MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.1 Released

Monday August 26th, 2002

Asa Dotzler writes: "1.1 is here! mozilla.org today shipped Mozilla 1.1. This final release of 1.1 has many new features including full-screen mode for Linux, Mac MathML support, a redesigned JavaScript Debugger, new window icons for the different Mozilla applications, view selection source, viewing HTML mail as plain text, and much more.

"Along with all the new features, Mozilla 1.1 also contains many improvements to performance, stability, standards support, and web site compatability. You can get Mozilla 1.1 by visiting the mozilla.org releases page or directly from FTP at ftp.mozilla.org.

"With 1.1 shipping, the focus moves onto 1.2 Alpha, and beyond. If you're confused as to how the numbering will work, be sure to check out the Roadmap."


#1 SWEEET

by ph1nn <ph1nn@earthlink.net>

Monday August 26th, 2002 9:55 PM

Reply to this message

first post on major release, w00t!

Mozilla rocks

#2 Re: SWEEET

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:09 PM

Reply to this message

"first post on major release, w00t!"

But was it worth pressing Reload on the MZ homepage all day?

Alex

#4 stub and full install mixed up

by ndebord

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:20 PM

Reply to this message

On the FTP site, stub refers to full install and vice versa

#6 Re: stub and full install mixed up [fixing]

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:32 PM

Reply to this message

Fixing now. Thanks.

--Asa

#7 Re: Re: stub and full install mixed up [fixing]

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:37 PM

Reply to this message

What will happen to the poor people who are downloading either the stub or full installers at the exact moment the switch is made?

Alex

#8 Re: stub and full install mixed up [fixing]

by youying <youying@gcn.net.tw>

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:51 PM

Reply to this message

Dear Asa,

There is still no full installer on the FTP site.

#10 Re: Re: stub and full install mixed up [fixing]

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Monday August 26th, 2002 11:34 PM

Reply to this message

#5 Re: SWEEET

by ph1nn <ph1nn@earthlink.net>

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:30 PM

Reply to this message

im replying to my own message because i must say, Mozilla 1.1 is by far the quickest mozilla yet (running Linux Slackware)

#3 Anyone know if there's a Mozilla equivalent to...

by bmacfarland

Monday August 26th, 2002 10:20 PM

Reply to this message

IE's control+enter shortcut in the location bar to add "www." and ".com" to the word typed in? Typing in "zdnet" and pressing ctrl+enter immediately goes to <http://www.zdnet.com.> In Mozilla, I could just type "zdnet" and hit enter, but it takes a few seconds to resolve that host, instead of just assuming to go to "<http://www.zdnet.com>" immediately.

#9 Short addresses in Mozilla

by eiseli

Monday August 26th, 2002 11:28 PM

Reply to this message

If you are going to zdnet so often, make a bookmark, give it a keyword, say "zd" and from now on, you can type zd [enter] and it will resolve immediately to the address you bookmarked.

#11 Open in New Window from MailNews is broken

by oliversl

Monday August 26th, 2002 11:39 PM

Reply to this message

#12 Sorry about the last subject :-(

by oliversl

Monday August 26th, 2002 11:41 PM

Reply to this message

Sorry about the subject "Open in New Window from MailNews is broken" The body of the message is ok.

#65 puh-leaze

by pbreit

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:40 PM

Reply to this message

I can't stand the recommendations to "just create a book mark and give it a shortcut and type zd [enter] and voila". 99.99999% of the people do not want to do this. This is not a solution. This is nauseating. What is important is to get the default experience right, not all the stupid customizations.

#32 It isn't about going to ZDNet a lot...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:15 AM

Reply to this message

I have never been <http://www.Kelloggs.com>, never thought to bookmark it, but today I wanted to research some cereal. Because I occasionally use IE, I know that when I'm using that pressing cntl+enter after typing "kelloggs" will get me there instantly. In Mozilla, no dice. So I look up to find what the equavalent shortcut is, but there isn't one. That's the issue. Oliversl points to the perfect Bugzilla entry (which is really what I should have done) with a rather lengthy discussion on this issue.

#39 Some Mozilla developers are against this

by oliversl

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:22 AM

Reply to this message

This Ctrl+Enter behavior is an open topic since 2.2 years old. I proposed to make it configurable via Preference window but they don't like. Anyway, I have the patch and I'm happy now.

#41 Yeah, I'm reading the arguments...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:39 AM

Reply to this message

I had no idea that this was such a hot topic for such a long time. If you could post a place that I can get the patch I'd appreciate it.

I'd be a big fan of this feature for two reasons:

1. It really is a great shortcut at least 80% of the time passing the 80/20 rule. I see the evangelistic issues to not including it, but I agree with your preference selection (perhaps off by default).

2. I could get at least three more IE users to convert with this. One of the first things a potential convert tries to do is to make sure they could do everything that was available before. Once they find something that they use occassionally isn't available, the entire software package is "junk" (in extreme cases).

#42 Ummm, nevermind about that patch...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:09 AM

Reply to this message

I see it in the bug listing now. For now on I'll spend 4 hours reading the whole bug before I comment :-).

#95 Here's the Bug #37867

by oliversl

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 10:44 AM

Reply to this message

This is the bug#: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=37867> To Install it, find the comm.jar file, unpack, replace the navigator.js patched and compress the .jar again. You can rename the .jar to .zip to open it.

#97 Consider voting for this bug

by oliversl

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 11:27 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry about the spam, but if you have a bugzilla account and want this bug fixed, please consider voting for it.

