FireFox 5.0
42 views
Skip to first unread message
Archie Norris
May 24, 2011, 1:40:45 PM5/24/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
How do you sync? I can't get it to work?
Jeff Grossman
May 24, 2011, 3:24:23 PM5/24/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Are you getting an error?
l8nyt...@gmail.com
May 28, 2011, 3:56:11 PM5/28/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
There's a Firefox 5.0? Really? 4.0 sux! Crashes repeatedly! I hate using it! Is 5.0 better? These constant crashes and slow downs are driving me bonkers! Gloria P
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mozilla-labs-testpilot" group.
To post to this group, send email to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mozilla-labs-test...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-testpilot?hl=en.
Jeff Grossman
May 28, 2011, 5:16:47 PM5/28/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Firefox 5 is currently in beta testing. It is quite stable if you wanted to give it a try. The interface is the same as 4 but it includes many bug and security fixes. You can go to http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/channel/ to see the different channels that are available.
I have had no problems with Firefox 4 either. Have you tried disabling your extensions to see if it is an extension causing your crashes?
Jeff
I have had no problems with Firefox 4 either. Have you tried disabling your extensions to see if it is an extension causing your crashes?
Jeff
fatman
May 28, 2011, 6:31:31 PM5/28/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
I think we have a user that is incapable of doing the simplest
troubleshooting; and then complaining about "crashes". He probably
does not even know how to start in "safe mode".
You are right about Firefox 5, it seems to be fairly stable, with the
Aurora (Firefox 6) almost as stable, and of course, the Nightly
(Firefox 7) being less stable. Other than addon compatibility, i have
all three working in addition of Firefox 4.0.
Now, some may think that Firefox 5 amounts to a "sea change" revision,
I doubt that is the case. It is not like going from FF 2.x to Ff 3.x,
or FF3.x to FF4. IMHO, it is only a `numbers game`. (e.g. Who has the
"latest version number"? with lower relative version numbers seen as
apparent "lack of innovation".)
After all, there are those who would say that Chrome 10 is seriously
better" then Firefox 4, solely on the version number.
You might be curious to note that what is now known as Firefox 5
started out (in the nightly builds) as FF 4.2!!!! Similarly, I bet
Firefox 6 amounts to something like FF 4.4, and Firefox 7 is something
like FF 4.5.
IOW minor enhancements, as opposed to "sea change" improvements.
On May 28, 5:16 pm, Jeff Grossman <j...@stikman.com> wrote:
> Firefox 5 is currently in beta testing. It is quite stable if you wanted to
> give it a try. The interface is the same as 4 but it includes many bug and
> security fixes. You can go tohttp://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/channel/tosee the different
troubleshooting; and then complaining about "crashes". He probably
does not even know how to start in "safe mode".
You are right about Firefox 5, it seems to be fairly stable, with the
Aurora (Firefox 6) almost as stable, and of course, the Nightly
(Firefox 7) being less stable. Other than addon compatibility, i have
all three working in addition of Firefox 4.0.
Now, some may think that Firefox 5 amounts to a "sea change" revision,
I doubt that is the case. It is not like going from FF 2.x to Ff 3.x,
or FF3.x to FF4. IMHO, it is only a `numbers game`. (e.g. Who has the
"latest version number"? with lower relative version numbers seen as
apparent "lack of innovation".)
After all, there are those who would say that Chrome 10 is seriously
better" then Firefox 4, solely on the version number.
You might be curious to note that what is now known as Firefox 5
started out (in the nightly builds) as FF 4.2!!!! Similarly, I bet
Firefox 6 amounts to something like FF 4.4, and Firefox 7 is something
like FF 4.5.
IOW minor enhancements, as opposed to "sea change" improvements.
