Is it safe to ... - Mozilla

This is a discussion on Is it safe to ... - Mozilla ; I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc. Can anyone provide this reassurance? -- Regards Steve G...

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 49

Thread: Is it safe to ...

  1. Is it safe to ...

    I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.

    Can anyone provide this reassurance?

    --
    Regards

    Steve G

  2. Re: Is it safe to ...

    On 01/11/06 06:13, SteveG wrote:
    > I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    > Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    > installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.
    >
    > Can anyone provide this reassurance?


    SeaMonkey won't touch your Firefox or Thunderbird profiles. You might be
    able to import data from them, but that's something you volunteer to do.
    --
    Yay!

  3. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Matt Nordhoff wrote:
    > On 01/11/06 06:13, SteveG wrote:
    >> I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    >> Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    >> installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.
    >>
    >> Can anyone provide this reassurance?

    >
    > SeaMonkey won't touch your Firefox or Thunderbird profiles. You might be
    > able to import data from them, but that's something you volunteer to do.


    Its been a while since I installed SeaMonkey, but I don't think it will
    import data from FF/TB profiles, though it works the other way around.

    Lee

    --
    Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
    Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
    The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
    http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

  4. Re: Is it safe to ...

    On 01/11/06 08:33, Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > Matt Nordhoff wrote:
    >> On 01/11/06 06:13, SteveG wrote:
    >>> I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    >>> Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    >>> installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.
    >>>
    >>> Can anyone provide this reassurance?

    >>
    >> SeaMonkey won't touch your Firefox or Thunderbird profiles. You might
    >> be able to import data from them, but that's something you volunteer
    >> to do.

    >
    > Its been a while since I installed SeaMonkey, but I don't think it will
    > import data from FF/TB profiles, though it works the other way around.
    >
    > Lee


    Okay.
    /me shrugs.
    --
    Yay!

  5. Re: Is it safe to ...

    SteveG wrote:
    > I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    > Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    > installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.
    >
    > Can anyone provide this reassurance?
    >


    Thanks to Matt and Lee. Maybe I'll give it a whirl - I like integrated
    applications ;-)

    --
    Regards

    Steve G

  6. Re: Is it safe to ...

    SteveG wrote:
    > SteveG wrote:
    >> I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    >> Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    >> installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.
    >>
    >> Can anyone provide this reassurance?
    >>

    >
    > Thanks to Matt and Lee. Maybe I'll give it a whirl - I like integrated
    > applications ;-)


    If you've ever used Opera, then SeaMonkey's idea of 'integration' will
    greatly disappoint you.
    The ultimate would be 1 part Firefox (customizable toolbars and
    Searchengine bar), 1 part SeaMonkey (concept), 1 part Opera.(integration
    implentation).

  7. Re: Is it safe to ...

    On 11/01/2006 14:33, Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > Matt Nordhoff wrote:
    >> On 01/11/06 06:13, SteveG wrote:
    >>> I'm thinking about giving SeaMonkey a trial run - I currently use
    >>> Firefox and Thunderbird - but could do with some reassurance that
    >>> installing ti won't destroy my existing profiles/emails/etc.
    >>>
    >>> Can anyone provide this reassurance?

    >>
    >> SeaMonkey won't touch your Firefox or Thunderbird profiles. You might
    >> be able to import data from them, but that's something you volunteer
    >> to do.

    >
    > Its been a while since I installed SeaMonkey, but I don't think it will
    > import data from FF/TB profiles, though it works the other way around.
    >
    > Lee
    >


    It does not import, but you can copy-paste as before. Just moved a mail
    folder from TB 1.0.6 to SM 1.0b without problem. Only move folders wit
    the extension .sbd, don't move .msf extension folders. And I cannot see
    why you shouldn't be able to copy-paste FF 1.5 folders to SM 1.0b.
    Importing SM data into FF/TB only works once, but you can tweak that easily.
    Stijn

  8. Re: Is it safe to ...

    RenegadeX wrote:
    > SteveG wrote:
    >> SteveG wrote:


    /snip/
    >
    > If you've ever used Opera, then SeaMonkey's idea of 'integration' will
    > greatly disappoint you.
    > The ultimate would be 1 part Firefox (customizable toolbars and
    > Searchengine bar), 1 part SeaMonkey (concept), 1 part Opera.(integration
    > implentation).


