Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Mozilla Software The Internet Launches Mozilla 1.3 721

theBrownfury writes "Mozilla 1.3 is out and about. New to this version are features like image auto sizing, bayesian junk-mail filtering, dynamic profile switching, about:config for a pretty view into all of Mozilla's "secret" settings, an initial version of Midas for rich text editing, and a lot of other fixes for performance, standards compliance and site compatability. Also with 1.3 Mozilla is now applying machine learning to improve the autocomplete feature. Mozilla 1.3 is now the official stable release from Users of all previous versions should upgrade to 1.3 for the latest in features and stability. More info at the 1.3 release page and discussions at"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted. Launches Mozilla 1.3

Comments Filter:
  • hmm (Score:5, Funny)

    by _Shorty-dammit ( 555739 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:09PM (#5506409)
    what, no mp3 player?
  • What about phoenix? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by djtrippin ( 613642 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:09PM (#5506411) Homepage
    Thats fine is you want the bloat. (although the kitchen sink is pretty funny) But when is the phoenix browser project going to release .6?
    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:13PM (#5506459)
      I just heard this sad bit of news on talk radio; Slashdot browser star Phoenix was found dead in its Seattle home this morning. There weren't any details. Even if you didn't agree with its minimalist style, there's no doubting its contributions to browser culture. Truly an open source icon.
    • by Pxtl ( 151020 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:32PM (#5506644) Homepage
      Looking at the new features - they got one of the more annoying features from IE in there - I can't stand the frigging image resize feature. If I want too look at pr0n, I want it to fill the screen in all its pixel-by-pixel glory, not some badly-rescaled image
    • by Lord Prox ( 521892 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:41PM (#5506736) Homepage
      Am I the only one here that is happy Mozilla 1.3 is out? After reading the posts here it sounds like /. would bitch if they were hung with a new rope.

      What is wrong with Mozilla? "Bloat" what exactly is "bloat" memory footprint? HDD footprint? Load Time? Compaired to IE I find it to be very compeditive, plus you are not helping lord gates and mount redmond take over the net/world. You are providing them with a serious challenge which is better for everyone.

      Sorry, I just work up and I'm a little cranky. I don't meean to bitch at the parent post specificly just people that are complaining about nit picky stuff while overlooking all the time/energy spent giving them a free speech/beer answer to IE and redmond (something /.ers also complain about)

      • Re:What about bloat (Score:5, Informative)

        by ianezz ( 31449 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:17PM (#5507056) Homepage
        What is wrong with Mozilla?

        That the idea to use it as a platform to develope portable applications (using ECMAScript + XUL) is catching on slower than some people would expect. This is a pity, because ungodly amounts of effort goes in making this possible, and still people see it just as a web browser (a large one).

        Other than that, Mozilla-the-web-browser is fine, Mozilla-the-messaging suite is at least good enough, and Mozilla-the-javascript-debugger shows lots of promises.

        I don't include Mozilla-the-IDE (Komodo) in the list, since it deviates too much from the usual distribution (even if it is Gecko Inside(TM)).

        Now waiting for Mozilla-the-organizer (thru Calendar, planned for 1.4 ~ 1.5). Perhaps a Mozilla-the-file-manager would be something worth implementing (but Meow [] seems definitively dead).

        • Re:What about bloat (Score:3, Interesting)

          by bwt ( 68845 )
          That the idea to use it as a platform to develope portable applications (using ECMAScript + XUL) is catching on slower than some people would expect.

          I think there are two basic architecture issues that turn a lot of people off. The first is Javascript (ECMAscript). The only place this language has a foothold is in HTML. If the real goal is to have people write general applications, nobody uses javascript and so this meets a non-demand.

          The second is the failure to separate concerns into layers very well.
        • by alexhmit01 ( 104757 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:39PM (#5508631)
          We looked into XUL as a solution to our content management system about 12 or 18 months ago, I don't remember, and my concept of time is seriously warped from the dor-com days.