On May 28, 5:16 pm, Jeff Grossman <j...@stikman.com> wrote:
> Firefox 5 is currently in beta testing. It is quite stable if you wanted to
> give it a try. The interface is the same as 4 but it includes many bug and
Jeff Grossman
May 28, 2011, 7:23:56 PM5/28/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Yes, I agree with you. I am always running all three, I mostly use the
Aurora build though, with Nightly being my second pick. I like
Mozilla's decision to go with a rapid release cycle though. I think it
was taking them too long between releases and people were getting tired
of waiting. In this modern browser competition (war if you want to call
it that) is about getting newer features or bug fixes out to the masses
a quick as possible. People want to see changes or not have crashes
when they are using their browser. I am also one of those people. I
like to see change. We are not going to see the kind of change that
happened between 3 and 4, but we also won't wait as long either.
Aurora build though, with Nightly being my second pick. I like
Mozilla's decision to go with a rapid release cycle though. I think it
was taking them too long between releases and people were getting tired
of waiting. In this modern browser competition (war if you want to call
it that) is about getting newer features or bug fixes out to the masses
a quick as possible. People want to see changes or not have crashes
when they are using their browser. I am also one of those people. I
like to see change. We are not going to see the kind of change that
happened between 3 and 4, but we also won't wait as long either.
Jeff
motorfingers
May 28, 2011, 8:22:27 PM5/28/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
Most browser users are "incapable of doing the simplest
troubleshooting." I had problems until I simply un-installed all
versions of Firefox, cleaned out anything related to Firefox in my
system folders and registry, and re-installed. Thus I suggest that
you make this simple operation part of the upgrade or installation
process. That would save everyone a *lot* of grief.
On May 28, 6:31 pm, fatman <bfilip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we have a user that is incapable of doing the simplest
> troubleshooting; and then complaining about "crashes". He probably
> does not even know how to start in "safe mode".
>
> You are right about Firefox 5, it seems to be fairly stable, with the
> Aurora (Firefox 6) almost as stable, and of course, the Nightly
> (Firefox 7) being less stable. Other than addon compatibility, i have
> all three working in addition of Firefox 4.0.
>
> Now, some may think that Firefox 5 amounts to a "sea change" revision,
> I doubt that is the case. It is not like going from FF 2.x to Ff 3.x,
> or FF3.x to FF4. IMHO, it is only a `numbers game`. (e.g. Who has the
> "latest version number"? with lower relative version numbers seen as
> apparent "lack of innovation".)
>
> After all, there are those who would say that Chrome 10 is seriously
> better" then Firefox 4, solely on the version number.
>
> You might be curious to note that what is now known as Firefox 5
> started out (in the nightly builds) as FF 4.2!!!! Similarly, I bet
> Firefox 6 amounts to something like FF 4.4, and Firefox 7 is something
> like FF 4.5.
>
> IOW minor enhancements, as opposed to "sea change" improvements.
>
> On May 28, 5:16 pm, Jeff Grossman <j...@stikman.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Firefox 5 is currently in beta testing. It is quite stable if you wanted to
> > give it a try. The interface is the same as 4 but it includes many bug and
> > security fixes. You can go tohttp://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/channel/toseethe different
troubleshooting." I had problems until I simply un-installed all
versions of Firefox, cleaned out anything related to Firefox in my
system folders and registry, and re-installed. Thus I suggest that
you make this simple operation part of the upgrade or installation
process. That would save everyone a *lot* of grief.
On May 28, 6:31 pm, fatman <bfilip...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think we have a user that is incapable of doing the simplest
> troubleshooting; and then complaining about "crashes". He probably
> does not even know how to start in "safe mode".
>
> You are right about Firefox 5, it seems to be fairly stable, with the
> Aurora (Firefox 6) almost as stable, and of course, the Nightly
> (Firefox 7) being less stable. Other than addon compatibility, i have
> all three working in addition of Firefox 4.0.
>
> Now, some may think that Firefox 5 amounts to a "sea change" revision,
> I doubt that is the case. It is not like going from FF 2.x to Ff 3.x,
> or FF3.x to FF4. IMHO, it is only a `numbers game`. (e.g. Who has the
> "latest version number"? with lower relative version numbers seen as
> apparent "lack of innovation".)