#45 Re: Anyone know if there's a Mozilla equivalent to

by rotocat

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:24 AM

Reply to this message

Can't you just disable keywords? Then all you have to do is type zdnet (or whatever else you like) in the address and hit enter. Mozilla does the rest (ie adds www and com)

#48 I don't think so...

by bmacfarland

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:38 AM

Reply to this message

I currently don't have keywords enabled and Mozilla will eventually resolve "zdnet" to "<http://www.zdnet.com>" - in an additional 5 or 6 seconds as opposed to the 1 second it would take for <http://www.zdnet.com.> That's not much of a shortcut in my opinion. There's a whole bug for it and Oliverl posts the bug and (if you follow it long enough) a patch. Jonas Jørgensen seems to have come up with a workaround that uses the Google "lucky" option that doesn't require a patch and seems to be better in many situations (although less predictable, "fish" doesn't take you to "<http://www.fish.com>"). I suppose I could set up a server that I only I knew about that would redirect requests to "www.[stuff typed here].com" and create a bookmark shortcut (kind of like a google "lucky" option that doesn't actually search anything.

#55 Re: I don't think so...

by rotocat

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:08 PM

Reply to this message

hmm... that's odd. typing zdnet or <http://www.zdnet.com> usually seem to give me the same results in about the same type. I did a test here at my office with a 28.8 connection using 1.1 that came out yesterday. zdnet actually resolved and loaded the page in half the time as typing <http://www.zdnet.com> I can not explain it, but it works just fine for me as a shortcut.

#96 Re: less DNS lookups

by oliversl

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 10:48 AM

Reply to this message

Using Ctrl+Enter like IE, would helps Mozilla done less DNS lookups. Right now, Mozilla tries first "zdnet" and then "<http://www.zdnet.com>". In IE, "zdnet" is never checked. The Ctrl+Enter like IE would always give you more speed, at least you are browsing from your DNS server :-)

#123 Re: less DNS lookups

by GAThrawn

Friday August 30th, 2002 7:24 AM

Reply to this message

The problem is that in the corporate world that Netscape is, at least partially aiming for, and for web developers running their own web servers "zdnet" is a perfectly valid web server name.

In IE it would use the PCs own NetBIOS/WINS and domain/workgroup lookup tables to determine if a "non-standard" intranet server name such as that exists before automically addding a ".com" and checking with DNS.

Whereas in Mozilla which doesn't tie itself into Microsoft's proprietary domain architecture it can't predict that a particular address is unlikely to be valid until ity checks with the DNS, this is really the right way to do it, I know I'll be p***ed off if Moz starts assuming every intranet address I type in should be converted to ".com" (especially as I'm in the UK).

#13 Additions to whats new...

by StigN

Monday August 26th, 2002 11:44 PM

Reply to this message

They forgot to mention at least two tings in the release notes' whats new section:

The Site Navigation Bar is back (great!)

Mozilla now supports the BLINK and MARQUEE tags!

#15 good thing

by fczuardi <fabricio@mamata.com.br>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 12:38 AM

Reply to this message

Write that support for non-standard tags (blink and marquee) as a new "feature" on the release notes page could incentivate in some how people to use these awfull things :)

Its great that this "features" has been left out of the list.

#21 Where's the Translation Feature?

by lolajl <lola@his.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:48 AM

Reply to this message

Aaagghhh - I thought these tags had been deprecated?

#28 Re: Where's the Translation Feature?

by tny

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 7:29 AM

Reply to this message

The elements aren't deprecated, they were never standard to begin with. They are clearly not true "document elements," but merely formatting markers, and as such are the proper domain of CSS, not HTML. But some "ooh I'm a programmer, I can make the text on my web page purple with a font tag" types insist on continuing to use them, and some users who know just enough to be dangerous insist that as long as idiots use them to write pages, they want to be able to read them on such pages.

Am I bitter? Naw . . .

#22 Re: Additions to whats new...

by pointwood

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 4:13 AM

Reply to this message

What's the reason for adding support for those tags?

#25 Lucky oversight, I believe

by sab39

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 6:45 AM

Reply to this message

As I understand it, the Site Nav Bar was only supposed to be back if the perf problems had been fixed, and they weren't.

However, since it was only backed out on the 1.0 branch and not the trunk, it made it into 1.1 just because nobody noticed that it hadn't been backed out from that branch.

Of course, somebody *really* ought to actually fix the perf issues. I'd love that someone to be me but realistically (I have a new baby) it's not going to happen. Hopefully *somebody* will, though.

Stuart.

#29 Re: Lucky oversight, I believe

by tny

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

Doubt it's an oversight. They were backed out of the 1.0 branch because that particular branch has much higher requirements for stability, etc. (since it's the basis of at least one significant product.) 1.1 has slightly different standards.

#31 Re: Bug

by sunfire

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:01 AM

Reply to this message

The Site Navigation Bar is great, already missed it. It was ok to disable it in 1.0, but it's nice to have it in the 1.1

But hopefully they take out BLINK and MARQUEE again. People will never stop using this stuff if the browsers support it. And at least the world's best browser shouldn't support such nonsense.

#85 What is the site navigator bar?

by ecarlson

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:07 PM

Reply to this message

What is the site navigator bar? I don't see anything new in 1.1.

#91 the site navigation bar

by sunfire

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 4:54 AM

Reply to this message

it only shows up on webpages which support it. You can give a webpage a logical releationship to another page by using for example <link rel="next" href="nextpage.html" title="next Page">. Now nextpage.html is defined as the following page, e.g. in a manual.

the site navigation bar allows to navigate with these information. if you want to know how it looks like you can enable it with "View -> Show/Hide -> Site Navigation Bar -> Show Always"

#93 Thanks

by ecarlson

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 6:46 AM

Reply to this message

#100 Re: the site navigation bar - trying to understand

by jorgenson

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 1:35 PM

Reply to this message

I have some but not a lot of programing experience. The posting on this topic is a follows: "You can give a webpage a logical releationship to another page by using for example <link rel="next" href="nextpage.html" title="next Page">. Now nextpage.html is defined as the following page, e.g. in a manual."