    Well, I disagree. I use Opera a lot, and it has a lot going for it. But
    I don't see how the SeaMonkey implementation of the suite approach is
    inferior. Perhaps you can enlighten me.

    Indeed, I find the mail/news interface to be rather lame. Of course, I
    am very used to Mozilla products, so it would take a lot of getting used
    to.

    No HTML editor in Opera, while SeaMonkey has Composer, which should be
    updated to include many of the NVu advances.

    I agree, it would be great to see SeaMonkey have the customizability of
    FF/TB. Search Bar, well I guess that would come with, but I don't really
    miss it.

    Lee
    --
    Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
    Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
    The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
    http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

  9. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > RenegadeX wrote:
    >>
    >> If you've ever used Opera, then SeaMonkey's idea of 'integration' will
    >> greatly disappoint you.
    >> The ultimate would be 1 part Firefox (customizable toolbars and
    >> Searchengine bar), 1 part SeaMonkey (concept), 1 part Opera.(integration
    >> implentation).

    >
    > Well, I disagree. I use Opera a lot, and it has a lot going for it. But
    > I don't see how the SeaMonkey implementation of the suite approach is
    > inferior. Perhaps you can enlighten me.
    >
    > Indeed, I find the mail/news interface to be rather lame. Of course, I
    > am very used to Mozilla products, so it would take a lot of getting used
    > to.
    >
    > No HTML editor in Opera, while SeaMonkey has Composer, which should be
    > updated to include many of the NVu advances.
    >
    > I agree, it would be great to see SeaMonkey have the customizability of
    > FF/TB. Search Bar, well I guess that would come with, but I don't really
    > miss it.
    >
    > Lee


    Please re-read my post - the only thing I specifically stated that I
    admire about Opera was its
    idea of "integration"
    .
    There are many things I like about Opera, there are many things I do
    not. But I did not mention any of those.

    To expand on why SeaMonkey did not meet MY idea of an integrated
    application, I should first tell you that the last time I used an
    'internet suite' was with Netscape Communicator many years ago. I
    expected that in the roughly 6 years since I dumped it, advancements
    would have been made to improve the integration between the individual
    components by making the interface more efficient and truly
    'integrated'. SeaMonkey underwhelms in that regards. Just as Netscape
    Communicator had 'quicklaunch' icons for each of the individual
    components, SM does too, and its behaviour is no different. Clicking on
    any of them opens up that application in a new window. Wow!.. if I
    didn't know better, I'd say that it did the same thing I've been doing
    for years with the icons in my Windows Quicklaunch taskbar, only I can
    have all 4 components open and it still only takes up 1-inch on my
    taskbar!.I do know better though, and realize there is a memory-usage
    benefit to not having to fire up 2 Gecko engines. But to be honest I'm
    not really worried about memory even on my old computer with 'only'
    512MB RAM, I've got 54 processes running right now and I'm more than
    happy! (even with 'memory hog FF1.5!).

    What I expected to see in SeaMonkey was tabs at the top of the window
    saying 'web', 'mail/news', 'irc', 'composer' that I could flick back and
    forth among the tabs as one might. I imagined perhaps having all my
    web-browsing tabs inside that 1 web tab, my mail/news 'window' inside
    that 2nd tab, Chatzilla all by itself in the 3rd tab, etc. That is
    'integration' to me, so I was bitterly disappointed.

    Then last week I downloaded Opera for the first time, just to see what
    it had to offer.
    Holy crap!! REVOLUTIONARY!!! This ~is~ integration! This ~is~ the
    merging of different Internet applications into 1. This ~is~ what I
    wanted SeaMonkey to be like!!

    Actually Opera is not quite how I envisioned things - as I described
    above, I thought a tab for this component, a tab for that component
    would have been the way to go - but Opera put everything right there
    along side each other - a browser tab, a email Compose tab, an IRC tab,
    another webpage tab, a mail/news tab, another webpage tab - all
    intermingled and playing nicely together inside 1 window pane. It works
    well.

    As for Opera's actual features and how they compare, well, that's
    another thread. But there are certainly ~many~ features included in it
    that are quite exciting and fresh - and there are others that make you
    think "if they were so good there, how did they miss the mark so badly
    here?". SeaMonkey has a lot of those. Firefox, a few - but its plusses
    far outweigh the niggles I can find. So take a bit from Opera, take a
    bit from Firefox, slap it on what you've already got, and - you have a
    killer app.

    However, we're not there yet.

  10. Re: Is it safe to ...

    RenegadeX wrote:
    > Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >> RenegadeX wrote:


    /snip/
    >
    > Please re-read my post - the only thing I specifically stated that I
    > admire about Opera was its
    idea of "integration"
    .
    > There are many things I like about Opera, there are many things I do
    > not. But I did not mention any of those.
    >
    > To expand on why SeaMonkey did not meet MY idea of an integrated
    > application, I should first tell you that the last time I used an
    > 'internet suite' was with Netscape Communicator many years ago. I
    > expected that in the roughly 6 years since I dumped it, advancements
    > would have been made to improve the integration between the individual
    > components by making the interface more efficient and truly
    > 'integrated'. SeaMonkey underwhelms in that regards. Just as Netscape
    > Communicator had 'quicklaunch' icons for each of the individual
    > components, SM does too, and its behaviour is no different. Clicking on
    > any of them opens up that application in a new window. Wow!.. if I
    > didn't know better, I'd say that it did the same thing I've been doing
    > for years with the icons in my Windows Quicklaunch taskbar, only I can
    > have all 4 components open and it still only takes up 1-inch on my
    > taskbar!.I do know better though, and realize there is a memory-usage
    > benefit to not having to fire up 2 Gecko engines. But to be honest I'm
    > not really worried about memory even on my old computer with 'only'
    > 512MB RAM, I've got 54 processes running right now and I'm more than
    > happy! (even with 'memory hog FF1.5!).
    >
    > What I expected to see in SeaMonkey was tabs at the top of the window
    > saying 'web', 'mail/news', 'irc', 'composer' that I could flick back and
    > forth among the tabs as one might. I imagined perhaps having all my
    > web-browsing tabs inside that 1 web tab, my mail/news 'window' inside
    > that 2nd tab, Chatzilla all by itself in the 3rd tab, etc. That is
    > 'integration' to me, so I was bitterly disappointed.
    >
    > Then last week I downloaded Opera for the first time, just to see what
    > it had to offer.
    > Holy crap!! REVOLUTIONARY!!! This ~is~ integration! This ~is~ the
    > merging of different Internet applications into 1. This ~is~ what I
    > wanted SeaMonkey to be like!!
    >
    > Actually Opera is not quite how I envisioned things - as I described
    > above, I thought a tab for this component, a tab for that component
    > would have been the way to go - but Opera put everything right there
    > along side each other - a browser tab, a email Compose tab, an IRC tab,
    > another webpage tab, a mail/news tab, another webpage tab - all
    > intermingled and playing nicely together inside 1 window pane. It works
    > well.
    >
    > As for Opera's actual features and how they compare, well, that's
    > another thread. But there are certainly ~many~ features included in it
    > that are quite exciting and fresh - and there are others that make you
    > think "if they were so good there, how did they miss the mark so badly
    > here?". SeaMonkey has a lot of those. Firefox, a few - but its plusses
    > far outweigh the niggles I can find. So take a bit from Opera, take a
    > bit from Firefox, slap it on what you've already got, and - you have a
    > killer app.
    >
    > However, we're not there yet.


    I'm sorry, your original post was enigmatic to my reading.

    The SeaMonkey Component bar doesn't do it for you? Lower left of any
    components window, a series of icons that allows you to to open another
    component with one click? The Menu Bar Window menu also drops down a
    quick reference of all the available components.

    Or am I misunderstanding you again?

    Lee

    --
    Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
    Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
    The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
    http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

  11. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Leonidas Jones wrote:

    > RenegadeX wrote:
    >
    >>Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>>RenegadeX wrote:

    >
    >
    > /snip/
    >
    >>Please re-read my post - the only thing I specifically stated that I
    >>admire about Opera was its
    idea of "integration"
    .
    >>There are many things I like about Opera, there are many things I do
    >>not. But I did not mention any of those.
    >>
    >>To expand on why SeaMonkey did not meet MY idea of an integrated
    >>application, I should first tell you that the last time I used an
    >>'internet suite' was with Netscape Communicator many years ago. I
    >>expected that in the roughly 6 years since I dumped it, advancements
    >>would have been made to improve the integration between the individual
    >>components by making the interface more efficient and truly
    >>'integrated'. SeaMonkey underwhelms in that regards. Just as Netscape
    >>Communicator had 'quicklaunch' icons for each of the individual
    >>components, SM does too, and its behaviour is no different. Clicking on
    >>any of them opens up that application in a new window. Wow!.. if I
    >>didn't know better, I'd say that it did the same thing I've been doing
    >>for years with the icons in my Windows Quicklaunch taskbar, only I can
    >>have all 4 components open and it still only takes up 1-inch on my
    >>taskbar!.I do know better though, and realize there is a memory-usage
    >>benefit to not having to fire up 2 Gecko engines. But to be honest I'm
    >>not really worried about memory even on my old computer with 'only'
    >>512MB RAM, I've got 54 processes running right now and I'm more than
    >>happy! (even with 'memory hog FF1.5!).
    >>
    >>What I expected to see in SeaMonkey was tabs at the top of the window
    >>saying 'web', 'mail/news', 'irc', 'composer' that I could flick back and
    >>forth among the tabs as one might. I imagined perhaps having all my
    >>web-browsing tabs inside that 1 web tab, my mail/news 'window' inside
    >>that 2nd tab, Chatzilla all by itself in the 3rd tab, etc. That is
    >>'integration' to me, so I was bitterly disappointed.
    >>
    >>Then last week I downloaded Opera for the first time, just to see what
    >>it had to offer.
    >>Holy crap!! REVOLUTIONARY!!! This ~is~ integration! This ~is~ the
    >>merging of different Internet applications into 1. This ~is~ what I
    >>wanted SeaMonkey to be like!!
    >>
    >>Actually Opera is not quite how I envisioned things - as I described
    >>above, I thought a tab for this component, a tab for that component
    >>would have been the way to go - but Opera put everything right there
    >>along side each other - a browser tab, a email Compose tab, an IRC tab,
    >>another webpage tab, a mail/news tab, another webpage tab - all
    >>intermingled and playing nicely together inside 1 window pane. It works
    >>well.
    >>
    >>As for Opera's actual features and how they compare, well, that's
    >>another thread. But there are certainly ~many~ features included in it
    >>that are quite exciting and fresh - and there are others that make you
    >>think "if they were so good there, how did they miss the mark so badly
    >>here?". SeaMonkey has a lot of those. Firefox, a few - but its plusses
    >>far outweigh the niggles I can find. So take a bit from Opera, take a
    >>bit from Firefox, slap it on what you've already got, and - you have a
    >>killer app.
    >>
    >>However, we're not there yet.

    >
    >
    > I'm sorry, your original post was enigmatic to my reading.
    >
    > The SeaMonkey Component bar doesn't do it for you? Lower left of any
    > components window, a series of icons that allows you to to open another
    > component with one click? The Menu Bar Window menu also drops down a
    > quick reference of all the available components.
    >
    > Or am I misunderstanding you again?
    >
    > Lee
    >

    Yes Lee, I think you are misunderstanding him again. What RenegadeX
    is talking about is with Opera, you have the browser open. Then when
    you want the mail, it opens within the same window as the browser. Or,
    as he says as a tab. In other words, you have the browser in one tab
    and the mail in another. With Moz, SM and Net, that doesn't happen.
    The browser is one application, the Mail/news is another, and so on.

    For me, I prefer the separate applications of Moz/SM/Net. I found
    Opera to be far too confusing with that same window for everything.
    But, I guess everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

  12. Re: Is it safe to ...

    RenegadeX schrieb:
    > What I expected to see in SeaMonkey was tabs at the top of the window
    > saying 'web', 'mail/news', 'irc', 'composer' that I could flick back and
    > forth among the tabs as one might. I imagined perhaps having all my
    > web-browsing tabs inside that 1 web tab, my mail/news 'window' inside
    > that 2nd tab, Chatzilla all by itself in the 3rd tab, etc. That is
    > 'integration' to me, so I was bitterly disappointed.


    Well, there's much to to integration than just how you launch the
    apps... Anyways, I think I'd not even like to use an app that uses one
    window for everything... But, well, I don't even like using tabs for the
    browser... Still, I love how browser, mail and news all look and work
    the same way, and work together well...