>
> After all, there are those who would say that Chrome 10 is seriously
> better" then Firefox 4, solely on the version number.
>
> You might be curious to note that what is now known as Firefox 5
> started out (in the nightly builds) as FF 4.2!!!! Similarly, I bet
> Firefox 6 amounts to something like FF 4.4, and Firefox 7 is something
> like FF 4.5.
>
> IOW minor enhancements, as opposed to "sea change" improvements.
>
> On May 28, 5:16 pm, Jeff Grossman <j...@stikman.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Firefox 5 is currently in beta testing. It is quite stable if you wanted to
> > give it a try. The interface is the same as 4 but it includes many bug and
*eric z
May 29, 2011, 6:46:46 PM5/29/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
In saying "I have all versions," many do not know about how to handle
multiple versions via profile management. If you have a way not using
that, I'd be curious. I think "default user" can be overloaded. I
think people have to know about separate directories for each version.
Out of curiosity, I have 3.6, 4, Aurora, and Nightly and all are
stable - except:
I use PrefBar, but the button pulldown menu, not the bar. I like it,
but on the Aurora cut to 6.0 and Nightly to 7.0, instead of getting a
full pulldown, I got a little stub. After trying this and that, I have
the menu working now in pulldown mode again, but I'd be hard pressed
to tell anyone why. Rebooting the XP OS. Closing FF and restarting,
it, etc.
Any advice on a consistent and logical approach? KISS experimenting
worked, but I am still wondering. Other addons I use seem okay. I left
MR-Tech on 3.6, not on later versions. I think the warnings about
incompatibility are overstated.
Has 5 vanished? With Auroa at 6, and Nightly at 7, it seems more a
numbers game than seismic change. The cut from 3.6 to 4 was real, but
up to 7, is it more than tweaks? I admit, an old box with graphics on
the motherboard; 2 gig memory, the hardware acceleration is non-
functional, so have many seen a difference. Putting the "don't track"
prominently on the privacy option seemed logical.
Any other thoughts? I use BarTab to get quicker restarts, with Aurora
and Nightly so frequently updated, and no problems so far.
One last question, I have not seen it specifically documented, but
setting options to restore prior session works on upgrade and addon
restarts, but I am unsure of the "EXIT" toggle from the top bar corner
pulldown. Intuition says you exit all is closed, state is preserved
exactly as on a restart, and the next time you start the application
you are back with any multiple windows and tabs as before - session
state is preserved on exit that way.
I experimented in FF 4, and that's how things worked. Problem free.
The Session Manager addon is overkill for my usage in general, if
that's so in all the present channels. Before I abandon that addon,
can any other posting person confirm, all channels preserve state on
EXIT, if the options window is set for a session restore on
restarting?
Last question, do others with multiple Gmail accounts take advantage
of a separate profile for each, so that ff and gmail do not get
confused from gmail account changes within a single window on a single
profile? It has worked fine for me, and seems easier than futzing
around with Gmail settings, which are less than intuitive.
Thanks.
multiple versions via profile management. If you have a way not using
that, I'd be curious. I think "default user" can be overloaded. I
think people have to know about separate directories for each version.
Out of curiosity, I have 3.6, 4, Aurora, and Nightly and all are
stable - except:
I use PrefBar, but the button pulldown menu, not the bar. I like it,
but on the Aurora cut to 6.0 and Nightly to 7.0, instead of getting a
full pulldown, I got a little stub. After trying this and that, I have
the menu working now in pulldown mode again, but I'd be hard pressed
to tell anyone why. Rebooting the XP OS. Closing FF and restarting,
it, etc.
Any advice on a consistent and logical approach? KISS experimenting
worked, but I am still wondering. Other addons I use seem okay. I left
MR-Tech on 3.6, not on later versions. I think the warnings about
incompatibility are overstated.