          At the time, they CLAIMED that you could do all this cool stuff with XUL, but the documentation (including the 1 ONE official book on XUL, sucked). They all focused on building the GUI inside of the Mozilla browser.

          We were working with a potential partner that has a browser based application, whose bain of existance is IE's print feature (they log printing with their print button, but an IE print would trash that). The idea of a "stripped down" browser that would start at their screen would rock. Additionally, using XUL widgets would let them eliminate the frames and other garbage, making their app easier. They liked the idea of using a XUL toolbar instead of a frame with buttons.

          Unfortunately, weeks of research through their docs went nowhere, and we worked on a Java solution, and the deal went south over time. Now we have our own Java based solution, and don't want to migrate to XUL.

          The XUL + ECMAScript stuff should have been pushed earlier with proper documentation. Instead they pushed it to grab some marketshare when they weren't ready.

          I love Camino/Chimera, and the other Gecko browsers (use Phoenix when on a Windows machine), but they missed a lot of time with not getting XUL as an early solution. They should have put out (early) some shells that you could start from then add your other functionality.

          Sure, other projects have picked it up since then, but with the XUL + ECMAScript solution being the red-headed stepchild for a while, they lost some steam.

          It'll happen, but every year that they wasted will take 2 years to recover, as growth has slowed down and projects chose other tech.

          That said, I love Mozilla now, but I think that the shifting of priorities cost them mindshare that will be painful to recover.

  • Crap! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Skyshadow ( 508 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:10PM (#5506418) Homepage
    Yeah! Got the Linux and Windows versions before the Slashdotting! In your face, Taco!
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:13PM (#5506466)
    Autocomplete: the only browser feature that can turn into
  • by Shawn Baumgartner ( 632798 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:14PM (#5506470) Homepage
    "Also with 1.3 Mozilla is now applying machine learning to improve the autocomplete feature."

    Sounds good. Eventually I can just tell it "porn" and it will go grab all sorts of crazy shit for me to do naughty things to. Of course, I hope it doesn't work like the Tivo's related feature or I'll end up with 30 translations of and a giant pic of Janet Reno in a bikini.
  • Spam filtering (Score:5, Informative)

    by kirun ( 658684 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:14PM (#5506474) Homepage Journal
    If you haven't been using the 1.3 preview releases, and so haven't been running the spam filters yet, remember they take a while to get going. Look at , the results are for around 8000 sorted messages. Just keep correcting it and you'll be fine.
    • Re:Spam filtering (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MagPulse ( 316 )
      How long? I categorized about 200 messages in PopFile [] and it still wouldn't sort any itself. It was getting something like 99.999% certainty and wasn't getting any wrong. I checked the PopFile forums [], and apparently no one else wonders how many hours you have to spend doing a triple click to categorize each e-mail.
    • Re:More Importantly! (Score:5, Informative)

      by terraformer ( 617565 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:18PM (#5507060) Journal
      More importantly, you need to train ham (ie; non spam) as well as spam!
      "Tools | Mark Selected Messages as *Not* Junk"
      There have been a bunch of posts to the newsgroup and this has been the problem.

      Unless you tell the filter what is spam *AND NOT* spam then it only has half of the information it needs to make a decision. It's a bimodal decision tree that is used to determine whether a message is spam or not. ie;

      for each word {
      the probability it is spam is x
      and the probability it is ham is y

      A calculation (Bayes) of those probabilities intersecting usually places the probability that any given message is spam either close to 1 (spam) or 0 (ham). What happens if you don't train ham is the probability of all messages will be around .5 and that is not enough to say anything definitively and defaults to delivery.

  • by macshune ( 628296 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:16PM (#5506491) Journal
    Thursday March 13, @04:07PM
    Mozilla is contacted by slashdot.

    Thursday March 13, @04:30PM
    Mozilla is slashdotted.

