Check for Updates

[Mortman]

XP SP3; FF 4
"Check for Updates" no longer appears in Help.
Has this been moved elsewhere?

[Detlef]

Do you mean this? Help/ Abbout Firefox

[Keith Nuttle]

I had not thought about Check for Updates in FF4, but it still there
just moved.

In "Help" click "About Firefox"

The "Check for Updates is right below the Firefox 4.0 logo.

I guess this is a logical change for the better in that you need to know
what version you have before you can update it.

[Bob Henson]

Or a daft place to hide something that was fine where it was. Especially
as it no longer tells you which version - only and abbreviated version
number.

--
Diplomacy - the art of letting someone else have your own way.

[Ron Hunter]

I agree that is both less obvious, and harder to get to. There is some
talk of not having version numbers at some point, which will make
support very difficult, it seems to me.

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-04-27 12:04 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
> Especially
> as it no longer tells you which version - only and abbreviated version
> number.

What makes you think that?

--
Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

[Bob Henson]

On 27/04/2011 17:51, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 11-04-27 12:04 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>> Especially
>> as it no longer tells you which version - only and abbreviated version
>> number.
>
> What makes you think that?
>

Before it listed the full version under "about Firefox", like my
Thunderbird one here:-

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15)
Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9

I can't remember if it had the build ID as well. Now I can't even paste
it in like the above because 4.0 broke MR Tech Toolkit too.

Regards,

Bob

--
You know you're old when you say "Ouch" before you bend down.

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-04-27 1:43 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
> Before it listed the full version under "about Firefox", like my
> Thunderbird one here:-
>
> Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-GB; rv:1.9.2.15)
> Gecko/20110303 Thunderbird/3.1.9
>
> I can't remember if it had the build ID as well. Now I can't even paste
> it in like the above because 4.0 broke MR Tech Toolkit too.

Ahh, okay. What you're referring to is the user-agent string, not the
version number.
For instance, if you go to
<http://support.mozilla.com/en-US/kb/Finding%20your%20Firefox%20version?s=version&as=s#os=win&browser=fx35>
you'll see that what's circled in the screenshot is not what you're
referring to.

To find the user-agent string, go to Help-->Troubleshooting_Information.
It's in the "Application Basics" section.

[Bob Henson]

So, something else useful hidden away unnecessarily. I see absolutely no
point in moving things for the sake of it and to no-one's benefit.
Rather fix bugs.

--
If I only had a little humility, I'd be perfect.

[Bob Henson]

On 27/04/2011 19:04, FredW wrote:
> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 18:43:27 +0100, Bob Henson <rh54...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> .... because 4.0 broke MR Tech Toolkit too.
>
> No, the developer failed to update the add-on in time for the (very)
> long before announced appearance of Mozilla Firefox 4.0.0.
> (as happened to more add-ons)
>
> And for some add-ons the developer just stopped developing.
>

I gather that the Toolkit is being worked on, but as that part of
Firefox (the extensions section) has been comprehensively and
unnecessarily wrecked it will take quite some time and practically a
complete re-write of the Toolkit, I would imagine - if, as you say, the
author can be bothered. It must be galling when something you've worked
on for so long is rendered useless for no good reason.

--
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have
learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first." - Ronald Reagan

[Ron Hunter]

On 4/27/2011 11:51 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
> On 11-04-27 12:04 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>> Especially
>> as it no longer tells you which version - only and abbreviated version
>> number.
>
> What makes you think that?
>

Well, it does just say Firefox 4.0, but that is probably because it is a
new major version release and there are no 'subrelease' numbers to apply.

[Chris Ilias]

I don't understand. Why do you want the user-agent string if not for
troubleshooting or testing?

[Keith Nuttle]

This is from FF 4.

Help --> About Firefox.

Firefox
4.0
Check for Updates.

Help-->Troubleshooting_Information >
Application Basics
Name Firefox
Version 4.0
User Agent Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 5.1; rv:2.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/4.0

[Mortman]

On 4/27/2011 10:52 AM, Mortman wrote:

Found it. Why is Mozilla playing Hide and Seek for no apparent reason.
Is this supposed to be an "improvement"?

[WLS]

Stay tuned, I expect they will see Fx 4.0.1 real soon.