Has 5 vanished? With Auroa at 6, and Nightly at 7, it seems more a
numbers game than seismic change. The cut from 3.6 to 4 was real, but
up to 7, is it more than tweaks? I admit, an old box with graphics on
the motherboard; 2 gig memory, the hardware acceleration is non-
functional, so have many seen a difference. Putting the "don't track"
prominently on the privacy option seemed logical.
Any other thoughts? I use BarTab to get quicker restarts, with Aurora
and Nightly so frequently updated, and no problems so far.
One last question, I have not seen it specifically documented, but
setting options to restore prior session works on upgrade and addon
restarts, but I am unsure of the "EXIT" toggle from the top bar corner
pulldown. Intuition says you exit all is closed, state is preserved
exactly as on a restart, and the next time you start the application
you are back with any multiple windows and tabs as before - session
state is preserved on exit that way.
I experimented in FF 4, and that's how things worked. Problem free.
The Session Manager addon is overkill for my usage in general, if
that's so in all the present channels. Before I abandon that addon,
can any other posting person confirm, all channels preserve state on
EXIT, if the options window is set for a session restore on
restarting?
Last question, do others with multiple Gmail accounts take advantage
of a separate profile for each, so that ff and gmail do not get
confused from gmail account changes within a single window on a single
profile? It has worked fine for me, and seems easier than futzing
around with Gmail settings, which are less than intuitive.
Thanks.
concentricbrainwaves
May 30, 2011, 6:44:42 AM5/30/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Everybody please try to remember that
not every Firefox (or any) user goes ferreting about under the bonnet to see
what's going on. That's one of the reasons that forums exist - so that those who
"know" can help those who "enquire". Almost everybody falls into both of those
categories at defend times. Not one of us was born knowing and if we never
enquired we would never "know" .
So, if a question from someone less
experienced causes the "arrrgh!" factor I think we should take a deep breath and
either politely answer the query of move on to the next post.
Some posts, of course cause the eyes to
roll heavenward but the darts of invective all too
frequently fired at enquirers in this forum becomes tiresome. Insults
achieve nothing except to detract from serious discussion.
2 cents.
concentricbrainwaves
May 30, 2011, 7:27:34 AM5/30/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Firefox now offers a quick-switch
fix.
The ability to switch from current
release to beta to pre-beta (Aurora) versions ("builds") is available here
and, in builds other than current
release, via "Help" >> "About Firefox".
Most readers will know this but some
probably didn't.
Like *eric (below) I still use the old
"separate profiles" method but that's because I sometimes display dinosaur
tendencies.
Again, for those who don't spend way too
much of life with a finger on the Firefox pulse, the current Profile Manager
will soon be "suppressed" (ie to all intents and purposes will be discontinued).
With luck, this won't happen before the standalone Profile Manager
application is ready for general release.
.
tkjtkj
May 30, 2011, 9:55:10 AM5/30/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
On May 28, 12:56 pm, l8nytsim...@gmail.com wrote:
> There's a Firefox 5.0? Really? 4.0 sux! Crashes repeatedly! I hate using it! Is 5.0 better? These constant crashes and slow downs are driving me bonkers! Gloria P
> Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry-----Original Message-----
>
> Sender: mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:40:45
> To: mozilla-labs-testpilot<mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: FireFox 5.0
>
> How do you sync? I can't get it to work?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mozilla-labs-testpilot" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mozilla-labs-test...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-testpilot?hl=en.
ya .. i now feel that its more and more trouble keepign up with FF v's
> Sender: mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tue, 24 May 2011 10:40:45
> To: mozilla-labs-testpilot<mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com>
> Reply-To: mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
> Subject: FireFox 5.0
>
> How do you sync? I can't get it to work?
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mozilla-labs-testpilot" group.
