From: Digest To: "OS/2GenAu Digest" Date: Sun, 7 Jan 2007 00:00:28 EST-10EDT,10,-1,0,7200,3,-1,0,7200,3600 Subject: [os2genau_digest] No. 1413 Reply-To: X-List-Unsubscribe: www.os2site.com/list/ ************************************************** Saturday 06 January 2007 Number 1413 ************************************************** Subjects for today 1 Re: Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE ! : Ken Laurie 2 Re: Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE ! : Ed Durrant **= Email 1 ==========================** Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:02:28 +1100 From: Ken Laurie Subject: Re: Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE ! Hi Ed I would also add that I find Peter Weilbacher's PmW FX more stable and faster than the standard Firefox. I am currently running PmW FX 2.0.0.1 without any great issues. I occasionally find that if I leave it (or the standard Firefox) running constantly without being used then it will just die. This is rare and I find it hard to replicate. regards Ken John Angelico wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:59:54 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote: > >> Someone here (I think) suggested going to FF/2 2.01 is a good move as >> it's more stable. >> >> I find exactly the opposite. It locks up the sytem so that only a CAD >> releases it and sometimes causes a TRAP0000 in OS2KRNL. >> >> I would not recommend upgrading to this version, in fact I'm going to >> downgrade back to v 2.0 >> >> >> Cheers/2 >> >> Ed. > >> > >> > > Hi Ed. > > Yes, that was me recommending FF 2.001 > > Sorry, I had vastly more problems with 2.0GA than with either the 2.0RC2 or > the 2.001 release. > > So we will have to say > a) alwyas set up your MOZ-PROFILE and MOZ_HOME structure separate from your > FF installations > and > b) as per the readme, always do a fresh install for each version > > thus allowing you to switch back and forth for testing. > > I found I could switch between 1.509 and the two of v2 with separate > program objects, and the inbuilt version-checking was always very good. > > Then we have to say YMMV. > > > Best regards > John Angelico > OS/2 SIG > os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or > talldad at kepl dot com dot au > ___________________ > > > > !DSPAM:1,459e494b23617726611742! > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- **= Email 2 ==========================** Date: Sat, 06 Jan 2007 08:09:28 +1100 From: Ed Durrant Subject: Re: Firefox 2.01 - BEWARE ! John Angelico wrote: > On Fri, 05 Jan 2007 21:59:54 +1100, Ed Durrant wrote: > >> Someone here (I think) suggested going to FF/2 2.01 is a good move as >> it's more stable. >> >> I find exactly the opposite. It locks up the sytem so that only a CAD >> releases it and sometimes causes a TRAP0000 in OS2KRNL. >> >> I would not recommend upgrading to this version, in fact I'm going to >> downgrade back to v 2.0 >> >> >> Cheers/2 >> >> Ed. > >> > >> > > Hi Ed. > > Yes, that was me recommending FF 2.001 > > Sorry, I had vastly more problems with 2.0GA than with either the 2.0RC2 or > the 2.001 release. > > So we will have to say > a) alwyas set up your MOZ-PROFILE and MOZ_HOME structure separate from your > FF installations > and > b) as per the readme, always do a fresh install for each version > > thus allowing you to switch back and forth for testing. > > I found I could switch between 1.509 and the two of v2 with separate > program objects, and the inbuilt version-checking was always very good. > > Then we have to say YMMV. > > > Best regards > John Angelico > OS/2 SIG > os2 at melbpc dot org dot au or > talldad at kepl dot com dot au > ___________________ > > > Hi John, Yes indeed I have a common profile and home structure as you say and to change versions I "normally" create a new directory rather than installing over the top .... I had to create a new directory to get back to 2.0GA, but that now makes me think that perhaps with the 2.0GA to 2.001 change I DIDN'T create a new directory and actually installed over the top, so the error could well be mine - I'll give 2.001 another chance in its own directory. I found 2.0CA to be pretty stable so I was surprised that 2.001 was what appeared to be a backwards step, but if it has mixed versions of code, that would certainly explain it ! Cheers/2 Ed. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------