    I guess people's ideas about integration are just... different...

    BTW, I once heard about people opening mailnews within a browser tab in
    SeaMonkey. It seems to work somewhat, though I guess not as would you
    expect that "integration" ;-)

    Robert Kaiser

  13. Re: Is it safe to ...

    gwtc wrote:
    > Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >
    >> RenegadeX wrote:
    >>
    >>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> RenegadeX wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >> /snip/
    >>
    >>> Please re-read my post - the only thing I specifically stated that I
    >>> admire about Opera was its
    idea of "integration"
    .
    >>> There are many things I like about Opera, there are many things I do
    >>> not. But I did not mention any of those.
    >>>
    >>> To expand on why SeaMonkey did not meet MY idea of an integrated
    >>> application, I should first tell you that the last time I used an
    >>> 'internet suite' was with Netscape Communicator many years ago. I
    >>> expected that in the roughly 6 years since I dumped it, advancements
    >>> would have been made to improve the integration between the
    >>> individual components by making the interface more efficient and
    >>> truly 'integrated'. SeaMonkey underwhelms in that regards. Just as
    >>> Netscape Communicator had 'quicklaunch' icons for each of the
    >>> individual components, SM does too, and its behaviour is no
    >>> different. Clicking on any of them opens up that application in a new
    >>> window. Wow!.. if I didn't know better, I'd say that it did the same
    >>> thing I've been doing for years with the icons in my Windows
    >>> Quicklaunch taskbar, only I can have all 4 components open and it
    >>> still only takes up 1-inch on my taskbar!.I do know better though,
    >>> and realize there is a memory-usage benefit to not having to fire up
    >>> 2 Gecko engines. But to be honest I'm not really worried about memory
    >>> even on my old computer with 'only' 512MB RAM, I've got 54 processes
    >>> running right now and I'm more than happy! (even with 'memory hog
    >>> FF1.5!).
    >>>
    >>> What I expected to see in SeaMonkey was tabs at the top of the window
    >>> saying 'web', 'mail/news', 'irc', 'composer' that I could flick back
    >>> and forth among the tabs as one might. I imagined perhaps having all
    >>> my web-browsing tabs inside that 1 web tab, my mail/news 'window'
    >>> inside that 2nd tab, Chatzilla all by itself in the 3rd tab, etc.
    >>> That is 'integration' to me, so I was bitterly disappointed.
    >>>
    >>> Then last week I downloaded Opera for the first time, just to see
    >>> what it had to offer.
    >>> Holy crap!! REVOLUTIONARY!!! This ~is~ integration! This ~is~ the
    >>> merging of different Internet applications into 1. This ~is~ what I
    >>> wanted SeaMonkey to be like!!
    >>>
    >>> Actually Opera is not quite how I envisioned things - as I described
    >>> above, I thought a tab for this component, a tab for that component
    >>> would have been the way to go - but Opera put everything right there
    >>> along side each other - a browser tab, a email Compose tab, an IRC
    >>> tab, another webpage tab, a mail/news tab, another webpage tab - all
    >>> intermingled and playing nicely together inside 1 window pane. It
    >>> works well.
    >>>
    >>> As for Opera's actual features and how they compare, well, that's
    >>> another thread. But there are certainly ~many~ features included in
    >>> it that are quite exciting and fresh - and there are others that make
    >>> you think "if they were so good there, how did they miss the mark so
    >>> badly here?". SeaMonkey has a lot of those. Firefox, a few - but its
    >>> plusses far outweigh the niggles I can find. So take a bit from
    >>> Opera, take a bit from Firefox, slap it on what you've already got,
    >>> and - you have a killer app.
    >>>
    >>> However, we're not there yet.

    >>
    >>
    >> I'm sorry, your original post was enigmatic to my reading.
    >>
    >> The SeaMonkey Component bar doesn't do it for you? Lower left of any
    >> components window, a series of icons that allows you to to open
    >> another component with one click? The Menu Bar Window menu also drops
    >> down a quick reference of all the available components.
    >>
    >> Or am I misunderstanding you again?
    >>
    >> Lee
    >>

    > Yes Lee, I think you are misunderstanding him again. What RenegadeX is
    > talking about is with Opera, you have the browser open. Then when you
    > want the mail, it opens within the same window as the browser. Or, as he
    > says as a tab. In other words, you have the browser in one tab and the
    > mail in another. With Moz, SM and Net, that doesn't happen. The browser
    > is one application, the Mail/news is another, and so on.
    >
    > For me, I prefer the separate applications of Moz/SM/Net. I found Opera
    > to be far too confusing with that same window for everything. But, I
    > guess everyone has their own likes and dislikes.


    Ah. I see.

    Lee

    --
    Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
    Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
    The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
    http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

  14. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > gwtc wrote:
    >> Yes Lee, I think you are misunderstanding him again. What RenegadeX is
    >> talking about is with Opera, you have the browser open. Then when you
    >> want the mail, it opens within the same window as the browser. Or, as he
    >> says as a tab. In other words, you have the browser in one tab and the
    >> mail in another. With Moz, SM and Net, that doesn't happen. The browser
    >> is one application, the Mail/news is another, and so on.
    >>
    >> For me, I prefer the separate applications of Moz/SM/Net. I found Opera
    >> to be far too confusing with that same window for everything. But, I
    >> guess everyone has their own likes and dislikes.

    >
    > Ah. I see.


    I can understand gwtc's about 'everything being too confusing' - hence
    the rationale behind my concept of having master 'component' tabs. Or at
    the very least, it would be handy to have an option to 'group tabs by
    component'. See, the door is open for an even better integration
    implementation..

    Hey Lee, I see you're a Mac OS X user - Opera is available for it too -
    I'd recommend downloading it just to see for yourself how another group
    of people interpreted and implemented "integration"..
    http://www.opera.com/download/index....S&platform=mac

    Like I said, when I did, it was an eye-opener - lots of 'neat features'
    that I'm sure Mozilla users would enjoy if they were ported to/emulated
    in SeaMonkey. Again, that's not to say that 1 app is better than the
    other - both apps have areas that need significant improvement, IMHO,
    before I'll use them. I for one, am still waiting for that 'perfect' app.

  15. Re: Is it safe to ...

    RenegadeX wrote:
    > Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >> gwtc wrote:


    /snip/
    >
    > I can understand gwtc's about 'everything being too confusing' - hence
    > the rationale behind my concept of having master 'component' tabs. Or at
    > the very least, it would be handy to have an option to 'group tabs by
    > component'. See, the door is open for an even better integration
    > implementation..
    >
    > Hey Lee, I see you're a Mac OS X user - Opera is available for it too -
    > I'd recommend downloading it just to see for yourself how another group
    > of people interpreted and implemented "integration"..
    > http://www.opera.com/download/index....S&platform=mac
    >
    > Like I said, when I did, it was an eye-opener - lots of 'neat features'
    > that I'm sure Mozilla users would enjoy if they were ported to/emulated
    > in SeaMonkey. Again, that's not to say that 1 app is better than the
    > other - both apps have areas that need significant improvement, IMHO,
    > before I'll use them. I for one, am still waiting for that 'perfect' app.


    Oh, Opera was the third browser I installed on my OSX machines, after FF
    and SeaMonkey. I use it quite a bit actually, but I found the mail/news
    component to be less then desired, so I never really used it much. With
    the nudge from gw, I now know what you mean. I was understanding
    integration differently.

    I'm with Robert Kaiser on this one, I prefer the separate windows for
    the components, but a lot of that is what you are used to.

    IO did find his reference:

    "I once heard about people opening mailnews within a browser tab in
    SeaMonkey"

    I would like to know how it was done, just to see.

    Lee

    --
    Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
    Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
    The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
    http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

  16. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > RenegadeX wrote:
    >> Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>> gwtc wrote:

    >
    > /snip/
    >>
    >> I can understand gwtc's about 'everything being too confusing' - hence
    >> the rationale behind my concept of having master 'component' tabs. Or
    >> at the very least, it would be handy to have an option to 'group tabs
    >> by component'. See, the door is open for an even better integration
    >> implementation..
    >>
    >> Hey Lee, I see you're a Mac OS X user - Opera is available for it too
    >> - I'd recommend downloading it just to see for yourself how another
    >> group of people interpreted and implemented "integration"..
    >> http://www.opera.com/download/index....S&platform=mac
    >>
    >> Like I said, when I did, it was an eye-opener - lots of 'neat
    >> features' that I'm sure Mozilla users would enjoy if they were ported
    >> to/emulated in SeaMonkey. Again, that's not to say that 1 app is
    >> better than the other - both apps have areas that need significant
    >> improvement, IMHO, before I'll use them. I for one, am still waiting
    >> for that 'perfect' app.