> To post to this group, send email to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to mozilla-labs-test...@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group athttp://groups.google.com/group/mozilla-labs-testpilot?hl=en.
that break so many of my addons .. Why can't the crew INFORM THE
ADDON authors of impending requirements for a new version! give them
some time to update/fix! I'm happy to help out with beta's , but not
when it seriously impedes my productivity. Why such a rush to
'change' ?
yes, v4 has many serious problems .. and now , who knows .. I had to
drop back to 4.x , so serious was the breakage of important addons..
Not worth it to me ..
Jeff Grossman
May 30, 2011, 10:34:32 AM5/30/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Just so you know, the in app channel switching via "Help" >>
"About Firefox" will be removed in version 6,
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=659972.
Jeff
Jeff
John Hymers
May 30, 2011, 10:43:11 AM5/30/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
I like the profile manager; I use it for some security reasons.
Prof. John Hymers, PhD
Homepage:
http://hymers.eu/dr_hymers/
Homepage:
http://hymers.eu/dr_hymers/
*eric z
May 30, 2011, 7:58:54 PM5/30/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
CBWaves - I had seen something about that profile manager experiment.
At the time I was pursuing some other web activity, and did not follow-
up. I shall have a look.
Once you learn of the current profile management ways and means, it
makes sense, but it is not intuitive or prominently published. Yet it
is VERY is helpful. I have created new profiles, as for separate
windows for separate Gmail accounts; and overwritten an existing
profile onto the new blank one, to have the addon configuration
consistent w/o resetting things in the new profile.
I use only one work station, so synchronization between stations is
not a concern, but I expect something like the overwriting an existing
profile into a new one to clone the old version would work, to
transfer a configuration - but it would be awful to synchronize.
Reading the mozillazine link suggests the motive is toward sync ease
of use.
The "Toolbar Buttons 1.0" addon has one "View your profile folder"
button I have found useful.
To not do an overwrite the wrong way and begin cursing, it allows you
to assure you have grabbed the proper profile folder as intended. I
expect other addons allow that too, but it's one of many helpful
"Customize" tool buttons in that addon.
I have found the buttons I use to be stable with Nightly and Aurora,
as the updates come out, no problems.
Again, I think the move to a less esoteric profile management
interface is a good idea. If it works.
Again, I will give the new download a try. Thanks for posting the
link.
On May 30, 6:27 am, "concentricbrainwaves"
> The ability to switch from current release to beta to pre-beta (Aurora) versions ("builds") is available herehttp://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/channel/
At the time I was pursuing some other web activity, and did not follow-
up. I shall have a look.
Once you learn of the current profile management ways and means, it
makes sense, but it is not intuitive or prominently published. Yet it
is VERY is helpful. I have created new profiles, as for separate
windows for separate Gmail accounts; and overwritten an existing
profile onto the new blank one, to have the addon configuration
consistent w/o resetting things in the new profile.
I use only one work station, so synchronization between stations is
not a concern, but I expect something like the overwriting an existing
profile into a new one to clone the old version would work, to
transfer a configuration - but it would be awful to synchronize.
Reading the mozillazine link suggests the motive is toward sync ease
of use.
The "Toolbar Buttons 1.0" addon has one "View your profile folder"
button I have found useful.
To not do an overwrite the wrong way and begin cursing, it allows you
to assure you have grabbed the proper profile folder as intended. I
expect other addons allow that too, but it's one of many helpful
"Customize" tool buttons in that addon.
I have found the buttons I use to be stable with Nightly and Aurora,
as the updates come out, no problems.
Again, I think the move to a less esoteric profile management
interface is a good idea. If it works.
Again, I will give the new download a try. Thanks for posting the
link.
On May 30, 6:27 am, "concentricbrainwaves"
> The ability to switch from current release to beta to pre-beta (Aurora) versions ("builds") is available herehttp://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/channel/
> and, in builds other than current release, via "Help" >> "About Firefox".
> Most readers will know this but some probably didn't.
>
> Like *eric (below) I still use the old "separate profiles" method but that's because I sometimes display dinosaur tendencies.
