MozillaZine

Mozilla 1.5 Released

Wednesday October 15th, 2003

Mozilla 1.5 has been released! In addition to enhancements to tabbed browsing, Mail & Newsgroups and the DOM Inspector, this milestone also features many Composer improvements, including support for absolutely positioned elements, better resizing for images and tables, z-index management and a new snap-to-grid option. The ChatZilla IRC client has been overhauled and now includes support for logging. Mozilla 1.5 also features a spellchecker, as well as improved standards support and better performance and stability.

Mozilla 1.5 can be downloaded from the mozilla.org Releases page, the mozilla 1.5 directory on ftp.mozilla.org or the new Mozilla download page. The Mozilla 1.5 Release Notes feature more information, as does the new Mozilla 1.x product page at mozilla.org.


#1 Mozillazinedotted?

by MarkHB

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 5:02 AM

Reply to this message

<ftp://ftp.mozilla.org> is down, at least at the moment.

Also, on the subject of the "::" CSS3 pseudoclass indicator, is that only going to be enforced when CSS3 is specifically called for, or are older pages (especially those which don't indicate any CSS level or namespace) going to be broken?

#4 Re: Mozillazinedotted?

by penrou

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 5:45 AM

Reply to this message

I can connect to (ftp://)<ftp://ftp.mozilla.org>, but not to <http://ftp.mozilla.org.>

#11 Reply

by Racer

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 11:19 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't been able to connect to any of the http *mozilla.org web sites for a few days now.

#12 Re: Mozillazinedotted?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 11:43 AM

Reply to this message

"Also, on the subject of the '::' CSS3 pseudoclass indicator, is that only going to be enforced when CSS3 is specifically called for, or are older pages (especially those which don't indicate any CSS level or namespace) going to be broken?"

It's pseudoelements that use the :: notation. Pseudoclasses use the : separator.

I think that the : notation will still be allowed for pseudoelements introduced in CSS 1 and 2 only. So you'll still be able to do p:first-line {font-weight: bold}. However, you will not be able to do body:selected {color: #0000ff}, as the selected pseudoelement was introduced in CSS3. You will have to do body::selected {color: #0000ff} instead.

The : notation is, I believe, no longer supported for -moz- pseudoelements, however. This has broken some themes.

Alex

#2 Installer trouble

by fishbert

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 5:05 AM

Reply to this message

I'm having a hell of a time getting this installer to work properly. First, I downloaded the file via and FTP program. When I tried to run the installer (win32), it began unpacking files, then complained that some zip file (all I remember is it had 'gre' in the name, or something like that) was corrupted and I'd need to re-download the installer. Next, I downloaded the installer via Mozilla Firebird. The files unpacked ok, but as the install got underway, it complained that it couldn't fine some exe file in the temp directory (it was basicly the same filename as before, just with a different extension; if I remember correctly). The hard part is that now that people know it's out, it's taking forever to connect to the server and re-download the file.

#3 Re: Installer trouble

by max_spicer

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 5:17 AM

Reply to this message

You're not installing from a mapped drive, are you? 1.4 introduced a new bug meaning that you could no longer install from a setup file stored on a mapped network drive. If you tried, it generally crashed with errors very similar to the ones you are describing. I don't know if this has been fixed in 1.5 or not. I did create a bug (can't remember the number), but it got no attention.

#25 Re: Re: Installer trouble

by kwanbis

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 9:00 PM

Reply to this message

i instaled 1.4, 1.4.1, and 1.5 from a mapped (on 2K) drive on Windows 2000 and on XP

#31 Re: Re: Re: Installer trouble

by max_spicer

Thursday October 16th, 2003 7:42 AM

Reply to this message

Aaagh, sorry. I've got that completely wrong. You can't (couldn't?) install from a UNC path on Windows. \\fileserver\mozilla\mozillasetup.exe would fail, but a drive mapped to this path will work. I think the installer mangles the double slashes in the path. Before 1.4, we always installed from a UNC path. Now we have to map a drive first.

#5 Bug 211092 fixed or not?

by fedetxf

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 6:18 AM

Reply to this message

After reading the what's new, I think this release is not big news. The biggest improvements are in Composer and Chatzilla. Chatzilla could be installed in 1.4 so only Composer users are getting anything new. The only notable bug fixed in this release in also fixed in 1.4.1 Only group bookmark users that hate append behaviour will upgrade. I'm skipping this one. See you on 1.6.