    >
    > Oh, Opera was the third browser I installed on my OSX machines, after FF
    > and SeaMonkey. I use it quite a bit actually, but I found the mail/news
    > component to be less then desired, so I never really used it much. With
    > the nudge from gw, I now know what you mean. I was understanding
    > integration differently.
    >
    > I'm with Robert Kaiser on this one, I prefer the separate windows for
    > the components, but a lot of that is what you are used to.
    >
    > IO did find his reference:
    >
    > "I once heard about people opening mailnews within a browser tab in
    > SeaMonkey"
    >
    > I would like to know how it was done, just to see.
    >
    > Lee
    >


    Type this URL into your browser bar:
    chrome://messenger/content/messenger.xul

    This is "not supported" and doesn't work very well. In my build
    (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051229
    SeaMonkey/1.0b) it really doesn't work at all. I seem to remember it
    being at least functional in the past.

    I, too, prefer to have the components each in their own window, but it
    may be nice to fix whatever needs fixing to allow users to have it their
    own way.

    --
    Jeff Beal

  17. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Jeff Beal wrote:
    > Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >
    >> RenegadeX wrote:
    >>
    >>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> gwtc wrote:


    /snip/

    > Type this URL into your browser bar:
    > chrome://messenger/content/messenger.xul
    >
    > This is "not supported" and doesn't work very well. In my build
    > (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8) Gecko/20051229
    > SeaMonkey/1.0b) it really doesn't work at all. I seem to remember it
    > being at least functional in the past.
    >
    > I, too, prefer to have the components each in their own window, but it
    > may be nice to fix whatever needs fixing to allow users to have it their
    > own way.
    >


    Agreed, choices are good! Thanks for the tip, I should have thought of that.

    Lee

    --
    Leonidas Jones, Mozilla Champion
    Learn about the Champs! http://mozillachampions.ufaq.org
    The UFAQ'S http://www.ufaq.org/
    http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html
    http://mozilla.com http://mozilla.org

  18. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Am 12.01.2006 13:38 schrieb Leonidas Jones:

    > Ah. I see.


    Sorry to disturb you, but 120 lines of quote just for "Ah. I see."?
    Please snip the not relevant parts of your postings, it allows better
    reading.

    Thanks.

    OJ
    --
    "A thing is not necessarily true because a man dies for it."
    (Oscar Wilde)


    OJ
    --
    "The United States of America is the only empire in history to have
    gone from Barbarism directly to Decadence, without any intervening
    period of Civilisation." (Oscar Wilde)

  19. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Leonidas Jones wrote:
    > Jeff Beal wrote:
    >> Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>
    >>> RenegadeX wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Leonidas Jones wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> gwtc wrote:

    >
    > /snip/
    >
    >> Type this URL into your browser bar:
    >> chrome://messenger/content/messenger.xul
    >>
    >> This is "not supported" and doesn't work very well. In my build
    >> (Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8)
    >> Gecko/20051229 SeaMonkey/1.0b) it really doesn't work at all. I seem
    >> to remember it being at least functional in the past.
    >>
    >> I, too, prefer to have the components each in their own window, but it
    >> may be nice to fix whatever needs fixing to allow users to have it
    >> their own way.
    >>

    >
    > Agreed, choices are good! Thanks for the tip, I should have thought of
    > that.
    >
    > Lee
    >


    Indeed, I tried it, rather less then a success on 1.0b on a Mac.

    Lee

  20. Re: Is it safe to ...

    Johannes Kastl wrote:
    > Am 12.01.2006 13:38 schrieb Leonidas Jones:
    >


    >
    > Sorry to disturb you, but 120 lines of quote just for "Ah. I see."?
    > Please snip the not relevant parts of your postings, it allows better
    > reading.
    >
    > Thanks.
    >
    > OJ


    I am trying to remember, from secnews where no snipping was the norm.
    It was late and I missed it. I apologize to all.

    Lee

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 LastLast