>
> Again, for those who don't spend way too much of life with a finger on the Firefox pulse, the current Profile Manager will soon be "suppressed" (ie to all intents and purposes will be discontinued). With luck, this won't happen before the standalone Profile Manager application is ready for general release.http://kb.mozillazine.org/Profile_manager
> Most readers will know this but some probably didn't.
>
> Like *eric (below) I still use the old "separate profiles" method but that's because I sometimes display dinosaur tendencies.
>
fatman
May 30, 2011, 8:13:57 PM5/30/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
This is how I run varied versions of Firefox on my system: First,
allow me to state that I am a Linux user, and some of the specifics
are Linux related. Anyone who can determine the Windows parallels, can
pull this off. My Windows experience (to be `charitable` about it)
ended with XP.
Ok, under Linux, and using `package management` software (which is
akin to a Windows self extracting archive, or set up executable); Fire
fox gets installed to a default location that may vary depending on
the distro.
In a Windows setup executable, if you DO NOT change the install
location it goes to the system default. In XP, this location (IIRC)
was `Program Files`.
Now, if you choose a different location for the install, you have to
run that executable by calling it explicitly.
Now, how to you get all of this to work easily, it involves the use of
`launchers` (I believe the Windows equivalent is called a 'shortcut')
All you have to do is provide the proper command line option in the
launcher's "properties". In a nutshell, that looks like:
{executable path} -profile {profile path}
The following are the {executable path} (s) for Firefox:
"/opt/firefox" - version 4.0.1
"/usr/opt/firefox/beta" - version 5.
"/usr/opt/firefox/aurora" - version 6.
"/usr/opt/firefox/nightly" - version 7.
Now, for each, I have a separate profile for what ever I do. The are
the appropriate {profile path} (s):
/home/fatman/files/profiles/bob/firefox - version 4.0.1
/home/fatman/files/profiles/test/firefox/beta - version 5
/home/fatman/files/profiles/test/firefox/aurora - version 6
/home/fatman/files/profiles/test/firefox/nightly - version 7
One reason why I put the testing profiles in a separate folder is to
keep from deleting the wrong one by accident. BTW, allow me to point
out one thing I like about Linux - no dammed drive letters. You would
not know it, but "files" and all of its subfolders are on a separate
hard disk; which make upgrading to a newer version of Linux mush
easier. It also allows one to do something else - run more than one
distro.
In case this intrigues you, and you want more information on "command
line parameters" Google is your friend. But, I have included one link
to help you get started:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Command_line_arguments
allow me to state that I am a Linux user, and some of the specifics
are Linux related. Anyone who can determine the Windows parallels, can
pull this off. My Windows experience (to be `charitable` about it)
ended with XP.
Ok, under Linux, and using `package management` software (which is
akin to a Windows self extracting archive, or set up executable); Fire
fox gets installed to a default location that may vary depending on
the distro.
In a Windows setup executable, if you DO NOT change the install
location it goes to the system default. In XP, this location (IIRC)
was `Program Files`.
Now, if you choose a different location for the install, you have to
run that executable by calling it explicitly.
Now, how to you get all of this to work easily, it involves the use of
`launchers` (I believe the Windows equivalent is called a 'shortcut')
All you have to do is provide the proper command line option in the
launcher's "properties". In a nutshell, that looks like:
{executable path} -profile {profile path}
The following are the {executable path} (s) for Firefox:
"/opt/firefox" - version 4.0.1
"/usr/opt/firefox/beta" - version 5.
"/usr/opt/firefox/aurora" - version 6.
"/usr/opt/firefox/nightly" - version 7.
Now, for each, I have a separate profile for what ever I do. The are
the appropriate {profile path} (s):
/home/fatman/files/profiles/bob/firefox - version 4.0.1
/home/fatman/files/profiles/test/firefox/beta - version 5
/home/fatman/files/profiles/test/firefox/aurora - version 6
/home/fatman/files/profiles/test/firefox/nightly - version 7
One reason why I put the testing profiles in a separate folder is to
keep from deleting the wrong one by accident. BTW, allow me to point
out one thing I like about Linux - no dammed drive letters. You would
not know it, but "files" and all of its subfolders are on a separate
hard disk; which make upgrading to a newer version of Linux mush
easier. It also allows one to do something else - run more than one
distro.