    Thursday March 13, @04:50PM

    Thursday March 13, @05:01PM
    Mozilla successfully slashdots slashdot with nuclear missles.

    • > Thursday March 13, @04:50PM

      MOZILLA was a browser, he was a dragon-browser, he was just a dragon, but he was still MOZILLA! Burninating the BLINK tags! Burninating the DOM! Burninating all the Frontpage users in their non-compliant HTML! (NON-COMPLIANT HTMLLLL!!!!!) AND THE BEAST SHALL COME FORTH SURROUNDED BY A ROILING CLOUD OF VENGEANCE... uh, I mean IN THE NIIIIIIGHT!

      - The Book of Consummate Vs, 12

    • Am I the only person who noticed that they cravenly removed the Mozilla mascot from the splash screen?

      This will sound stupid to the Slashdot Crowd, but many of the people that I've switched to Mozilla really, really liked the mascott. I've even had several of the women comment that they used Mozilla because they thought the logo was cute; the guys though it looked cool (these people are not technical types).

      Why they would switch to the current bland and antiseptic splash screen is beyond me. I mean,
  • by Dthoma ( 593797 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:16PM (#5506492) Journal can now use a version of Galeon later than 1.2.7 without worrying about a dodgy beta copy of Mozilla. In the past if I'd wanted 1.2.8 I'd have to download and use the possibly unstable Mozilla 1.3 beta.

    Get Mozilla 1.3 here [] and here [].
  • fuck! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:20PM (#5506523)
    I just barely got done downloading Netscape 4! stupid 1200 baud modem!
  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:22PM (#5506542) Homepage
    ...when you're downloading in the middle of a slashdotting, and it's *still* going at max speed. Sigh.

    • ...when you're downloading in the middle of a slashdotting, and it's *still* going at max speed. Sigh.

      Either that, or perhaps AOL/Time Warner has a hell of a lot of bandwidth at their disposal? Hmmmm... largest ISP in the world, huge media conglomerate, lot of bandwidth...
  • by Bowie J. Poag ( 16898 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:25PM (#5506560) Homepage
    Everything you need to know, step by step, can be found here [].... I've been building AA/TrueType support into Mozilla for a while now, and I have no idea why it's not enabled by default, or why others don't config their builds to do the same. Mozilla looks like absolute shit without smooth fonts.

    Additionally, you can find a webcam movie of me eating a donut by clicking the link below.
    • by dbaron ( 463913 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:34PM (#5506668) Homepage

      The RPMs for RedHat 8 have the Xft support enabled. (They're not released yet, but they probably will be soon.)

      It's not enabled by default because it requires libraries (Xft2, fontconfig) that many users don't have. At some point someone might modify the code so that it tests for the presence of the library and loads all the required function pointers manually, but that's a bit of work. What's available now is good enough for distributors and good enough for people who know to get the RH8 RPMs.

    • by cymen ( 8178 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:55PM (#5506870) Homepage
      The nightly builds support AA but it isn't enabled by default. I'm using this in my user.js:

      pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
      pref("font.FreeType2.autohinted", false);
      pref("font.FreeType2.unhinted", false);
      pref("font.antialias.min", 0);

      Looks good to me!
    • by Dante ( 3418 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:06PM (#5506944) Journal

      Strangly enough, thats not way I would Build Mozilla. Usualy I use these to get what I want, this includes all sorts of goodys, that are not just font specific. Also I shy away for the "-march=i686" but I do use O2.

      ac_add_options --enable-crypto
      ac_add_options --enable-ldap-experimental
      ac_add_options --enable-optimize=-O2
      ac_add_options --enable-reorder
      ac_add_options --enable-cpp-rtti
      ac_add_options --enable-cpp-exceptions
      ac_add_options --enable-default-toolkit=gtk2
      ac_add_options --disable-toolkit-gtk
      ac_add_options --enable-xft
      ac_add_options --enable-freetype2
      ac_add_options --enable-oji
      ac_add_options --disable-debug
      ac_add_options --disable-short-wchar
      ac_add_options --with-system-zlib
      ac_add_options --with-system-jpeg
      ac_add_options --with-system-png
      ac_add_options --with-system-mng
      ac_add_options --disable-tests