WLS
--

openSUSE 11.3(x86_64) - Gnome2.30 - SeaMonkey 2.1b3

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-04-27 6:05 PM, WLS wrote:

> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> Well, it does just say Firefox 4.0, but that is probably because it is a
>> new major version release and there are no 'subrelease' numbers to apply.
>
> Stay tuned, I expect they will see Fx 4.0.1 real soon.

Here's what it looks like in 4.0.1.
<http://ilias.ca/screenshots/fx401-aboutwindow.png>

[Jay Garcia]

On 27.04.2011 12:57, Bob Henson wrote:

--- Original Message ---

I was rather miffed at the change here as well, but then I thought,
"hmm, how often to do I check for updates". Seems a rather benign change
at best. Just IMHO, YMMV.

--
*Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion*
www.ufaq.org
Netscape - Firefox - SeaMonkey - Flock - Thunderbird
Disclaimer: I Do Not Own This Place Thus I Have No Official Say-So!!

[Keith Nuttle]

On 4/27/2011 6:05 PM, WLS wrote:
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>> On 4/27/2011 11:51 AM, Chris Ilias wrote:
>>> On 11-04-27 12:04 PM, Bob Henson wrote:
>>>> Especially
>>>> as it no longer tells you which version - only and abbreviated version
>>>> number.
>>>
>>> What makes you think that?
>>>
>> Well, it does just say Firefox 4.0, but that is probably because it is a
>> new major version release and there are no 'subrelease' numbers to apply.
>>
>
> Stay tuned, I expect they will see Fx 4.0.1 real soon.
>
> WLS

I just checked
https://wiki.mozilla.org/Releases

to see when the next update for FF4 was to occur and see they have FF5
scheduled for June. I assume that is the first beta.

[Ron Hunter]

Hint,
Google Chrome did it first.

[Ron Hunter]

Just takes an extra click if you don't do automatic updating, AFTER you
figure out where it went.

[Ron Hunter]

Nope. That will be the final, next is 6 about 6 weeks after 5.

[Terry R.]

On 4/27/2011 5:03 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

? I have no "check for updates" in Chrome.

Terry R.
--
Anti-spam measures are included in my email address.
Delete NOSPAM from the email address after clicking Reply.

[David Pyles]

Terry R. wrote:
> On 4/27/2011 5:03 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard
>
>> On 4/27/2011 4:03 PM, Mortman wrote:
>>> On 4/27/2011 10:52 AM, Mortman wrote:
>>>> XP SP3; FF 4
>>>> "Check for Updates" no longer appears in Help.
>>>> Has this been moved elsewhere?
>>> Found it. Why is Mozilla playing Hide and Seek for no apparent reason.
>>> Is this supposed to be an "improvement"?
>> Hint,
>> Google Chrome did it first.
>>
>
> ? I have no "check for updates" in Chrome.
>
>
> Terry R.

In Chrome the check for updates in on the About Google Chrome screen in
the Tools (little wrench icon) menu. If you open the About Google
Chrome screen it checks for updates and installs them. I can't find any
setting in Chrome to turn that off. Why I only use Chrome as a web
development tool and not for browsing.
Dave Pyles

[Bob Henson]

I don't - but it was fine where it was.

--
Just when I was getting used to yesterday, along came today.

[Bob Henson]

It certainly isn't a major issue, as you say, but I believe very firmly
in the old maxim "If it works, don't fix it". The extensions manager is
the classic example - you can't call that a benign change - the new is
one unbelievably cack-handed and bugged compared with the old one, which
had nothing wrong with it at all. Change for changes sake which backfired.
--
Don't remarry - just find a women you hate and give her a house.

[Ron Hunter]

I would very much like to have the add-ons screen display the date an
add-on was added, or updated, without having to click 'more'. It's not
as if there isn't enough room... And a 'restart' button at the top and
bottom so that if I am weeding a long list, I don't have to scroll
around to find one changed add-on to get the restart.
I don't see it as better in any way.

[Jay Garcia]

--- Original Message ---

Re: the new addons page - Very much an improvement, lots more options
and information, IMHO of course. Not only that but a much "larger" page
for us old nearsighted codgers. ;-)

[Jay Garcia]

--- Original Message ---

For each extension, click on the "more ..." link. The "Last Updated"
will tell ya. :-)

[Ron Hunter]

We must be looking at different add-ons pages. There is less
information, and when pressing 'more', I just get an installed/updated
display, which fills the add-ons window. Hardly good use of space, or
user's time/clicks. I hope they aren't done with this project.

[Ron Hunter]

WHY do I need to do that? There is certainly enough blank space on the
display to save that click!

[Terry R.]

On 4/27/2011 6:09 PM On a whim, David Pyles pounded out on the keyboard

> Terry R. wrote:
>> On 4/27/2011 5:03 PM On a whim, Ron Hunter pounded out on the keyboard

>>> Hint,
>>> Google Chrome did it first.
>>>
>> ? I have no "check for updates" in Chrome.
>>
>>
>> Terry R.
> In Chrome the check for updates in on the About Google Chrome screen in
> the Tools (little wrench icon) menu. If you open the About Google
> Chrome screen it checks for updates and installs them. I can't find any
> setting in Chrome to turn that off. Why I only use Chrome as a web
> development tool and not for browsing.
> Dave Pyles

I would think one would want to use a browser that is updated quickly
and without hassle.

Chrome uses Scheduled Tasks to check for updates. If an app is going to
update, that is the way it should be done, as the user can change it if
they choose. At least Restricted Users can get updates in Chrome,
unlike with FF.

[Jay Garcia]

--- Original Message ---

I'm looking at FF 4.0 and now 4.01 and there is lots more information
available than there ever was in any previous version.

A good example is the extension "Flashblock":

This is what I see when I click on "More .."

http://www.ufaq.org/files/flasblock_extension.jpg

[Jay Garcia]

--- Original Message ---

You don't NEED to click on it but it's there for those what would like
more info on a particular addon.

[Jay Garcia]

--- Original Message ---

By the way, I'm headed WEST to EAST Texas - Beaumont - dog show. :-)

[Chris Ilias]

You thought the user-agent string was the "full version" number and that
"4.0" (or "4.0.1") was some abbreviation of the version number, did you
not? If it's causing that kind of confusion, I'd say it's not fine.
Especially if you're not looking for the user-agent string when not
troubleshooting or testing. In which cases, you should be looking at the
Troubleshooting Information page anyway.

What about those you think "Mozilla 5.0" is the version number?
What about when an extension adds its own version info to the UA?
What about extensions that completely change the UA to something else?

[Ron Hunter]

You get that much information of some extensions, but others don't
provide much at all. I had never clicked on one that provided anything
beyond updated date. I stand corrected, but would like more,
particularly update/install date on the main page, and the restart
button. For the size of the dialog, it provides amazingly little
information.
I DO like getting it in its own tab, however.

[Dr J R Stockton]

In mozilla.support.firefox message <f-qdnZQgCZk51CXQnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@moz
illa.org>, Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:47, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca>
posted:

>Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
>Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator

Since this is not a moderated newsgroup, it seems rather peculiar, and
perhaps deceptive, that you use in it a signature which says "Newsgroup
moderator". But, if you do in fact write on behalf of Mozilla, then you
should say so explicitly, instead of presuming on your fame for
recognition.

--
(c) John Stockton, nr London UK. replyYYWW merlyn demon co uk Turnpike 6.05.
Web <http://www.uwasa.fi/~ts/http/tsfaq.html> -> Timo Salmi: Usenet Q&A.
Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/news-use.htm> : about usage of News.
No Encoding. Quotes precede replies. Snip well. Write clearly. Mail no News.

[Chris Ilias]

On 11-04-28 5:47 PM, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
> In mozilla.support.firefox message<f-qdnZQgCZk51CXQnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@moz
> illa.org>, Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:47, Chris Ilias<nm...@ilias.ca>
> posted:
>
>> Chris Ilias<http://ilias.ca>
>> Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
>
> Since this is not a moderated newsgroup, it seems rather peculiar, and
> perhaps deceptive, that you use in it a signature which says "Newsgroup
> moderator". But, if you do in fact write on behalf of Mozilla, then you
> should say so explicitly, instead of presuming on your fame for
> recognition.

I have authority to remove messages from the news server. I do it as a
volunteer. For more info, see
<http://www.mozilla.org/about/forums/cancellation.html>.

Every member of the Mozilla community, including those that work for
Mozilla, are entitled to their own opinions; so it's best to stay away
from stating that /anyone/ writes "on behalf of Mozilla". Because the
Mozilla project itself is open, too many statements said in discussion
have been falsely-reported as representing Mozilla. :-)

--

[David McRitchie]

"Dr J R Stockton" <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message news:sabCp4Pl...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid...

> In mozilla.support.firefox message <f-qdnZQgCZk51CXQnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@moz
> illa.org>, Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:47, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca>
> posted:
>
>>Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
>>Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
>
> Since this is not a moderated newsgroup, it seems rather peculiar, and
> perhaps deceptive, that you use in it a signature which says "Newsgroup
> moderator". But, if you do in fact write on behalf of Mozilla, then you
> should say so explicitly, instead of presuming on your fame for
> recognition.

Everybody here knows who Chris is and he can use his own site email address
or one with Mozilla. There is some moderation, but that comes after posting
there is no catch then release that you may have had a long time ago elsewhere
where everything had to be approved by a sysmod and often answered by
sysmod maybe even by email so as not to disrupt a group with noise from
questions answered over and over again when communications were very
slow -- I was never on at 200 baud or whatever it used to be.

--
HTH,
David McRitchie, extensions I use are briefly documented on my site
Firefox Custom: http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/firefox.htm
Fx4: Firefox 4.0 Problem Solutions and Orientation (#fx4) see
http://www.mvps.org/dmcritchie/firefox/firefox-problems.htm#fx4

[Jay Garcia]

On 28.04.2011 16:47, Dr J R Stockton wrote:

--- Original Message ---

> In mozilla.support.firefox message <f-qdnZQgCZk51CXQnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@moz
> illa.org>, Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:47, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca>
> posted:
>
>>Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
>>Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
>
> Since this is not a moderated newsgroup, it seems rather peculiar, and
> perhaps deceptive, that you use in it a signature which says "Newsgroup
> moderator". But, if you do in fact write on behalf of Mozilla, then you
> should say so explicitly, instead of presuming on your fame for
> recognition.
>

Chris is a respected member of the Mozilla Community and is a volunteer
moderator. Moderated doesn't necessarily mean that posts are held for
"moderation", etc. The "moderator" has other duties relevant to the day
to day operation and maintenance of this news server.

I am a contracted, unpaid volunteer for The Mozilla Foundation with
duties not related to news groups and/or forums but rather in the area
of user support.

With that in mind, please respect the fact that we have several peer
support "volunteers" that strive to make your Mozilla experience a
pleasant one.

Cheers

--
Jay Garcia - Netscape Champion
Netscape - Firefox - Thunderbird Support
UFAQ - http://www.UFAQ.org

[Ron Hunter]

On 4/28/2011 6:07 PM, David McRitchie wrote:
>
>
> "Dr J R Stockton" <repl...@merlyn.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:sabCp4Pl...@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid...
>> In mozilla.support.firefox message <f-qdnZQgCZk51CXQnZ2dnUVZ_uGdnZ2d@moz
>> illa.org>, Wed, 27 Apr 2011 12:51:47, Chris Ilias <nm...@ilias.ca>
>> posted:
>>
>>> Chris Ilias <http://ilias.ca>
>>> Mailing list/Newsgroup moderator
>>
>> Since this is not a moderated newsgroup, it seems rather peculiar, and
>> perhaps deceptive, that you use in it a signature which says "Newsgroup
>> moderator". But, if you do in fact write on behalf of Mozilla, then you
>> should say so explicitly, instead of presuming on your fame for
>> recognition.
>
> Everybody here knows who Chris is and he can use his own site email address
> or one with Mozilla. There is some moderation, but that comes after posting
> there is no catch then release that you may have had a long time ago
> elsewhere
> where everything had to be approved by a sysmod and often answered by
> sysmod maybe even by email so as not to disrupt a group with noise from
> questions answered over and over again when communications were very
> slow -- I was never on at 200 baud or whatever it used to be.

I believe I started at 300 baud (30characters/sec.), and now am at
18mbps Sure glad my monthly charge hasn't gone up as much. Grin.