In case this intrigues you, and you want more information on "command
line parameters" Google is your friend. But, I have included one link
to help you get started:
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Command_line_arguments
*eric z
May 30, 2011, 9:45:39 PM5/30/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
CB-Waves -- That link you posted, I have not yet downloaded it, using
XP, but will try it.
Is it a good link for Fatman, using Linux, or for Mac users, or not???
What Fatman describes, in XP the equivalent is a custom install,
designating separate subdirectories of Program Files for each version
[alternate terminology, separate "folders" in Program Files] and then
using different profiles, to avoid "addon compatibility" problems.
Fatman is correct, using different desktop and quick-launch shortcuts
is next, and you can edit the shortcuts to go to the different
locations in Program Files to launch each version. HOWEVER to not
overload "Default User" the launch is "[...]" -no-remote -P
I have no idea what those launch switches mean, but I saw this online
as how to get into the Profile Manager, and once it works, it's not
broken so needs no fixing.
Example, FF 3.6 I did on the default install, so the shortcut command
is:
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -no-remote -P
To edit an existing shortcut, "wizard free," Right click>properties
and work in the popup. Next example, where I custom installed Aurora,
means I have this in the shrotcut:
"C:\Program Files\Aurora\firefox.exe" -no-reomte -P
Not quitting on FF 3.6 yet, nostalgia and all, for FF 4 I custom
installed, and use the shortcut
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox4\firefox.exe" -no-remote -P
Then, I can have different profiles, since the launch with the -no-
remote -P switches invokes the Profile Manager window. If it makes
little sense, a
google=firefox profile manager
may get readers a better explanation, with screenshots to help.
It's about the same as Fatman's Linux explanation. Mac protocols, we
need a Mac user to post for that.
One thing I found that works well, for me, is on installs, to not
check the boxes putting shortcuts on the desktop or quicklaunch bar.
Then in the Program Files folder [subdirectory] create a shortcut
using the context menu [right click] and wizard. Then edit it there,
and copy it from its Program file location to wherever you want,
desktop, and quicklaunch.
BUT AS CB-WAVE POINTS OUT, ALL THAT WILL BE HISTORY, WITH A NEW WAY
INSTEAD. GREAT IDEAS COME AND GO. "PRISM" IS R.I.P NOW, FOR EXAMPLE,
OR AM I WRONG? THINGS FROM THE MOZILLA LABS COME OUT, AND IF THEY
DON'T GAIN ENOUGH CRITICAL MASS AMONG USERS, THEY FADE AWAY.
XP, but will try it.
Is it a good link for Fatman, using Linux, or for Mac users, or not???
What Fatman describes, in XP the equivalent is a custom install,
designating separate subdirectories of Program Files for each version
[alternate terminology, separate "folders" in Program Files] and then
using different profiles, to avoid "addon compatibility" problems.
Fatman is correct, using different desktop and quick-launch shortcuts
is next, and you can edit the shortcuts to go to the different
locations in Program Files to launch each version. HOWEVER to not
overload "Default User" the launch is "[...]" -no-remote -P
I have no idea what those launch switches mean, but I saw this online
as how to get into the Profile Manager, and once it works, it's not
broken so needs no fixing.
Example, FF 3.6 I did on the default install, so the shortcut command
is:
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox\firefox.exe" -no-remote -P
To edit an existing shortcut, "wizard free," Right click>properties
and work in the popup. Next example, where I custom installed Aurora,
means I have this in the shrotcut:
"C:\Program Files\Aurora\firefox.exe" -no-reomte -P
Not quitting on FF 3.6 yet, nostalgia and all, for FF 4 I custom
installed, and use the shortcut
"C:\Program Files\Mozilla Firefox4\firefox.exe" -no-remote -P
Then, I can have different profiles, since the launch with the -no-
remote -P switches invokes the Profile Manager window. If it makes
little sense, a
google=firefox profile manager
may get readers a better explanation, with screenshots to help.