I would like to understand about the site navigation bar and the above explanation is not clear to me.

Could some one please help me?

Dr. Harvey Jorgenson

#102 Re: Re: the site navigation bar - trying to unders

by johnlar <johnlar@tfn.net>

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 2:28 PM

Reply to this message

Your a very difficult man you know that :) Ok just go into your view menu, select "Show/Hide" -> Site Navigation Bar -> Show only when needed (or always) Then goto a site that uses it, slashdot.org used to use it, it still shows up on the site, but it nolonger works properly. Remember this feature was a one hit wonder about 6 months ago, its removal from 1.0 left many websites to stop supporting it, but it is w3c spec so it probably will stick around. A proper example though is the linux documentation project. Most of its howtos have proper support for this, though they could definatly use more if its features. Anyways and example of ths is <http://www.tldp.org/HOWTO/3Dfx-HOWTO-2.html> and you will see the previous/next/document option available, with the document option not being used to its full extent.

#106 Re: Re: Re: the site navigation bar - trying to un

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 6:29 PM

Reply to this message

Navigating a buglist is also a great demo of the site navigation bar. Visit this URL <http://bugzilla.mozilla.o…al&order=Last+Changed> with the toolbar enabled and see how easy it is to navigate the buglist (you don't have to rely on the bug being scrolled all the way to the top or bottom to get at the in-page navigation).

--Asa

#113 Re: the site navigation bar - trying to understand

by GAThrawn

Thursday August 29th, 2002 3:36 AM

Reply to this message

It's not much of an explanation of the concepts behind the site nav bar, but at <http://www.jard.co.uk/net/mozlink.txt> (plain text file) there's a listing of what <link> tag relates to which item on the site nav bar, along with a short example grabbed from the source of a bugzilla page.

#59 Re: Re: Great News.

by jonasj

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:06 PM

Reply to this message

> The Site Navigation Bar is back (great!)

It was never removed from the trunk, only from the 1.0 branch.

> Mozilla now supports the BLINK and MARQUEE tags!

Only <marquee> is new. <blink> has always been supported.

#14 Another new feature is...

by nick <nick@reloco.com.ar>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 12:21 AM

Reply to this message

Progressive JPEG support at last. This should be in the list..!

#16 good release

by dipa

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:02 AM

Reply to this message

Since quite a few people are afraid of the potential (but very rare) hazards involved in the usage of nightly binaries, this one is a fine way to go. Additionally, it's almost on "cutting edge" since very few user important fixes have been checked in 1.2a so far. Bunch of new features, the usual amount of bug fixes, some recent nasty regressions have been ironed out. No complaint.

#17 Thank you so much

by bjornte

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:13 AM

Reply to this message

Just want to say Thank You, Asa and others! Moz 1.0 has been my default browser since its release, and I'm moving forward now thanks to you. Great!

#18 Bug

by NXprime

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:55 AM

Reply to this message

Enable GO, DISABLE PRINT & SEARCH. Click through all the side selections. Change home page. Then ENABLE both HTTP pipelineing options. Click okay and BAM! Mozilla crashes.

Btw, Bookmarks manager does not manage a damn thing. Never sorts any selections at all.

Also, why isn't there and APPLY buttion for the prefs window? Lost all changes after the crash too. :( Access violation error or whatever. Win XP 512 MB RAM, A XP 1800+, Maxor 40 GB HD. Cable internet connection.

#30 Re: Bug

by sunfire

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 7:57 AM

Reply to this message

file a bug

#52 Re: Bug

by beastie

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 11:44 AM

Reply to this message

> Also, why isn't there and APPLY buttion for the prefs window?

Why do you need one? An apply button is more confusing than useful. More than half the users I watch changing Display settings in Windows click Apply first and then click OK, when all they have to do is click OK.

#57 memory usage

by schauvea

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:35 PM

Reply to this message

> > Also, why isn't there and APPLY buttion for the prefs window?

> Why do you need one? An apply button is more confusing than useful. More than > half the users I watch changing Display settings in Windows click Apply first > and then click OK, when all they have to do is click OK.

Ever try to change your font settings: (1) Open Edit menu (2) Select Preferences (3) Toggle Appearance (4) Select Fonts (5) Change your font settings (6) Press Ok button (7) If result is not good (90% chance) restart from (1)

After 3 iterations that becomes really anoying.

#68 Re: memory usage

by WillyWonka

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:43 PM

Reply to this message

The font pref window needs a preview. I looked into it a couple weeks ago (when a friend complained) and it wouldn't be too hard to do, if the pref panel had room for 5 or so lines of preview text. I think the dialog needs to be re-designed so you select from a list which type of font you want to modify instead of having 5 or so drop down boxes. Then there would only be one type of font visible at a time and it would be easy to have a preview. But that requires a little redesign work.

#81 It's usefull

by sunfire

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 6:58 PM

Reply to this message

I think waht you mentioned is right for beginners, but for more experienced users an apply button is quite usefull to test the settings immediately without leaving the preferneces.

however you normaly can do without one. the only time i needed one in mozilla was when it still was crashing all the time, and these times are gone.

#83 Re: It's usefull

by Nemo_NX

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:54 PM

Reply to this message

Um it crashed on me when changing some basic settings. That's my whole point. If you do a new clean install and NEED to change a lot of stuff than an apply button is highly ideal.

#86 Apply button and bookmark sorting - in Bugzilla.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:09 PM

Reply to this message

Did you do a simple Bugzilla search? Keying on "apply button preference" brings up <<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42339>> right away.

Also, do a Bugzilla search for "bookmark sort" - several bugs there too...

#87 Apply button and bookmark sorting - in Bugzilla.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:23 PM

Reply to this message

Corrected link: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42339>.

Why can't the main Mozillazine comments treat hyperlinks the same as the forums? The inconsistency is really annoying. I hardly ever post here - almost always in the forums - so I enclose hyperlinks in < > by habit.

#88 2nd correction to link.

by JBassford <jasonb@dante.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:26 PM

Reply to this message

Unreal. It took my "." as part of the URL. (That would never happen with < >.) One more time, with feeling:

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=42339>

#19 Where's the source code?

by Kirby

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:43 AM

Reply to this message

I can't find it on the FTP...

#20 Re: Where's the source code?

by mlefevre

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:32 AM

Reply to this message

the source code isn't available by FTP yet by the looks of it (it tends to trail a few days or weeks behind). the best way to get the source is with CVS - see <http://www.mozilla.org/source.html>

#49 Re: Where's the source code?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:54 AM

Reply to this message

We're almost always 1 day later with the source tarball. Get the source from CVS if you can't wait.

--Asa

#23 Rendering-Bug

by maikmerten

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 4:14 AM

Reply to this message

Have a look at

<http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/>

With Moz 1.1 the background (the astronaut) doesn´t scoll properly. It did with Mozilla 1.0.

Here at work I´m using WinXP.

ideas?

bye,

Maik Merten

#24 background image

by thelem

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 5:05 AM

Reply to this message

Looks like the old PNG refreshing bug again, but on a jpeg.

#26 Re: background image

by maikmerten

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 6:50 AM

Reply to this message

It´s already filed in Bugzilla:

Bug 152373

<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=152373>

Too sad Moz 1.1 suffers from this bug...

#92 re: Rendering-Bug

by GAThrawn

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 5:34 AM

Reply to this message

I've got a page that uses a fixed position background (using png images), and whilst I've been testing an app over the last few days I've noticed that Mozilla seems to have different problems with it depending on teh MIME type I'm sending.

The page itself is written as valid XHTML 1.0, with an external style sheet which specifies complexsiral style fixed positioned backgrounds on a number of elements.

When I specify the MIME type as "text/html" everything renders OK and the fixed positioning works as expected when scrolling, if you specify the MIME type as "application/xhtml+xml" then everything dispays OK, and as long as you scroll using page up/down, or mouse clicking (not dragging) in the scroll bar then it scrolls OK. But if i scroll with the mouse wheel, or by dragging the scroll bar, the background gets slightly corrupted (repeating sections, bits that look 'melted'). Finally if you specify a "text/xml" MIME type, the smae kind of corruptions appear as the xhtml mime type, but I can get them to happen just using page up/down too.

I'll see about getting a simplified example on a public web server, and then submitting the test case to the bug, but has anyone else noticed this?

#27 View HTML mail as plain text

by Ascaris <ascaris1@att.net>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 7:13 AM

Reply to this message

Hi,

Dumb question, but how do I activate the "view HTML mail as plain text" function?

Thanks, Frank

#34 Re: View HTML mail as plain text

by lama <lasse@lama.no>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:20 AM

Reply to this message

View - Message Body As - Plain Text

#33 1.1 vs. 1.0.1?

by sphealey

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:18 AM

Reply to this message

Hmm - now I am a bit confused. Why would 1.1.0 be released before 1.0.1? Surely it would be better to nail down the bug fixes on the "stake in the ground" release before moving on?

sPh

#38 Re: 1.1 vs. 1.0.1?

by fuzzygorilla

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:04 AM

Reply to this message

> Why would 1.1.0 be released before 1.0.1?

Because the two are independant of each other. The 1.0 branch, from which 1.0.1 will be released, only gets "important" bug fixes and then probably only ones which are proven stable or important to security.

> Surely it would be better to nail down the bug fixes on the > "stake in the ground" release before moving on?

The two are independent branches. And IMHO, it is better to test the bug fixes in the "add new features" branch to verify they do not reduce stability, than to check fixes into the "stake in the ground" where they may cause problems.

#53 Re: 1.1 vs. 1.0.1?

by belltower

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 12:21 PM

Reply to this message

"Why would 1.1.0 be released before 1.0.1?"

As I understand it, Netscape Navigator is based off of Mozilla 1.0.x. Later versions of Mozilla may be used as the basis of later versions of Navigator, but in the interim, features that may not be release quality are allowed in Mozilla. But 1.0.x releases should be of ever-increasing stablity for those who need that more than anything else.

#80 Navigator 7.0

by kberk <kberk@bigfoot.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 6:22 PM

Reply to this message

Nav 7 has not been released yet. If 1.1 is as stable as 1.01, then nothing is really stopping Netscape from using the 1.1 branch. Time will tell.

#35 1.1 on Jaguar?

by pohl <pohl@screaming.org>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:33 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't had the opportunity to test 1.1 on MacOSX 10.2, but mozilla 1.0 and 1.1b1 would crash on startup. This could be the C++ ABI change, perhaps...or I suppose it could be that I'm running the case-sensitive UFS filesystem instead of HFS+, breaking some assumption in the OSX-specific mozilla code.

Anybody else experience this problem? Has anybody gotten 1.1 to run on Jaguar?

#37 Mozilla 1.1b on Jaguar "Works for me"

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:59 AM

Reply to this message

I have been running Mozilla 1.1 branch builds as well as various post 1.1 trunk builds on Jaguar without any major problems (not bug free, but no crashes either). However, I am using HFS+; I have not done any testing with UFS.

#44 osX builds must be on HFS+

by tdgrmsn

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:16 AM

Reply to this message

Sorry to be the RT(F)M guy, but....

Mac OS X: Mozilla will not run when the application is installed on a UFS partition. The workaround is to move the application folder to an HFS+ partition and it will run correctly.

<http://www.mozilla.org/releases/mozilla1.1/>

Enjoy!

#58 vote for Bug 86538

by pohl <pohl@screaming.org>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:42 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks for the pointer. If you want to vote for this bug in bugzilla, it's #86538

#36 about mozilla

by orrin

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 8:56 AM

Reply to this message

this may be a messup on my profile or something (altho, i don't know why it would work like that)

but i just downloaded 1.1 and when I go to Help > About Mozilla I get this:

Mozilla 1.0rc2

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020512 Netscape/7.0b1

I know the 1.0rc2 isn't right, but what about the build number. Build number isn't in the title bar anymore.. so I can't tell.

#40 Mozilla User Agent Override

by arsa

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:24 AM

Reply to this message

Happened with me with that sidebar when i installed 1.0 over RC2 Couldn't figure out why it's mozilla1.0 but says rc2 untill i remembered i installed it heh.

Also, what's that Netscape/7.0b1 line?

#51 uagent add-on

by orrin

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 11:42 AM

Reply to this message

yeah, i completly forgot about that. probably pieces of that still somewhere in my profile. errr..

Is someone working on a way to uninstall all the nifty add-on programs (jabberzilla, optimoz, etc.) that sometimes cause problems, or when we want to install a new release or build? It would be very helpful.

thanks.

#43 no announcement sent to mozilla-announce?

by tim_olsen

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

did anyone on the mozilla-announce or netscape.public.mozilla.announce newsgroup get an announcement?

they sent one out for the 1.1 beta, but not for 1.1 final???

#73 Re: no announcement sent to mozilla-announce?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:16 PM

Reply to this message

I did post an announce. It took a while to get moderated ;-) It's there now.

--Asa

#46 Mozilla 1.1 on ZDNet

by zipo13

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:29 AM

Reply to this message

#47 Do I uninstall 1.0 before installing 1.1?

by ecarlson

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 10:38 AM

Reply to this message

In Win2K, should I uninstall 1.0 before installing 1.1? If I install 1.1 in a seperate directory, can I share the 1.0 profile? Can I uninstall 1.0 later without any problems?

- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#76 Anybody?

by ecarlson

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

I didn't see anything in the release notes saying to uninstall 1.0 first, but since nobody has answered my question, I guess I'll make a backup copy of my user data and uninstall 1.0 just to be safe.

#77 Re: Anybody?

by WillyWonka

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:49 PM

Reply to this message

I uninstalled and haven't run into problems (well, there are some, but they are unrelated to that)

#78 Thanks.

by ecarlson

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 4:44 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks.

#82 Crash!

by ecarlson

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 7:48 PM

Reply to this message

Mozilla 1.1 actually crashed on me, and it wasn't related to visiting a specific page. I wasn't expecting that after having such good luck with 1.0.

Mozilla 1.0 used to crash when viewing certain pages, but never at any other time. I did try some of the pages that used to crash 1.0, and 1.1 viewed them fine, which is good, but I don't know what caused this random crash.

Also, I don't notice any speed improvements over 1.0 on my Dual P-III/500 box, runnning Win2k with 512.Meg RAM.

- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#84 Rendering bug is back

by ecarlson

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 9:05 PM

Reply to this message

A rendering bug is back that was there in 1.0/RC3, and was gone in 1.0, and is back in 1.1. I wish I knew what was causing the bug.

If you go to the forums at <http://www.DPReview.com/> and reply to a post, the text entry box is only 50% as wide as it should be. It makes it very difficult to post messages there, and I post a lot in the Olympus Talk forum.

-- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#50 New Icons clash

by lazytiger

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 11:14 AM

Reply to this message

The new icons are cool looking, except they clash with every theme other than Classic. And they are hard to decipher when small (i.e., on the start menu and the quicklaunch icon). I'm sure there's a way to change it to whatever icons you want, but is there any way for a non-programmer to figure it out? Are icons a part of themes?

#56 View HTML mail as plain text

by Ascaris <ascaris1@att.net>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 1:23 PM

Reply to this message

Lazytiger,

Sure, it is easy to figure out. They are in \mozilla\chrome\icons\default. They are just .ico files, which you can replace with any other .ico file. I personally extracted all of the icons from Navigator 4.79 and used those for Mozilla. This also works in 1.0, btw... just create the folders and drop the icons in.

Frank

#94 Re: View HTML mail as plain text

by lazytiger

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 8:51 AM

Reply to this message

I'd never thought much about the icons in Mozilla until 1.1, because they were all just the blue-ish lizard. I quickly figured out how easy it is to change the icons, then I felt a little sheepish about having posted my comment here. But my other comments remain true - the NS 4.x-esque icons clash with any theme other than classic, to the point of actually being somewhat confusing. Then the red lizard used for the desktop icon and the quicklaunch causes an additional clash with everything else. It doesn't mesh with anything. It's just a weird "NS 4.x meets Mozilla". And it look like crap at 16x16. It looks like a dog or a fox or something... certainly not a red lizard.

#98 Re: Re: View HTML mail as plain text

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 11:31 AM

Reply to this message

You got something better that you'd like to contribute to replace those icons?

--Asa

#104 icons

by lazytiger

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 3:24 PM

Reply to this message

No, I don't. My talent as a graphic designer is poor compared to lots of other people out there. Getting defensive about the amount of work people have put into this project is understandable. I'm not trying to piss anyone off here. Just making an observation that can be shunned, or thought about. I know that Mozilla isn't really meant to be an end-user product, but it often is. The public-at-large out there doesn't give a damn how much work someone put in, they just want a good (looking) product. (actually, in our pop culture of vanity, looks are quite often more important than functionality.) I'm not saying that's nice, but it's reality. And they're not going to post anything about in this forum... they're simply not going to use Mozilla.