  • by Psx29 ( 538840 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:26PM (#5506575)
    Finally mozilla supports unicode in the titlebar properly and also the address bar! Not the most important feature but it certaintly made things ugly to look at when you look at sites in different character sets. (This is reffering to Windows rels. btw)
  • IEZilla (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:28PM (#5506601)
    Make Moz1.3 look just like IE... with the IE skin. []

    Force-upgrade people without them noticing.
  • by dbaron ( 463913 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:29PM (#5506615) Homepage
    Autocomplete doesn't use machine learning in 1.3. It was an experimental, disabled-by-default, feature in 1.3beta for data-collection [].
  • by jnik ( 1733 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:30PM (#5506628)
    If you read the ML autocomplete page, the main "feature" in 1.3 is logging what entry people tend to pick from the autocomplete list; this will be fed into development of the ML autocomplete. They have a super-alpha version of the engine in there, sure, but really what you should be doing with 1.3 is feeding them the info. Don't expect intelligent autocompletion.
  • No NTLM? (Score:5, Informative)

    by mkelley ( 411060 ) <[slashdot] [at] []> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:31PM (#5506633) Homepage
    Unfortunately they still haven't added NTLM support. If you're in a total Microsoft shop with a MS proxy, if the admin has it totally secured, nothing other than IE can be used. Having this feature in Mozilla will help reestablish it as a corporate browser....and help some of us who can only use IE.

    Oh and the bug is 3 years old. I know some work is being done on the Windows Mozilla, but damn. Three years?
    • Re:No NTLM? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by awptic ( 211411 )
      I've written a proxy server (see my .sig) which can use NTLM (and Basic) authentication when forwarding through another proxy; it also has some advanced filtering features that you won't find in any other proxy out there (i.e. regexp substitution on webpage body and http headers, regexp substition on request url (useful for bypassing click-through ads, download mirror selection, etc.), caching to memory and disk (uses same refresh logic as squid), URL commands to perform various actions on a webpage (i.e.
    • Re:No NTLM? (Score:5, Informative)

      by pohl ( 872 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:59PM (#5507380) Homepage
      It's true this bug has been idle for a long time, but there's been a lot of activity on it in just the last few days. I would expect a windows-only implementation to be available in the next release, judging from the recent activity of Bug 159015.

      Don't hold your breath for a cross-platform solution that will allow Linux user to work in such an environment, though. (Which is a bummer for me, because that's why I'm following the bug.)
  • *grrr* WTF?!? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sielwolf ( 246764 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:32PM (#5506645) Homepage Journal
    Mac OS and Windows: Using ATI video drivers will lead to random crashes on many sites. Mac OS ATI driver versions affected: All (?) Windows ATI driver versions affected: (Mac OS) Workaround: set your screen to 'Thousands of colors' rather than 'Millions'. (Windows) Possible Workaround: Revert to an older driver (6094?)-- Untested (Bug 101055)
    This is probably one of the worst bugs, has been around for several iterations of the app and there seems to be no headway! And considering it related to all ATI video cards it isn't like it's some uncommon HW combination. Frustrating since I love the rest of the Moz product...
  • Looks good so far. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Tailhook ( 98486 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:32PM (#5506648)
    1.2.1 finally fixed However, was still not "right". Now even that site works. woot!

    I know judging a browser by it's ability to handle the twisted "html" these sites use is a bad thing to do. However, it's nice to see Mozilla take on the challenge and succeed anyhow.
  • by Sanity ( 1431 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:34PM (#5506664) Homepage Journal
    The Midas functionality looks really exciting, particularly for "Wiki"-like tools - no more ugly customized Wiki syntax!

    Only problem is that I can't find a single web page which demonstrates Midas in-action, what gives?!

  • by sfranklin ( 95470 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:35PM (#5506670) Journal
    No IE favorites import. :( It's broken again. Back to Bugzilla....
  • RPMs? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Gudlyf ( 544445 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:36PM (#5506687) Homepage Journal
    Just curious -- how long does it usually take before they create the RPM's for each release? They don't seem to be available for 1.3 yet.
  • by AtomicX ( 616545 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:40PM (#5506733)
    Nice OS, all it needs now is an internet browser. [SlashCompo: Fastest Post to Get a Troll Mod]
  • by The Dev ( 19322 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:45PM (#5506781)
    I just check my weblog stats and non IE browsers accounted for 12% of hits so far today (out of 1.1million). About two months ago it was only 7%. Mozilla itself is at about 6.2%. Let's hope this trend continues.
    • The Google zeitgeist has a graph [] of what browsers are used to access Google, spanning a couple of years back. Look for "Web Browsers Used To Access Google March 2001 - January 2003". And indeed, "Netscape 5.x" usage is rising.

      Also noteworthy is that Linux machines accounted for 1% of the operating systems used to access Google in January 2003, while different flavors of Windows account for 91%. Macs accounted for 4%, the "other" category for the remaining 4% (Source: Google Inc.). I guess that gives a pre

  • All I have to say... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:47PM (#5506794) Homepage
    ... if any Moz devs are reading, thanks. Mozilla rocks. Still a wee bit slow while loading on Win32 without the 'autoload' feature, but nonetheless an incredible browser.

    An excellent example of what open source can accomplish, and I really mean that. Kudos and all that.

  • Image autosizing! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by cmburns69 ( 169686 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @05:59PM (#5506901) Homepage Journal
    New to this version are features like image auto sizing...
    Am I the only person who does not like the image auto size feature? I am a web developer, and sometimes the graphics I look at are bigger than the window I'm browsing in, and I can't always expand the browser to be bigger than the image.

    If this feature has indeed been added to mozilla (and MS could learn this as well), please add an option to turn it off!

    An online Starcraft RPG? Only at []
  • by Qzukk ( 229616 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:07PM (#5506950) Journal
    The way I think completion should work is to match the shortest matching non-unique segment.
    If I type "www.moz" and I've been to "" (and various subdirectories) and "" (and various subdirectories), it should show just those two matches, without the subdirectories. I should then be able to hit tab to choose one or the other, and then continue to type. Say I choose and type /info.
    Now, if the only pages matching this is "/info/win32/editor.html" "info/win32/browser.html" "/info/linux/browser.html" then I should get to choose between "/info/linux/" and "/info/win32/".

    This way I can type "sl" and see all the individual sites starting with sl, before looking through thousands of lines like
    " /20282 09&mode=nested&tid=95&tid=185&tid=154"

    Also, if there are no matches, the window shouldn't come up at all. It's a pain to have to click repeatedly to get out of the URL entry if the url you are entering doesn't match anything. (at least on the Linux version)
  • by faust13 ( 535994 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:20PM (#5507084) Homepage
    Do you have any idea how much porn I didn't keep because autosize made it too small??? Not Mozilla too, geez...
  • by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:30PM (#5507162) Journal
    It seems like this autocomplete thing is more about ranking... I wonder if they'll fix what I consider to be the bigest problem with autocomplete - Mozilla will pick one site from which to return URLs.

    Example: If I start typing in 'http://s' for example, it will gladly show me a list of 20 URLs from, but not a single one for stickdeath. Why doesn't it do like (Windows) Explorer-style autocomplete - when I type in the above, provide me with domains from which to choose. When and if I pick Slashdot, then it should provide links from slashdot only, but why on earth does it assume that by typing a few letters, that it should automatically complete 10 documents from the same website, but none from any others?

  • by Trolling4Dollars ( 627073 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:31PM (#5507170) Journal

    Mozilla just keeps getting better and better... With all the features it has, it's well on it's way to becoming the super user's uber browser. I had to tweak one of the "secret features" a few weeks ago. (Port 1080 is denied unless you explicitly tell the browser that it's OK to access) The info I found, referred me to the about:config screen. When I saw it I was very impressed at how much potential there is for using this browser in so many different ways. The only thing they need on Linux now is the "Quick Start" or whatever they call it launcher program. That way you will only have to wait a fraction of a second for Mozilla to appear. I think this could be implemented by having another Mozilla componenet that you can run at X login. It doesn't actually display any output, it just loads the base elements of Mozilla needed to launch any Mozilla app. That would be EXTREMELY cool...

    -- For my comments on the new difficulties in first posting and the "broken-ness" of metamoderation, go here: 5 []

  • Alt tags... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mraymer ( 516227 ) <mraymer.centurytel@net> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:56PM (#5507358) Homepage Journal
    Can anyone tell me if there is a way to configure moz to display ALT tags when I mouse over images? I thought maybe there's an option in that jungle of "secret settings" via about:config.

    I know I can see the ALT tags by doing properties on the images, but I'd rather be able to simply see them on mouse over.

  • But why (redux)? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by haeger ( 85819 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @06:57PM (#5507360)
    I'm just whining here, but why does a new install have to remove all my gestures, autoscroll and other nice addons that I've collected? Every time I upgrade I have to hit Mozdev [] to get those again. Quite annoying.
    Yes, I know I can save some folders and do other weird stuff to make sure this doesn't happen, but by god, think of the newbies. (Ok, so the last part was a bit over the top, but still...)

    Oh, and with the new spam-filtering-rules Mozilla has now become my fav mailclient. Combined with IMAP it just rocks.

    Thank You to all developers. Perhaps I should go file that bug now. The annoying one.


    • Re:But why (redux)? (Score:5, Informative)

      by asa ( 33102 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:06PM (#5507439) Homepage
      1.4 nightly builds have support for profile chrome. That means that extension developers can make extensions that install to your profile and won't get erased when you upgrade your Mozilla binary.

    • Re:But why (redux)? (Score:5, Informative)

      by mykmelez ( 6506 ) <myk@me l e z . com> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:12PM (#5507483) Homepage

      Until recently add-ons could only be installed in the Mozilla application directory, where they get deleted every time you upgrade to a newer version.

      A bug was recently fixed that makes it possible to install add-ons into the user profile directory, where they persist through upgrades.

      Note that until 1.4alpha comes out, this fix will only be available on the nightly builds []. Also, add-on authors have to modify their add-ons to install into the profile directory. If you are an add-on author, see the bug for an example of how to do this:
  • by treat ( 84622 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:09PM (#5507454)
    Unfortunately Mozilla still has a horrible usability flaw that the developers refuse to address. It caches DNS lookups forever, and does not honor the TTL on the record - there is no way to turn this off. This means that any site that uses changing DNS records with a short TTL for failover or load balancing will be broken for Mozilla users. IE works fine. This issue makes Mozilla look really pathetic in a corporate environment.

    Search bugzilla for "dns cache".
  • by abischof ( 255 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:17PM (#5507517) Homepage

    It's only a minor annoyance, but Mozilla doesn't yet snap to the default button [] in Windows if that setting is configured in Control Panel (when set, the mouse cursor should automatically move to the default button in dialog boxes). You might think it wouldn't be such a tough fix, but it's apparently ellusive :-/.

    If you like, you can vote for the bug [] (you'll need a free Bugzilla account [] to vote). You'll probably need to copy-n-paste the URL, as Bugzilla doesn't accept referers from Slashdot.

  • Yes!! (Score:3, Interesting)

    by drivers ( 45076 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:38PM (#5507683)
    I love the spam filter... I even used 1.3a and 1.3b get the bayesian filter feature. Now that 1.3 is out I'll be installing that ASAP and hope that it fixes a few minor bugs I've noticed.
  • by Kakurenbo Shogun ( 64436 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:46PM (#5507740) Homepage
    For those of us using MacOS 9, we'll have to stick with version 1.2.1--they've dropped MacOS 9 support this time around. Augh!

    So if you want to help a poor Mac (and Linux, for my servers) user who can't afford to upgrade to Jaguar, go to this website [] and make a donation! (or buy something).

    Shameless, I know. Shame is too expensive for my budget.

  • by ckedge ( 192996 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @07:59PM (#5507833) Journal
    I would have liked to use Mozilla for my e-mail, as Netscape Messenger 4.7x finally has enough unfixed time/date induced problems so as to be unusable.

    I have an inbox (no messages left on server) with about 90 e-mail and 10 MB of attachments. My folders in total have around 30 MB of e-mail. This is on Windows 2000, 800 MHz cpu, 7200 RPM 60 GB disk, HDD FULLY defragmented two days ago, folders compressed not less than a few days ago..

    "Compressing" the folders takes 1.5 minutes, despite the fact that I swear I did it only a few days ago. Deleting an e-mail with a 2 MB attachment runs the CPU and HDD for 15 seconds. Same goes for "saving" the attachment to disk.

    Oddly enough, even though those operations sound and feel heavy, HDD rattling like heck and system all slow like molasses, the HDD is only reading and writing at 0.5 MB/s, and the CPU is no higher than 10-40 pct.

    Now *that's* an unscalable architecture.

    Worst of all, while you're saving an attachment to disk your pointer is not locked to an hourglass, and you're free to close the e-mail and delete it from your inbox (which you will do the first time you don't notice the "M" icon still spinning in the e-mail). You get no warning, but I guess because that happens "while" it was trying to extract the attachment, the attachment save gets silently cut off, and you end up with a corrupted partial file on disk (bad zip, etc etc).


    After only 1 month, I'm dumping Mozilla Mail as fast as I can.
  • by zipwow ( 1695 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @08:23PM (#5508002) Homepage Journal
    Maybe I'm just spoiled, but rather than fetching the giant re-installer, is there some way that mozilla can upgrade itself? For all the complaining that web developers do about people out there still running Mosaic v0.9b, it amazes me this isn't a primary feature.

  • emacs team (Score:3, Funny)

    by minus_273 ( 174041 ) <> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @08:51PM (#5508139) Journal
    must be getting jealous just about now... ;p
  • Right Click Tab Menu (Score:3, Informative)

    by satanami69 ( 209636 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @09:48PM (#5508420) Homepage
    Does anyone know how to change the order of the right click tab menu for
    the windows version? Before it had "new tab" on the top, now "close tab" is
    the top one.

    You get to the menu by right-clicking anywhere on the tabs bar.

  • by Griim ( 8798 ) on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:16PM (#5508535) Homepage
    Can someone tell me the best way to upgrade between the versions?

    I've been usin' and lovin' Moz for a long time now, but I'm always worried about going from one version to the next....can I just "cheat" and install overtop? Should I uninstall the old Moz first for the best stability? I tend to be anal in this area because I like my installs to be 'clean,' yet at the same time I'm lazy and want to do as little work as possible. :)

    What is the most I can "get away" with?
  • by emarkp ( 67813 ) <slashdot AT roadq DOT com> on Thursday March 13, 2003 @10:51PM (#5508701) Journal
    In a bizarre move, Mozilla 1.3 actually degrades popup blocking. You used to be able to simply prevent unrequested popups. Now, you have to categorize web sites and make an explicit whitelist. Never mind if one page gives popups that you want to avoid (unrequested) and another page gives popups that you want (requested). What a mess.

    Fortunately, you can return the functionality by putting the following line in your prefs.js file:

    user_pref("dom.disable_open_during_load", true);

"How many teamsters does it take to screw in a light bulb?" "FIFTEEN!! YOU GOT A PROBLEM WITH THAT?"