.

#100 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:34 AM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#101 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:43 AM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#102 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:43 AM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#103 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:46 AM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#104 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:49 AM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#107 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 11:20 AM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#124 But what about "upgrades"?

by baffoni

Saturday April 20th, 2002 9:12 PM

Reply to this message

I hope that they figure out how to change the system without requiring rebuilds, refreshes, and complete reinstalls of user configs - how in the heck will us IT types be able to support updates if we have to essentially migrate the entire user population between updates? It is hard enough that when a profile gets corrupt, it becomes a pain to re-setup - there is no way to import the old address books, prefs, etc. The only easy things to bring back are bookmarks, cookies, and security database. Even email has to be created before you can recopy emails.

#128 Re: That is ususally the problem

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:19 PM

Reply to this message

And apparently I didn't care to do it. As it was, it took me a good 20 minutes to move all the preferences, bookmarks, and saved passwords over to the new profile. When 1.0 is released, I intend to do exactly the same as I've been doing. Why should we have to recreate DATA when the only thing that ought to change is the underlying code. Without data integrity (And that includes protecting and extending it), the rest of the program is nearly useless.

So yep, I'm not in it to catch bugs. I intend to USE mozilla, not play with it.

#142 Re: Re: That is ususally the problem

by arpa

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:53 AM

Reply to this message

>So yep, I'm not in it to catch bugs. I intend to USE mozilla, not play with it.

I't hasn't hit you yet that Mozilla _is_ for finding bugs. If you just want to use Mozilla use Netscape or something instead. I'm also mainly for just using Mozilla. But if I find a bug or what I think is a bug I do a search in Bugzilla - in some rare cases I'm the first one to find out it's a bug and file it.

Often I'm so lazy that I don't even bother to check if someone has already filed a bug, but on the other hand I'm so lazy that I don't bitch about those bugs either. If a bug annoys me I file it, or contribute something to already filed bug or vote it. But I just don't whine.

I'm just happy I can use a great browser free and in a small way be a part of it.

#147 Re: That is ususally the problem

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 1:41 PM

Reply to this message

"I't hasn't hit you yet that Mozilla _is_ for finding bugs. If you just want to use Mozilla use Netscape or something instead."

Oh come on; give me a break. We both know that mozilla RC1 is MUCH better than NS6.anyversion. This doesn't need to be an ongoing discussion. mozilla is better, thus I use mozilla. The reason I posted regarding the problems I had was because no one else already had, and I didn't know whether or not it was a problem anyone else was seeing. I always wait a few hours after a download is announced to read the comments of those who have already upgraded to keep an eye out for any showstopper type bugs.

And I have submitted/votedfor/commented on bugs in bugzilla. I just don't use that approach right after an upgrade only to find out that it was just a stupid profile problem that won't get a second look by any devs anyway because it's old news.

I'm just happy you can use a great browser free and in a small way be part of it.

#166 Re: Re: That is ususally the problem

by arpa

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 1:36 AM

Reply to this message

Well you sounded like you just want the browser and someone else to fix the bugs. I apologise not to see what you really meant, english isn't my mother tongue.

>Oh come on; give me a break. We both know that mozilla RC1 is MUCH better than NS6.anyversion.

Yes it is. I think I haven't even downloaded those since 6.0. Galeon is quite good, suffers from same problem as other repackaged or custom made gecko browsers: Mozilla moves so quickly that they seem to lack all the candy that the latest nightlies have. (or seem to have)

>The reason I posted regarding the problems I had was because no one else already had, and I didn't know whether or not it >was a problem anyone else was seeing.

I'm puzzled why I even commented on your post then.

#78 Re: Re: Great!

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:27 PM

Reply to this message

Windows Mozilla profiles used to be stored under C:\Program Files\Mozilla\Users50 (or it may have just been Users). Sometime during 2001 it was changed to C:\Windows\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles under single-user Windows 95/98/ME installations (not sure about multi-user installations) and C:\Documents and Settings\Windows Username\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles under Windows 2000/XP (no idea about NT4).

Alex

#99 woohoo! (n/t)

by Hendikins

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:16 AM

Reply to this message

C:\WINNT\Profiles\Username\Application Data on NT4

#92 That is ususally the problem.. :-)

by dman84

Saturday April 20th, 2002 1:01 AM

Reply to this message

new profile and build directory fixes alot of brokeness.. this is a must if you use mozilla as it keeps changing..

#44 Q about system requirements

by Ryouga

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

Has work to reduce the browser's footprint (how much RAM and CPU speed is required) been shelved? I was hoping that Mozilla wouldn't really require that the computer have 64MB installed to run well. :)

#129 Re: Q about system requirements

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 11:25 PM

Reply to this message

Maybe it is unreasonable to expect support for CSS92 and Coffeepot Markup Language with only 64 megabytes.

#134 Never ending battle

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Sunday April 21st, 2002 5:13 AM

Reply to this message

Work is constantly being done to reduce Mozilla's footprint; however it is hard to really show a lot of long term progress because at the same time Mozilla's capabilities are being increased. One patch will go in to reduce the footprint and then another patch will go in to add support for another standard which increases the footprint.

BTW, what OS are you running? Most modern operating systems require almost 64MB just to run themselves without any actual apps. Does any major PC manufacturer sell computers with less than 64MB RAM these days?

#45 Final XUL syntax changes?

by johann_p

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:27 AM

Reply to this message

What exactly does that mean? Is the XUL specification document now final and complete? Is the implementation final and complete even if it is different from the spec document (which I think is the case)?

The reason I am asking is that I try to get some info on the type="menu-button" option for <button> (should it work, is it implemented at all yet, how difficult is it and consequently how long will it take to make this work ..), but until now, without any response. See bug 132831

#50 Re: Final XUL syntax changes?

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 9:03 AM

Reply to this message

Well there will always be additions. Just that current XUL implimentations should work, or be respected for a long time. Like all web standards, some things will eventually be depreciated, but will be supported till virtually noone is using them.

#46 regressions

by mozuser

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:29 AM

Reply to this message

RC1 (or should I say Mozilla 0.9.9.1?) is the best Mozilla yet. But I'm concerned about the many regressions that have appeared since 0.9.8. The answer, of course, is "file a bug"--but the bug people are hopelessly backlogged. Querying Bugzilla finds 63 (!) unconfirmed bugs that are either "critical" or "blocker." Granted, some of these bugs are probably duplicates and others are not truly critical or blocker bugs, but the fact remains that unconfirmed bugs and regressions are piling up--I'm concerned that Mozilla 1.0 will be quite buggy if this isn't addressed.

#195 version number

by james

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 1:17 AM

Reply to this message

Umm, 0.9.9.1 would _not_ be an appropriate version number for this release. It was built off the Mozilla 1.0 branch. Not the 0.9.9 branch. It is more similar to the milestone branch nightly builds made before milestone releases than things like the 0.9.4.1 release (which was a bug fixed version off the 0.9.4 branch). As this is the 1.0 release, it makes sense to try and get more testing; hence the release candidate.

#47 What a shame this bug will go into 1.0

by riddley

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:35 AM

Reply to this message

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=115963> Stop button doesn't do anything.

#64 Re: What a shame this bug will go into 1.0

by ed_welch

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:11 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, it happens when you click a link and suddenly realise that you don't want to go there, then you press the stop button, but it's too late. There's an easy work around, just press the back button instead... so not exactly a show stopper

#127 Not exactly a show stopper?!

by riddley

Saturday April 20th, 2002 9:17 PM

Reply to this message

You don't think a 1.0 browser should have a working Stop button?!

#130 Re: Not exactly a show stopper?!

by Tanyel <tanyel@straightblack.com>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 11:27 PM

Reply to this message

I would not mind a broken stop button if the browser could control the coffee pot.

#138 Ins't this bug fixed, or does not effect MacOS X?

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Sunday April 21st, 2002 6:35 PM

Reply to this message

On Mac OS X I am not having any issues using the stop button. It simply works.

#53 Is anybody else having problems installing...

by Flower

Friday April 19th, 2002 9:24 AM

Reply to this message

the java plugin? Everytime I tried to get the plugin Mozilla crashed. I was able to manually install 1.4. I created a new bug (138500) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138500> since a search of bugzilla didn't turn up the older java bug that I had seen before.

#56 Bug

by thelem

Friday April 19th, 2002 10:38 AM

Reply to this message

I just read about a serious security bug in mozilla. If you get a 404 web page, and then you click the back button, most of the security settings are disabled. We simply cannot release a product with such an easy to exploit hole, especially since it has been known about for 6 months.

I wait a sec, I forgot, mozilla is the browser that actually considers security isn't it?

#57 Bug number?

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:11 AM

Reply to this message

Can you please give the bug number?

I intentionally got a 404 error and then hit the back button, but I was unable to figure out what security hole was created.

Can you explain how this can be exploited? If not, then at least explain which security settings are disabled.

Security is definitely important and so I'd like to know more about this.

#59 Bug number?

by TimHunt <T.J.Hunt@open.ac.uk>

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:29 AM

Reply to this message

This is the same as the IE back button security hole that has recently hit the news. Mozilla used to have exactly the same problem too, around 0.9.? (about .3 or .4) but it got fixed a few weeks after it was found (ages ago). It was bug 88167 (I think, bugzilla is currently down, so this is just plucked out of my history).

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=88167>

P.S. Did you see that according to Microsoft, the back button thing is not a security vulnerability! At least, not according to their definition of security vulnerability. (There is a work-around, you see, just never click back!)

Tim.

#61 Is the bug you refer to an Internet Explorer bug?

by ralphmellor

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:35 AM

Reply to this message

> I just read about a serious security bug in mozilla.

Where? Who was the original author of this claimed problem?

> If you get a 404 web page, and then you click the back > button, most of the security settings are disabled.

I just read about a much worse problem than you've just described as a problem in Internet Explorer 6. Is that what you are talking about?: <http://online.securityfocus.com/archive/1/267561>

> We simply cannot release a product with such an easy > to exploit hole, especially since it has been known > about for 6 months.

In future, you must post enough info about your sources that readers don't have to think "says who?", especially since declaring sources when claiming something has been an expectated element of intelligent discourse for way longer than 6 months...

Hmm. Maybe "must" is a bit strong...

;>

-- ralph

#90 Re: Bug

by pepperxn

Friday April 19th, 2002 11:38 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, this bug is in IE only. They say this bug is only in IE 6 using WindowsXP or Windows2000, but I've tested it using IE 5.5 on Windows 98. I've tried this bug in Mozilla and nothing happens. Mozilla doesn't have this security hole. So IE 5.5 and IE 6 on Win98/98se, WinXP,Win2K has this security hole.

#66 So macpeep...

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Friday April 19th, 2002 1:42 PM

Reply to this message

Are you using RC1 full-time yet? :)

From my estimations, the only places where IE trounces it are still in restoring from a long minimize and in memory usage (although it doesn't have the resource drain that IE does when opening/closing new windows). For me, it's just as stable.

If you haven't yet, then why not? You've been here for a good 2 years, and if now isn't the time, then when is? (sorry... one those "couldn't resist" type posts)

#91 Re: So macpeep...

by macpeep

Saturday April 20th, 2002 12:14 AM

Reply to this message

"Are you using RC1 full-time yet? :) If you haven't yet, then why not? You've been here for a good 2 years, and if now isn't the time, then when is? (sorry... one those "couldn't resist" type posts)"

I don't know how long I've been here really - I've followed Netscape since back in the days of 0.x versions in 1994 or whatever it was and the Mozilla project since the first day the source code was released. Been downloading nightly builds and milestones ever since they become available.

I'm not using Mozilla full-time yet.. Just some facts first: I use IE 6 for browsing and NS 4.79 for email. I would much rather just use one app for both email and browsing because for me, the typical profile of using the apps is very integrated. I might be using a bug database at work with the web browser and then send emails to someone by clicking on some mailto: link, for example. I also pretty much have both a browser and email open 24h/day so why two apps if one app solves both of those?

I'm not religious about web standards and all that part of things. I just use a web browser as an end user and as such, I don't really care too much about what standard is supported and to what extent, as long as everything *I* need it for works. The browser side of things in Mozilla is pretty much there.. There are some small glitches such as scrollbars still flashing in and out when typing in textareas every once in a while but as a whole, there's really not a lot to complain about anymore in the web browser itself. Rendering speed is good, rendering quality and correctness is good...

The email app is getting close to NS 4.7x but it's not quite there yet. There are bugs such as the "Get Msgs" button being disabled by default every time you start the Mail & News app. MAJORLY annoying. You have to click on the thread pane to activate it. The statusbar is not always updated so you don't really know if the app is still trying to create a summary file (or whatever they are called these days) or if the statusbar text just jammed at some point. There are no icons for security on the statusbar even though there are slots for it, so there are two funny looking vertical lines on the statusbar for no apparent reason. When you click on them, you get a security dialog. The history tree in the sidebar has twisties that don't react at all when you click on them. All other trees in Mozilla expand on one click on the twisties but not this tree.. Why?

These kinds of issues leads us to what I really find to be the biggest problem with Mozilla right now: UI quality. It's just not polished enough. There are way, way, way too many small inconsistencies and oddities and broken things for me to be comfortable with the application on a daily basis. Since I have absolutely no problems with IE 6 and NS 4.7x, I have no reason to switch to Mozilla until it's BETTER than those apps. I know that you can come up with a list of features in the apps and show that it has "passed" IE 6 / NS 4.7x in the features or standards race, but at the end of the day, none of that matters if the app just doesn't feel high quality and polished.

So.. you asked for a reason why I don't use it full-time yet. Well, the reason is UI quality..

#95 Re: Re: So macpeep...

by pirat

Saturday April 20th, 2002 5:03 AM

Reply to this message

Exactly. Although I use Mozilla full-time since no other browser can fulfil my developer need I must say Mozilla UI is HIGHLY inconsistent. I know that Mozilla is not meant to be end-user product but I would be surprised if UI of the next Netscape would be better.

#121 Bravo, this is important!

by prowsej

Saturday April 20th, 2002 7:19 PM

Reply to this message

With RC1, Mozilla has actually included most of my long-wanted features ... and then sum! (I've been waiting for a browser to implement a 'pause' button on download dialogs for ages now!)

However, the UI is just plain bad. And, for me, most of the problems are because it trys to appeal to everyone. They need to have a different UI for each platform.

For instance, the Windows version would support "alt,space" the way every Windows program does ...

#132 Re: Bravo, this is important!

by macpeep

Sunday April 21st, 2002 2:04 AM

Reply to this message

"For instance, the Windows version would support "alt,space" the way every Windows program does ... "

And when selecting text in the composer for email, you should be able to press SHIFT-pageup to mark text from the cursor one block up. But it doesn nothing at all. There are lots and lots and LOTS of these kinds of small things that you run into all the time while using Mozilla and while none of those issues are huge on their own, the add up and the result is a very buggy and low quality feeling that comes almost entirely from the poorly polished UI. The UI has indeed been polished a lot, especially in the last couple of months but I don't feel it's "1.0 release" quality yet.

#168 it doesn't run native text editing code.. Rant!

by dman84

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 5:39 AM

Reply to this message

If you could just type what you want to type what you are thinking why should you need Shift-PageUP/Home+End+Insert functionality.. thats why the mouse was invented.. mouseover & highlight, rightclick cut, and paste.. sheees.. get off your old keyboard habits already.. I use shift-Arrow keys for that, its sufficient works just as fast.. By time my fingers find those keystrokes I've already cut and pasted with the mouse..we have Shift-End of Line and Shift-Home which works, but the arrow keys are way faster..

The mouse works great wonders.

There is also voice recognition.. and all that coming down the pipe and brain wave reading computer controls... and all you can say is its missing a feature you absolutely need with a keyboard to get it to work or you cannot write email.. come on.. Terminal emulation is even easy to use these days.

are you really that poor, that you cannot afford a $10 mouse for your UI? What kinda machine have you, that you require such extreme difficulty needs?

I find its quite difficult to imagine that the whole world is still engrosed in there *I need this extremely outdated feature of all text editors* thinking.. I really have no time to contemplate how I will be able to live without it.

I'm so sold on mozilla that I'd like to blow away IE on WinXp.. I really dont even use IE anymore.. Outlook. . geez, I've never even used it more that opening the program to see about exporting my imported addressbook from nc4.7x. into mozilla.

- try writing email with _pico_ on a digital unix mainframe. You could be doing a lot worse.. and browing the web with lynx. Or how about writing Cobol with an AS/400. I've done that too.. with a mouse and a little terminal emulation, ever heard of Qedit 4.0, the best DOS based editor ever, and you could even load as many documents up in it as you wanted and cut and paste with the keyboard then between each different document while viewing them all at the same time on the same screen.. now that is something that notepad is not even capable of without windows itself, nor DOS edit, or DR-DOS for that matter, or how about IBM PC-DOS. just the letters DOS look even look weird now after barely using it anymore.. now that DOOM collector's edition is out and WinXP compatibility mode added some support. And to think that I've written this whole freaken statement without once using any keyboard hotkeys.

RC1 is not about the poorly polished UI, its not an end-user product and if you were really following mozilla like you say.. then you just maybe seen the roadmap that states the 1.0 goals, not UI polished to your un-holy specifications..I'd like to think that it is that great already.. but netscape will release more of a polished product for you to bitch at.. once again. just remember windows 2000 has over 63000+ active bugs in it. I'm just happy that i can come home from work, turn the PC on and start up the dialer get on the internet and read and learn.. which is something we never used to be able to do.. now all you guys take it for granted that its now possible.. Me I wanted a tablet PC over 3 years ago.. now I want even more, I want interactive web tv jeapoardy and family fued.. .. I'm way beyond this bickering of crap that goes on about this feature x and that feature x that is in my other native application .. so get on with life, live a little and give these developers some credit for giving you a place to bitch to the rest of the world how bad your life is, and or maybe you could be living in a 3rd world country counting beans for a living or sifting dirt, because thats all you know.. As it sounds like you'd rather bow down to MS and its dirty tactics while they take over your privacy with hotmail and passport.. and die knowing that you could of had better... Anyway, as I was out enjoying life over the weekend you all are bitching.. please find a better cause than this.. as your making us all tired with your constant rants about how you will not use such a program because you cant find a way around your own addiction to your so called better past of great software. The future is here.. and now.. live it, Meanwhile, as the rest of us wait till such feature work gets implemented, I'd hardly call them bugs... got to have something to upgrade to..

and I want my prototype cars on the market now, not 10 years from now... all with Hybrid drive trains and 4 wheel steering like the 2004 truck models.. which can power your house with 110volts of 8 hours of electricity. Which is so cool.. and have a 100 Gig FMD-Rom Drive to back up my Hard drives with 1 disk the size of a standard CD. Not to mention the HDTV as standard on all tv's..

Oh yeah, there is a great set of funny parodies of Hard OCP and Toms Hardware and /. over on:

<http://www.afrotechmods.c…keover/%5BA%5Dfrotech.jpg> <http://www.afrotechmods.c…over/afromanshardware.jpg> <http://www.afrotechmods.c…oovy/takeover/afrodot.jpg>

They say the world just might end in our lifetime as we know it. Thanks, first and formost goes to god, without him we may not be here to enjoy seening the birth of mozilla as it grows and matures... secondly I'd like to thank the developers for their hard work and dedication.. live and let live.

As far as I remember, I was too busy playing wolf3d, Spear of Destiny and 4 player Lan Doom on 386sx33 computers at school.. all the while we were support to be programming in Turbo Pascal and listening to instructors show us slides of program specs and we finished programs the same day the were handed out.

As FiringSquad is talking all about how Fair Use.. and as people have started to tell me there finally listen to 80 pop classics again.. something I've been doing for a few years now.. I'm almost done now with listening to my OLD SKooL tape collection again of early 90's rap/hiphop tunes, busting out the MP3s with my stereo to soundcard. like 2 Live Crew, 2nd II None, College Boys, ICE-T, NWA, EazyE, TooShort and Naughty By Nature.. and.. A tribe called Quest, Run DMC, Geto Boys.. LL Cool J, KRS1, Kid Capri, and even DR. Demento tunes! Barney 5, how about the Beastly Boys - Squirls. Good funny tunes there.

Oh yea the best that is for real even today.. .. H.E.A.L. - Heal Yourself (Human Education Against Lies)

Cheers.. lighten up, and enjoy life ... sure there are a few problems here are there.. but there never used to be so many reasons to file bugs years ago.. there is so much more variables involved now.. that you should be lucky it even runs on your system.. I feel the love in this room! If you dont speak up we just may have more problems with states wanting to make windows modular.. so get involved and help out.. and contact your senators..

(M.O.Zilla. - you cannot deny me, you know you would like me to Eat IE for breakfast!!) help me, help me :-) haha.. I love this program..

#185 Re: it doesn't run native text editing code.. Rant!

by GreyPoopon

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 2:57 PM

Reply to this message

> If you could just type what you want to type what you are thinking why should you need Shift- > PageUP/Home+End+Insert functionality.. thats why the mouse was invented.. mouseover & > highlight, rightclick cut, and paste.. sheees.. get off your old keyboard habits already.. I > use shift-Arrow keys for that, its sufficient works just as fast.. By time my fingers find > those keystrokes I've already cut and pasted with the mouse..we have Shift-End of Line and > Shift-Home which works, but the arrow keys are way faster..

I have to differ with you. Perhaps using a mouse for editing is better if you are not a fast touch-typist, but for many of us, the keyboad is much faster. I find that the mouse is better for selecting irregular blocks of text, but not nearly as efficient otherwise. As soon as you have to take your hands off the keyboard, you're slowing yourself down. Keyboard shortcuts are almost always faster, provided that you've memorized them and you don't have to look at the keyboard to execute them. I rarely use the Shift-PageUP sequence, but I commonly use shift-Arrow, shift-Home and shift-End. Each of these perform distinct functions, and neither really replaces the other. Shift-Arrow alone doesn't cut it -- I don't always want to include the CRLF in my selection.

Anyway, I think the whole point is the question of whether it's better to have Mozilla work exactly the same way regardless of platform, or to have Mozilla integrate better with the platform on which it is running. I tend to take the middle ground, and feel that each of these areas should be examined separately. In the case of text editing, I think Mozilla should add to its own feature set any of the implementable features that are native to the OS. This just makes switching to Mozilla much easier.

#208 sheesh... what a blowhard

by JoeCool <joel@sysopt.com>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 1:39 PM

Reply to this message

"I'm way beyond this bickering of crap that goes on about this feature x and that feature x that is in my other native application"

But you just posted one of the longest replies on this site I've ever seen.

The fact is that it's impossible for a mouse to keep up with the keyboard. The only times it's faster is either A) when there aren't good keyboard shortcuts or B) when you don't know precisely where you're going. If it were possible, I'd never touch my mouse... the keyboard is a far more versatile and fast interface.

Back to the topic: I think macpeep raised some valid issues, though pretty much all of them were with the mail app, which I have never used (nor ever will use). I had forgotten he used NS4 mail... and though I'm sure moz mail isn't up to that standard yet, IMO, mozilla is worth using over IE (which was my point of posting). I've generally considered macpeep to have a fairly sane usability approach to mozilla, one with I largely agreed with. So I was curious if he had yet come to the same conclusion I had... that the time to switch browsers had come. :)

#212 Re: sheesh... what a blowhard

by macpeep

Friday April 26th, 2002 4:57 PM

Reply to this message

"I've generally considered macpeep to have a fairly sane usability approach to mozilla, one with I largely agreed with. So I was curious if he had yet come to the same conclusion I had... that the time to switch browsers had come. :)"

Heh, well.. it's close.. definitely... I still experience crashes every once in a while. Not often enough that it would bother casual surfing but if I'm buying plane tickets or paying some large bill, I rather use IE because I *know* it won't crash on me. For other people, Mozilla may be more stable but for me, IE is currently still definitely more stable. There are also small quirks on the browser side.. Just today, I was reordering bookmark folders and while dragging the folder, I noticed that dragging a folder up in the order worked but dragging it down would reposition it in the wrong place (one off from where I actually dragged it to). Whenever I use Mozilla for a longer period than just a few minutes, I still seem to run into things like that. It's just making me uncomfortable enough with it that I rather not switch to it as my primary browser - yet.

But it's getting very close...

#198 very good summary of messenger problems

by dipa

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 8:34 AM

Reply to this message

All problems macpeep mentioned shouldn't be present on Mozilla 1.0.

#67 Sticky View->Text Zoom Settings?

by Sivle123

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:27 PM

Reply to this message

Does anyone know if there's a way to make the View->Text Zoom settings sticky from one session to the next? I have a friend who's interested in Mozilla and this is something he's been trying to figure out. I thought there may be some user agent setting to do this, or, failing that, at least set the View->Text Zoom setting to something other than the default.

#76 Re: Sticky View->Text Zoom Settings?

by SmileyBen

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:14 PM

Reply to this message

I don't know about this, but you do know that you can set a minimum text size in your preferences. I'm presuming he's wanting to make sure the text is readable, so this might be what he's looking for.

#84 Clearification

by Sivle123

Friday April 19th, 2002 6:44 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I saw the minimum font size, but that's not precisely what my friend wishes. Basically, he wants the text on all pages to be at 75% what they would normally be, not all be the same size.

#141 Font sizes

by TimHunt <T.J.Hunt@open.ac.uk>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:37 AM

Reply to this message

Can't you achieve this effect using Edit -> Preferences -> Appearance -> Fonts -> Display resolution?

#77 Re: Dream come true

by bmacfarland

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:17 PM

Reply to this message

I think you can Edit --> Preferences --> Appearance --> Fonts --> and just change the size from there. If the person likes bigger fonts, raise the point size and vice versa. It's not exactly Text Zoom, but I think it's the effect you are looking for. A shortcut that I use often is the "Ctrl" + "+" (plus/equals key) and the "Ctrl" + "-" (minus/underscore key) to zoom the text. I find this is easier on a site by site basis. It's not sticky, though.

#80 Bug? ctrl + doesn't work here

by egoine

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:55 PM

Reply to this message

win2000, RC1, ctrl - works, but not ctrl +.

Anybody else seing this?

#83 Re: Bug? ctrl + doesn't work here

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday April 19th, 2002 6:08 PM

Reply to this message

Which + are you using? It doesn't work with the one on the numeric keypad. There's a bug for it; I'm not sure about the bug number.

Alex

#109 Text Zoom

by bmacfarland

Saturday April 20th, 2002 11:41 AM

Reply to this message

The ones near the backspace key. 'A shortcut that I use often is the "Ctrl" + "+" (plus/equals key) and the "Ctrl" + "-" (minus/underscore key) to zoom the text'

#86 re: text zoom

by myklgrant

Friday April 19th, 2002 8:29 PM

Reply to this message

You can also use the mouse wheel+modifier key setting under Edit->Preferences->Advanced. I use Control+MouseWheel alot for adjusting text size "on the fly".

#70 Re: Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by jorgenson

Friday April 19th, 2002 2:39 PM

Reply to this message

am using Windows 95 - have read Release Notes telling me to download the "zip" file of Mozilla. Then I used the Norton utility swunzip - to open the file as per the instruction.

Received strange messages - one said "could not overwrite netscape6.exe".

Just could not load Mozilla RC1 - any help please?

#94 Re: Installer dosn't work on Windows 95?

by Benman

Saturday April 20th, 2002 4:34 AM

Reply to this message

Try Winzip 8.1, you can get it at <http://www.winzip.com>

#72 Nasty bug: help on where to file

by Humbletester

Friday April 19th, 2002 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

Cannot load this page <http://www.ozones.com> (I saw a complaint about it on <http://www.betanews.com>). Works fine with Opera, Netscape and IE and takes only a few seconds to load.

Mozilla doens't even see anything. Help with where to file the bug.

#74 Re: Nasty bug: help on where to file

by klee

Friday April 19th, 2002 3:03 PM

Reply to this message

You can use Bugzilla Helper for filing bugs: <http://www.mozilla.org/qu…help/bugzilla-helper.html>

#75 Re: Nasty bug: help on where to file

by eiseli

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:05 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like it is a javascript problem. The content appears to be positioned in the nirwana, somewhere above the top edge of the viewport. That's why you can only see the black background. I haven't looked into it deeply enough to tell whether the problem lies in the JavaScript code or the implementation of the JavaScript by Mozilla.

#79 Found the bug

by eiseli

Friday April 19th, 2002 4:29 PM

Reply to this message

Look at this:

#ZsliderGuard{position:absolute;left:-10000;top:0;width:1600;height:432;z-index:10001;"); #ZsliderGuard2{position:absolute;left:-10000;top:0;width:1600;height:432;z-index:10001;"); #Zslider {position:absolute; left:-500; top:61; width:13; height:32;z-index:10000;");

Tell me: what do you expect from a layer positioned left: -500 or even -10,000? To be displayed on the screen? And by the way, what is 500, 10,000? Pixel? Centimeters? Inches? Kilometers?...

Probably, all other browsers where it works have a bug: they don't know what to do with these values.

Checking your code usually helps: <http://validator.w3.org/c…pe=HTML+4.01+Transitional> and <http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-…ri=http://www.ozones.com/>

#73 Nasty bug: help on where to file

by Humbletester

Friday April 19th, 2002 3:00 PM

Reply to this message

Cannot load this page <http://www.ozones.com> (I saw a complaint about it on <http://www.betanews.com>). Works fine with Opera, Netscape and IE and takes only a few seconds to load.

Mozilla doens't even see anything. Help with where to file the bug.

#178 Re: Nasty bug: help on where to file

by tny

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:05 AM

Reply to this message

It looks to me like it's a sniffer bug in the page code, not in Mozilla. Post it as an evangelization bug on Bugzilla.

#85 Open Link in New Tab

by VMD

Friday April 19th, 2002 7:35 PM

Reply to this message

I was a bit surprised yesterday when I thought I was opening a link into a new window when it appeared in the same window with its own tab. One would have thought "the new tab method" would have been placed under the "Open Link in New Window". I always work with multiple windows open and was a bit irritated at first. I guess I have adjusted already.

Other than that, everything seems to me progressing right nicely. I am, again, very happy with Mozilla and am definetly looking forward to the actual 1.0, and beyond. THANKS!!!

#87 Mozilla censors?

by Humbletester

Friday April 19th, 2002 9:59 PM

Reply to this message

1) Go to <http://www.yahoo.com> 2) under search type akamait 3) hit enter or click search 4) browser refuses to search (works under IE)

Am I going crazy? It seems to do it only for word akamait.

#89 Ok.. that's Weird!

by zaw <zaw@netscape.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 10:52 PM

Reply to this message

what the hell is akamait anyways?

#122 akamait=akamaitechnology

by Humbletester

Saturday April 20th, 2002 8:08 PM

Reply to this message

I was typing a search to find what akamai technology stood for. I mistyped, pressed enter and voila.

#171 Read the bug.

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 7:37 AM

Reply to this message

If you read the bug, you'll see that with mozilla user agent, and searching akamait actually causes yahoo to return weird headers it works though if you are set at http1.0 instead of http1.1 So this is a problem with yahoo. Why yahoo is returning weird headers for akamait, we will never know. Though mozilla may end up programming itself to deal with the weird headers, they are also contacting yahoo about this problem.

#106 Re: Mozilla censors?

by astrosmash

Saturday April 20th, 2002 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

Or, more specifically, this link <http://search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=akamait> <search.yahoo.com/bin/search?p=akamait> does nothing in mozilla.

Strange.

#131 Re: Re: Mozilla censors?

by joschi

Sunday April 21st, 2002 1:58 AM

Reply to this message

gotta admit, that is really strange

#117 Re: Mozilla censors?

by morg

Saturday April 20th, 2002 3:15 PM

Reply to this message

#169 Just gets weirder - akamaite causes same problem

by joelind

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 5:59 AM

Reply to this message

The same thing happens with "akamaite", but not when you add any other letter to the end of "akamait".

#170 With akamait, akamaite, akamaitec, akamaitech

by joelind

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 6:29 AM

Reply to this message

It happens with "akamait", "akamaite", "akamaitec", "akamaitech". Also, if you follow any of these with various punctuation marks like periods and commas.

Interestingly enough, it doesn't happen with shorter substrings of "akamaitech".

I know I should be posting this to Bugzilla, but I don't have an account there yet, so if someone working on this bug could post this information there, I'd appreciate it.

#176 Re: Mozilla censors?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 10:07 AM

Reply to this message

The irony is that if you do manage to successfully search for "akamait" in Yahoo!, the top match is this thread. :-D

Alex

#88 Plugin Downloader Plug-in

by zaw <zaw@netscape.net>

Friday April 19th, 2002 10:49 PM

Reply to this message

Where can I find this damn plugin downloader plugin??

#98 Bookmarks quirk from Mozilla 0.9.8 to 1.0RC1

by cappella

Saturday April 20th, 2002 10:13 AM

Reply to this message

Does anybody notice that since Mozille 0.9.8 till 1.0RC1, the Bookmarks has a problem tat was never resolved? If you go to the Bookmarks window, and right click on the columns, you notice that the "Last Visited" column was not even showing the dates of your last visit. In Mozilla 0.9.7 and before it was stilling working. Anyone can verify or explain this quirk?

#114 mail starts only one time

by AgePee <Hanno.Pichler@web.de>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 12:59 PM

Reply to this message

Hi everyone, I got a little problem: I open the Mozilla navigator and then start the mail & news window. No problem here, but when I close the mail window and the try to open it again it does not open. Not by clicking the icon on the status bar, nor by pressing ctrl+2, nor by choosing window -> mail & newsgroups. When I close the navigator window, Mozilla-process is still active, allthough the app is not running. The Mail window can now only be opend if you kill the Mozilla task, that is still active. This reminds me on a bug in former builds when a JavaScript pop-up does not open. I am using Mozilla RC1 (2002041711) on Windows XP Pro. Anyone else got this problem? I searched bugzilla but did not find anything matching my problem. But perhaps my searching was bad.

#115 Re: mail starts only one time

by RB_

Saturday April 20th, 2002 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

There is a bug "Mail window fails to open after initial open/close with extra theme installed", <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=138239> . Is this your problem ?

#116 Re: Re: mail starts only one time

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 2:15 PM

Reply to this message

oh, yes, your right, this is it! Sorry, I forgot to mention that I am using a third party theme (pinball and gray modern). If I switch back to classic, the problem is solved. Thanks for your help.

#118 Another prob with the JRE plugin

by MonteCristo <monte@gmx.net>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 3:54 PM

Reply to this message

Damn. I just made the thing a man's got to do with Windoze every now and then (format c: that is) and of course re-installed everything. Now Moz 1.0RC1 refuses to find the Java plugin, although the plugin scan line is in the prefs! Damn II.

#119 Re: Another prob with the JRE plugin

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 5:46 PM

Reply to this message

have you tried to copy all np* files from C:\Program Files\Java\j2re1.4.0\bin directory to your plugins folder? Especially the NPOJI610.dll file, cos JRE forgets to copy this one by itself. Maybe your path- and filenames are a little bit different, I have JRE4.0 installed.

#120 of course I ment 1.4 ;-)

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 5:50 PM

Reply to this message

n/t

#126 Re: Annoying bug 82534 still a problem

by MonteCristo <monte@gmx.net>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 9:15 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks! Everything's working fine now.

#123 Annoying bug 82534 still a problem

by frank555

Saturday April 20th, 2002 8:17 PM

Reply to this message

Unfortunately a very visible, frequent and highly annoying bug, <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82534> is still around in RC1.

#125 Re: Annoying bug 82534 still a problem

by MonteCristo <monte@gmx.net>

Saturday April 20th, 2002 9:14 PM

Reply to this message

What about the splash screen bug? ;P

With v1.0 it's time Mozilla got a professional-looking and classy splash image. Sure, Moz is cute and everything, but...

#136 Bug 82534

by tono

Sunday April 21st, 2002 12:29 PM

Reply to this message

It used to happen in Litestep just by switching desktops and then going back to the one with Mozilla in it. That's why I switched back to Explorer.exe as my shell. BLahh

#133 Re: Annoying bug 82534 still a problem

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Sunday April 21st, 2002 4:54 AM

Reply to this message

I had this problem with 0.99 after I had opened the print preview. I haven't had it in RC1 so far.

#137 New bug:can anybody confirm

by Humbletester

Sunday April 21st, 2002 4:26 PM

Reply to this message

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139053> Zonealarm pro with privacy settings on prevents Mozilla RC1 from working with any page with ads blocked.

#139 SVG?

by bmacfarland

Sunday April 21st, 2002 10:18 PM

Reply to this message

I can't seem to find an build of RC1 with SVG support. Worse yet, when I downloaded an older version with SVG, and put it on my Win2k desktop the mozilla.exe file links to the RC1 without SVG support. Any ideas how I can get SVG and RC1 to work at the same time? Perferably together, but I'll settle for separate installs.

#140 SVG?

by bmacfarland

Sunday April 21st, 2002 10:21 PM

Reply to this message

I can't seem to find an build of RC1 with SVG support. Worse yet, when I downloaded an older version with SVG, and put it on my Win2k desktop the mozilla.exe file links to the RC1 without SVG support. Any ideas how I can get SVG and RC1 to work at the same time? Perferably together, but I'll settle for separate installs.

#145 Re: SVG?

by zontar

Monday April 22nd, 2002 11:01 AM

Reply to this message

I just copied NPSVG3.dll from my Netscape 4 Plugins folder to the Moz Plugins folder, restarted Moz, and it works fine for me. I know it's not exactly the same thing, but it allows me to use RC1 and still view SVG content with it (which I need to be able to do for a current project).

It's already been announced that 1.0 will not have native SVG capability (which I think sucks, but I don't make these decisions <G>), so this is probably the best anybody's going to get if they want to run RC1 or 1.0 when it's released.

#159 SVG?

by bmacfarland

Monday April 22nd, 2002 5:50 PM

Reply to this message

Hmmm, I was hoping to use the Mozilla SVG Project, rather than install Netscape 4 just to get one DLL plug-in. I don't really have a need for SVG, but I just liked the ability. It feels like a regression to me, especially where there doesn't seem to be a documented to add it. It's one thing to not include it by default if it's not ready, but it should be something that can be added.

#161 SVG

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 8:22 PM

Reply to this message

I don't have the link handy, but about a month ago I went to Adobe's site and downloaded the Adobe SVG p;lugin. I don't seem to mind that SVG is provided via a plugin or natively. Is there a difference if SVG is provided natively rather than a plugin?

#165 Re: SVG

by gwalla <gwalla@despammed.com>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 1:08 AM

Reply to this message

PLugins can't handle SVG embedded in XML page code, just external SVG objects.

#172 Curious about state of Mozilla SVG...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 7:54 AM

Reply to this message

My original purpose for finding a SVG build was that a friend was doing a paper on SVG and I opened my big mouth saying that it built into Mozilla. I looked a bit foolish when it wasn't. I think it was .98 or something that had SVG and MathML by default. All this piqued my curiousity about how there aren't any recent builds with SVG. Worse yet, I couldn't download an old build and get to work in conjunction with RC1. Previously, it seemed that all builds were mostly self-contained. By that I mean that I could install them in separate directories on a Win2K machine and they wouldn't necessary know about eachother (except bookmarks and the like).

#180 Re: Curious about state of Mozilla SVG...

by tny

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:15 AM

Reply to this message

SVG is not going to be in 1.0. There are some older experimental builds with SVG, but they are trunk builds, not builds of the 1.0 branch. See this page: <http://www.mozilla.org/projects/svg/> (that's the /projects/svg/ directory of the mozilla website). I see that there is no "latest nightly" of the SVG experimental builds, but there are build instructions, and a comprehensive search through all the old nightlies will sooner or later find a trunk build with SVG turned on.

Also look at Amaya, which has some limited SVG capabilities. It's at <http://www.w3.org/Amaya/> (/Amaya/ directory of the World Wide Web Consortium website).

As for getting multiple builds to work on Windows 2K, beats me.

#181 Re: Re: Curious about state of Mozilla SVG...

by tny

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:16 AM

Reply to this message

PS: Also note that there's a chat channel #svg on irc.mozilla.org

#148 Slashdot now blocking Mozilla

by einer

Monday April 22nd, 2002 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

Because of a bug in Mozilla that causes the entire browser to die instantly. If you'd like to crash your browser (and it's Mozilla .99 - RC1) you can go here:

<http://www.inbox.org/crashmozilla.html>

The offending piece of html is an href that has some odd character data in it.

#150 Slashdot now blocking Mozilla

by einer

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:01 PM

Reply to this message

I apologize for double posting. :(

#151 This is bug 138877

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:45 PM

Reply to this message

Don't enter yet another duplicate, like, er, I just did :-) <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139282>

(In further reference: <http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/4/17/114913/762> )

Sorry Keyser, Matti :-)

#149 Slashdot now blocking Mozilla

by einer

Monday April 22nd, 2002 2:00 PM

Reply to this message

Because of a bug in Mozilla that causes the entire browser to die instantly. If you'd like to crash your browser (and it's Mozilla .99 - RC1) you can go here:

<http://www.inbox.org/crashmozilla.html>

The offending piece of html is an href that has some odd character data in it.

#157 Re: Slashdot now blocking Mozilla

by fgxh298

Monday April 22nd, 2002 4:33 PM

Reply to this message

Interesting. I tried IE, K-Meleon, and Navigator 4 and none crash. Mozilla sure does though. File a bug if you(or someone else) haven't already.

#167 It's bug 138877 (n/t)

by Salsaman

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 5:11 AM

Reply to this message

n/t

#158 Re: Re: Slashdot now blocking Mozilla

by zontar

Monday April 22nd, 2002 5:10 PM

Reply to this message

RC1 WFM @ /., NP.

#173 Trouble logging into Monster.com

by bmacfarland

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 8:02 AM

Reply to this message

Anyone else not able to log into Monster.com? I type in the name and password at "<http://my.monster.com/login.asp>" and click Log In. The page seems to send out a request and a progress bar goes, but nothing happens. I noticed this in .99 and it continues in RC1. I want to say that it worked when I first installed .99 making me think in could be an evangelism issue, but I'm not sure. I haven't used Buzilla yet to file bugs, but I probably file one if I hear nothing for a week or if anyone else sees this. Oh and I'm using Win2K.

#174 What happened to "Tabbed Browsing"

by purpledaze

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 9:32 AM

Reply to this message

I just downloaded the RC1 binaries and "Tabbed Browsing" is gone from the preferences dialog. It was and is present in my version of 9.9. I don't have any of the tab specific menu options either.

Anyone know why it's not showing up?

#182 Re: What happened to "Tabbed Browsing"

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

Try completly uninstalling 0.9.9, install RC1 and create a new profile. You can copy the inbox and bookmarks file over to the new profile if you need to.

#175 What happened to "Tabbed Browsing"

by purpledaze

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 9:33 AM

Reply to this message

I just downloaded the RC1 binaries and "Tabbed Browsing" is gone from the preferences dialog. It was and is present in my version of 9.9. I don't have any of the tab specific menu options either.

Anyone know why it's not showing up?

#183 Re: What happened to "Tabbed Browsing"

by bmacfarland

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:39 AM

Reply to this message

Hmmm, "ctrl + T" brings up tabs for me in RC1. There's even a thread on here about how to save the tab groups as bookmarks. Great feature.

#188 Re: What happened to "Tabbed Browsing"

by leeal

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 4:38 PM

Reply to this message

WFM here. The preference is still under "Navigator/Tabbed Browsing". Maybe you could try creating a new profile and/or the usual workaround. ie, clean reinstall mozilla and the profile.

#189 Bug 26790?

by datta

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 5:34 PM

Reply to this message

The page <http://www.onlineub.com/onlineub.htm> has a menu on the left frame (the page is a .php and the menu has been written in javascript). IE shows it well but Mozilla (0.9.8, 0.9.9, 1.0RC1) shows nothing. Is this because of bug 26790 or should I file it as a new bug?

Can anyone help me?

#192 Re: Bug 26790?

by zontar

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 10:30 PM

Reply to this message

Looks to me like it uses document.layers for any browser with "Netscape" in the user agent string, and IE-proprietary DOM otherwise. Neither one of which is going to work with a W3C-DOM compliant browser.

#194 Web designer flaw

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 11:31 PM

Reply to this message

Looks like the webmaster for the site needs to be informed that their browser detection is flawed because it classifies Mozilla as being the same as Netscape 4 in its support of layers.

#200 Re: Web designer flaw

by datta

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 9:00 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks for your answers!

#190 MacOS 8.x support dropped?

by crow

Tuesday April 23rd, 2002 6:40 PM

Reply to this message

With 0.9.9, the MacOS binary supported MacOS versions starting at 8.5. With 1.0RC1, you have to have MacOS 9.0. Why was support dropped?

#197 Re: MacOS 8.x support dropped?

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 5:52 AM

Reply to this message

Freqently when a milestone comes out, they will release all the builds that are built daily, then over the next few weeks will include more builds from more platforms. So it should happen, but it may not.

#199 Regression priority?

by rdebay

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 8:46 AM

Reply to this message

Will regressions in RC1 be fixed for release? Bug 139201 <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=139201> showed up in RC1. I'd been using the TBODY scroll functionality, and now if you have only a few rows they're stretched vertically to fill the available space, violating the height constraint I placed on the TD. IMNSHO it makes the tables look ugly.

#201 Progress on Dailys v. RC1 Candidates

by hkrause <hkrause@capu.net>

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 9:02 AM

Reply to this message

Am I correct in assuming the daily builds have surpassed what is in RC1?

#202 Re: Progress on Dailys v. RC1 Candidates

by bzbarsky

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 10:17 AM

Reply to this message

You would be partially correct. They dailys have some new stuff, at the cost of some stability.

#204 which daily's?

by thegoldenear

Wednesday April 24th, 2002 11:46 AM

Reply to this message

there are dailys of the trunk: <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…lla/nightly/latest-trunk/>

and dailys of the 1.x.x branch: <ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub…lla/nightly/latest-1.0.0/>

each "have surpassed what is in RC1"

#205 Where's the Translation Feature?

by lolajl <lola@his.com>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 3:50 AM

Reply to this message

While browsing a page in German, it just occured to me that the Translate option is no longer present in this release. What gives? I found this feature very useful indeed . . .

Lola

#206 Where's the Translation Feature?

by lolajl <lola@his.com>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 4:22 AM

Reply to this message

While browsing a page in German, it just occured to me that the Translate option is no longer present in this release. What gives? I found this feature very useful indeed . . .

Lola

#207 DHTML Performance

by markush <markush@world-direct.com>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 6:56 AM

Reply to this message

RC1 is nice (though some regressions still need to be fixed). Memory consumption & stability improved over the numerous milestones.

DHTML performance seemed to have been largely forgotten over the time - just when looking at <http://www.mozillazine.or…ws/articles/review26.html> the same things are still true.

Really hope that a mind shifting is taking place and we get things rocking and broaden the acceptance of Mozilla.

#209 The NS from Moz 1.0 will be "Netscape 7.0"

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 2:08 PM

Reply to this message

Bug 140092: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=140092> - someone filed in Bugzilla on a commercial build.

Name of test url is home.netscape.com/bookmark/7_0/langpack_us.html <http://home.netscape.com/…mark/7_0/langpack_us.html> - this URL doesn't work now, but it's the one named in the bug.

#210 Hush.....shhhhh!

by PaulB <pbergsag@home.com>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 5:40 PM

Reply to this message

Netscape doesn't want the news released yet. They even removed the link and now it leads to "Page not found."

#211 "News": something someone doesn't want you to know

by DavidGerard <fun@thingy.apana.org.au>

Thursday April 25th, 2002 8:43 PM

Reply to this message

It's my journalism gene expressing itself. New Information!

Sorry, marketers, it's leaked! It's out there! Bwaaaahahaha. Your hair points will not stand up against someone who spends his spare time going through EVERY BUG in the day's list!

It's 3:45am and I spend 8 hours on a bus to Whitby <http://wgw.topmum.co.uk/> tomorrow. I must be insane to still be awake. Please excuse everything I say, write or think.

#213 HTTP 1.1 pipelining

by richman555 <richman@ptdprolog.net>

Thursday May 2nd, 2002 7:32 PM

Reply to this message

What is Http 1.1 pipelining and what is its advantages? Just wondering :)

#214 Re: HTTP 1.1 pipelining

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Friday May 3rd, 2002 10:03 AM

Reply to this message

Basically, it's a way of downloading pages faster by minimising the amount of time for which a connection is idle. It's especially effective on connections with high ping times. The HTTP/1.1 Pipelining FAQ <http://www.mozilla.org/pr…/http/pipelining-faq.html> explains how it works.

Alex

#215 spell checker for mozilla...

by riconeo

Saturday May 4th, 2002 7:05 PM

Reply to this message