It's about the same as Fatman's Linux explanation. Mac protocols, we
need a Mac user to post for that.
One thing I found that works well, for me, is on installs, to not
check the boxes putting shortcuts on the desktop or quicklaunch bar.
Then in the Program Files folder [subdirectory] create a shortcut
using the context menu [right click] and wizard. Then edit it there,
and copy it from its Program file location to wherever you want,
desktop, and quicklaunch.
BUT AS CB-WAVE POINTS OUT, ALL THAT WILL BE HISTORY, WITH A NEW WAY
INSTEAD. GREAT IDEAS COME AND GO. "PRISM" IS R.I.P NOW, FOR EXAMPLE,
OR AM I WRONG? THINGS FROM THE MOZILLA LABS COME OUT, AND IF THEY
DON'T GAIN ENOUGH CRITICAL MASS AMONG USERS, THEY FADE AWAY.
*eric z
May 30, 2011, 9:53:03 PM5/30/11
to mozilla-labs-testpilot
On the new profile management, the ftp download site for the 1.0 beta
ftp.mozilla.org/pub/utilities/profilemanager/1.0_beta1/
has Mac, Linux, and Win versions. get the full URL from JGriffin's
Blog, with explanations,
jagriffin.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/profilemanager-1-0_beta1/
ftp.mozilla.org/pub/utilities/profilemanager/1.0_beta1/
has Mac, Linux, and Win versions. get the full URL from JGriffin's
Blog, with explanations,
jagriffin.wordpress.com/2011/01/11/profilemanager-1-0_beta1/
alex_mayorga
Jun 6, 2011, 2:26:50 PM6/6/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com, l8nyt...@gmail.com
Gloria,
This is not a forum to give input or solve problems with Firefox, but a forum to discuss the Test Pilots project, you can learn more about it at https://testpilot.mozillalabs.com/
In any case, looks like your issues are with crashes, you can learn more about crashes at https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox%20crashes
You can use this same page if you need help in the future https://support.mozilla.com
To give feedback directly to Mozilla please use http://input.mozilla.org/feedback/
Hope this helps with your current and future inputs or problems and thanks on using Firefox =)
This is not a forum to give input or solve problems with Firefox, but a forum to discuss the Test Pilots project, you can learn more about it at https://testpilot.mozillalabs.com/
In any case, looks like your issues are with crashes, you can learn more about crashes at https://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Firefox%20crashes
You can use this same page if you need help in the future https://support.mozilla.com
To give feedback directly to Mozilla please use http://input.mozilla.org/feedback/
Hope this helps with your current and future inputs or problems and thanks on using Firefox =)
alex_mayorga
Jun 6, 2011, 2:29:36 PM6/6/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
tkjtkj,
If you're seriously considering to contribute some testing and still keep your add-ons, Add-on Compatibility Reporter [1] is a must.
Regards,
Alex
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/
If you're seriously considering to contribute some testing and still keep your add-ons, Add-on Compatibility Reporter [1] is a must.
Regards,
Alex
[1] https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/add-on-compatibility-reporter/
Brian.utley
Jun 6, 2011, 2:44:07 PM6/6/11
to mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
AOL Mail is not opening in my Firefox browser but it is opening in IE.
Brian Utley
Brian Utley
-----Original Message-----
From: "alex_mayorga" <alex.m...@gmail.com>
To: mozilla-lab...@googlegroups.com
Date: 06/06/11 01:29 PM
Subject: Re: FireFox 5.0
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "mozilla-labs-testpilot" group.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/mozilla-labs-testpilot/-/eFZmNjY3d01MOGtK.
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages