Mozilla 1.5 Beta Released
Wednesday August 27th, 2003
mozilla.org has just released Mozilla 1.5 Beta. Amongst the usual improvements, there's a range of Mail & Newsgroups enhancements and a major ChatZilla update. This is also the first milestone to include a spellchecker. Grab a build from the mozilla.org Releases Page (or direct from ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla/releases/mozilla1.5b) and check out the Mozilla 1.5 Beta Release Notes for more information.
#1 Problematic behavior with tab groups
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 8:15 PM
Just tried 1.5b. I use groups of tabs (one of the many nice features in Mozilla), but they behave differently in this build. Say I have 4 tabs open, and then open a tab group; in 1.4, the tab group is "additive" (the existing tabs stay open, and the tab group also opens). In 1.5b, each time I try to open a tab group, it *replaces* ALL of my open tabs. Am not sure whether this is a regression, or whether there is a new prefs.js parameter that needs to be added/changed. Comments?
#6 Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 10:52 PM
This seems to be <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=208278>.
#20 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 8:42 AM
This new behavious is so obviously wrong, I can't believe they changed it. Opening a bookmark-group should work the exact same way as opening a bookmark does. Why is that so hard for people to understand?
I have 3 tabs open, I open a normal bookmark, the current tab is replaced with the bookmarked page, and the other tabs remain. Now there are only really two ways you can duplicate this expected behaviour with bookmark groups. The first way is to replace the current tab with the first page in the bookmark ground, then insert new tabs to the right of the current tab for the other pages. The other way is to simple move right replacing other open tabs with the pages and append new tabs as needed onto the end. These should be the only two options, and it should probably be a preference users can set.
Any other way of doing it is simply wrong. If I wanted my 10 tabs to be destroyed when I open a bookmark of 3 tabs, I would have closed those 10 myself. If I wanted a new window, I would have pressed control+N before opening my bookmark group. If I wanted to append tabs similar to the way 1.4 and prior worked, I would simply press control+T before opening my bookmark group.
#27 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 11:14 AM
#31 Re: Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 1:02 PM
Do devs even pay attention to that though? I'm honestly curious if there is even a point in voting. Does anyone have any recent example of voting getting devs to do something? It must be useful as a tool for devs to know what people are most interested in, but I would like to hear if it really makes any difference since I've never looked into the matter on my own.
#37 Re: Re: Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab grou
Thursday August 28th, 2003 5:24 PM
I've only anecdotal answers. Many times it doesn't help, but one instance that worked was when the application name was added back to Windows and Linux versions of Firebird.
#49 Re: Re: Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab grou
Friday August 29th, 2003 6:12 AM
Some devs do pay attention to the votes sometimes.
Like you say, it can be a useful tool to know what people are interested in. It can be useful when searching for bugs, as sometimes the ones you want are the "popular" ones. It's used by several of the change-tracking lists to flag up "interesting" bugs.
But votes don't directly make any difference - developer time isn't allocated according to which bugs have most votes or anything like that. It's just an indicator of what bugzilla users are interested in.
#7 UNproblematic behavior with tab groups
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 11:10 PM
it's designed to replace the previous group with the next group. Just as a previous page is replaced by the next page. I think this was a GREAT decision.
Open a new window if you want too have both groups. ;-)
#8 Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 11:18 PM
Might be, but there should be a preference to change that behaviour. If I wanted new windows I wouldn't use tabs.
This should be configurable - as others, I prefer my tabs to get added. Note that this is not symmetric: when the behavior adds tabs, you can still get a window with just the new tabs by either closing the old ones before or using an new window. But you cannot get a window with both the old and new tabs with the new behavior.
#14 Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 4:12 AM
> you can still get a window with just the new tabs by either closing the old ones...
You cannot close *all* old tabs. One would always remain.
I always thought that the old behavior of "adding" tabs was annoying, because one often ended up with an enourmous amount of tabs; and why open new tabs when one is not done with the previous ones? The cost-benefit (on average) is that it is better to open a new window for new-added tabs than to deal with many-many tabs in one window per default.
#51 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Friday August 29th, 2003 8:29 AM
"I always thought that the old behavior of "adding" tabs was annoying, because one often ended up with an enourmous amount of tabs; and why open new tabs when one is not done with the previous ones?"
Because one knows that it's going to take forever for those new tabs to fill? At home, on dialup, I scan CNN's front page and open tabs for each of the interesting stories, then read them and close their tabs as they fill. It's way more efficient for me than back-arrowing to the front page, waiting for another story to fill, etc. and I don't get lost in a twisty maze of links and forget about stories that I wanted to read.
"The cost-benefit (on average) is that it is better to open a new window for new-added tabs than to deal with many-many tabs in one window per default."
For you, perhaps. Not for me. I welcomed tabs because I hate flipping windows and figured I would never again have to deal with multiple browser windows. I guess it depends on your favorite window manager and how you have it configured.
#45 Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Friday August 29th, 2003 1:12 AM
> If I wanted new windows I wouldn't use tabs. I wouldn't put it that way. I like to have a window per "subject", containing 1 tabs per site related to that subject (i.e. my "Mozilla news" bookmark group opens mozilla.org/Mozillazine/Mozillanews/Bonsai Watch/Burning Edge). I find it more convenient to open my "80s music" bookmark group in another windows. However, I always found annoying that clicking on a bookmarked group of 3 pages in a new window ends up with 4 tabs (homepage + 3 new) and I agree that systematically throwing all previous contents away in one click is a bit harsh. This is made worse by the fact that there is no "Back" or "Undo" functionality. The only solution to find previous contents back is to browse through history, which can be painful if some tabs are open for a long time So I agree that this should be made a preference. Maybe 3 options would be the best : Keep previous tabs/Throw away all previous tabs/Throw away only "Homepage" tabs. I'd choose the latter.
#55 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Friday August 29th, 2003 11:00 AM
"I agree that systematically throwing all previous contents away in one click is a bit harsh. This is made worse by the fact that there is no 'Back' or 'Undo' functionality."
Try pressing the Back button. :-)
Personally, I think the hidden pref is enough, together with the ability to append tabs by middle-clicking the group or dragging it onto a blank area of the tab bar.
#61 Re: Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Friday August 29th, 2003 12:23 PM
> Try pressing the Back button. :-)
And pray none of the pages you had loaded were results of POST operations. And that none of them were set to no-cache. And so forth.
That's not "back"; it's something that looks like "back" and acts totally different.
#36 Re: UNproblematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 5:19 PM
To open a new window kind of looses the point with tabs, right...
#38 Re: UNproblematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 8:26 PM
I agree completely! This is a terrific functionality that they've added! I believe whole heartedly that when clicking on a new group of bookmark tabs it should replace the existing tabs instead of junking up with more of them. But, like others have said, I suppose it should be configurable through an extension or something, we don't want to run the risk of offering a configuration for every single preference considering the new movement away from the bulky, overcrowded interfaces. (I'm certainly not going so far as others to say that the /old/ way is just plain wrong and everyone who supports it is simply wrong for the sake of being wrong... because it's wrong. :P)
#40 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 8:59 PM
If you like the new way, then the same behaviour should be forced for normal bookmarks as well as bookmark groups - all tabs should be removed and only a single tab should be left with your new single page. If you really like it that way, I suppose it could be a preference, but however bookmarks work, they MUST work the same for single as well as multiple bookmarks. Its just plain stupid not to have it work the same for both.
#17 Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 7:02 AM
about:config browser.tabs.loadFolderAndReplace false
#32 Re: Re: Problematic behavior with tab groups
Thursday August 28th, 2003 1:06 PM
This does not work. Plain and simple. Bookmark groups are just flat out *broken* for me now. Completely useless.
#42 Append pleease
by fczuardi <email@example.com>
Thursday August 28th, 2003 10:42 PM
This horrible behavior of replacing all tabs when a new group is open also happens in Firebird. And it sucks big time. A major usability problem I think, since middle-clicking anything in my bookmarks causes a new tab append, but when middle-click on a tab group the results are completely different from what anyone would expect. This is too much intrusive for me. Taking away my previous tabs without my concern! Please no!
I honestly hope that the append behavior come back, as default if possible. But if the drivers and the so called "usability tests" decide that replacing everything you had opened is the "normal" behavior, please give a preference for us.
#47 Re: UNproblematic behavior with tab groups
Friday August 29th, 2003 2:13 AM
Yes, a middle-click on a bookmark-group should append the group to the existing tabs. That would solve everyobodies problems. File a bug. ;)
The new behavior should be dependent on a modifier. (Shift, Alt, whatever.) That way each camp can have its own way.
Thats a good idea, and it eliminates the need for another option to configure, but by default groupmarks should work the same as bookmarks. Opening a bookmark or groupmark should replace only the current tab with the first new page, and insert new tabs to the right, pressing ALT+bookmark/groupmark should clear all tabs first, then open the page(s). Similarly, pressing ALT+hyperlink on a webpage should clear all tabs and open only that link. Then, they need to extend the modifiers to bookmarks/groupmakrs for shift/control so that control+bookmark/groupmark opens a new tab first, and shift+bookmark/groupmark starts downloading the bookmark as a file (save as... prompt) Seems like a really good way to have all the options people want, and uniform consistancy accross the board.
I know the first three times I added tab groups, I did it without previous content, like a group of start up pages. That works fine in both ways. The first time I tried to do with tabs already open, I lost 3 e-mail, 2 web forms that I had mostly filled and a patridge in a pear tree. They couldn't be retrieved and I lost an hour easy of productivity. Now, I could see losing my current tab, I planned for that (with ctrl + T), because opening a bookmark will destory what's on your current page (but at least I could get it back with the back button).
The appending of tabs has never destroyed any time of my work. Even if I adjusted instantly to the destroying of the previous tabs, I don't think the replace vs. the append is going to save me an hour of productivity. Maybe, one is faster than the other, but it's hard to say.
With the replace method, if I want to simulate an append, I think I have to:
1. open up a new window 2. open the bookmark group 3. cut the url from the first window 4. press ctrl + T on the next window 5. paste the url 6. Repeat steps 3-5 for all tabs
(if there's a shorter way let me know.)
However if the default method is append, to duplicate a replace I have to:
1. Open a new window (ctrl + N) 2. Close my previous window 3. Open the bookmark group
It seems like the second way is easier. Why not have append be the default because it allows people to work both ways far easier than it does with the replace method?
#75 I didn't install 1.5b because of the tab bug
Monday September 1st, 2003 7:38 AM
I just upgraded my father's Win98 computer from Netscape 4.6 to Mozilla 1.4. I would have installed 1.5b if it wasn't for this new tab bug. I'm glad this forum pointed out the problem.
I also still have Mozilla 1.4 on my work and home computers. I don't want to risk the severe data loss this bug could cause. I often have tabs opened that I don't want to lose. It took me long enough to learn to NOT close a window when I should only be closing one tab. I don't want to have to learn to open a new window before opening a tab group. That defeats the purpose of tabs.
#2 Can you turn off Images in the Mail Client yet?
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 9:12 PM
Such a necessity to fight spam. I would like to turn off all images from every email unless I know I can trust the site and then click a box and the images appear. A grouping of trusted sites would also be handy. Very similar to what firebird does.
#4 Re: Can you turn off Images in the Mail Client yet
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 10:05 PM
It should be possible to view a message as text only.
I am currently using Pegasus 4.12a just to avoid all the viruses. It worked great. Although I update Norton daily, the latest worm was not detected at first but I was able to identify it easily. This has worked the same for virus attachements.
#5 Re: Can you turn off Images in the Mail Client yet
Wednesday August 27th, 2003 10:37 PM
View -> Message Body As -> Simple HTML (or Plan Text)
That will prevent images from loading, no way to whitelist/blacklist sites (that I know of) yet.
Or even better:
Edit > Preferences > Privacy & Security > Images > Do not load remote images in Mail & Newsgroups
This is a very useful feature, and I use it, but just like the original poster I wish that there were a mechanism to selectively load images - I e.g. want them to be loaded in my Wired News newsletter and in messages from a few other select senders, but not for the rest. A whitelisting mechanism would be great, but a simple "load images for this message" button in Mail & New would suffice.
#19 Re: Can you turn off Images in the Mail Client yet
Thursday August 28th, 2003 8:05 AM
These bug-records handle the issue: <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=172184> <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=142149>
You can vote on them!
#33 Re: Can you turn off Images in the Mail Client yet
Thursday August 28th, 2003 4:23 PM
Thunderbird has something like this. It wont display any image from mails that got detected as junk.
Unfortunatly there is still a problem with the mails that are not detected as spam. :(
I could not install my favorate theme "MicroMozilla" <http://themes.mozdev.org/themes/micromozilla.html>
:( Why? Why should we have to live with the ugly classic or the boring modern themes. On my laptop (800x600), these two default themes take up half the screen!
I want my Pinball theme back :)
Pinball is back!! I just checked today and a new release was there. I know it was driving me crazy too. Mozilla isn't Mozilla without Pinball! :)
The skinVersion was changed because of some changes to CSS parsing that would make many themes fail. The change to CSS parsing was very loudly announced in all the theme-related forums I could find when it was made (in June). Any themes that have not gotten updated in those two or three months, well...
Just try LittleMozilla. Yes, the interface for themes is changing a lot, but the reason is not to make you angry, but to make improvements. There are a couple of theme designers, who are keeping up with the many changes, without complaining. It's not hard to find them and I'm sure you will find a theme for your laptop.
Just try LittleMozilla. Yes, the interface for themes is changing a lot, but the reason is not to make you angry, but to make improvements. There are a couple of theme designers, who are keeping up with the many changes, without complaining. It's not hard to find them and I'm sure you will find a theme for your laptop.
And if someone wants to go on a acid trip straight to hell then check out Mozilla IE 5.5 skin at: <http://kodu.neti.ee/~tar/mozilla.html>
Also good skin as a BOFH tool to convert clueless IE slaves ;)
If only I could get the MFB version ready...
#62 Themes updated for Mozilla 1.5 and Firebird/TB
Friday August 29th, 2003 12:46 PM
MicroMozilla (and LittleMozilla) are both updated and available from: <http://themes.mozdev.org/> Also MicroFirebird and LittleFirebird and MicroThunderbird and LittleThunderbird are updated/released. Check them out!
#10 A few things that "annoys" me
Thursday August 28th, 2003 12:16 AM
This just shows how freakin' great Mozilla is :)
A few thinks that bothers me (this is on Windows): # When installing a new theme, there is a checkbox asking whether the new theme should be used. That doesn't work. # When you open the "Password Manager", the window is really small.
Yes, I know this is not the place to file bugs ;)
looks like i'm stuch with the two default themes. it crashed when i was uninstalling phoenicity. but this will get sorted quickly, and it is running very nicely indeed.
#16 Is Anyone else having problems with Mail/News?
Thursday August 28th, 2003 6:14 AM
As soon as I installed SeaMonkey, I had Mail/News crash on me constantly. This also happened to me on the pre-release trunk nightlies. The original bug is <<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=209084>>, and I posted more information (crash data) on <<http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=217545>>.
I encounter probably the same problems with 1.5b and mail. Today three crashes in a row....
chrome://communicator/skin/plugins.css is MIA, again. Using 20030827 nightly
It's good to have the Spellchecker, but when I choose "download more" in the language combo, it opens a blank browser with no URL. Does anyone have the address where I can download a Spanish Spellchecker, if it exists at all?
If the Mozcafe download doesn't work (it stopped with install errors on mine) then you can also do this...
- Go to <http://lingucomponent.ope…/download_dictionary.html> - Click on "Spelling dictionaries for >= OpenOffice.org 1.0.0" - Download the languages. - Unzip the zip files. - Put the .aff and .dic files in Program Files\Mozilla.org\bin\components\myspell (or wherever). - Rename the files replacing _ (underline) with - (minus sign).
#24 Thank you for the great work!
Thursday August 28th, 2003 10:11 AM
First of all, I want to compliment the Mozilla team for the great work they are doing! I really enjoy using Mozilla/Firebird and I'm impressed with the result so far. Overall the browsers and e-mail clients work very well for me and I'm looking forward to new features or enhancements.
Boys and Girls, thank you so much for what you are offering us, please continue the great work!
I thought 1.4 was supposed to be the final Mozilla build, and then afterwards future developmental efforts would switch to Firebird/Phoenix. What happenned? Has the roadmap changed?
#35 Re: 1.4 Final Mozilla?
by johnlar <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Thursday August 28th, 2003 5:00 PM
Basically, initially 1.5a was going to be together, but we were going to progress towards a FireBird/Phoenix, but it was eventually realized that this transition would take a long time, and it was decided that 1.6 should be the switch (but not nessesarly so either) its a matter of not wanting to delay the normal release cycle of 3 1/2 months between major release. (which means we are due a release in mid september) Personally I'd be willing to wait, but many things changed when the Mozilla Foundation was founded, and now they have to make sure that firebird is feature complete with mozilla before its released.
#39 spellcheck Moz or the prop. Netscape?
Thursday August 28th, 2003 8:36 PM
I sure hope the spellchecker built-in is the Netscape proprietary one that AOL paid for. It was the best of breed to my mind and would make a nice gift to Mozilla.
#41 Re: spellcheck Moz or the prop. Netscape?
Thursday August 28th, 2003 10:37 PM
No, this is the mozdev spellchecker. AOL's licensing terms for its spell-checker may well not allow its source to be released, you realize.
#50 Re: spellcheck Moz or the prop. Netscape?
Friday August 29th, 2003 7:33 AM
No, it's a free one. It's the one that was available on mozdev.org for the longest time.
There are a lot of Myspell dictionaries at the page <http://lingucomponent.ope…/download_dictionary.html> Don't forget to rename file in Mozilla-style (replace _ with -)
I for one HATE the tab group replace functionality, but I'm curious what the valid arguments are FOR it. I can come up with a list of reasons for append, but only 1 silly one for replace. Please let me know if there are better reasons for replacing.
APPEND: -. You can load groups of slow sites in the background while you're finishing up with the current sites -. You can leave yourself logged in to webmail or some work-related sites in 1 tab, while browsing other groups -. You can collect articles in tabs to look through "later"
REPLACE: -. It keeps my window tidy
I really don't think the replace arguments outweigh the append arguments, but please let me know if there's something I've missed.
PS: Sure, there are other ways to accomplish what appending does, but tabs are already a "luxury" item. The whole point of them is to be decadent with the number of pages you have open.
#56 Re: Tab groups append vs replace.
Friday August 29th, 2003 11:04 AM
"I really don't think the replace arguments outweigh the append arguments, but please let me know if there's something I've missed."
Usability testing shows that new users expect bookmark groups to replace the existing tabs and get confused when they don't.
#60 Re: Tab groups append vs replace
Friday August 29th, 2003 12:16 PM
I'm personally shocked by this. I know I was confused when it replaced back in the days of Multizilla. I think perhaps a better option would be to put the focus on the first tab of new group and append. This way the user sees that something has happened (i.e. it's not like the tabs loaded in the background). A quick glance up and they realize they've been appended.
I would like to know the details of this supposed usability testing. What was the test group the arragement the degree of experience, and so on.
No details given in any of the before posted bugs.
It is clearly the case that the append behavior is more powerfull as replace can be easily reproduced, whereas the opposite is not the case. Also replace destroys information that is not on screen, and is possible Dataloss.
A hidden preference is not acceptable for such an issue, the standard option needs to be reasonable.
If tabs are to serve as a complete elimination of multi window neccesities, then it is inaccaptible that an action in the current window destroys all others as well.
If we look at normal bookmark behavior as a guide it replaces not all tabs but only the current tab. That's the way it has always been and will always be. If we see the tab as a replacement for the window it should behave exactly like that. open a single bookmark loads it in the tab, loading a bookmark group should load the group in the tab. To me it seems the most reasonable and consisten behavior would thus be to replace the current tab and append the other tabs to the right. Then bookmark group behavior is a logical extrapolation of bookmark behavior.
From this basic behavior the classical append can be reproduced by (New Tab)->(Bookmark group) and the classical replace by (close all other tabs) -> (bookmark group)
This is logical consistent and powerfull without being complex.
As someone else noted a single bookmark does not eliminate all other tabs either. tabs are not only used when browsing one source along multiple paths but also for coordinating different sources, and to effectively do the later an effective append like behavior is crucial. People who only use tabbed browsing for the former might not need this but there are no reasonable arguments why to save this group of people a single click (or, if added shortcut) inconsistent behavior is introduced which has the potential of dataloss as what is perceived as background/out of focus information that should not be affected by current actions until brought into focus is lost, a complete way of using the browser is eliminated and the power of tab bookmarks is significantly reduced.
Consider this: I am writing an email to a fellow student on some research I looked up the other day, and so I simply click the bookmark group of the preprints I had found and have all the informationat hand. I am browsing a board with many messages in different tabs open, and want to take a short break to check todays online comics. I simply click the bookmark group and continue reading messages until they are loaded.
Basically tab groups bookmarks help organize bunches of information, and to append allows one to effectively use this bunches of information.
sure, with multi window management I can still do all that, but that requires me to introduce another organisation layer which is not neccesary. Thus using the browser becomes vastly more complex by the current replace behavior.
In summary: There is no reason for it, it brings no reasonable objective advantages over the replace current tab implementation.
The user expectation argument has to be extremely strong to justify this drastic step, which I have to repeat it again: completely eliminates a part of tab functionality without any objective win.
What after people have used tabs for a few days? Do they still not like it? Can they not be educated? Was the third alternative tested at all?
If all else fails at least for M-Firebird it should then be considered to add "replace tabs with bookmarks in folder" and "append bookmarks in folders" options directly in the bookmarks menu.
#69 Re: Re: Tab groups append vs replace.
Saturday August 30th, 2003 9:18 AM
I've been asked to supply some more information about the usability study. All I know is in the first comment of bug 203960: "From a usability study we've learned that users find it confusing that bookmarkgroups open in additional tabs instead of replacing the existing set of tabs."
I imagine the confusion arose because unlike other bookmarks in all browsers since the year dot, bookmark groups didn't cause the current page to change, possibly making it seem like nothing had happened. Or something.
Well then that would be cured by making it replace the current tab thoguh! That's why details are important. This decision has a MAJOR negative inpact on many peoples browsing behavior and it was never discussed publically to my knowledge. It hinders the effective usage of tabs and the transition towards pure tabs away from multiple windows, we no longer educate user for a new more effective usage!
"Usability testing shows that new users"
My God, this is so wrong. No wonder AOL dropped out of mozilla/netscape development. This is like asking the British to drive at the right side of the road!?! So, now can some stupid group of users fuck you in the eye. BDZ aka BrainDeadZilla. What a joke ROFL
#57 Re: Tab groups append vs replace
Friday August 29th, 2003 11:16 AM
"Usability testing shows that new users expect bookmark groups to replace the existing tabs and get confused when they don't."
I would expect the current tab to be replaced, and then additional tabs to be opened to the right.
middle clicking on the tab group, IMO, should open new tabs for all the sites
#58 Re: Re: Tab groups append vs replace
Friday August 29th, 2003 11:35 AM
"I would expect the current tab to be replaced, and then additional tabs to be opened to the right."
You're just saying that to be different, aren't you? ;P
So... looks like we need 3 alternatives to keep everyone happy (except for the people that are unhappy having lots of alternatives...)
#72 Re: Re: Re: Tab groups append vs replace
Sunday August 31st, 2003 4:40 PM
From the great masters of the browser user interface experience, I would expect options, a reasonable default (an one would suit me fine) and an override switch.
1) replacing the current tab is a fine choice, and saving the others because it is what a single bookmark does 2) not closing the current tab is a viable option so that one may keep the page that may have triggered the trip to the bookmarked tab group. 2-a) not closing the other tabs for same reason seems a logical choice 2-b) closing the other tabs to conserve resource requirements and tab space seems wise too. 3)close every tab and open the bookmark tabs. This is resource wise and a clean way completely changing the browser course, however, instantly losing what may have been hard to reach pages (login's searches etc) seems to have irked a number of users.
Seems like an append/replace switch is mandated.
#73 Re: Tab groups append vs replace
Monday September 1st, 2003 1:55 AM
I'm surprised that nobody has yet mentioned that MultiZilla (<http://multizilla.mozdev.org>) gives you the option to append or replace (look under prefs -> multizilla -> advanced)
#76 Re: Re: Tab groups append vs replace
Monday September 1st, 2003 9:54 AM
Sorry, anything that doesnt come in the default installer for Mozilla isn't worth my time to go hunt around for each time I upgrade, and I don't want to worry about version mismatches where plugins stop working in the future, I have already seen problems with that. I hoped 1.5 was going to fix that, but maybe now 1.6 will. If there will be one giant installer with firebird, thunderbird, etc, and all kinds of great plugins you can choose to install right from the main installer, I will start using addons then, and only then.
... is still not possible.
Isn't it strange, since you're able to save as EML?
I'm been having problems with Mozilla on Win 2000 since 1.3 and I think it's related to this bug. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=183208>
When I submit these posts I get CNN's main page instead of the vote results.
#65 Re: Bug 183208
Friday August 29th, 2003 8:28 PM
Those links workforme. I get the poll results. I am on OS X though.
1.5b seems quite snappy and good overall.
Nitpick: I liked the old rendering of <hr> better. There's a difference, quite visible e.g. in some discussion forums like UBB (Ultimate Bulletin Board).
#78 In mail, the thumb on the vertical slider is dead
Friday September 5th, 2003 12:21 PM
In Mail/News, I often scroll through the list of messages using the thumb on the vertical slider. In 1.5b, it is dead. The up/down arrows work, as does clicking above or below the thumb; PgUp and PgDn are also functional. But you can't drag the thumb. Worked fine in 1.4. Definitely a regression.
Has anyone else noticed/reported this?? (I tried to search Bugzilla, but I assume that my terminology in incorrect, as I couldn't find anything.)
#79 Re: In mail, the thumb on the vertical slider is d
Friday September 5th, 2003 12:26 PM
Additional information: it is *sometimes* dead; it works ... and then it locks. If I restart Mail/News (I do not need to exit the Mozilla suite altogether), then it starts to work again. Am now trying to isolate what causes it to lock.