#22 Re: Bug 211092 fixed or not?

by bzbarsky

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 7:38 PM

Reply to this message

> After reading the what's new

Which doesn't list any of the major core changes in layout, necko, dom, cookies, etc...

#6 Windows 95 Still Valid?

by jorgenson

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 7:24 AM

Reply to this message

I am using Windows 95 and Mozilla 1.4.1 and it works fine. The release page under "Installation" states that Windows 95 is a valid operating system. The release page for Mozilla 1.5 under "Installation" states the same thing - that Windows 95 is acceptable.

When I access the Mozila 1.x New Products Page is states that Mozilla 1.5 only works with Windows 98 or higher -

Which is correct - can anyone help. Want to purchase the new CD but only is it works with Windows 95 - HELP?

#7 Re: Windows 95 Still Valid?

by hoodedone0 <hoodedone@gmail.com>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 8:06 AM

Reply to this message

Pretty sure the 98 is just a mistake. There is no reason for Mozilla to stop supporting 95. (Especially since MS has, so it's a great market for Mozilla to take over.)

#8 Re: Re: Windows 95 Still Valid?

by FrodoB

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 9:09 AM

Reply to this message

Well, other than excrutiatingly sucky Unicode support.... :)

#26 Reasons to stop supporting

by leafdigital

Thursday October 16th, 2003 2:26 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, there are many reasons to stop supporting win95. We've abandoned support for win95 on a product here for several reasons (even though by the way it actually still works on win95 - don't tell anyone):

* The more OSs we support, the more work it is to test everything

* Running the program on Windows 95 is more complicated as you have to install numerous OS updates (though we automated most of this process a while back)

* Windows 95 computers have proportionately many more problems as they tend to be using antique hardware that's rock bottom on our minimum spec

* Hardly anybody still uses win95

If you look at Google's figures you'll see that win95 is down to 1% of Google users now, well below even Mac (3%). (It's still listed above Linux, though I'm not sure for how long - but Mozilla is much more important proportionately on Linux as it's the major Linux browser.)

I'm not arguing that support for win95 should be dropped in mozilla at all, just explaining that there are reasons why some people might decide to make that decision for some programs.

--sam

#15 Re: Windows 95 Still Valid?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 2:16 PM

Reply to this message

This is my understanding of the situation. A developer would have a more accurate assessment.

From time to time, Mozilla breaks on Windows 95 due to some change being made that relies on a feature not present in that version of the OS (Unicode support or certain DLLs etc.). Not many people use Windows 95 anymore, so sometimes it takes a few days for anyone to notice and fix it. One day, Mozilla will break on Windows 95 and either nobody will notice or nobody will care enough to fix it. That's the essential situation.

As we all know, Windows 98 is essentially the same as Windows 95, only with IE. Installing the latest version of IE on 95 will actually make it more likely to be able to run Mozilla should the day ever come that it doesn't run on a base 95 installation. Of course, Windows 98 also has some other things, like new APIs and Unicode support. Some of those things can be added to Windows 95 by installing updates; some of them can't.

As far as I know, Mozilla 1.5 works on Windows 95.

Alex

#9 BitTorrent please

by oliversl

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 10:42 AM

Reply to this message

Can someone at mozilla.org please post some official .torrents? Or maybe a 3-pack(Mozilla, MF, MT) .torrent? It will help the bandwidth issues. Many thanks!

#10 Re: BitTorrent please

by jeti

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 11:03 AM

Reply to this message

You can find a number of torrents here:

<http://www.metashops.co.uk/mozilla/>

#13 Gecko usage

by Tar

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 1:37 PM

Reply to this message

With September 2003 Google Zeitgeist browser usage stats it's clearly visible that Gecko based browsers are on a rising pattern :) <http://www.google.com/pre…tgeist/sep03_browsers.gif>

The Zeitgeist itself: <http://www.google.com/press/zeitgeist.html>

Oh, and check out his wonderful bullshit Bill Gates himself is talking about Internet Explorer: <http://theregister.co.uk/content/4/33397.html> Yeah, got to add some whiz-bang proprietary XML gizmos, that shall cover up those gaping security holes, sure...

#19 Re: Bill Gates

by Waldo_2

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 4:41 PM

Reply to this message

"We invented personal computing." - Bill Gates

And Al Gore invented the Internet. Didn't MS buy DOS from someone originally, anyways? Besides, they wouldn't have been able to do anything without a PC chip from Intel (or one of the other earlier chip makers).

#21 Re: Re: Bill Gates

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 5:29 PM

Reply to this message

"Didn't MS buy DOS from someone originally, anyways?"

Yes. Seattle Computer Products for $50,000. It was known as QDOS (Quick and Dirty Operating System) there.

Alex

#29 Re: Re: Re: Bill Gates

by leet

Thursday October 16th, 2003 7:15 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, one of the antitrust documents showed that M$ basically stole Seattle Computer Works' DOS, and they later paid a fine that resulted in $1 million being paid in total for the OS.

Just like what they did with Stacker (where they had to pull the OS because it contained straight-copied Stacker code, but the damage was done).

#20 Re: Gecko usage

by schapel

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 5:23 PM

Reply to this message

Yep, use of Gecko browsers has been doubling about every year for the past several years. If the trend continues, you should see the "Netscape 5.x+" line tick upwards five or six more times during the next year. I wonder if we'll ever see the "Other" line again! ;-)

#35 Re: Re: Gecko usage

by jsebrech

Thursday October 16th, 2003 11:47 AM

Reply to this message

I haven't heard of anyone using mozilla for a while (longer than a week or so) and then moving back to IE. It seems to me that if mozilla loses marketshare, it will not be to IE.

#14 Mozilla MacOSX question:

by benmhall <bhall@moses.penguinpowered.com>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 1:55 PM

Reply to this message

NOTE: I posted this on osnews too, just trying to find an answer...

Is there any way to have Mozilla on OSX use the middle-click to open in new tabs. It does this on every other platform, but I guess there's probably some Apple HCI reason for disabling it on Mac. Anyway, it's a real pain. I even tried adding user_pref("browser.tabs.opentabfor.middleclick", true); to the prefs.js file, no joy...

Ben

#16 Re: Mozilla MacOSX question:

by sime

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 2:49 PM

Reply to this message

Control(/Apple)+Click ?

#17 Re: Re: Mozilla MacOSX question:

by sime

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 2:50 PM

Reply to this message

Its what I do if there is no 3rd button on my mouse

#18 Re: Re: Mozilla MacOSX question:

by benmhall <bhall@moses.penguinpowered.com>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 3:37 PM

Reply to this message

No, no. You don't understand, I know how to get tabs using the keyboard, I want to be able to use the middle button like I do on Windows, Solaris, Linux, FreeBSD etc. (All of which I use routinely..)

Ben

#37 Re: Mozilla MacOSX question:

by nguyen_alex

Thursday October 16th, 2003 1:28 PM

Reply to this message

Did you check Mozilla> Preferences...> Navigator> Tabbed Browsing before prefs.js?

#44 Middle click works in Camino

by QonoS

Tuesday October 21st, 2003 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

FWIW, middle-click-to-open-link-in-new-tab works on Camino (<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/camino/> ; the last "official" release of 0.7 is fairly old but nightlies are uploaded regularly). So it's not a HCI thing. I agree it would be nice to have it work in the Mozilla suite, and I'm not sure why it doesn't. Don't know if you want to give Camino a try or not, but it might be an option. It's actually my primary browser, and the recent nightlies are picking up patches and bugfixes from the main Moz trunk.

HTH.

#45 Middle click works in Camino

by QonoS

Tuesday October 21st, 2003 9:52 PM

Reply to this message

FWIW, middle-click-to-open-link-in-new-tab works on Camino (<http://www.mozilla.org/projects/camino/> ; the last "official" release of 0.7 is fairly old but nightlies are uploaded regularly). So it's not a HCI thing. I agree it would be nice to have it work in the Mozilla suite, and I'm not sure why it doesn't. Don't know if you want to give Camino a try or not, but it might be an option. It's actually my primary browser, and the recent nightlies are picking up patches and bugfixes from the main Moz trunk.

HTH.

#23 Blocker Bug on MacOS X Bookmarks are lost!!!

by pkb351 <pbergsagel@shaw.ca>

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 7:59 PM

Reply to this message

IF YOU ARE RUNNING MACOS X 10.1.5 MAKE SURE YOU BACKUP YOUR BOOKMARKS IF YOU WANT TO RUN MOZILLA 1.5. You may not loose your bookmarks the first time you use Mozilla 1.5 but you will eventually loose the bookmarks the longer you use Mozilla 1.5. Sometimes, but not always, when Mozillla 1.5 is quit the bookmarks will be erased from your profile. This is the bug:

"Dataloss:Bookmarks will sometimes (but not always) disappear when Mozilla is launched." <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=221037>

Why is this very serious issue of the loss of the bookmarks if you are on MacOS X 10.1.5 not mentioned on the release notes for Moz 1.5? This is a serous dataloss bug and users should be warned before they loose their bookmarks!

Could someone please update the release notes to include mention of bug 221037 for MacOS X 10.1.5 users? Thanks.

#24 another relnote item

by smkatz

Wednesday October 15th, 2003 8:21 PM

Reply to this message

205138 has a patch, but it hasn't gotten checked in yet (before 1.5). I also want it to relnoted as it was not fixed. unlike most people here, I'm not angry, just want it relnoted.

--Sam

#27 DHTML menu bug still there

by buff

Thursday October 16th, 2003 6:45 AM

Reply to this message

The new release feels pretty solid but I am disappointed the DHTML bug with menus is still there. There are several sites I can't go to because the click isn't being handled properly. I would have considered this a blocker for 0.7. I know there was a patch for this. Why didn't it get in there? Also, the Firebird toolbar right-click bug is still there so if you right click on a chevroned item the UI freezes until you make a new window. That sounds pretty serious to me to have not been patched for 0.7.

#32 Re: DHTML menu bug still there

by WillyWonka

Thursday October 16th, 2003 8:15 AM

Reply to this message

DHTML Menu bug? Got a link?

#33 Re: Re: DHTML menu bug still there

by buff

Thursday October 16th, 2003 9:00 AM

Reply to this message

It looks like there was a patch for this but I can't figure out why it isn't in the final release. <http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=102578>

#38 Re: Re: Re: DHTML menu bug still there

by bzbarsky

Thursday October 16th, 2003 6:21 PM

Reply to this message

It's not there because the toolkit maintainers for the gtk1 and xlib ports didn't drive it in...

#28 Linux XFT builds available anywhere?

by johann_p

Thursday October 16th, 2003 6:52 AM

Reply to this message

I really do not see why they do not make XFT-enabled builds available by default - if not for the nightlies than at least for releases.

#30 about?

by an_mo

Thursday October 16th, 2003 7:18 AM

Reply to this message

Why does the help/about still show Mozilla 1.4?

#34 Re: about?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Thursday October 16th, 2003 10:58 AM

Reply to this message

"Why does the help/about still show Mozilla 1.4?"

It doesn't for me. Are you sure Mozilla 1.5 has been correctly installed?

Alex

#40 Re: Re: about?

by an_mo

Saturday October 18th, 2003 7:31 AM

Reply to this message

Yes I am sure. It even deleted my installed extensions, multizilla and pie menues. On my pc at home it even says mozilla 1.1, but I regularly installed every release. Is there any chance that this is stored in the profile?

#42 Re: Re: Re: about?

by AlexBishop <alex@mozillazine.org>

Sunday October 19th, 2003 8:30 PM

Reply to this message

"Is there any chance that this is stored in the profile?"

Don't think so. I assume it acts like Mozilla 1.5 though with all the new features etc.

Alex

#36 Mozilla 1.5 XFT

by KmD

Thursday October 16th, 2003 1:21 PM

Reply to this message

you can download mozilla 1.5 Xft at <http://www.scottbolander.com/mozilla-xft.html>

#39 Major improvement on low-end machines

by gbpa005

Thursday October 16th, 2003 11:52 PM

Reply to this message

On the computer, which I am forced to use at work (PI 166MHz, 64 MB RAM, Win98), Mozilla 1.5 only takes 30 sec startup time compared to 40 sec with Mozilla 1.4. Moreover, there isn't this extensive swapping after an hour of Mozilla usage. While working with this machine is still enervating, Mozilla has made considerable progress.

Thank you!

#41 bouncing pages

by VMD

Sunday October 19th, 2003 1:38 PM

Reply to this message

Quite a few web pages, including MozillaZine, seem to bounce within the browser window. Quite irritating and strange.

#43 Re: bouncing pages

by VMD

Monday October 20th, 2003 9:44 AM

Reply to this message

I just installed 1.4.1. It is working much better for me than 1.5. Perhaps it is just my system since it does not appear anyone else is having this problem.

#46 Re: Re: bouncing pages

by cbarnes

Friday November 28th, 2003 6:08 PM

Reply to this message

I have same problem with newly installed 1.5, may have to revert to 1.4 if I cannot find solution...