Anyway, I'm blowing this way out of proportion. The point is, that's my opinion about the icons. Ignore me as necessary.

#54 Help: bottom space with text in every Moz Window

by gadeiros <Harald@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 12:53 PM

Reply to this message

Hello. I just downloaded 1.1 - the Win32-zip and unzipped it into an empty dir. I had 1.1 beta running in the same dir before (I renamed the old one and created a new one with the same name).

After starting, every window has an gray area about 2 cm high at the bottom below the status bar with the follwing text in red:

<key id="key_irc" key="&ircCmd.commandkey;" command="Tasks:IRC" modifiers="accel"/> --^

Even the Sidebar window does have this, at the bottom of the current open tab, above closed tabs at the bottom.

#60 Re: Help: bottom space with text in every Moz Wind

by jonasj

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:10 PM

Reply to this message

Delete XUL.mfl from you profile directory.

#69 Re: Re: Help: bottom space with text in every Moz

by gadeiros <Harald@Henkel.DAH.UUnet.DE>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:01 PM

Reply to this message

Thanks. The error in XUL.mfl also caused the german language pack to be not recognized / applied correctly.

Now everything seems ok :-)

#61 Re: Help: bottom space with text in every Moz Wind

by webgremlin <junk@transientweb.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:24 PM

Reply to this message

you've got an error in the XUL... I'd try again and/or use the installer. if you don't use IRC, leave it out of the install

#115 solution

by 2of3

Thursday August 29th, 2002 4:16 AM

Reply to this message

deleting xul.mfl did not work for me, but deleting the "chrome"-folder (in your profile) did do the job!

#62 Mozilla start page?

by phredx

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:27 PM

Reply to this message

why has the start page for 1.1 reverted to <http://www.mozilla.org/start/>, which i thought had been deprecated by <http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/>... ?

#64 Re: Mozilla start page?

by phredx

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:28 PM

Reply to this message

make that <http://www.mozilla.org/start/> vs. <http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0>

my punctuation got eaten...

#63 turning off marquee?

by morg

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:27 PM

Reply to this message

How do I turn off marquee?

I created a file in my profile's chrome directory, usercontent.css. In that file I have the following entry:

marquee { -moz-binding: none; display: block; height: auto !important;

}

Nevertheless, when I go to <http://www.ft.com> I still see a scrolling marquee at the bottom.

Death to marquee!

#74 it is off--site's screwy

by webgremlin <junk@transientweb.com>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:19 PM

Reply to this message

that site is using a special script to simulate the effect of a marquee (in IE it uses regular marquees) like Netscape.com does.

#75 Re: it is off--site's screwy

by WillyWonka

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:48 PM

Reply to this message

It also drives the processor usage of moz sky high. 99% on my machine.

#79 well...

by morg

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 5:51 PM

Reply to this message

Well, I'll be damned.

#118 Re: well...

by schapel

Thursday August 29th, 2002 9:27 AM

Reply to this message

Still, I think Mozilla's support of marquee is to blame for today's bad weather. Yeah, that's it! Evil marquee!!! ;-)

#125 yes

by morg

Friday August 30th, 2002 9:48 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, marquee is evil. Now you are getting the message.

Still, I'd tolerate a little evil in Mozilla. Just make the evil non-default in Mozilla. That's all I ask. Is that so wrong.

#116 Re: it is off--site's screwy

by ed_welch

Thursday August 29th, 2002 4:21 AM

Reply to this message

If you want to disable that put this line into your User.ps: user_pref("capability.policy.default.Window.setTimeout", "noAccess");

#66 when will the download manager be ready?

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:40 PM

Reply to this message

at this stage it is totally superfluous.

#67 when will the download manager be ready?

by Hanno <Hanno@kscfans-siegen.de>

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 2:42 PM

Reply to this message

at this stage it is totally superfluous.

#70 Release Info Page Invalid

by skeeter

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:11 PM

Reply to this message

It keep blowing up my Mozilla 1.1b Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020814 So I ran the release info page through validation, you know what it failed Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation

I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog.

<http://validator.w3.org/c…lly%29&doctype=Inline>

#71 Release Info Page Invalid

by skeeter

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:12 PM

Reply to this message

It keep blowing up my Mozilla 1.1b Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.1b) Gecko/20020814 So I ran the release info page through validation, you know what it failed Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.

Fatal Error: no document type declaration; will parse without validation

I could not parse this document, because it uses a public identifier that is not in my catalog.

<http://validator.w3.org/c…lly%29&doctype=Inline>

#72 Re: Release Info Page Invalid

by skeeter

Tuesday August 27th, 2002 3:13 PM

Reply to this message

Now how did that get here twice?????

#89 Page-info->Render mode->Quirks mode Why?

by apenev

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 3:48 AM

Reply to this message

Hi, I've just tried the new Page info and what i see is that all my pages are being rendered in Quirks mode. Even the mozillazine.org page renders in quirks mode. Mozilla.org not! My page validates fine with w3.org, the css too. So the question is how to find out the reason for this quirks mode Thanks in advance

#90 Re: Page-info->Render mode->Quirks mode Why?

by pharm

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 4:38 AM

Reply to this message

You have to set the right DOCTYPE to get the non-quirks mode:

<http://www.mozilla.org/do…oper/quirks/doctypes.html>

#99 Settings screwed up.

by finwe

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

After installing Mozilla 1.1, my previous settings were screwed up (my sidebar didn't work etc. etc.). So I uninstalled everything and tried again...but although I even deleted the Mozilla folder, all settings remained (?).

Where is all the settings stored? I think it's a bit embaressing that a project at this size can't provide proper uninstallers.

(I've searched my HD for files and cleaned out everthing named mozilla from my registry, nothing helped)

#101 Re: Settings screwed up.

by pulsorock

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 1:59 PM

Reply to this message

It happened to me too. I wanted to do a fresh install, but all the settings and preferences stayed after I uninstalled and deleted the folder. If someone could tell us how to do a clean install, it would be good.

#108 Re: Re: Settings screwed up.

by WillyWonka

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 9:46 PM

Reply to this message

Your profiles, in Windows2000 (It's different in the different versions of windows) are stored in

C:\documents and settings\[user account]\Application Data\Mozilla\Profiles\[profile name]\[random salt].slt\

(Application Data is hidden, so you might have to make it visible)

#112 Re: Re: Re: Settings screwed up.

by finwe

Thursday August 29th, 2002 2:06 AM

Reply to this message

Thanks alot!

The folder was hidden, which is probably why I didn't find it.

#107 Re: Settings screwed up.

by ecarlson

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 8:03 PM

Reply to this message

I assume you're talking about Windows since you mention a registry. I would assume your settings are where they should be, in the user profile folder. Try creating a new profile, it should get you back to the default settings.

Uninstall doesn't remove any profiles. If it did, you'd lose all your e-mail, bookmarks, address book, filters, custom settings, cookies, etc. I've got 5 year's of e-mail in Mozilla (>50,000 messages). I'd be pretty mad if it deleted all that.

- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#111 Re: Re: Settings screwed up.

by finwe

Thursday August 29th, 2002 2:05 AM

Reply to this message

So is this is better? How are new mozillausers which encounter this problem get help (you know, all people aren't that god at computers).

An option in the uninstaller would be enough.

#119 Deleting profiles

by ecarlson

Thursday August 29th, 2002 11:33 AM

Reply to this message

If you uninstall Outlook, does it delete all your e-mail too? Is there an option when uninstalling Outlook to delete all your e-mail, address books, filters, and custom settings? I don't know the answer to these questions, but I would hope not.

There is more info about profiles in the Mozilla release notes, including information about where Mozilla stores your user profiles for each operating system. If you really want to get rid of everything, then delete your profile folder too after you uninstall Mozilla.

#121 Re: Deleting profiles

by finwe

Thursday August 29th, 2002 4:46 PM

Reply to this message

I don't use Outlook so I don't know, probably not, since you're mentioning it.

I think your argument is ridiculous. Internet Explorer can't be uninstalled, should an installed Mozilla be a permanent part of Windows? Since when is Internet Explorer/Outlook a guideline for how other software should be?

New Mozilla versions arrive all the time, and errors in profile settings will surely arrive as well. You can't really mean that an option in the uninstaller for deleting them is a bad idea?

#122 RE: Deleting profiles

by ecarlson

Thursday August 29th, 2002 5:52 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, you can uninstall (at least parts of) IE, with the latest service packs for XP and 2K.

Yes, you can uninstall Outlook.

Since Outlook/Express and IE are the most common e-mail and web browser apps for Windows, it is very obvious to compare other e-mail apps and web browsers to them.

Yes, an uninstall option to delete profiles is a bad idea. But maybe they should add a note saying that if you use your old profiles, you will have your old settings. I suppose they could give you the option to create a new profile during install in case you want to start out fresh. That makes a lot more sense than deleting an old profile.

- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#103 DHTML still slower than IE6?

by chong

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 2:30 PM

Reply to this message

The new Mozilla 1.1 seems to be faster than previous versions on DHTML.

However, on some DHTML demos on this site <http://pascal.dynamic-cor…eym/archives/00000016.php> , IE6 still seems faster. The difference is very much evident on the Blobs, and Vector Sine demos.

Thus my question is: Is IE6 still faster in DHTML than Mozilla 1.1?

TIA

#105 worth switching from chimera?

by wtmcgee

Wednesday August 28th, 2002 5:25 PM

Reply to this message

i haven't tried out 1.1 yet, but do any OS X users out there think it's worth the switch, and if so, why?

just wondering if it's worth a download :)

#109 "show image" functionality still missing

by borofkin <macdonald.david.da@bhp.com.au>

Thursday August 29th, 2002 12:32 AM

Reply to this message

Arrgh! Still missing my most sought-after feature: the ability, while in "show no images" mode, to right click on an image and select "show image", to get it to display just that image. Oh well, maybe in the next release

#110 Mozilla startup logo

by pointwood

Thursday August 29th, 2002 1:20 AM

Reply to this message

I un-installed Mozilla 1.0 and installed 1.1 on my Win2k install. One little thing I noticed is that the startup screen still says Mozilla 1.0.

#114 re: Mozilla startup logo

by GAThrawn

Thursday August 29th, 2002 3:50 AM

Reply to this message

Did you install a custom startup banner? My Mozilla has never had a version number in it's startup banner on Windows.

Unless you mean the start web page? When Moz 1.1 is first run it takes you to <http://www.mozilla.org/start/> which doesn't have a version number, but if you previously had 1.0 and had set _its_ start page as your home page then you were probably taken to <http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/> which does have a version number as it is specifically the start page for version 1.0 (have a look at the URL).

You can change your home page to anything you want to, if you don't want to see "Welcome to Mozilla 1.0" each time.

#117 Anyone know what features are planned for 1.2?

by ed_welch

Thursday August 29th, 2002 4:24 AM

Reply to this message

Do they just continue fixing bugs, or is there a specific plan?

#120 Re: Anyone know what features are planned for 1.2?

by asa <asa@mozilla.org>

Thursday August 29th, 2002 1:37 PM

Reply to this message

xre, shared profiles, spam assasin and much more is planned (and definitely fixing bugs). You can get all the information your heart desires by looking in Bugzilla, the landing plan, the newsgroups and the status updates.

--Asa

#127 Landing Plan

by SubtleRebel <mark@ky.net>

Saturday August 31st, 2002 4:22 AM

Reply to this message

Out of curiousity, I just looked at the Landing Plan at <http://komodo.mozilla.org/planning/branches.cgi>

It looks like it could use some updating

#124 Where are profile's files (bookmarks, etc.) stored

by aroolaart <anton@tempuswebs.com>

Friday August 30th, 2002 8:09 AM

Reply to this message

I loaded Mozilla 1.1 on a clean XP machine (no prior installs of Netscape or Mozilla) and I can't find where the profile's files (bookmarks, preferences, addressbook) are. The documentation I found online says: c:\\Documents and Settings\\<mylogin>\\Application Data\\mozilla....

But I don't have a directory called "Application Data" under mylogin

On a similar note... what if I had older 4.7x netscape and loaded Mozilla 1.1 on Windows 2000... It finds my old profiles and does what???? Where are the new Mozilla ones?

Help please...

Anton

#126 See release notes, and unhide system files

by ecarlson

Friday August 30th, 2002 10:33 PM

Reply to this message

The profile locations for each OS are listed in the release notes. In Windows XP/2000, the directories are system directories, which are hidden by default, so you'll have to set the View mode in Windows Explorer (not IE) to show system files.

- Eric, <http://www.InvisibleRobot.com/>

#128 Java Sun2 1.4.01 in Moz 1.1 Zips ?

by skeeter

Saturday August 31st, 2002 11:24 AM

Reply to this message

Hi All

Is this a Windows XP thing or has something changed? On Windows ME I had no problems getting the java engine to work.

I've put in a dual boot and on XP I can't get Sun2 engine to work. Is this an OP thing or is their something new in the zips? Does anyone have this workin?

PS (NS 7 is installed and it works, plus I put the correct files into the plugin folder--old stuff ;-) )

#129 Java Sun2 1.4.01 in Moz 1.1 Zips ?

by skeeter

Saturday August 31st, 2002 11:36 AM

Reply to this message

Hi All

Is this a Windows XP thing or has something changed? On Windows ME I had no problems getting the java engine to work.

I've put in a dual boot and on XP I can't get Sun2 engine to work. Is this an OP thing or is their something new in the zips? Does anyone have this workin?

PS (NS 7 is installed and it works, plus I put the correct files into the plugin folder--old stuff ;-) )

#130 Second double post this week?

by skeeter

Saturday August 31st, 2002 12:39 PM

Reply to this message

What is going on, does hitting the back button cause a double post now?

#131 No longer the Oingo.com Browser

by ronbu

Sunday September 1st, 2002 10:55 PM

Reply to this message

Well, Mozilla 1.1 would no longer be nicknamed the Oingo.com browser. :.) I usually use Beonex 0.8 and an Oingo.com directory page shows up every time I go to the history tab, and often when I click a link to go to a new browser window. Hey, maybe Oingo.com should build a branded version of Mozilla. LOL! Hopefully, Beonex will have release 0.9 for Windows to go along with their Linux release. And, I'm glad that the bug which had the links sometimes displaying nothing but a few images is fixed.

#132 Crashes on Windows XP

by skeeter

Monday September 2nd, 2002 1:32 PM

Reply to this message

Got a dual boot system, Windows ME -- Windows XP (NTFS) On ME great no problems. On XP trouble, Mozilla 1.1 (zip) is causing havoc with the graphics, Newest treibers, no updates possible. Here is the crash report.

Only, Mozilla was running and it only happens when Mozilla is running. Any one else seeing this?

// // Watchdog Event Log File //

LogType: Watchdog Created: 2002-09-02 21:18:09 TimeZone: -60 - W. Europe Standard Time WindowsVersion: XP EventType: 0xEA - Thread Stuck in Device Driver

// // The driver for the display device got stuck in an infinite loop. This // usually indicates a problem with the device itself or with the device // driver programming the hardware incorrectly. Please check with your // display device vendor for any driver updates. //

ShutdownCount: 17 Shutdown: 0 EventCount: 2 BreakCount: 2 BugcheckTriggered: 1 DebuggerNotPresent: 1 DriverName: ati2dvag EventFlag: 1 DeviceClass: Display DeviceDescription: RADEON 7000 / RADEON VE HardwareID: PCI\VEN_1002&DEV_5159&SUBSYS_013A1002&REV_00 Manufacturer: ATI Technologies Inc. DriverFixedFileInfo: FEEF04BD 00010000 0006000D 000A17E6 0006000D 000A17E6 0000003F 00000008 00040004 00000003 00000004 00000000 00000000 DriverCompanyName: ATI Technologies Inc. DriverFileDescription: ATI Radeon WindowsNT Display Driver DriverFileVersion: 6.13.10.6118 DriverInternalName: ati2dvag.dll DriverLegalCopyright: Copyright (C) 1998-2002 ATI Technologies Inc. DriverOriginalFilename: ati2dvag.dll DriverProductName: ATI Radeon Family DriverProductVersion: 5.1.2600.0

#133 Re: Crashes on Windows XP

by pedrop357

Sunday September 8th, 2002 10:28 PM

Reply to this message

I have windows xp and have just started using netscape 7.0 (apparently the final version) and it has done the same thing to me 3 times in 20 minutes I have a radeon 7500 AGP. Same device driver version as you, same watchdog file and everything.